Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

Archive 1

More Categories

I would like more categories added to the template, such as "applied psychology" and maybe "counseling psychology"whicky1978 ^talk 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

One possible principle could be that the list of sub-areas in the template should correspond to those listed in the heading of the portal. Currently that list is: Applied · Behavioral · Biological · Clinical · Cognitive · Developmental · Educational · Evolutionary · Gestalt · Humanistic · Linguistics · Personality · Sensory · Social. Nesbit 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Educational Psychology belongs in the template

Hi Bacchiad: Educational psychology belongs in the template because it is not suitably classified within any of the other categories. It draws extensively from all forms of psychology listed in the current template (developmental, cognitive, etc.). It is indeed a form of applied psychology, but stands on its own because it has large professional and academic membership relative to other branches of psychology. Educational psychology has a relatively big footprint on the web -- by my count about twice as many google hits as developmental psychology and applied psychology, and eight times as many as evolutionary psychology (search with terms in quotes). The purpose of this sort of template is to aid navigation and reduce mouse clicks. Therefore, content which is likely to have higher traffic should have higher priority for listing in the template. cheers Nesbit 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep this template?

Hi everybody! Now, since there is a new navigation template for Psychology (see:Template:Psychology), which is more exhaustive and complete, i was wondering if this template is still useful. Before I put it for deletion, I would like to know your opinion about it. Please, leave your comments below or on my disscusion page. Thanks. Frédérick Lacasse 23:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a number of pages that have a brief template like this in the upper-right corner (appropriately unobtrusive, taking little horizontal space, and also having in this case the virtues of having stood the test of time and having been tweaked by quite a few editors) in addition to a more comprehensive navigation template at the bottom of the page. Both templates serve a purpose. This one should not be deleted. -DoctorW 00:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old item, but now that the emotion sidebar has been taken out of action, I want to reiterate my point that sidebars are good and that there is no reason not to have both. --Jcbutler (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Forensic psychology

Please take the ampersand out. Forensic psychology is a category. I do not know what Legal psychology is but the editor refuses to put in the Forensic psychology category. I object strongly to the linking of Forensic psychology with Legal. I have worked hard on the Forensic psychology article and will cease doing so if that is to be the fate of the category. --Mattisse 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I made my last edit before I noticed that you made a comment here. I can't understand the sentence "...the editor refuses to put in the Forensic psychology category" (word missing? what editor?). Not every "branch" (no matter how small) of psychology should necessarily be represented in a template (especially the smaller template). So for now, I'm deleting "Legal" from the template, until a strong argument can be made here (and consensus achieved) that it ought to be included. -DoctorW 04:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Data on Types of Psychology

I collected the number of google hits and the size of the wikipedia article for most types of psychology listed in the template. There is a low positive correlation between the two variables (.37)

The table possibly indicates that more content should be added to the articles on Neuropsychology, Experimental psychology, Cognitive psychology and Abnormal psychology. I think it also suggests criteria for selecting the subfields that should be represented in the psychology template.

Nesbit 16:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Arguing with Disease infobox

This is arguing with disease infobox on pages (see Psychopathy) where it appears (and there are plenty). Is there some way to fix that so it sits underneath or something? --Zeraeph 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Placement of this template

I've noticed editors placing this template on a lot of pages. I'm not always sure I agree with the placement of this template on ALL articles. Having the "Psychology" name at the top right sometimes implies that the subject is purely psychological or mostly psychological. If subjects are also related to or moreso related to psychiatry, social work, etc., wouldn't it be better to include the Template:Psychology template at the bottom? It seems like such a prominent template should only be included on pages that are linked to from the template, or purely psychological. Thoughts? Chupper 17:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable position to me. --Jcbutler (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Readability?

Seems to me that at default text size on Firefox 2.0.0.12, certain portions of the text are unreadable, see: [1]. Just letting you know. --85.5.47.205 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing neuroscience

I'm removing the neuroscience link for the following reasons:

• A large part of neuroscience falls outside the scope of psychology.
• Presently, the link actually goes to cognitive neuroscience, which is described in WP as a subdivision of neuropsychology. There is already a link to neuropsychology in this sidebar template.
• Cognitive neuroscience is closely related to biological psychology, which already has a link in the sidebar.
• The sidebar template should be kept small so that it is more usable, and is differentiated from the much larger psychology template placed at the bottom of articles.

Nesbit (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should Occupational health psychology be included in Template:Psychology sidebar

Issue: Should Occupational health psychology be included as a category in the sidebar? Ward3001 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion

I would like to add occupational health psychology, a relatively new field that has its own journals, to the list of disciplines within applied psychology. How do I do that? Iss246 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's an unimportant field, but I'm a little concerned about overspecification and a resulting oversized sidebar. There already is a category for Health psychology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't occupational health psychology a subdiscipline, at least right now? I fear that if we start adding subdisciplines, the size of the sidebar will become unwieldy. Ward3001 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured out how to add to the sidebar. Aside form that, occupational health psychology is an emerging discipline. It emerged out of two fields, industrial/organizational psychology and health psychology. It has its own organizations and journals. APA publishes it the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. It also has its own meetings.Iss246 (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition (temporarily at least) pending the outcome of this discussion. We have only two opinions here, and there is no clear agreement. See WP:CON. Again, this appears (by your own statement) to be a subdiscipline, albeit emerging from two major areas. If we continue the trajectory of adding subdisciplines, we could add many others, such as "Clinical child psychology", "Group psychotherapy", "Clinical hypnosis", "Psychoanalytic psychotherapy", "Humanistic psychotherapy", "Clinical assessment", etc. The list could go on. Each of these has an organization (in some cases more than one), has its own publications, and has its own meetings. If we keep expanding with subdisciplines the template could extend longer than some articles. At this point I see no reason that occupational health psychology needs to be included any more than many other subdisciplines. Ward3001 (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. I do so for four reasons. First there is a growing literature within the OHP discipline. Moreover, the discipline has its own journals (the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress). Second, there are graduate programs in the discipline that are separate from health psychology. Third, OHP has developed its own organizations, e.g., the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Fourth, just as we no longer list industrial/organizational psychology as a subdiscipline of social psychology or psychometrics (measurement plans a large role in I/O), we should not stifle the development of this new cross-disciplinary division of OHP. In fact, it is peopled by more researchers who come out of I/O psychology and experimental psychology than health psychology--the members of the discipline who come from NIOSH tend to be experimental psychologists. I therefore ask you to restore the term "Occupational Health" to the Psychology template. I will check in again in a day or so. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You really haven't added any new argument. As I said, all of the subdisciplines that I have listed above (and others) have their own organizations (some more than one), publications ("growing literature"), meetings, etc. Please specifically address why occupational health psychology is any more deserving of inclusion than the other subdisciplines that I have listed above.

I'm not trying to be hard to get along with, but I am concerned about the quality of the template and the potential for an unmanageable number of additions to it. The template is only for the very major areas within the field of psychology. I only ask that you step back and consider psychology as a whole instead of just a subdiscipline that you obviously are very devoted to and knowledgeable about. If we continue to disagree (and that's OK; it's common on Wikipedia) we may need to post an RfC to get more opinions. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I've added to the argument. The field is not as narrow as you assert. APA recognizes OHP. It supports the OHP journal, which has developed a high impact rate. APA's Practice Directorate co-underwrites the work, stress, and health conferences. APA provided seed money to start OHP graduate programs. There is constant change in psychology. Change occurs in the field. OHP is an emergent field that merits recogntion. A parallel expansion has occurred in European psychology. In fact the European and North American OHP organizations began to coordinate activities, including the aligning of European and North American conferences. Expanding the template recognizes that such change happens. I therefore ask you to restore "Occupational Health" to the Psychology template.Iss246 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see any new argument. APA is very supportive of "Clinical child psychology", "Group psychotherapy", "Clinical hypnosis", "Psychoanalytic psychotherapy", "Humanistic psychotherapy", "Clinical assessment", and others. In fact, each of these has its own Division within APA. Again, I'm not trying to minimize the importance of occupational health psychology, but I am not seeing any argument that it is any more deserving of an item in the template than the other subdisciplines I have listed. And I agree that psychology is changing (it always will), but please read WP:RECENT; Wikipedia generally waits until after the changes occur before it makes major changes in its content. That's what distinguishes an encyclopedia from a newspaper. And adding an item to a template is a major change. If OHP reaches the status of neuropsychology, clinical psychology, school psychology, forensic psychology, etc., then it might be appropriate to add to the template. But I really don't think we're there yet.

I think it's great that there is an article on Occupational health psychology, and I appreciate your additions and hope the article will continue to be improved and expanded. I just think we need to wait and see where things go before adding it to the template. Ward3001 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A key feature of this sidebar template is brevity. There is a larger and more comprehensive psychology template that appears at the bottom of some psychology-related pages. If the sidebar template becomes too large it will become less useful and more redundant. Therefore, we must be quite selective about the links that appear in the template. This implies that arguments to add a link should compare it to existing links, explaining why the candidate link is more important (i.e. would attract more clicks) than links already in the template. Number of google hits is probably the easiest way to measure the size and level of popular interest of a field in psychology. Occupational health psychology gets only about 40,000 hits from my location (results vary somewhat by the country from which the search originates, so try it yourself). I think this number of hits is well below the other fields listed in the template. For example, the field of psychophysics has about ten times as many hits. Unless other objective criteria are brought forward that demonstrate the relative importance of occupational health psychology, I would vote not to include it. Nesbit (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Other data that could be examined would be numbers of practitioners, graduate programs in the specific field, and graduates from those programs. I don't have those data in front of me, but I do think it's a safe bet that number of graduate programs in OHP is significantly smaller than the general disciplines of clinical, neuropsychology, school psychology, forensic psychology, etc. Ward3001 (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The psychology of emotion is another respectable field of psychology that is probably too small to be listed in this template. It does seem to get fewer google hits than occupational health psychology. If the outcome of this discussion were to add OHP, I think we should eliminate the emotion link. Possibly we should do it anyway. Nesbit (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I counted OHP doctoral programs at these institutions (although the list may not be exhaustive): Bowling Green State University, Clemson University, Colorado State University, Kansas State University, Portland State University, Tulane University, UCLA, the University of Connecticut, the University of Houston, the University of Minnesota, the University of South Florida, the University of Texas, and University of Nottingham in the UK.Iss246 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I add that there are no PhD programs to speak of in Emotion Psychology. By contrast there are legitimate PhD programs in OHP. I agree with Nesbit. I think Emotion Psychology should come off the list and Occupational Health Psychology should join the list. Iss246 (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I also add that there are not many doctoral programs in evolutionary psychology. When I look for them they are tucked in under another program or are in an anthropology department. I support the idea that evolutionary psychology remain on the template. But I think OHP is just as deserving of belonging on the template, and ask you to restore it. Iss246 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There are over two million google hits for evolutionary psychology. Unless there is more comparative information, my preference is exclude both emotion and OHP from the sidebar template. I notice that there are about twice as many psychology fields listed in Template:Psychology as the sidebar template. The sidebar template should list a subset of those listed in the larger template. Therefore I'd recommend that you make the pitch to include OHP in the larger template first. It should be much easier. It currently includes a couple of fairly obscure fields. Nesbit (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with Nesbit unless compelling contradictory evidence emerges. I would suggest we wait a while to see if there are other opinions before removing anything. Ward3001 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare the two up-and-coming fields of OHP and evolutionary psychology. Looking at google scholar, google books, and PsycInfo, I get the following numbers of hits:

/////////////// OHP // EP

Google books // 623 // 1,607

Google scholar // 5,770 // 19,700

PsycInfo // 450 // 2,481

You have to put the terms in quotes to get more precise numbers. Sorry about not using a table. Nesbit (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I conducted a search of PsycInfo. On one line I entered "occupational health psychology". Then I entered "or" to concatenate OHP with what I inserted on the second line, the terms, "job", "and", and "stress". A great deal of OHP centers around job stress or work stress. I didn't use the word "work" as a synonym for "job"; I didn't use the word "burnout", which is also the subject of considerable OHP research and practice. Had I used those terms, I am positive that I would have gotten many more hits. As it stands, I got 9706 hits. That number of hits, together with the presence of doctoral programs, merits Ward3001's including Occupational Health Psychology in the template. Iss246 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I followed everything you said immediately above until you went from 9706 hits to "merits Ward3001's including Occupational Health Psychology in the template". Maybe I missed something. Just as a point of comparison, I did a search of "clinical child psychology" on PsycINfo and got 18,064 hits. I wouldn't use that statistic to argue that "Clinical child psychology" should be added to the template. If I concatenate with "or" (as you did) and add "psychotherapy", the hits increases to 143,228. I still wouldn't argue for inclusion of clinical child psychology in the template. If I change the search to "clinical psychology" in the top line and then "or" and "psychotherapy" the hits jumps up to 238,657. Maybe I missed something in your argument. I don't think then 9706 hits you got is persuasive. Ward3001 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I add that one of the two leading journals in occupational health psychology is called "Work and Stress." It is the journal of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Given the journal and the large number of hits (9706) in PsycInfo, I believe occupational health psychology belongs in the psychology sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, all of the subdisciplines I list above have one and sometimes several related journals. Ward3001 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the comparison to evolutionary psychology and emotion psychology. You came in with the clinical child psychology analogy, it seems to me, because you are dead set against my suggestion regarding OHP, and you exercise some power over the sidebar in question. Since you brought up the matter, psychotherapy is not necessarily clinical psychology. By contrast work stress is OHP. Psychotherapy is not always clinical psychology because psychotherapy overlaps with psychiatry and social work. Some child clinicians call what they do applied behavior analysis. Complicating the picture, treatment of children is usually very different from treatment of adults. In psychiatry, there is a division between adult and child psychiatry. There are different sets of journals. Different organizations. But back to psychology. The different nature of the treatment may even warrant a separate heading for child clinical psychology. But that is not my concern here. My concern here is with OHP. It merits an entry. And I ask that you restore OHP to the sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point we certainly don't have a consensus to make any changes in the sidebar. The usual procedure on Wikipedia in such cases is to wait a while to see if other editors weigh in. Then if necessary we post an RfC to get more opinions and wait to see if a consensus emerges.

By the way, please try not personalize the issue with statements such as "You came in with the clinical child psychology analogy, it seems to me, because you are dead set against my suggestion regarding OHP." I came up with the analogy because I misunderstood what you were trying to convey in your statements about your PsycInfo search. That was not a personal matter. I simply sought clarification. This is not (or should not be) a personal matter between you and me. This is about doing what is best for Wikipedia, and there are procedures to follow that I have outlined. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Thanks Ward3001 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As per the earlier comment by Nesbit, I added OHP to the Template:Psychology but left untouched the sidebar, which I think is more important because it has been inserted into many psychology entries. I would like to settle this business about including OHP in the sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It almost certainly will be settled, but like many matters on Wikipedia, it will not be settled in a matter of hours. At this point we only have three editors expressing opinions. It is not unusual when there are disagreements on Wikipeida for consensus to require a week (or even more) to emerge. Keep in mind that some editors who may be interested in contributing to this discussion may not log in every day. It can take some time.

In the mean time, please consider my request for keeping the focus on the content and not on the contributors. If you haven't already, you might want to read WP:CON, Help:Edit conflict, and WP:AGF (I don't mean that as belittling if you are already familiar with those policies). I'm sincerely not trying to run roughshod over your opinions. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and requires the cooperation of everyone involved. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New discussion

I argue for the inclusion of occupational health psychology in the sidebar. 1. Sports psychology is on the sidebar. I'm agnostic about its remaining on the sidebar. Since I'm advancing the view that OHP should be on the sidebar, I don't want to start a movement to push sports psychology or another division off the sidebar. However, I underline that sports psychology content is weak, and remains weak after two years. The content of sports psychology contrasts with the strong content of OHP. OHP has deep historical roots in psychology, and strong research and practice content that is relevant to the well-being of people who work.

2. Literature in occupational health psychology is rich. Searches in PsycInfo under "occupational health psychology" go so far because much of the literature is under keywords such as "work" and "stress", where a vast literature will unfold. The work in OHP is particularly relevant because of the impact of work and financial stressors. OHP is a branch of psychology that is deeply concerned with those matters.

3. I also want to emphasize the contemporary relevance of the discipline in a couple of other ways. The readers of this may not have considered that OHP has relevance to the military (e.g., Lang, J., Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Adler, A. B. (2007). Job demands and job performance: The mediating effect of psychological and physical strain and the moderating effect of role clarity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 116-124.). OHP is also relevant to helping first responders (e.g., Stellman et al., Enduring mental health morbidity and social function impairment in World Trade Center rescue, recovery and cleanup workers: the psychological dimension of an environmental health disaster. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116, 1248–1253.)

In summary, I think OHP, on its merits, deserves to be on the sidebar. I've been working perhaps a sentence or two every day on the occupational health psychology entry in my spare time—although I don't have that much of it. As I add that sentence or two, I revise earlier material to ensure that article coheres. OHP is the world outside. More than sports psychology, to say the least. Iss246 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a few responses to the above comments. Some of these I have previously stated on Iss246's talk page, and some may reiterate and expand on comments I have made earlier in this RfC:

• "sports psychology content is weak, and remains weak after two years": The length and quality of the Wikipedia article on a discipline or subdiscipline (whether sports psychology, OHP, or any other) should not determine whether that discipline or subdisclipine should be included in the sidebar. The sidebar should reflect the prominence of the discipline in the world in general, not just how the articles stack up on Wikipedia. There are a variety of reasons an article may not have as much length or substance on Wikipedia compared to other articles. Some of these may have little, if any relationship, to the relative positions of the two topics in the world outside of Wikipedia.
• "I've been working perhaps a sentence or two every day on the occupational health psychology entry": That is a very laudible and needed effort, for which I thank Iss246. But again, length and quality of OHP's Wikipedia article (or any other subdiscipline's article) is not an adequate basis for adding OHP or other subdiscipline to the sidebar and make the sidebar too long.
• "Literature in occupational health psychology is rich": Literature in many subdisciplines is rich (as I have noted elsewhere in this RfC), but that does not justify unnecessarily extending the size of the sidebar, which by definition should be extremely brief. Such subdisciplines may belong in the Psychology template, but not the sidebar.
• "OHP has relevance to the military ... Job demands and job performance ... helping first responders": I could provide numerous examples of relevance of many other subdisciplines. But that is not sufficient basis for including them in the sidebar. Ward3001 (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I respond to items 1, 2, and 3.

1. What evidence is the evidence that articles in Wikipedia are not related to the discipline's prominence in the real world? I contend that the sports psychology entry is weak because the discipline itself is either weak or not that important, relative to other disciplines, in the real world.

2. Laudable. The reward for hard work should be a place in the sidebar. If I didn't have solid content to mine, the occupational health psychology entry would be as paltry as sports psychology. Hard work should be rewarded.

Regarding subdisciplines. Psychology was a subdiscipline of philosophy. You can make the case, that psychology should fall under philosophy. Or neuroscience under neurology. Or clinical under abnormal. Subdisciplines get out from under. That is why OHP should get a place. This scholastic argument about subdisciplines is specious. Psychology changes and grows. It is not this static Aristotelean thing. It is dyanamic. It's Galilean. It grows. And splits. And recombines. And that is what should happen to the sidebar.

3. With regard to the numerous examples of many subdisciplines, then provide the numerous examples. Let's see them. Do the heavy lifting. I'm doing the heavy lifting. OHP earned a place at the sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

• "What evidence is the evidence that articles in Wikipedia are not related to the discipline's prominence in the real world?": I never said it is not related, I said the length or quality of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily an accurate reflection of prominence in the world outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the entirety of the world. If Wikipedia's article on Barack Obama is better (or longer) than the article on John McCain, that does not mean that Obama should be President of the US. If there were a sidebar on psychological tests and I wrote a lengthy, first-rate article on test XYZ, that does not mean that XYZ deserves to be included in the sidebar more than prominent tests such as the Rorschach or the MMPI; it simply means I (one person) put more work into the article.
• "I contend that the sports psychology entry is weak because the discipline itself is either weak or not that important, relative to other disciplines, in the real world.": I contend that having an excellent article on occupational health psychology because (among other reasons) an editor is very dedicated to making it an excellent article does not make OHP more prominent in the world outside of Wikipedia. Neither OHP's nor sports psychology's prominence in the world is determined by how good the editors are in writing articles on them. Wikipedia is not the center of the universe.
• "The reward for hard work should be a place in the sidebar": That could not be farther from the truth, and if you really believe that I suggest that you go back and read some fundamental policies on Wikipedia, beginning with the five pillars. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that operates by consensus. Those are core principles of Wikipedia. No one owns an article, another core principle. Show me the policy in Wikipedia that says an editor who writes a good article should be awarded the authority of sole decider (despite the policy of consensus) of changes in other articles. The reward is the satisfaction of making a quality contribution. Writing good articles is not a stepping stone to power over anything. Neither the most prolific editors, nor administrators, nor anyone else has that kind of authority. I've said this repeatedly. Nothing (except in cases of blatant policy violations) carries more weight in determining content in a dispute more than consensus. Nothing.
• "examples of many subdisciplines": Clinical child psychology has relevance to educational issues, political issues, pediatric medicine issues, mental health issues, economic issues, and third-world issues. Clinical child psychology should not be in the sidebar. Clinical hypnosis has relevance to forensic issues, pain management issues, memory issues, health psychology issues, and anesthesia issues. Clinical hypnosis should not be in the sidebar. Assessment psychology has relevance to employment issues, educational issues, psychiatric diagnostic issues, medication issues, and forensic issues. Assessment psychology should not be in the sidebar. I don't need to beat a dead horse and continue here.
• One last point: Consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by who can repeat the same arguments the most, who can shout the loudest, and who can come up with the most retorts that add nothing new to the discussion. Unless there are additional substantive matters that are raised, there is no point in my continuing to repeat myself. I have no problem with leaving this RfC in place for some length of time to see if there are other comments (although an admin may decide to remove it). The consensus may or may not change if other editors find this discussion and express an opinion. And if a consensus emerges to add OHP I will have no problem because that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. Until then, however, there is no consensus to add OHP (or any other subdiscipline) to the sidebar. I'm finished quibbling, but the absence of additional comments by me in no way changes the current lack of consensus to change the sidebar. Ward3001 (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Response The analogy with the Rorschach and the MMPI does not work. Both are personality measures and the MMPI is a measure of psychopathology although projective tests such as the Rorschach have questionable validity. Such personality measures would, however, be good candidates to be on a sidebar devoted to prominent personality tests. And that is what is important, and it could appear as one goes from one prominent personality test to another.

With regard to another aspect of your argument, if some day the idea gets endorsed, perhaps there will be a separate entry for child clinical. That is for specialists in those areas to discuss. In psychiatry, there has been a division between adult and child psychiatry.

Finally, I don't argue that the Wikipedia entry is in exact proportion to the prominence of the field in the real world. That is a straw man. The relation of an entry to the real world, however, is nonzero. There is a rough relation. The relation depends a good deal on the quality of the content. And the content of occupational health psychology is an important part of psychology. At least as important as sports psychology. See for yourself.Iss246 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the time to read everything above. I appreciate the fact that Iss246 has worked hard on the occupational health psychology article. On the other hand, and I'm hesitant to be so blunt, but I'm afraid I don't find his/her arguments for adding occupational health psychology to the sidebar persuasive in the slightest. The sidebar is about the right length in my opinion. It should be reasonably concise to make it easy to spot the most important fields in psychology as well as a few key psychology pages. It should not include any subdisciplines. We have Template:Psychology for important topics in psychology including key subdisciplines, and I think occupational health psychology qualifies there. One solution for making the occupational health psychology article more available to Wikipedia readers is to add that template to the bottom of psychology articles.

I would like to ask for suggestions. Maintaining Template:Psychology is more difficult than maintaining this one, because lots of editors want to add their pet psychology topic to it. This has been especially true of important psychologists, but in fact this is where we've had some success. A widely cited research study examined the question of who the most eminent psychologists were, detailed results are on the talk page, and we have stuck to that as a criterion. Where help is needed is in coming up with some guidelines, preferably somewhat objective, for inclusion of other items, particularly subdisciplines. There will obviously be more borderline topics needing a decision than for this sidebar.

Google results were mentioned above, which is an objective, though blunt, instrument. Google Scholar results are probably a bit better. If we use them (perhaps as one of several criteria?) we would have to make an allowance for the fact that in some cases adding the word "psychology" to the phrase will be necessary (e.g., "Evolutionary psychology"). Taking a stab at this, it looks like requiring about 10,000 Google Scholar results for a phrase that does not need to have "psychology" added, or about 5,000 results if "psychology" does need to be added. What do people think? What other objective criteria might we use? Having a division of APA? If there are a number of good, objective criteria, editors could argue for inclusion even if all criteria weren't met, but rather on the basis of being very strong on the others. Comments? -DoctorW 18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please post such suggestions to Template_talk:Psychology -DoctorW 18:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to DoctorW, occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress. That is the primary subject matter. In fact, one of the prominent OHP journals is called Work & Stress. I conducted a Google search under the terms work stress, and got 19,400,000 hits. I had 2,090,000 hits when I searched sports psychology. I don't think that that the number of hits should be the only criterion for a division of psychology making its way into the sidebar. I recognize that it is one of the criteria that editors/administrators such as yourself weigh. I also think content should also be a criterion, in which case the content of OHP is at least as substantial as, say, sports psychology, which is on the sidebar. Please consult the respective entries. I think OHP has as much right to be on the sidebar as sports psychology.Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We can selectively Google a specific topic pertaining to any subdiscipline and come up with millions of hits. That doesn't mean all of those hits have anything to do with the subdiscipline. For example, the subdiscipline "Assessment psychology" directly pertains to mental retardation because MR cannot be diagnosed without an assessment. If I Google "mental retardation" I get 6,720,000 hits. But that's not a credible argument for including "Assessment psychology" in the sidebar because not all of those hits have something to do with assessment. Similarly, pain management is an important focus in "Clinical hypnosis". If I Google "pain management" I get 23,100,000 hits. But it is absurd to then leap to the conclusion that all of those hits pertain to clinical hypnosis and, therefore, "Clinical hypnosis" should be in the sidebar. We could go on and on with this process and end up arguing to include every one of dozens of subdisciplines in the sidebar. The 19,400,000 hits for work stress may or may not relate to OHP; we simply don't know how many, just as we don't know for any of the subdisciplines that I mention above.

I agree completely with DoctorW that none of the subdisciplines belong in the sidebar. At most some should be included in the Psychology template at the bottom of the page. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Response. I don't claim that all the Google hits reflect OHP, only that they reflect real-world interest in the subject matter that is at the center of OHP. Ward3001 said that real-world relevance matters. Many people around the world are concerned about how their jobs are affecting their well-being. At least as much as they are concerned with using psychology to improve gymnastics performance, which is important in its own right. A PsycInfo (EBSCO) search in which on one line I entered the synonyms work or job or occupation and another line I entered the word stress produced 21528 articles. I don't claim that these results are the only reason for putting occupational health psychology on the sidebar. I think the quality of the content matters for sports psychology and occupational health psychology. Check the content. I still content that OHP belongs on the sidebar. Iss246 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a "real-world interest in the subject matter that is at the center of" every subdiscipline, but none of them belongs in the sidebar. And that's my last word of this particular issue so that we don't again get into the pattern of repeating the same arguments and responses over and over. Ward3001 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Against both occupational health psychology and sports psychology being included. There are endless sub fields. What about attachment therapy? And so on. In my opinion we should stick with the major traditional divisions for the template. Currently my division is on the template, but I would not die if it were removed. Our objective should be to clarify, no confuse with an ungainly array of specialties, many of which do not require a doctoral level psychologist. That is like saying a psychiatrist does not require a medical degree. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to Ward001. You mentioned real-world as a criterion. The degree of real-world interest is the concern. There is great real-world interest in question of work's impact on human well-being. Response to Mattisse. I don't think the sidebar is ungainly. Attachment therapy is not a division within psychology. It is aptly taken up within the framework of psychotherapy although I don't know if it is a doctoral level field. Occupational health psychology is a doctoral level field. If one includes being doctoral level field as a criterion, OHP meets the criterion. If you include a great deal of real-world interest as a criterion, OHP meets the criterion of inclusion. If you include substantial content that matters as a criterion, OHP meets the criterion.Iss246 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "real-world" interest in a subject necessarily coincides with established subdivisions of Psychology and therefore is a criteria for inclusion in the template. "Real-world" interest is apt to be topical and therefore wax and wane with the times. Also, I/O covers issues related to job stress. Perhaps Occupational health psychology can be see as a subdivision of I/O. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the source of your concern. However, I point out that I/O Ψ is the offspring of social Ψ and psychometric Ψ. That does not mean we should not include I/O as a separate entity because I/O has those sources. Health psychology has its origins in social Ψ, the sociology of medicine, and medicine itself. Health Ψ nonetheless should stand as an entry. (Parenthetically, the health Ψ entry a couple of months ago was very weak, and I completed a good deal of editorial work and conducted library research to upgrade the entry although it could benefit from additional effort--I don't have that much time--; my work on the health psychology entry motivated me to create and develop the OHP entry.) OHP is the offspring of I/O, health Ψ, the medical field of occupational health, and, maybe even, clinical Ψ (see Everly, G. S., Jr. [1986]. An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P. A. Keller & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5 (pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange). Arguing, therefore, that OHP is the descendant of I/O Ψ doesn't work against excluding OHP from the sidebar because all the current fields come from somewhere.

I also underline that the general public is interested in work, stress, and the impact of occupational stress on physical and psychological well-being. OHP is directly concerned with that very important area of research. In fact, OHP has developed its own journals, professional organizations, and international conferences. One of those conferences, the ICOH-WOPS conference Quebec (you can get abstracts of the meeting to see for yourself http://www.icoh-wops2008.com/program.aspx) just concluded a couple of weeks ago and in two months the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology is running an international conference in Valencia, Spain on work, stress, and health. Scientific meetings are the important grounds on which scientific ideas are shared and debated. OHP has come into its own with these scientific meetings. They make the discipline.

I appeal to you to join my side in supporting the addition of OHP to the sidebar.Iss246 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ... sort of. This side bar could easily grow taller than any article on which it is included. That said, it could be useful to arrange a series of expanded sub-boxes like the taxonomy boxes. Readers interested in Health psychology and related sub-fields would be presented with OHP, but readers of Cognitivism (psychology) would be presented with links like Behaviorism. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose/Include per Eldereft. Expandable boxes, what a great idea. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Eldereft, could you give us a link to the example you're referring to so we can see how it looks? I'm wondering if this will change the sidebar to the point that it no longer looks like a sidebar. Maybe not, but I think we need to see how it looks so editors can express informed opinions. This might be a good alternative to the way the sidebar is now, but if it is a radical change (as opposed to adding or deleting one item from the sidebar), we'll need to set up a new RfC to get a wider consensus beyond this more narrow RfC about whether OHP should go in the sidebar. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a perfect analogy since taxonomy has a better defined hierarchical structure, but look at the respective taxoboxes at the beginning of Triturus, Salamandridae, and Amphibian - each contains a level of detail appropriate to how "zoomed out" the article is. A list of species at class level would be completely unmanageable, and very few people looking for newts would find a link to Seychelles Frogs to be relevant.

A more centralized solution that might be more applicable would be to use a {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}. Negative liberty has a collapsed sidebar, but Liberalism displays the full topic list. The template includes a parameter (for some reason not mentioned on the template page, but described at {{Liberalism sidebar}}) to allow one subheading to be expanded while the rest remain collapsed - inviting but not intruding.

I am not as familiar with psychology, but a similar classification scheme has been established for physics so I expect it should be possible to divvy up the subdivisions reasonably accurately and amicably. If it comes to it, there is no reason a particular subfield should not be included in different branches of the discipline tree. For a working example of such a classification, see {{Physics-footer}}, which links to Condensed matter physics which displays {{Condensed matter physics}} as a sidebar. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the info. I looked at the examples, and at this point I'm not sure whether either approach would be feasible (I'm not saying either wouldn't, I'm just not sure). {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} is the closest to the way the Psychology sidebar is currently set up, but I'm not sure whether it's feasible to use it with each major discipline (Clinical, Educational, etc.) that has a collapsible list of subdisciplines. But this looks like a major change that would require a separate RfC since we would be venturing beyond the issue of OHP in the sidebar and looking at a complete overhaul of the sidebar. I'll wait a couple of days to see if other opinions show up here before starting a new RfC. Ward3001 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please find in the section below a mock-up with one section displayed. It has some crappy formatting and is not necessarily fully vetted, so use at your own risk. Such a change would be definitely beyond the scope of this particular RfC, so I created a new section to discuss the change. If you decide to use it or a modified version, please move it from my userspace and leave a note on my talkpage. Everyone should feel free to edit that page before taking the template live. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible lists

Here is a mock-up using {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}, mentioned in the preceding section. For a side-by-side comparison with the old one, click here. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks again. If "Research", "Applied", and "Lists" are the major categories, that wouldn't help the OHP issue because only major disciplines (e.g., Clinical) and not subdisciplines (e.g., OHP) would be included. But I get the idea. Is it possible to use the current disciplines (Clinical, Educational, Forensic, Health, etc.) for the uncollapsed items, then list subdisciplines under each? Even if it's possible, we would need to get a broader consensus to make the change. Thanks so much for your help, Eldereft. You've done a lot for a field that isn't even your primary interest (I assume). Ward3001 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - the advantage of volunteer labour is that if I felt like doing something else then I would (but thanks are always appreciated :)). The lists can be named and arranged howsoever you like, I just modeled the current sidebar. I grabbed a couple examples from Category:Clinical psychology to make a nested collapsible list under Research. Purge your cache if it does not display. Colors, entries, and all whatnot should of course be fixed prior to implementation.

Also, I should note that the v · d · e links are generated by the template to match the name parameter and assume templatespace - they misleadingly link here. This mock-up currently resides at User:Eldereft/Psychology sidebar and should be edited by visiting that page. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have made a mistake in trying to undo vandalism to the site. Someone wrote "Roxie rocks my socks" at the site. I tried to undo it. I may have mistakenly done some damage. Perhaps one of you, for example Ward3001, could look at the entry.Iss246 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. I think I got to the template at fractionally the same time as Ward3001, and saw the vandalism disappear faster than I could enter a keystroke, and was concerned that more was disappearing than I intended. Anyway the site looks okay. I may not agree with Ward3001 one matter, but I share the antipathy toward vandalism.Iss246 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

More sub-areas

Hey, I think that at least theoretical psychology, legal psychology, media psychology and military psychology should be added to the sidebar. They are important to a certain extent. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to legal psychology. I know it's not a perfect match, but I believe it is close enough to forensic psychology that there is too much overlap. I know a case might be made that they are not identical, but that can be done for dozens of subfields or fields that are subsumed under more than one discipline already in the sidebar. If we include all (or even a few) of those, then we no longer have a sidebar, we have a long page. And remember there is a Template:Psychology that can contain more detail, including some subdisciplines.

I also feel that media psychology and military psychology are subsumed under several other areas, including industrial, organizational, social, and others. Again, please keep in mind that we must limit the size of the sidebar, and that more can go into the general psychology template.

I see theoretical psychology as pertaining to many different areas rather than as a field in itself, but I am willing to listen to a more detailed explanation.

Please also keep in mind that we need a rationale beyond just having an APA division to justify including in the sidebar. See the lengthy discussion about occupational health psychology above. It would help if we had some hard data (number of practitioners, number of publications, etc.) as well as any logical rationale to extend the size of the sidebar rather than adding to the general template. Ward3001 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated template form

I updated the template form to use a more modern, uniform, and editable format. Any problems with this, please make your arguments here. I will answer each. -Stevertigo 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. How is your version any more "modern, uniform, and editable"? It's a matter of personal preference, so we need a consensus here to change it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to update this template to use the standard {{Sidebar with heading backgrounds}} template for formatting. It should come out looking mostly the same, and similar to Template:Rights, with cleaner markup "under the hood", less html/wikicode in the editbox, and more consistent accessibility for various browsers and humans. Any objections/suggestions before or whilst I'm doing so? Thanks Quiddity (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you post the updated template here first so we can see what it looks like? Ward3001 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Like that. Look good? (Colors can all be changed easily, consult {{Sidebar}} for details). I would also suggest adding a link to Outline of psychology to the "Lists" section. Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Ward3001 (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology, again

I think it is time to add occupational health psychology to sidebar. There are at least three international organizations that are concerned with the discipline, the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP; see http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/), the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP; see http://www.ea-ohp.org/), and the International Conference on Occupational Health with its Psychosocial Factors at Work Conferences (ICOH-WOPS see http://www.icoh-wops2008.com/home.html). The SOHP cooperates closely with the APA's Public Interest Directorate. Occupational health psychology is covered in at least 15 separate journals (e.g., Work & Stress, Social Science & Medicine, the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, etc.; see the OHP Wikipedia entry). Scientists at the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) engage in OHP research (see pp. 16 and 17 of http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/SOHPNewsletterV5January2009.pdf). NIOSH partners with the American Psychological Association and the SOHP to sponsor the biennial Work, Stress, and Health Conference (see http://www.apa.org/pi/work/wsh.html) which is devoted to OHP. Serious scientific psychology goes on under the banner of OHP. Moreover, there are OHP professionals who work in consulting and in HR units and other divisions within organizations. I ask Stevertigo to be on board about this matter. I also ask Ward3001 to be on board with this, particularly in view of our past disagreements. Iss246 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose for the same reasons previously (and extensively) discussed on this talk page here. Ward3001 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully add to my above comments that OHP has about 700,000 Google hits, and work stress, which is part of the subject matter of OHP, has 38,000,000 hits. Work & Stress is also the name of an OHP journal. OHP is concerned with the impact of the economic conditions on people, including the recent downturn and the ways people cope with the stress of the downturn (see pp. 3-4 of http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/SOHPNewsletterV5January2009.pdf). OHP includes a literature on the impact of unemployment; for example, see Kasl and Cobb's (1970) study of unemployment and blood pressure, which is cited in the occupational health psychology Wikipedia entry. I add that Kasl was honored for his lifetime contribution to OHP at the Work, Stress, and Health Conference held in Washington, DC in March 2008, a conference jointly sponsored by APA, NIOSH, and SOHP. OHP subject matter is highly relevant to people's lives. It is at least as relevant as template mainstays such as sports psychology and psychophysics; I suspect OHP is more relevant. The thoughts I've laid down on this page address the concerns Ward3001 enumerated in archived discussion, which I recently reread.

I continue to ask Ward3001 to reconsider, and permit OHP to be included on the sidebar. 05:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also see National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (2009) [2] for additional evidence for the importance of the field. Iss246 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to weigh in on this should probably read the extensive discussion mentioned by Ward3001 of this very issue. -DoctorW 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Because space on the sidebar template is limited, I think arguments to add a link should specify which existing link should be deleted and should provide comparative evidence. At this point, sufficient comparative evidence favoring the proposal to add occupational health psychology has not been presented. On PsycInfo I found that "occupational health psychology" produces 466 hits. This is far less than "evolutionary psychology" (2700 hits), "sport psychology" (4942 hits) and even "transpersonal psychology" (1041 hits). Nesbit (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nesbit made a very good point. However, I underline the point that occupational health psychology (OHP) is also found in PsycInfo searches under the terms Work and Stress. The "and" is necessary. I got just under 17,000 hits this morning. That Work & Stress is the name of an important OHP journal published by the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology reinforces the point. It is difficult to divorce the expression "work and stress" from OHP. I add that OHP is also concerned with the impact of unemployment on the health and well-being of individuals. OHP is a discipline that is relevant to world in which we live. I appeal to Nesbit reconsider, and permit OHP to join the sidebar.15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense, Iss246, but that's at least partially an artifact of the search method. If the number of terms are expanded, there's usually an increase in number of hits. For example, if we combine searches for both of the terms "sports" and "recreational" to search for sports psychology hits, it goes up to a whopping 20,356. Some of those may not relate to sports psychology, but that would also be the case for "work and stress". The same would be true of almost any search.

Although anyone is welcome to comment here, I think the same editors rehashing the same arguments serves no purpose. I urge editors to look at the previous discussion on this same issue rather than restating everything again. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. The equivalence about the increase in hits is chimerical. If you conduct a search on "recreational psychology", for example, the recently published article by Gaudreau in the journal Developmental Psychology about adolescents playing hockey turns up. It is not sports psychology article. The article principally concerns the development of adolescent affective states. "Work and stress", however, is an equivalent in the research literature to OHP. It is a topic that provokes great interest. Note that the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology publishes a journal entitled Work & Stress. Because I am a research psychologist with an interest in the field, I could report on the equivalence of work and stress and OHP.Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Work and stress", however, is an equivalent in the research literature to OHP: I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but if you're saying that all (or even most) hits for "work and stress" pertain to OHP, that certainly is not the case. I looked at a few of them, and some had nothing to do with OHP, just as some for "recreational" have nothing to do with sports psychology. I wouldn't even know if "most" are relevant to OHP unless I examined all of them in detail. I really don't think playing around with search terms is very productive. As I said, if you change the terms, you get more hits.

Again, I don't wish to rehash all of the previous discussion, and we talked extensively about search hits. Unless/until other editors express opinions, I'm out of this discussion for now. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. The issue of search results is important. I repeated the search with work in one field and stress in another. The first article that turned up concerns the acoustic startle response in Norway rats; it is certainly not what I am referring to. But right away there on the first page of my search is a study of work stress in doctors and nurses. Then there is a study from Taiwan concerning the application of the effort-reward imbalance model (an important OHP model of stress) to people who care for the retarded. The latter article was published in a journal devoted to developmental disabilities; however, the content of the article is OHP. That is common because journals serving professional groups (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers, teachers, psychologists, etc.) include articles about work stress in those professional groups. I have read OHP articles devoted to work stress in clinical psychologists (a major stressor is a suicide attempt or completion in a patient). The articles are there in a work-and-stress search. And they are there in great numbers. Tonight I've only looked at the first couple of pages, but in my professional life I have waded through the literature. It is very large. I added that the journal Work & Stress published by the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Even when the articles extraneous to OHP are culled there are great numbers of OHP articles.Iss246 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One last thought before I quit my computer for the night. I did a search on job and stress, and got 9600 hits with fewer hits that were extraneous to OHP.Iss246 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Term on the sidebar template

I am the research psychologist who has persisted in requesting consensus in placing occupational health psychology on the sidebar. This time, however, I write about a different sidebar-related matter. The divisions on the sidebar are "research psychology" and "applied psychology." The divisions are misleading. There are many individuals like myself who identify themselves with applied psychology, who conduct research in applied psychology. The division on the sidebar suggests that those who work in applied psychology do not conduct research. Some in applied psychology surely don't conduct research. But many do.

Moreover there are psychologists who are professors who teach courses on, say, abnormal psychology (which is under "research psychology"), and may be very expert, but don't conduct research, confining their efforts instead to teaching.

If one looks closely at the sidebar, one observes that for applied psychology there is an internal link to a Wikipedia entry. Not so for "research psychology." Such an entry would not work because research is conducted in most areas of psychology. I would recommend against constructing such an entry because such an entry would amount to psychology itself.

I have also done basic psychological research; however, the term "basic psychology" is somewhat clunky. Some of you with whom I have had the debate over the inclusion of occupational health psychology (Ward, Nesbit) are also psychologists, and I think we should all come up with a better term than "research psychology" for the division on the sidebar. We should get some recommendations, and arrive at a consensus. Iss246 (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You make a reasonable point, although it could be very difficult to come up with better headings. Part of the problem here is that the sidebar is extremely brief and cannot include many details that might, for example, make it clearer that many psychologists function both as scientists and as practitioners, or that some of the specific areas could easily be placed under either heading. When I was trained, we talked about conducting basic research (e.g., running rats in a maze) and applied research (e.g., effectiveness of a treatment procedure). Today we use the term "scientist-practitioner" to emphasize that a practicing psychologist is also trained in research. Right now I can't think of a better way to do it, other than eliminating the headings and have one list, but I'm not sure that would improve the sidebar. One thing to remember is that the sidebar is designed to give the reader a means of finding out more details by clicking the links. There is a link for "Applied", but not for "Research". It might be a start if someone created an article on "Research psychology" or "Methods of psychological research". Some of that is found in Experimental psychology, and we would need to be careful in having two articles with extensive overlap. I'm open to any ideas, although I would oppose anything that would enlarge the sidebar very much. The sidebar will never be fully explanatory for any topic; that's the price that is paid for brevity. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I don't like the expression "basic psychology" because the word "basic" can mean a variety of things including elementary. But "basic psychology," if it could be made to reflect something like "basic science," would work. There is no confusion about the word "basic" in "basic science." Few people use the term "basic psychology"; its meaning would therefore be ambiguous. I would prefer "basic psychology" over "research psychology" although I would not be pleased with "basic psychology" for the reasons given.

I would recommend NOT using word "scientistic" because "scientism" has a pejorative connotation. Moreover, I don't think I have ever before seen the word "scientistic" in print. I expect that would be the case with many other readers. We have to keep thinking about a heading that is better than "research psychology." Although I think "basic psychology" could serve as a temporary placeholder. I anticipate that we will get to a reasonably good term for the heading in the near future.Iss246 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually "scientistic" was my typo for "scientist", which I fixed. I'm not suggesting using "basic". I don't think that conveys any more than "Research". I'm not sure what the best approach is. Maybe others will have some ideas. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I reflected on the matter later in the day, and came up with a solution I would like to present to you. Replace the term "Research psychology" with Basic science. Then replace "Applied psychology" with this Applied science. The result will be that the two lists in the psychology sidebar will have headings "Basic science" and "Applied science". I temporarily will try out this solution. I think it provides better balance. The term "Basic science" is clearer than "Basic psychology." We established that "Research psychology" is not an appropriate term since almost all psychology involves research. Please change it back if you think it doesn't work.Iss246 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree and don't intend to change it, although I don't know that the change clarifies anything for the naive reader, except the links which explain "basic" and "applied" in more detail. There is still the problem that many of the areas can go under either (or both) header. But we can leave as you changed it unless someone else objects or has a better idea. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have read OHP research that bears on basic questions such as differential vulnerability to stressors, a vulnerability the lies in the personality, a matter that is more basic than applied. Of course other OHP investigators engage in applied research on evaluating means to ameliorate job conditions that are harmful to workers, and reduce productivity. The basic-applied dichotomy is NOT firm, which is also occurs in pure science and engineering. There is cross-over.

You are right. The template is not optimal. However, the division into basic and applied science is better than the division between research psychology and applied psychology, a division that does not make sense. At least the words "basic science" and "applied science" make contact with the knowledge base of the educated layperson. I look forward to a Wikipedian improving the dichotomy. We make Wikipedia better incrementally.Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thought about the sidebar and beyond

It occurred to me when I reflected on the matter that it would be a good idea for someone to create a new Wikipedia entry called "Basic science (psychology)" or something like that. The new entry does not have to be long. The structure of the entry could resemble the entry called Applied psychology. Then the sidebar term "Basic science" could be linked to the new "Basic science (psychology)" entry or whatever other apt name someone could think up for such an entry. The advantage of having a "Basic science (psychology)" entry would be that it would balance the Applied psychology entry. While I am not wedded to the idea of an entry called "Basic science (psychology)", I would object to an entry called "Basic psychology" for reasons I outlined above.Iss246 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. When can you create it? :) I wish I had time. If someone can lay the groundwork, I might be able to contribute. Ward3001 (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't have the time either. I've got a couple of chapters I am committed to writing. I thought you or Nesbit or the two of you could do it. I think the outline would be something like:

Abnormal Biological Cognitive Developmental Experimental Evolutionary Mathematical Neuropsychology Personality Positive Psychophysics Social.

A paragraph could be written about each. The paragraph could be a summary of the each full-blown disciplinary entry. Perhaps the first paragraph of each disciplinary entry would hold the key to what to write under each topic within "Basic science (psychology)" or whatever the final name is. The model would the Applied psychology entry. I think the task is easier than you think. My recommendation is to do one paragraph every other day. A worthwhile product could be completed in four weeks.Iss246 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I am going to create an outline. But after reading more of Wikipedia, I'm going to change the sidebar template term from "basic science" to "natural science" because the Wikipedia entry for natural science is superior to the entry for basic science. Based on my reading I think the term "natural science" is better. After I change the wording in the template to Natural science (psychology), I will create the bare bones, bare bones mind you, of an entry. I would like you fill it in. Perhaps Nesbit can help.Iss246 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take over Natural science (psychology). I can't do any more.Iss246 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not happy with the current term "Natural science (psychology)," for which I am responsible. I talked to a number of my colleagues (experimental and clinical psychologists) about the umbrella terms. We all agreed that applied psychology is an apt umbrella term encompassing clinical, industrial, educational, health, etc. We also agreed that there was not a good term for the other divisions within psychology (abnormal, neuropsychology, social, etc.). The group agreed that the former umbrella term, "research psychology" did not work because many psychologists conduct applied research. There was some consensus that my first try at an umbrella term, "Basic science (psychology)" is better than "Natural science (psychology)" although the term "Basic science (psychology)" not as apt as they would like. Ward3001, could you weigh in on this?Iss246 (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I made the change back to "Basic science (psychology)|basic science". The term balances the applied part of psychology. "Natural science" did not work. The psychologists with whom I spoke could see biological psychology as a natural science but not social psychology. The expression "basic science" finesses the difference. Perhaps someone will think up a better division.Iss246 (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives rather than "basic science"?

The major (traditional) perspectives are missing from the sidebar: behavioral, developmental, social-cognitive, humanistic and psychodynamic. Perhaps the subtitles "basic science" and "applied science" squeeze out these perspectives. An alternate may be "major perspectives" and applications. The concern is that not all applications of psychology are consider "applied science" -- it implies a certain science-practitioner POV. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That might (I'm not sure) solve one problem, but it creates another problem. "Major perspectives" refers to what is traditionally considered "schools of thought" in psychology (psychodynamic, humanistic, etc.), and some of the items currently under "Basic science" don't really belong under "Major perspectives". As I have said previously, this is a sidebar. By definition it can't include much detail. Template:Psychology can include more detail. The sidebar by necessity will never be able to neatly fit everything in the way we want. I think right now it's about as good as we can get it. Ward3001 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The sidebar is much more prominent than the template. Perhaps "Research areas" is more appropriate then. "Basic science" is a code word which is advances a position which attempts to portray psychology as if it were a physical science which can be reduced to general laws, i.e. the position that psychology can be reduced to neuroscience. While I think the enthusiasm for this pursuit is worthwhile, the view is far from universal in psychology. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern of Action potential. We have tried several umbrella terms already for the subdisciplines under basic science. By contrast, there is wide agreement that there are subdisciplines within psychology that come under the umbrella of applied science. These subdisciplines include educational psychology, clinical psychology, I/O psychology, etc. What is the umbrella term for the subdisciplines in which psychologists conduct research the purpose of which is not an immediate application?

We once used the umbrella term “research psychology.” However, that term is not workable because applied psychologist also conduct research. The term “basic science,” although not perfect because it has surplus meaning, works because psychologists under the basic-science umbrella conduct research regardless of whether the research we conduct has an immediate application. Of course, many of us (I speak as a research psychologist) hope that ultimately the research we conduct will lead to the betterment of people’s lives. But that is not the immediate concern. The immediate concern is better understanding of thought, behavior, emotion, etc. Although a personality psychologist does not do what a physicist does, the personality psychologist still wants to understand the development of the human personality regardless of where that research takes the psychologist. What the physicist does may or may not lead to an application. The personality psychologist wants to understand the development of the human personality even if that understanding leads to an application or it does not. In the end, the term "basic science" is a pretty good bookend for the term "applied science." I hope this response helps. If you can think of an umbrella term that is more effective than "basic science" it would be good learn about it.Iss246 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Iss246 on this, and Action potential, sorry, but I completely disagree that "'Basic science' is a code word which advances a position which attempts to portray psychology as if it were a physical science". That may have been the case by some psychologists in the past, but those psychologist are a very small minority now (if they exist at all). "Science" and the scientific method are not limited to the physical sciences. The scientific method is used in almost all areas of psychology to one degree or another. It's not psychology pretending to be a physical science; it's using the principles of science (e.g., experimental methodology, inferential statistics, etc.) to conduct research on behavior and mental processes. Ward3001 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I also I appreciate Action potential's concerns. But I'm afraid I have to agree with Iss246 and Ward3001, for the reasons they gave. Though not perfect, these two labels (or very similar ones) are, in fact, a more accurate description than "perspectives" for the two main areas of psychology reflecting the real state of affairs at present. Even if "basic science" has some baggage in the opinion of some, it's the best label proposed so far to contrast with "applied". "Research" doesn't work to contrast with "applied" for the reason Iss246 mentioned (applied research). If a better label than "basic science" can be found, I'm open to suggestions, but it is certainly a legitimate descriptor, as Ward3001 explained. -DoctorW 17:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'Perspectives' is not appropriate nor 'Orientations'. I was thinking of personality psychology when I suggested that. Most psychologists would identify themselves as eclectic and rarely identify themselves with a particular orientation (research or applied). I'll ask my professors in social psychology, physiological psychology (behavioural neuroscience) and cognitive neuropsychology this week. At this point I'd rather keep it as "Research" rather than "Basic science". If the other subtitle "applied" or even "applied psychology" does not exclude the possibility of applied research. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Action potential, you may have acted in good faith, but please don't change this information again without gaining consensus here. Consensus is the way things are always done on Wikipedia, not unilteral decisions by one editor. Feel free to seek opinions from your professors, but I believe everyone in this discussion is a psychologist, and it's the consensus here that matters, not what your professors say. If you need more info on consensus, please read WP:CON. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss what evidence would be acceptable to decide one way or the other. I'd accept a quote from a notable dictionary of psychology or glossary from a modern psychology text book which clearly emcompasses all the major research areas which we need to list on that side bar. Unforunately there was no entry for "basic science" in the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology which is a good indication it is not often used in psychology. In my medical dictionary there is an entry for "basic medical sciences" which is roughly comparable with "fundamental medical science" and the meaning that you want to portray on the sidebar. I have a quote from the "The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science", basic and applied science. "There is a common distinction in modern science between two types of research. Basic science is supposed to aim for new knowledge; it is also known as fundamental or pure science, suggesting that it is uncontaminated by such worldly concerns as practicality, patents, or profits. Applied science, or mission-oriented research, instead aims to produce technologies for social use, such as for industry or the military."..."Scientists and their sponsors have often posited a directional flow from basic to applied science; basic science, the argument runs, furnishes the foundation for applications." It goes on to conclude that "Locating the blurry boundary between basic and applied research is not a purely academic exercise." Peter J. Westwick "basic and applied science" -- The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. J. L. Heilbron, ed., Oxford University Press 2003. Oxford University Press. None of those areas are fundamental or pure sciences and exhibits the same blurry boundary problem as the research/applied distinction. So, I'm still not convinced that we can use "basic and applied science" distinction here. I can check the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (and a few others) tomorrow. What evidence would you accept to change your vote for consensus? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote that "basic science is supposed to aim for new knowledge." That is what the psychologists in social psychology, personality psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and developmental psychology try to do. They try to discover new knowledge. Their methods are different from that of physicists and chemists yet these psychologists are engaged in an effort of discovery. The business about being "uncontaminated by such worldly concerns..." is hyperbole even if found in the Oxford Companion. Scientists experience jealousies and hopes for recognition as many nonscientists do. But we are not discussing the motivations of scientists. We are discussing the difference between basic and applied science. Although not perfect, the basic-applied distinction works for many of us. Iss246 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Iss246, including the comment about hyperbole about "worldly concerns". We will never have perfectly neat categorical terms, but I think the ones we are using now are as good as any others that have been suggested so far. And we will never have perfect agreement about the terms to use, which is why we decide by consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What evidence would convince you otherwise? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A clear consensus to change the heading terminology. Ward3001 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The term 'basic science' (and more generally the principle of a pure vs applied division) is problematic, but it seems the best so far proposed. The supposedly applied areas of psychology do generate new knowledge. Often that knowledge speaks to fundamental aspects of human psychology. For example, educational psychologists' long arc of theory and research on achievement motivation describes motivation in educational contexts. Although achievement motivation theorists frequently do show how the theory can be applied, much of the research proceeds without regard for application and is, in that sense, basic science. Communicating these nuances may not be possible in a navigational sidebar so we settle for the least misleading approximation. Nesbit (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not perfect but here's a suggestion for the subheadings to replace basic/applied science: Psychological science (research, theory) and practice (evidence-based, other approaches). ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the suggestions up to this point, including the current wording, is perfect, and I doubt that any ever will be. I continue to prefer basic/applied. "Psychological science" and "practice" suggests that there is no science in practice. That only reinforces the common misconception of "practice" as just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that requires no scientific training. My opinion at this point is to leave it as it is. Ward3001 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked the latest APA dictionary of psychology and the latest penguin dictionary (as well as the latest Oxford dictionary of psychology) at the university book store. There is no entry for "basic science" or "applied science" in those dictionaries. I think we should get a WP:3PO from a neutral third party. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 13:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

AP, the consensus is quite clear. But more importantly, 3PO is only for disputes between two editors; in this case, the dispute is between you and several of us. With such a clear consensus, I think dispute resolution is pointless, but it certainly is your right to seek it. Please, however, follow the standard dispute resolution process. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Subtitles for sidebar for main areas of psychology

In the sidebar to differentiate between main areas in psychology:

1. We are having difficulty coming up with a division/categories for the sidebar which includes all the major areas of psychology. Should we use (a) "Basic science" / "Applied science", or (b) "Research" / "Applied"? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors are referred to Template talk:Psychology sidebar#Perspectives rather than "basic science"? above for previous discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It was sorted by research / applied areas for 2 years [3] by User:J. Ash Bowie in 2007. Before that there was just one list of areas and approaches diff Somewhere along the line humanistic and psychodynamic (2 of the 4 major forces in psychology) were dropped from the sidebar. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 06:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in this template:talk section. Humanistic psychology and psychodynamic psychology are avenues within clinical psychology. See the clinical psychology Wikipedia entry. You, like many others, have a genuine admiration for those two provinces of clinical psychology; however, they are no longer "major forces" within psychology. Both are represented in the clinical psychology entry, as they should be. Both have their own entries in Wikipedia, as they should be. I recommend not reconfiguring the sidebar to include humanistic psychology and psychodynamic psychology.

I also add this note about sorting through the old history of the sidebar. Wikipedia entries evolve over time, mostly in the direction of improvement. I believe that the sidebar has mostly improved. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than it was two years ago. YES.Iss246 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard any of my lecturers at my school of psychology use the distinction "basic science" or "applied science" in the way we are using it here. Furthermore, "basic science" and "applied science" is not in the latest APA dictionary of psychology. Surely that is evidence that it is not in use. I searched the literature often when "basic science" is used in social psychology, it is used in quotes. It just does not reflect the current state of affairs in psychology. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether your lecturers make that distinction depends very much on what sort of dept/school you study in, the research interests of your faculty and whether they even feel it necessary to bring the issue up in the first place. This issue is bigger than just psychology and indeed covers the whole of science. In my experience, Pure/Applied is a more common distinction than Basic/Applied or any of the other suggestions above. The Research/Applied distinction implies that Applied psychology doesn't involve research, which it undoubtedly does, or that Reseach psychology won't result in applications, which it often does. So it really does nobody any favours. As a counterpoint to 'applied', I would prefer 'pure' but I'll accept 'basic'. The term "basic science" is unlikely to crop up in a dictionary of psychology because it is defined as what it is not (rather like the term "atheist"!). What is "basic science"? It's science that does not have immediately obvious applications. And as an aside: I have worked in psychology for about a decade and never had any contact with anybody who gave two hoots about humanistic or psychodynamic perspectives. But that's just the circles I move in, I guess... Famousdog (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Famousdog, when you say Pure/Applied is more common, do you mean "Pure research" v. "Applied research" as definied in the APA dictionary of psych.? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 04:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I've just realised that that distinction only covers research and not practice (such as the practice of therapy, ergonomics, etc), so its not really suitable either. I think the best compromise is Basic science / Applied science. Famousdog (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AP, as I noted earlier, you are welcome to seek opinions from your professors, but the opinions that matter are the ones here. But following up on your own experiences, I have degrees from four different universities and have taught in two others, and in all of those I have heard frqequent use of "basic" and "applied" to make the distinctions we are discussing. I have heard other descriptors, but by far the most frequent have been "basic" and "applied". Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I agree that it does not matter what an individual or group of professors say. What matters is what is in the authoritative sources. That's why I looked up the APA dictionary of psychology, Penguin dictionary of psychology and Oxford dictionary of psychology. None of those dictionaries had entries for basic science in psychology. There were entries for "pure research", "basic research" and "applied research". On what basis are you making your claim that "basic science" and "applied science" is "the most frequent"? Have you seen this in a major text book? If so, which one? How do you explain that "basic science" when used in social psychology literature is often used in quotes? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 04:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a search for "basic science" and "basic research" on psycinfo. As I suspected, "basic science" (800 results) is less common than "basic research" (1500 results). Furthermore, basic science is associated with the basic medical sciences (see Medicine#Basic_sciences) rather than psychology. When the term "basic science" is used in psychology it is often contrasted with clinical practice (e.g. studying basic fear extinction mechanisms in rodents v. translating to human clinical therapies (e.g. exposure therapy). Compare these index term results:

• Basic research: Experimentation (400), Treatment (84), Psychology (76), Methodology (73). Scientific Communication (60)
• Basic science: Medical Education (107), Medical Students (86), Experimentation (80), Sciences (60), Drug Therapy (51)

The onus of proof is now on the editors who want to keep "basic science" on the sidebar. As I said before, show me a major text book, major psych. dictionary which clearly shows that basic science is used in psychology in the way you want to use it hear. The term is problematic because it has special meaning. I think we have to change it back research/applied. If you narrow the search a bit further and limit the search of "basic science" to "experimentation" you only find neurobiological research on animal models (rodent work, primate work). The clinical research would be the translation studies for human therapies. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Research/Applied categorization is that all the fields and many of the psychologists that would be designated under Applied do a considerable amount of research. In some cases those fields are more research-intensive than some of the "research" fields. For example, a search of PsycInfo using the keyword transpersonal turns up only 972 articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Many of the journals were actually in applied fields (e.g., Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Mental Health, Academic Psychiatry, European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, European Journal of Psychological Assessment). In contrast, a search of PsycInfo using the keyword educational psychology returns almost 45,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals. A quick glance suggests that most are empirical research, and that there are also high-ranking journals dedicated to theory and reviews (e.g., Educational Psychologist). They feature theoretical reviews that often deal with quite fundamental aspects of psychology. My conclusion is that the Research/Applied labels don't work for this template. I agree with the comment above that Non-applied/Applied would be more accurate, and would add that somewhat-less-applied/somewhat-more-applied is better and less-contextualized/more-contextualized is probably the most epistemologically correct. But none of those more accurate labels is suitable for the template, so I'm holding on to the Basic Science/Applied Science status quo. Basic/Applied would also be acceptable and possibly better. Nesbit (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Nesbit, and would add further that the terminology that shows up depends very much on how a search is done and where it is done. Searching dictionaries, searching databases, using various search methods with various terminology -- each will yield different results with different emphases. This decision ultimately comes down to educated opinions. That can be informed by literature searches in one form or another, but it still is ultimately an opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Point of order regarding AP's possible attempt to reframe the process by which Wikipedia works. This decision will be made by consensus. This is a legitimate difference of opinion. There is no policy issue here other than consensus. I don't mean to assume too much about your intentions, except the assumption of good faith is legitimately brought into question when an editor makes a disputed change without consensus, and AP already has one incident of changing the template without consensus. Your assertion that the "onus of proof" is on this person or that person does not change the fact that ultimately the decision here will be made according a core principle of Wikipedia: consensus. Discuss all you want. Challenge all you want. Declare onus of proof as you see fit. Just don't go against consensus. If that is not your intention, then we are on the right track and can proceed with this discussion. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes lean toward WP:BRD when the discussion seems to go around in circles. Normally consensus would be shifted in the face of the evidence (latest APA dictionary, psycinfo search, oxford dictionary of psychology). The term "basic science" has a special meaning which is not appropriate for the sidebar. I'd accept "Basic"/"Applied" but not completely satisfied with that. Perhaps something like "Pure/Fundamental research"/"Applied Research & Practice" is better. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We are in the "Discuss" phase of BRD. And, respectfully, but it's your opinion about what "normally" would shift consensus. Consensus is consensus, regardless of what an editor thinks is normal. Reverting against consensus is a policy violation. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." Wikipedia:STATUSQUO The status quo was "Research/Applied" as it existed for years before "Basic science/Applied science" was added a few weeks ago (as I pointed out earlier: diff). So one might consider your revert to be against policy. I was merely returning it to status quo and waiting for the evidence to be presented to the contrary. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus changed when editors up to that point agreed to make the change. I did not revert against consensus. You then attempted to seek another change in consensus (perfectly acceptable), but thus far there has been no change in the consensus that existed before you entered the discussion. Your attempts to refactor Wikipedia policies and procedures does not change them. Now, I do not wish to continue a debate over fundamental Wikipedia policy, so let's proceed with the relevant issue of this RfC. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with you over your frustration. I have felt such frustration in my own attempts to effect change in a Wikipedia entry. There was a shift in sentiment away from research/applied to basic/applied because research is conducted in both applied fields (e.g., I/O, clinical, educational psychology) and basic fields (e.g., abnormal, social, cognitive, neuroscience). I don't claim that the basic/applied dichotomy is perfect. But the basic/applied dichotomy more cogently covers the waterfront than the research/applied dichotomy.71.249.54.167 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Iss246 (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (I realized that I hadn't logged in, came back, and entered my ID. Sorry.)

It does not make sense to have one umbrella category called "research" and another called "applied" when research is part of both.71.249.54.167 (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Iss246 (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (I realized that I hadn't logged in, came back, and entered my ID.)

Christ. Shall we try to assertain consensus then? I vote for Basic science / Applied science Famousdog (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

With or without a vote, the consensus at this point is clear. One editor wants a change. Everyone else is satisfied the way it is now. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We really need more eyeballs. I have presented evidence to show that the term "basic science" is not commonly used in psychology. It is not in the APA dictionary of psychology and the psycinfo search of "basic science" primarily returned entries related to medicine and medical education. I'm yet to see convincing evidence to the contrary. I'm also considering proposing the "Basic science (psychology)" for deletion for the same reason. And also proposing to change List_of_basic_psychology_topics#Basic_science_.28psychology.29 back to "Research psychology" which is the commonly accepted term in the field. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More eyeballs? That's what an RfC is for. It has been up for almost two weeks. If no more eyeballs wander into this discussion, there is no other way to get more eyeballs, unless you were planning to get more eyeballs in unacceptable ways, such as canvassing. If I counted correctly, we have five opinions on this issue (this section and the one immediately above). For a page that isn't visited very often like this one, that's usually about the number of people who determine a consensus. Consensus is not determined by how long one editor can keep saying the same thing over and over. A consensus is usually determined in a week or two, sometimes more, but not often. An RfC expires after 30 days. There is no question what the consensus is as of right now. So unless some more eyeballs show up in the usual way, this consensus is an accomplished fact. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of ways we could get more eyeballs without canvassing. If the RfC is not satisfactory, we could put a neutral description of the current dispute on NPOV noticeboard. We could seek expert opinions from psychologists from various research areas. We can present more evidence from the literature. Straw polls are not reliable indicators of consensus. We need to adhere to other policies too: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AP, I think you need to calm down. I'm currently involved in an arbitration case where a certain user is highly likely to get banned for persistant single-topic disruption (including raising unecessary RfCs, inappropriate application of NPOV and RS, and canvassing), which is what you seem to be suggesting. This is clearly a topic that nobody else has any problem with, or at least the other editors here don't have a problem with. I don't have a copy of the APA dictionary on me but I'm sure that there are lots of terms that I use daily that don't appear there. Try "time dilation", "Bayesian modelling", "corticothalamocortical", "recurrent network" ... They are words/terms I use all the time and I suspect that they aren't all in there. If they are, I'm impressed and might buy a copy myself! Famousdog (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to buy it, just look it up all the psychology dictionaries at the university bookshop, search oxford reference online or psycinfo! heh. Hint: You might get different results in pubmed. I'm still calm but fail to see how can you say that "nobody else has a problem with" this topic. Nesbit and several other editors have acknowledged that "Basic science/Applied science" is problematic. Various editors have suggested that we keep the status quo until we find better umbrella terms. Someone even suggested that we just have one list. With regards to the WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies, these are particularly relevant because "Basic science/Applied science" seems to advance a certain position in psychology. Show me the evidence that Basic science/Applied science is commonly used in psychology in general (and not just medical education, neurobiological experiments). I'm still think that "Research Psychology/Applied Psychology" is more general and closer to NPOV. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's really misrepresenting what's been going on here. "Nesbit and several other editors" have been drawn into this discussion by your editing of the template and constant posting about this topic. Their opinion seems to be that Basic science / Applied science isn't perfect but its the least worst solution, assuming it really is necessary to make this distinction at all. I'm beginning to think it isn't. I've given you my thoughts and attempted some compromises, but frankly I think this has been blown out of all proportion and the best way forward is to eliminate the Basic-Pure-Natural-Fundamental-Research-Science / Applied-Research-Science distinction completely. Famousdog (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to take a back seat for a while. I'd accept one list but I'm just an undergraduate student. Some of the other editors here are qualified psychologists. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 12:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AP, for your wisdom of stepping back for a while. This consensus process needs to takes its course. Also, repectfully, there are no issues of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS here. No one here, including you, is arguing for anything outrageous that goes against any Wikipedia policy. This is simply an honest difference of opinion that needs to be worked out in the usual way of consensus. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Revisit an issue

I would like to revisit the issue of placing occupational health psychology on the sidebar template under applied psychology. What prompts me to revisit the issue is that I recently attended the Work, Stress, and Health conference sponsored by the American Psychological Association, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. You can see from the November 2009 program how comprehensive the subject matter is: http://www.apa.org/pi/work/wsh/2009/wsh-2009-program.pdf.

The program indicates that there is a great deal of OHP research devoted to work and stress, work-family balance, safety, workplace bullying and other forms of mistreatment, biomarkers of workplace stress, sexual harassment at work, methodology, workplace interventions to reduce stress, the impact of work life on sleep, work stress in the military, the problem of stress in other specific occupations, and so on.

I also note that the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology will be conducting a major conference in Rome at the end of March (see http://eaohp.org/conference.aspx). I would like enlist Ward3001 and Nesbit to visit the external sites, and reconsider their past positions, and support the idea of including occupational health psychology in the sidebar.Iss246 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To make an addition to this template you need to present comparative arguments showing that Occupational Health Psychology is more important than some other field(s) listed on the template. This is because, as a sidebar template, it must be of limited size to function effectively as a navigational tool. Without restricting the size of the sidebar it would become as large as Template:Psychology and lose its distinct functional value. Noting that there is a major conference dedicated to occupational health psychology is not by itself sufficient because there are international conferences in other sub-fields of psychology that are not listed in the sidebar. Nesbit (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I showed the link to the conference proceedings held in Puerto Rico in order to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of OHP. The conference was organized by APA and NIOSH. Those two organizations would not organize the conference if OHP was not of major interest. I add that there is growing interest in OHP in Latin America. There was a contingent of Latin American contributors to the conference. I also underline the convergence of developments in the Western Hemisphere with developments in Europe by pointing out the parallel conference that is upcoming in Rome at the end of March. Also note that the ICOH-WOPS (International Commission on Occupational Health, Work Organization and Psychosocial Factors) conference ran in Quebec in September 2008. Here is a link to an overview of that conference: http://www.icoh-wops2008.com/program.html. ICOH-WOPS is a large international conference devoted to psychosocial aspects of work and health. The next ICOH-WOPS conference will be in Amsterdam in June 2010. The field of OHP is burgeoning.

I remain convinced that OHP is more important than sports psychology because topics such as work (and unemployment) and stress, workplace violence and incivility, and work-home carryover are of great importance to most of us. I am not, however, inclined to argue for removing sports psychology from the template. Sports and recreation have a role to play in our lives; so does work. I note that Wikipedia contributor Jcbutler removed transpersonal psychology from the template. Although I think that OHP is more important than transpersonal psychology, I would also not be inclined to remove it. In many ways I am as conservative as you with regard to altering the template. Iss246 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could frame a proposal to add OHP as a replacement for Transpersonal. You might try to develop more objective evidence for the relative importance of OHP. I think OHP gets way more hits than Transpersonal on google web, google books, and google scholar. That is far more convincing to me than conference announcements. What other verifiable metrics are there? Finally, can you do something to address the objection that OHP is a branch of industrial and organizational psychology, which is already listed. For example, any published statements that the area is splitting into two fields, OHP and organizational psychology? Nesbit (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I propose that we include occupational health psychology in the psychology sidebar template.

I give my reasons. I begin, however, by saying that I was not in favor of removing transpersonal psychology from the template. I'm not expert in transpersonal psychology so I admit my searches may have limitations. I did perform a couple of searches, one on Psycinfo and one on Google. In the Psycinfo search, I looked for hits on (job or occupational) and stress, which is the centerpiece of a great deal of OHP research although I am leaving out topics like workplace violence and incivility, work-home carryover and balance, psychological aspects of safety, recovery from work, unemployment stress, etc. I got a little more than 17,000 hits. A Psycinfo search on transpersonal psychology yielded about 1300 hits.

I continued searching on Google. I searched on occupational stress OR job stress OR work stress and got 2,700,000 hits. A Google search on transpersonal psychology yielded about 22,000 hits.

I turn to the concern voiced by Nesbit that OHP is a branch of industrial/organizational psychology. OHP emerged out of three disciplines, industrial/organizational psychology, health psychology, and occupational health. People who identify themselves with the field obtained doctorates in I/O, health psychology, occupational medicine, occupational nursing, and other fields. The next editor of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology obtained a doctorate in experimental psychology, and was a research scientist at NIOSH for most of his career. Other OHP researchers at NIOSH have come from experimental psychology. I add that I identify myself professionally with OHP, and I did not train in I/O. For the record, I trained in developmental psychology and then did a post-doc in epidemiology, having gotten interested in antisocial conduct in children, and then the impact of that conduct on the health and well-being of teachers; then my interest in OHP simply grew. OHP is a boundary breaker and an emergent field.

I add that APA sees an important role for OHP, and has since 1990 helped to underwrite OHP-related conferences and an OHP journal. To my knowledge APA has not underwritten conferences or journals in either transpersonal psychology or sports psychology. I think the actions of APA speak to the importance of OHP in psychology in general.

Finally, considering the centrality of work to the health and well-being of populations, I think OHP deserves a place on the template. Iss246 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like progress. But I noticed that the WP article on I/O psychology identifies OHP as a a topic within I/O psych. Although the description of OHP in that article identifies it as a new discipline, the structural placement of OHP as a topic in I/O seems to contradict that view. Would it be a good idea to move the section on OHP in that article under a separate heading called "Relationship to occupational health psychology"?

My support for your proposal is very much contingent on comparisons between OHP and other disciplines of psychology (e.g., transpersonal, sports). As I explained previously, such comparisons seem inevitable when deciding which disciplines are represented in the small space available in the sidebar template.Nesbit (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nesbit, I wrote the paragraph on OHP within the I/O entry. I also wrote a parallel paragraph on OHP within the health psychology entry. Actually I wrote the paragraph in the health psychology entry first. I wrote both paragraphs because I thought OHP could be of interest to readers of those two entries. The only thing I didn't do was write a paragraph on OHP inside the occupational health Wikipedia entry. I didn't write such a paragraph there because I was not happy with the occupational health entry. I, however, included a link to OHP at the bottom of the occupational health page. Occupational health, I/O, and health psychology are the fields out of which OHP emerged.Iss246 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd guessed that you wrote it. But the point is that the placement suggests OHP is a "topic" within I/O Psychology which contradicts your argument here that OHP is discipline in its own right and thus deserving a place in the sidebar. Perhaps you should align these bits by pulling the OHP section within I/O psychology out into a top-level heading in that article so that OHP and I/OP are presented more clearly as separate and equal disciplines within psychology.Nesbit (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. I also wrote paragraphs for the psychology and applied psychology entries; however, I will leave these. I'm a little pressed for time. Sick relative. Final exams. I will get to it. I promise.Iss246 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nesbit, you have been very helpful. I dashed off changes in the industrial and organizational psychology and health psychology Wikipedia entries regarding the matter of getting better separation of those fields from OHP. I tried to follow your advice above. Perhaps you could review my edits. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited the I-O psychology section to further clarify that OHP is a separate discipline and not a subfield. I'm relying on your judgment that this is correct. It's a key point because there's not enough room in the sidebar for fields and their subfields. Nesbit (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of Recent Changes by Osubuckeyeguy (talk)

For an explanation of recent changes and a discussion with Iss246 please see (talk) and weigh in before reverting any changes.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Psychology:Sidebar

We had the debate about the psychology sidebar. OHP is not subsumed neatly under health psychology. It is autonomous field that developed out of at least three separate fields, I/O psychology, health psychology, and occupational health. It has become an autonomous field with its own conferences, journals, organizations, and books.Iss246 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We had extensive discussions, and the consensus was clearly in favor of NOT adding it to the small sidebar, yet Iss246 added it anyway. -DoctorW 05:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A consensus did develop regarding OHP. In my view, DoctorW was excessive in giving the template a haircut.Iss246 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Pastoral psychology to Applications?

Does anyone have thoughts pro/con about adding "Pastoral" to the "Applications" part of the template? This could be linked to Psychology of religion, which has a section on Psychology of religion#Pastoral_psychology that notes several relevant journals. More broadly, given the increased interest in Psychology of religion/spirituality -- for example, APA will soon be publishing an official 2-volume APA Handbook on the topic -- as well as the high importance of religion in the vast majority of US adults' lives -- it would make sense to have Psychology of religion linked somehow in the template. But I'm not sure I'd call PofR a "basic" science. So linking via the one word "Pastoral" in the applications section seems the most obvious way to proceed. Any comments? Health Researcher (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Health Researcher, if you would take the time to read the Talk page above, you would see that you are clearly violating consensus by repeatedly adding this item. Please make your case here. I can tell you already, however, that it is very unlikely to work, because Pastoral psychology (which does not even have its own article - see Psychology of religion#Pastoral_psychology) is clearly not a major area in psychology; rather it is a minor subdivision of the Psychology of religion, which does not warrant a place on the sidebar (it is not a major area either). If you can convince a lot of psychologists to start studying religion far more than they are now, you might have a better argument (for Psychology of religion).

You would have a vastly better chance of arguing that Forensic psychology should be removed (keeping in mind the discussion above which included the idea that Legal psychology is in some sense represented under the heading Forensic psychology.) -DoctorW 06:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DoctorW, thank you for engaging in the talk page, and for finally walking your own talk about reading the talk page. Please note that the Psychology of Religion / Pastoral Psychology link had been on the sidebar for more than 5 months, which implies that consensus implicitly SUPPORTED its inclusion. Please stop demonstrating ownership attitudes towards this sidebar. I am restoring the 5-month-old implicit consensus after your bold deletion. Given your bold deletion of the status quo, and my reversion, we should (obviously) engage in a WP:BRD (bold-revert-discuss) cycle. There is no need for you to be in such a tearing hurry after neither you nor anyone else had a problem with the PoR addition for more than 5 months. Cool off. I would not advise you to immediately revert my edit again, since then, even if I forbear, anyone else among the 32 watchers of this page might feel inclined to report you for exceeding WP:3RR. Please take the high road and discuss, before rushing to impose your will. Your arguments have some weight to them (as do mine), and it is not unlikely that your position will prevail. But at this point, you are obliged to discuss. I will say more shortly. Health Researcher (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, on to the substance. Alas I only have a couple of minutes at the moment, so I will not be able to say all I want to say. But let me start: 1) I agree with your point that Pastoral is a sub-area of Psych of Religion. The real issue for me, as implied in last September's posting, is whether PofR should be listed in SOME way on the sidebar. There are many pros and at least 1 or 2 cons, and I want to make sure it gets a fair shake relative to the other areas, and is not subject to whims and biases. An initial inspection of your previous posts suggests that you yourself earlier suggested a criterion of 5000 Google Scholar hits (DIFF):

Google Scholar results are probably a bit better. If we use them (perhaps as one of several criteria?) we would have to make an allowance for the fact that in some cases adding the word "psychology" to the phrase will be necessary (e.g., "Evolutionary psychology"). Taking a stab at this, it looks like requiring about 10,000 Google Scholar results for a phrase that does not need to have "psychology" added, or about 5,000 results if "psychology" does need to be added. What do people think? What other objective criteria might we use? Having a division of APA? If there are a number of good, objective criteria, editors could argue for inclusion even if all criteria weren't met, but rather on the basis of being very strong on the others. Comments? --DoctorW 18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Psychology of Religion meets and greatly exceeds this criterion (16,300 hits in Google Scholar). Sorry, I'm out of time for now. Hopefully I can say more in a few hours. Health Researcher (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

...continuing [about 24 hours later...thanks for your patience...]: Besides the Google Scholar hit count, here are a few other potentially relevant considerations, some of which I'm reiterating or expanding from my Sep 20 remarks (above):

• Psychology of Religion has its own APA division (Div 36)
• Other professional associations exist, such as the International Association for the Psychology of Religion, the American Association of Pastoral Psychologists, and the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (not to mention interdisciplinary social science organizations, such as the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion).
• APA will soon be publishing an official 2-volume APA Handbook on the topic (editor-in-chief: Ken Pargament) which has been conceptualized to include more than 75 chapters (41 in v1, 37 in v2 according to a preliminary chapter list sent to me as an invited chapter author). Original timeline (perhaps still valid) had due-date of Aug 2011 for final versions of chapters.
• APA publishes a journal on the topic, Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (ISSN 1941-1022), now in its 3rd volume.
• There are several other relevant journals that have been publishing for a decade or often much longer, including International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Archive for the Psychology of Religion (ISSN 0084-6724), Pastoral Psychology (0031-2789), Journal of Psychology & Theology (ISSN 0091-6471), Journal of Psychology & Christianity (0733-4273), and (psych+other social sci:) Mental Health, Religion & Culture, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Review of Religious Research (ISSN 0034-673X)
• Psychology of Religion was of considerable interest to founders of modern psychology such as William James and G. Stanley Hall. Even Sigmund Freud, though several of his ideas have not stood the test of time, was quite interested in religion, and published multiple books on psychology of religion
• At variance with the overall pattern of strength, comparatively few graduate programs specialize in competencies related to Psychology of Religion, although such programs exist, and include Loyola University of Maryland, Pastoral Counseling. For a US national overview see HERE

OK, where does this leave us? It seems that PoR clearly meets the Google Scholar criteria proposed in Sep 2008 by DoctorW, and has many other indicators of a strong existing and indeed basic field. PofR is not a hybrid of other fields (unlike, perhaps, Occupational Health Psychology), nor can it be subsumed within any other field; PoR studies phenomena that are historically pervasive and cross-culturally close to universal (though not universal in their paradigmatic form to every individual); and PofR studies a phenomenon that is identified as very important in life by many individuals (e.g., a majority of individuals in the US).

After enumerating this profile, I think PofR has a strong case for inclusion on any short list. But what criteria should guide the sidebar? I am inclined to think that some variant of the objective-but-flexible approach suggested in Sep 2008 by DoctorW would be appropriate. That is, multiple criteria are considered, but uniform strength on all criteria is not an absolute requirement. I also like OSUBuckeyeGuy's reasoning that "areas... not neatly subsumed by others" merit extra consideration for inclusion, which would be more necessary for helping WP readers to find quickly to what they are seeking. I also agree with others' statements that it would be better to link to this topic as "Psychology of Religion" than as "Pastoral Psychology". Now what? -- Health Researcher (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Only now did I notice that Osubuckeyeguy had inserted Psychology of Religion on the template 6 minutes before I reinserted Pastoral to get the BRD process back on track. I'm now inclined to self-revert, leaving only Psychology of Religion on the sidebar. I will do so in about a day, or maybe sooner, unless someone objects. My concern is only to have PoR linked somehow. -- Health Researcher (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Icon

What's the point of this icon? Decoration? Gnevin (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin, if (as per your recent change-log assertions) the "psi" symbol is not a recognized icon for psychology, then why does the homepage of the American Psychological Association display (a somewhat stylized version of) the symbol immediately to the the left of the name of the Association, in the extreme top-left corner of the page? See here: http://www.apa.org/index.aspx -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No I never said it's not recognized. I said it's pointless decoration Gnevin (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently others, including the American Psychological Association, think otherwise. Health Researcher (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are other Psychological Associations which used different logo. One association isn't more important than the others

Cerebral lobes

--86.184.158.203 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Encyclopaedic purpose Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing layout cues outside of article prose. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration. Gnevin (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin. The purpose of the Psi symbol is not mere decoration. The symbol (which is recognized in the field of psychology as a valid symbol) serves the purpose of quickly identifying all Wikipedia psychology pages. However if people are unsatisfied with the Psi symbol I've located an image of a brain as a possible replacement image. The image of the brain (cerebral lobes) has clear relevance to psychology. I have tested this image in the sandbox and 80px seems to be the best size. File:Cerebral lobes.png|Cerebral lobes

Cell padding

Not to get into any shaming language, but this sidebar is far too needlessly fat, collapses over important page aspects like section edit buttons, and desperately needs its sides reined in.

I myself don't have the mad {{sidebar}} chops necessary to effect such an improvement, but surely one of you guys can manage. — LlywelynII 13:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

so you would like it to be more narrow? how wide should it be? right now it is using the default width set by {{sidebar}}, as far as I can tell, which is 22em. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I added "width:auto" here, which will work so long as we actively maintain the number of links per line. feel free to complain if you still think it should be more narrow, or if there are problems with setting the width to auto. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

ISS246 versus consensus (again)

It is very clear that iss246 never had consensus from any other editors to include Occ health psych into the psychology sidebar. But he instead went against consensus and did it anyway. Iss246 says recently when questioned about this."Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago."

No iss246, it was not settled, with all due respect. You saying it had been settled is completely false and needs to be formally noted as being false. The Wikipedia Community should not be misled. According to the talk page comments on the Psychology Sidebar and applied psych sidebar, at least 5 editors over a 4 year period now, completely disagreed with you. That is, there was 'no consensus' to include. As one of these editors,DoctorW stated above in 2011, you just went ahead and did it anyway.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ISS246, I am much more concerned about you blatantly going against consensus in the applied psychology section of the psychology sidebar from 2009 until the present.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC) You have noted above that consensus was reached. Please show the community exactly where, with whom, how consensus was met. That is contrary to editor's opinions I have read?(talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This was despite at least 5 or 6 other editors over many years, it now seems, strongly disagreeing with you and presenting sound evidence and logic behind their well based and accurtate opinions. Iss246 instead went straight ahead anyway and blatantly against clear consensus not to. Your re-entry in the OHP psychology sidebar, was made against all other editors (I refer any other readers to the Talk Page for Psychology and the Psychology Sidebar) Please post your answer to that.

Wikipedia is not about people going against the consensus? Show please, with all due respect ISS246, where others agreed with you, as a group consensus that you should include occupational health psychology, into to the psychology sidebar?

Please ISS246, instead of undoing mine and other editor's valid and unique additions, please discuss first... offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically. Please could you explain why the Psychology Sidebar should have an OHP entry in the Applied Psychology section? based solely on the clear, long term consensus of all other editors? If there is clear consensus, the entry should not be in there. You have been arguing with them for 4 years. They all believed OHP should not be in the sidebar. These are the facts.

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged please, to view the history over 4 years between ISS246 and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly as mentioned, on the psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else.

This critical issue of deciding on the possible deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles. Hi Iss246. Can you answer to this important issue only please? Any other issues aside please, while we look at facts and the facts on the WQikipideia project rules and guiding principles please.

It is very clear that all other editors for a long time, 4 years in fact, well before I became a member, clearly and strongly objected to you placing ocuupational health psychology on this psychology page under applied psychology? You went against all others and the overwhelming consensus. You are now avoidin g what you did. Clearly the entry needs to be deleted from the important psychology and applied psychology sidebar.

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged, please, to view the history over 4 years between you and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly on the Psychology and Applied Psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else. You just went ahead and forcefully added it in anyway.

Then when it was deleted by other editors, between 2009 and until today (rightly so, if against all of their wishes), you undid the deletion and so it goes on....and seems to have gone on for years and years, this pattern.

This critical issue of deciding on the deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that I do not wish to personally engage in edit war with you ISS246 or any other editor, but I am open for discussion and logic and fairness on this important issue. Please stop also your personal attacks toward me iss246, and focus on the issue of possible and deletion of the occupational health psychology entry from the Psychology sidebar and Applied Psychology section within it based on clear consensus within the community.

I have not altered this page (yet) before others can be brought back in here. Covering up the facts that there was n o consensus, does not change anything. You needed consensus to included OHP in the psychology sidebar. This is clearly the main issue here. It has never been resolved. You cannot just jam OHP into the psychology because you want to against all others. If there is consensus direc t me and other editors/administrators to the szections where other editors agreed with you doing it. I cannot find consensus for your actions anywhere. Genuinely please show me where. If you cannot OHP needs to be deleting UNTIL we can get consensensus.

Just as added bit of informnation. As an important factor here is the objective reality that there is not even one single Doctoral program anywhere in the world dedicated and titled to occupational health psychology. That is, there is no Doctorate anywhere on the planet in occ health psychology!? Please Iss246, correct me if I am wrong. Mrm7171 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

CONSENSUS NEEDED. Require independent arbitration to look at 4 years of editor's consensus being overriden by ISS246.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Hi again. Sorry itszippy to again have to make this clear concise point. It is a very important one and has nothing to do with my opinion about OHP subfield or whatever./

Wikipedia is for everyone. When many editors strongly disagree with someone, it is a consensus. ISS246 went against that consensus in the psychology sidebar inclusion of occ health psychology based on many discussions in the talk page.

The psychology sidebar is very important in psychology as ISS246 knows. Having occupational health psychology listed is 'erroneous' based on induistry standards, but more importantly here, all other editor's including now mine. Iss2465 will not answer to what he did by going against consensus. Instead he brings in irrelevant facts about a couple of societies etc. That is not the point. The point is consensus.

We need formal help/intervention here from Wikipedia for someone independent to carefully review the history of the posychology sidebar talk page and other postings and they will clearly see what ISS246 appearfs to be covering up, over 4 or 5 years and make a decision based on consensus of all interested editors with training in psychology it seems. How can we get this done please? Your time is very much appreciatedMrm7171 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Basic science types of psychology not visible

I can no longer see the basic science subfields of psychology when I view the sidebar on a psychology page. I can only see the applied fields. Can someone restore the basic fields. I am uncertain that I can complete the restoration without a lot of fumbling. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

First time in 3 years I've been thanked for an action taken while under vandalism partol. I'm not sure it was vandalism, but it did remove a lot of pertinent content. Just a simple version comparison and "undo" did the trick, I'm not gifted at templates either! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You deserve the thanks. I know the "undo" routine, but when I looked at the changes, they appeared as if there was a series of changes involved in the deletions, and a simple "undo" would not be enough to restore the template. I must have been over-processing the changes in my own mind. Thanks. The template would have been half as relevant without the restoration.Iss246 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ISS246 asked to validate his statement about consensus

Where is this consensus please ISS246? Show me where please? with all due respect?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I enumerated criteria but you ignored those criteria in the above comment. Someone else may share the feelings you have about OHP except that he or she may direct against political psychology or the psychology of religion. We don't have to delete those subfields. We can use our judgment about whether they are subfields of psychology. We can have criteria to help us judge.Iss246 (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been no discussions regarding any other area, only you against all other editor's consensus with occupational health psych? over 4 long years?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Again, please show me the consensus. Identify it please. It is important ISS246Mrm7171 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not touched your inclusion, against all consensus, for occupational health psychology not to be included in the psychology sidebar, where there is limited room. Out of respect for you as a fellow Wkipedian, and respect for protocols on Wikipedia, (which new editors like myself gradually learn), I again read in detail, 'all' of the other editors posts, strongly advising you against including occ health psych.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think in the end, they simply 'gave up' quitre frankly ISS246, as you doggedly re-included the entry into the sidebar, every time someone rightfully deleted it, based on consensus. The fact that it still stands today, shows no real validity for inclusion, but I am afraid instead ISS246's sheer determination to include it, with no regard for the consensus. This is a community site ISS246, not your personal website, where you have freedom to express very singular points of view. If there is long term group consensus, especially on important entries in various professions for example, you should not use Wikipedia as a battlefield. The fact that someone new, that is me; is again standinmg up to you, over this entry, adds further weight to the deletion of the OHP entry from the (applied) psychology sidebar?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So again, please show exactly where you had the consensus that was reached in the end, as you say". Identify it please. This is an important public resource ISS246 and I am going to continue to politely ask you this same question and raise the same matter until it is resolved through the proper means. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A comment on OHP from a distinguished academic colleague. He said it very well. I quote this colleague who is a leader in I/O psychology and a professor at a leading I/O program. He wrote that "there are lots of people in [OHP] who are not from I/O backgrounds, and many of the papers in OHP journals are not by people in I/O, and often they aren't even psychologists [e.g., epidemiologists, medical doctors, sociologists]. To be an I/O psychologist, you have to be an I/O psychologist, or retool to get I/O expertise, which means you become an I/O. To be an OH psychologist, you can be almost any kind of psychologist. You don't have to be an I/O at all." Because people doing work in OHP come from many areas of psychology outside of I/O, myself included, I believe it is important to leave the sidebar in tact. OHP is not a subfield of I/O psychology.Iss246 (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Additions to the sidebar

If anyone were to take the time to read all the discussion above and in the archive, that person would see that there is a consensus for brevity in the sidebar, a reluctance to add items, and that constant vigilance is necessary to prevent people from adding fields or sub-fields that are not major categories in psychology, especially people's own pet items.

I'm confident that the others who've contributed the most to the effort of creating and maintaining this sidebar over the years (who also happen to be well-qualified to say something about psychology, in contrast to the typical drive-by editor) would agree that it is simply not appropriate to add an item to the list without substantive discussion here first, even if that discussion doesn't take place immediately.

Please propose items here first and be patient. -DoctorW 06:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be careful not to hastily divide editors into those who are qualified and those who are "drive-by." I added many of the items to the list that you seem to find problematic and I have a PhD in social psychology from a respected institution. I assume you that the additions were made with great consideration. I agree that the inclusion of OHP seems unnecessary, but I've already had this debate with this editor and decided to move on. I am ambivalent about the inclusion of pastoral psychology - my preference would be to include the psychology of religion instead since this area is broader and actually has its own page. Whether the sidebar links to Legal or Forensic doesn't much matter to me, but Law seems more inclusive. Consumer and political are major sub-areas with degree specializations awarded for each. Cultural and comparative are not as big as cognitive or social, I agree, but these areas are not neatly subsumed by others and so seem to warrant inclusion. I invite you to discuss this further. I would agree with some of the other editors, though, who have argued that lack of edit-warring for many months would seem to suggest that consensus has been reached, even if the discussion did not take place on the talk page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Osubuckeyeguy's approach as exhibiting desirable common sense and balance. As he says, including "areas are not neatly subsumed by others" seems a desirable consideration to have in the mix. I think OHP has two strikes against it because it seems a hybrid of health and industrial/organizational, through which it could be located without too much difficulty by interested readers. The main mitigating factor would seem to be that there is indeed a large interest and literature in OHP. But of how many other "hybrid" areas can this be said? If it can be demonstrated that OHP has exceptionally large interest compared to almost all other hybrid areas, then perhaps such exceptional largeness could be introduced as another criterion in the mix. But lacking mitigating criteria, it seems that hybrid areas should be omitted from the shortlist, and readers will still be able to locate them without too much difficulty, by going first to their constituent areas. -- Health Researcher (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment on why OHP should continue to belong on the sidebar. Fields of psychology emerge out of other fields. Industrial organizational psychology emerged out of social psychology and took a great deal from psychometric psychology. Health psychology emerged out of clinical psychology. OHP emerged out I/O and occupational medicine/industrial hygiene. When fields emerge out of other fields they take on some independence and, like all fields within psychology, show some interdependence. That one field emerged from other fields does not nullify the idea that the emergent field belongs on the sidebar; otherwise we would remove I/O psychology and health psychology. Criteria for determining the emergence of a field and its place on the sidebar include, but are not limited to, (a) recognition by major psychology-related organizations such as APA, (b) the development of organizations dedicated specifically to the emergent field, (c) the creation of journals for the emergent field, (d) the running of conferences devoted to the field and (e) the presence of a large research literature (mentioned by Health Researcher above) and a vibrant research community. OHP meets these criteria.

(a) APA has played a very important role together with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the emergence of OHP. Those two organizations continue to play a major role in OHP.

(b) At least three OHP-specific organizations sustain the discipline, EA-OHP, SOHP, and ICOH-WOPS.

(c) Journals such as Work & Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology play important roles in advancing the field. APA publishes JOHP; the journal is also associated with SOHP. OHP research also appears in other journals including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Social Science & Medicine, the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, the American Journal of Public Health, &c.

(d) APA, NIOSH, and SOHP run a large OHP-related conference biennially. EA-OHP runs another large OHP-related conference biennially. These two conferences are coordinated by their sponsoring organizations such that they now run on alternate years. ICOH-WOPS runs a major OHP-related conference every two to three years. OHP research appears at the annual meetings of APA and APS (I have presented OHP research at APS).

(e) As mentioned by Health Researcher, there is a large and growing body of research literature in OHP. There is also a large and growing corps of researchers dedicated to OHP. I count myself among them.Iss246 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We had the debate about the psychology sidebar. OHP is not subsumed neatly under health psychology. It is autonomous field that developed out of at least three separate fields, I/O psychology, health psychology, and occupational health. It has become an autonomous field with its own conferences, journals, organizations, and books.Iss246 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We had extensive discussions, and the consensus was clearly in favor of NOT adding it to the small sidebar, yet Iss246 added it anyway. -DoctorW 05:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A consensus did develop regarding OHP. In my view, DoctorW was excessive in giving the template a haircut.Iss246 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you doctorW and others, it is very clear that iss246 never had consensus from any other editors to include Occ health psych into the psychology sidebar. But he instead went against consensus and did it anyway.

Iss says recently when questioned him..."Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago."

No iss246, it was not settled, with all due respect. You saying it had been settled is completely false and needs to be formally noted as being false. The Wikipedia Community should not be duped by you. According to the talk page comments on the Psychology Sidebar and applied psych sidebar, at least 5 editors over a 4 year period now, completely disagreed with you. That is, 'no consensus' to include. As one of these editors,DoctorW stated above in 2011, you just went ahead and did it anyway.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not altered this page (yet) before others can be brought back in here. Covering up the facts that there was n o consensus, doesw not change anything. You needed consensus to included OHP in the psychology sidebar. This is clearly the main issue here. It has never been resolved. You cannot just jam OHP into the psychology because you want to against all others. If there is consensus direc t me and other editors/administrators to the szections where other editors agreed with you doing it. I cannot find consensus for your actions anywhere. Genuinely please show me where. If you cannot OHP needs to be deleting UNTIL we can get consensensus. It has not been deleted. And i wont delete it until others can see the facts first. This is so I cannot be falsely accused again of edit warring. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I invite iss246 to make any comments here as part of the process to formally review you placing occ health psychology into the sidebar without any consensus. In fact,against consensus opinion from all other editors. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This stuff about proving whether or not there was a consensus for this in the past is irrelevant. First, if it persisted in the template for all those years, then it is presumed to have consensus no matter what any discussion says (see WP:SILENCE for more details). Secondly, even if the addition had been fully discussed and unanimously supported (or opposed) by thousands of people back then, WP:Consensus can change. The goal is not to find out what people wanted to do in 2008. The goal is to find out what most people want to do today.

To help you make that decision, you might need to read a bit about WP:NAVBOXES and other WP:Navigation issues. The most relevant point is that we don't put something into a navbox (or category, or navigation list) to define that the thing belongs there, but instead because we believe that a person interested in the overall subject might be interested in reading that article, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

CONSENSUS

CONSENSUS NEEDED. Require independent arbitration to look at 4 years of editors consensus being overriden by ISS246.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Hi again. Sorry itszippy to again have to make this clear concise point. It is a very important one and has nothing to do with my opinion about OHP subfield or whatever./

Wikipedia is for everyone. When many editors strongly disagree with someone, it is a consensus. ISS246 went against that consensus in the psychology sidebar inclusion of occ health psychology based on many discussions in the talk page.

The psychology sidebar is very important in psychology as ISS246 knows. Having occupational health psychology listed is 'erroneous' based on induistry standards, but more importantly here, all other editor's including now mine. Iss2465 will not answer to what he did by going against consensus. Instead he brings in irrelevant facts about a couple of societies etc. That is not the point. The point is consensus.

We need formal help/intervention here from Wikipedia for someone independent to carefully review the history of the posychology sidebar talk page and other postings and they will clearly see what ISS246 appearfs to be covering up, over 4 or 5 years and make a decision based on consensus of all interested editors with training in psychology it seems. How can we get this done please? Your time is very much appreciatedMrm7171 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you don't. You just need to find out what today's consensus is, and go with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Music psychology

I would like to submit Music psychology for consideration in the "Applied" section of the sidebar. As you can see from the page it is a field similar in scope and application to sport psychology and independent from the currently listed areas. The page is very much an active work-in-progress (a brief history and further research areas coming next), but I'm submitting it now to give you time to deliberate and as I think its inclusion would bring more people to aid in populating the main page and bringing together information from its various subfields (e.g. Music cognition, Cognitive neuroscience of music, Cognitive musicology, Psychoacoustics, etc.). Interested to hear your thoughts, and for help in editing the page from those who have the time! geordie (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Behavioral Genetics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, an administrator editor suggested that I use the suggestion page to propose that we include Behavioral Genetics in the psychology sidebar. I think that the psychology page in general will benefit from having more information about genes and environment, how they influence behavior, and how to study them. Behavioral genetics is not a new subfield in psychology, has been responsible for a sea change in how we think about the causes of behavior and psychiatric disorder, and should be included among the subfields. Undergraduate courses and graduate programs in behavioral genetics exist in psychology departments within universities, and there are several learned societies devoted to behavioral genetics including the Behavioral Genetics Association and the International Society on Psychiatric Genetics. Including Behavioral Genetics as a subfield in the psychology sidebar is one good way to include the history and ideas of behavioral genetics within psychology. Vrie0006 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Do I take a lack of negative response constitutes consensus that behavioral genetics should be added? Vrie0006 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No, please don't do that. Please read my message to you at User talk:Sundayclose#psychology edits and follow that procedure. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vrie0006: By the way, Behavior genetics is included in the Template:Psychology which is at the bottom of every major page related to psychology. As a collapsible template, it can include far more links to related articles than a sidebar, which is supposed to be very brief. I noticed that Behavior genetics is included in the template under "Methodologies". Since you're interested in that area of psychology, you might have an opinion about whether it should be moved to a different section. If you do, I don't have a problem if you go ahead and move it. If someone objects, it can be discussed. Sundayclose (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that behavior genetics should be included in the Psychology page. In addition to the points made above, research on genetic and environmental influences on behavior is published in every major psychology journal and many more general science journals, and is included as a key level of analysis by NIMH.Nf003 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

support: It also seems obvious to me that behavioral genetics should be included as a sub discipline of psychology. Take a look at any major journal in psychology today (Psychological Science, JPSP, Brain and Behavioral Sciences, etc) and you are sure to find articles on genetics of behavior or those using behavioral genetic methods to get at key questions. It has a large and active association (Behavioral Genetics Association), a yearly conference, multiple journals devoted to publishing work in the area (e.g., Behavioral Genetics, Twin Research and Human Genetics), and its own study section at the NIH (Behavioral Genetics and Epidemiology Study Section [BGES]). Frankly, it surprises me that BG isn't already on the sidebar - it certainly has a bigger footprint in psychology than, say, positive psychology. --Mckeller7 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

support: Importantly, like existing items Evolutionary, Experimental, Quantitative, etc., Behavioral Genetics is a broad, distinctive approach to psychology, linking it to other disciplines, and informing multiple topics within psychology. Tim bates (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Inserting request for comment: should Behavioral Genetics be included in the psychology sidebar? Vrie0006 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I mentioned this sidebar issue with Mckeller7 and Nf003, both of whom happen to be psychologists, in communication outside of wikipedia. I suggested that if they had such strong opinions they make their opinions known. Vrie0006 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I do not see why exactly it should not be included in the sidebar. The article itself is included in Wikiproject Psychology although not all articles in Wikiproject Psychology's spectrum should be included in the sidebar, this page is definitely one that should be. Davidbuddy9 Talk  18:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree/Comment Why do we specifically need "Behavioral Genetics" in the Psychology sidebar? How does this not fall under the basic "Biological" category that is already there? It seems to me that behavioral genetics is a subsection of Behavioral neuroscience. --Iamozy (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Great point. Hope to hear comments from others. My initial reaction is that there is a lot to BG research that is not within the domain of behavioral neuroscience, and vice versa. Much of BG work, especially in humans, is quantitative genetics, statistical genetics, and quasi-experimental research in humans, where genetic relatedness is used to control for genetic effects, allowing one to parse out what things are environmentally mediated influences and what are genetic influences (e.g., see | this article by Michael Rutter). Some of this is already described on the page behavioral genetics itself. I don't think a behavioral neuroscientist would consider these kinds of research questions or approaches to fall within the domain behavioral neuroscience, although other aspects of behavioral genetics certainly would, as you point out.Vrie0006 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd have thought school psychology would be a sub-field of industrial and organizational psychology, but they apparently have some positive symmetric difference, and both are currently in the sidebar. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Support and comment: What's the top journal in this field? Is it Behavior_Genetics_(journal), with an impact factor of 2.5? I suspect a hint of POV here: like maybe OP and a few others are fans/practitioners of this subfield and want to make sure it is easy to find. On the other hand, space is fairly cheap, the sidebar is not currently overcluttered IMO, and I can't see any that way adding this subfield to the sidebar template would hurt. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Oh and P.S. to the redlink new users who happen to be psychologists - your input is of course welcome but be wary that none of us necessarily care about or trust your credentials, and when you say things like "included as a key level of analysis by NIMH", or "it certainly has a bigger footprint in psychology than, say, positive psychology" you should give us a reference to support the claim. We scientists get to use our names and credentials subject authority in real life, but we shouldn't on WP. Also, we are trained to give proper citation s for our claims so we should set the example positively when we can :)

• Comment Storm in teacup. If someone wants it there and it does not spoil the layout, who cares? I don't think it's necessary, but wouldn't bother to argue if anyone feels deprived or lost. JonRichfield (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support. I know little about the field, but it seems to me that behavioral genetics is relevant to psychology. However I would like to dissent from the view above: we should be considering how best to help readers, and not be concerned about the feelings of editors. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support. Brought here by WP:FRS. Appears to be a genuine subfield of psychology; given that, it probably belongs in the sidebar. (The "weak" qualification is because my knowledge of psychology is limited, so cannot feel confidence in judging its weight–someone with better knowledge of this than me might make the argument that it isn't significant enough to be called out individually in the sidebar, and such an argument if made might be correct–but I lack the comptence to judge whether that is so, if anyone actually tries to argue that.) SJK (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Thanks all for the input. On the basis of, what appears to me at least, something approaching consensus, I've inserted behavioral genetics in the sidebar. Vrie0006 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collapsible sections

Wondering if anyone has an opinion about collapsing two of three of the sections and leaving only that section open and visible that contains the article in which the template is installed (the title is in boldface type rather than linked). This has been done for this template and can be found in one of my sandboxes, in case you would like to see how it would appear on this page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the sections collapsible and have proceeded to update the parameters in the individual articles. If anyone wants to return this template to uncollapsed, that's okay, and please discuss further. Thank you for your consideration in this matter!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It's an interesting idea. I would prefer the portals be kept the way they are. Space is cheap and few users know to click the "show" button. I'm not sure what this proposed step achieves other than to make it harder to navigate between these sites. 2600:1014:B02F:9B1E:18F9:489:A4D:78A7 (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

One reason to shorten (collapse) sidebar templates that are used at the tops of articles is because they tend to take up so much room, which distracts readers from the heart of the content in the lead paragraphs. Another distraction for readers is to bombard them with so many links to other places, especially right when they first get to an article. To reduce this by collapsing all sections except the one that applies to the article tends to reduce that type of distraction, too. Judging by the widespread use of collapsed sections, editors tend to agree that by collapsing most of the sections in a sidebar, the benefits to our readers far outweigh any possible disadvantages. Be well, IP 2600+.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I also oppose, preferring that the portals be kept the way they are. Iss246 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Iss246, I see that you've reverted the edits, first in the Occupational health article and then again in the Industrial and organizational article. Your first reason was, "It is okay to have the entire sidebar, and not just the applied part of it," and your second was, "It's an interesting idea. I would prefer the portals be kept the way they are." The collapsing of sections is a common way to make it easier and less distracting for our readers. Is that what you disagree with? Your first revert, to "have the entire sidebar", actually reduced it to where all the sections were collapsed. All you need do to expand the entire template is to place the word "all" in the first parameter, as is noted in the template documentation. I would be happy to do that for you in these two cases if that is what you want.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Paine Ellsworth, on the occupational health psychology page, the table of contents, which is on the left balanced an open psychology sidebar on the right. They paralleled each other. I also think all of psychology should be in the sidebar, not just the applied half of psychology. The applied half follows from basic psychological research, and basic research feeds the applied half. Research in the applied half feeds ideas to basic researchers. I think one strong fabric is in order. I did not change the collapsed sidebar. I think it is better open. And would like to make it open but I want to hear from my editors. The sidebar has been open for years, and I have not heard talk of the opened sidebar being a distraction. Iss246 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Paine Ellsworth, I decided to open the sidebar in the occupational health psychology page. It looks good to me. Not distracting. All of psychology is there for a reader at a click. Iss246 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree with above opposers. Vrie0006 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)