Template talk:Psychology sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

CONSENSUS[edit]

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)

Invitation from Mrm71717 for me to comment[edit]

A number of criteria help to identify a recognizable subdiscipline of psychology. Among these criteria are the following: (a) the existence of professional organizations; (b) the existence journals that publish research in the area; (c) recognition from a large governing body in psychology; (d) a body of research (and even practice). For criterion (a) there are the International Commission on Occupational Health's scientific committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors (ICOH-WOPS), the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP), and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP). For criterion (b) there are journals dedicated to OHP, for example, Work & Stress and Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (JOHP)) and journals that while not dedicated to OHP, publish OHP research, for example, the Journal of Applied Psychology and the American Journal of Public Health.

With regard to criterion (c) the American Psychological Association (APA) recognizes OHP and helps underwrite an important biennial conference devoted to OHP. This is particularly true of the Public Interest Directorate of the APA. The Public Interest Directorate along with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has had a hand in every Work, Stress, and Health Conference since the conference series began in 1990. APA hosted in 2004 an important organizational meeting that helped SOHP come into being.

With regard to criterion (d) there is a large and growing body of research in OHP that I won't enumerate here but can be viewed looking into journals like JOHP or papers cited on the OHP page. There is a growing number of practitioners in OHP. Presentations at the recent Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles were devoted to practice. There is a practice-oriented wing of the EA-OHP. By these criteria OHP should continue to appear on the sidebar along with other applied disciplines within psychology. Iss246 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

CONSENSUS NEEDED. Require independent arbitration to look at 4 years of editors 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)
Mrm7171, consensus eventually formed with regard to OHP on the sidebar. You can go review ALL the threads of discussions but not in a selective way. Although I made no deletions from the discussion on this page, I observed that you made some deletions on your talk page. I think they should be restored.

This is a friendly reminder to WP:SIGN your comments. Eventually we'll have an automatic system for signatures, but that's going to be months, or even a year from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Music psychology[edit]

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[edit]

There is weak consensus to include this in the sidebar. Editors are cautioned to be aware of WP:CANVASS in future discussions. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

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.