Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
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)
Psychology Website Templates Video
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 understand the source of your concern. However, I point out that I/O ? is the offspring of social ? and psychometric ?. 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 ?, the sociology of medicine, and medicine itself. Health ? nonetheless should stand as an entry. (Parenthetically, the health ? 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 ?, the medical field of occupational health, and, maybe even, clinical ? (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 ? 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. ----Martinphi ? ? ?---- 01:25, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In the sidebar to differentiate between main areas in psychology:
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+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):
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):
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)
Icon
What's the point of this icon? Decoration? Gnevin (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
--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)
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)
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 o 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon