Psychology Template‑class

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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I am removing some non-therapists that are currently listed in the list of people in this template (specifically, I am removing: Gordon Allport, Mikhail Bakhtin, Albert Bandura, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Martin Heidegger, Paul Ricoeur, and Martin Seligman), because this list of people should be limited to clinicians/therapists; the list will grow to unmanageable length if we include all famous non-therapists who have influenced the practice of psychotherapy. It is certain that the practice of psychotherapy has been influenced by innumerable theoretical and experimental psychologists, philosophers, literary theorists, neuroscientists, and so on. But the list of people in this template should be limited to famous clinicians who have practiced therapy. Non-clinicians who have influenced the practice of psychotherapy can be mentioned in the articles on the specific approaches or techniques that they influenced. Biogeographist (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - @Biogeographist:: Paul Ricoeur was actually one of the most famous psychotherapists in Europe. He had a renowned clinical practice. The rest I understand. But, I recommend you put Ricoeur back up there for two reasons: 1) he brought about work in the field of psychotherapy that no other therapist before him did, and 2) he had a clinical practice as a renowned psychotherapist. Urstadt (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - @Biogeographist:: scratch that, I double-checked my sources and I was thinking of Binswanger. Ricoeur was a philosopher so you were right to remove him. Apologies. Urstadt (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - @Biogeographist:: by the way, if we're going to limit the list to "practicing clinicians", we need to double-check some of the names up there, e.g. Skinner was never a therapist. Upon graduation, he worked as a researcher and teacher. Never did a lick of therapy in his career. If we're removing Allport and Seligman for that reason, we need to remove Skinner, too. Urstadt (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urstadt: I completely agree about Skinner. I have not read his published autobiographies or biography, but as far as I know you are correct. I will go ahead and remove him as well. Biogeographist (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - @Biogeographist:: Thank you kindly, Sir. Urstadt (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to see more women in the people section. I would add Judith V. Jordan, a prominent therapist and theorist of relational-cultural therapy, but I can't find her date of birth so it's not yet possible to place her here because entries are ordered by date of birth. I would also like to add Laura S. Brown, a prominent therapist and theorist of feminist therapy, but she does not yet have an article. Biogeographist (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about Anna Freud? Awkturtle (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anna Freud seems like a good suggestion; I will add her. Biogeographist (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the moment the technique list is predominantly behaviour. How about we include some of the main techniques from the other schools. Some other possibilities are: cognitive restructuring from CBT, psychodynamic interpretations and dream interpretation from psychodynamic, empathic reflections, Focusing (psychotherapy), and empty chair from the experiential therapies. Thoughts? Awkturtle (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awkturtle: This is a very good suggestion; the only problem I see is how to choose which techniques to include, since there are so many of them. I would suggest that the best way to start is to make a list of candidate techniques here on the talk page, below. Or another solution, which I think may be even better, is to start a new list titled something like List of psychotherapy techniques, and then to discuss the candidate techniques on the talk page of that list. Then the most important techniques from that list could be added to this template, but again the problem arises of how to choose which techniques are "most important". I have long been concerned that the coverage of psychotherapy on Wikipedia focuses too much on "brand-name" psychotherapy packages or schools, and not enough on discrete therapeutic techniques or procedures (although in addition to these, common factors and principles are also important). A list of psychotherapy techniques would be a big step toward remedying this lack of emphasis on techniques or procedures. I have been collecting a list of references that serve as examples of different ways of organizing psychotherapy/counseling techniques, and I could share those references on the talk page of the new list. Biogeographist (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awkturtle: On second thought, while there are many psychotherapy techniques, there may not be enough articles on them in Wikipedia to justify a new list of psychotherapy techniques, because stand-alone lists in Wikipedia are typically lists of items that have a Wikipedia article dedicated to each item. More appropriate would be a glossary of psychotherapy techniques. A glossary is a special kind of list with explanatory (encyclopedia-style) definitions; this would be appropriate for a list of items many of which are not likely to ever have a dedicated article written about them, which I suspect is true of many psychotherapy techniques. Another issue that occurred to me after writing the previous paragraph is that four of the six techniques that you mentioned above are linked to sections of articles instead of to whole articles as is typical in navigation templates, and I am not sure whether it is a good idea to link to sections in navigation templates. Navigation templates are typically for linking to related articles, not to sections of articles. I will add cognitive restructuring to the techniques section in this template since that is a whole article that is clearly relevant. Focusing (psychotherapy) is already listed in the humanistic section; it is an interesting edge case since it is both a stand-alone "technique" and something like a brand-name "school" (focusing-oriented psychotherapy). Biogeographist (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist: Limiting the navigation to only whole articles does make sense, so I'm happy with that. Dream Interpretation does have it's own page though, so meets that criteria (actually 2 pages, I saw Dream interpretation and Psychoanalytic dream interpretation, when looking. And the idea of a glossary sounds good to. Awkturtle (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awkturtle: Yes, dream interpretation would be an appropriate technique. Although the Dream interpretation article is not strong on its use in psychotherapy, I think it would be more appropriate than Psychoanalytic dream interpretation because dream interpretation is not only used by psychoanalysts; for example, there's a chapter on "experiential dream interpretation" in Eugene Gendlin's book Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy (1996). Biogeographist (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Biogeographist: hello, you seem to be an involved editor active with this template, so let me ask... why are DOB's used to sort the people? Few readers will know the birth dates, and to me it appears that these important people would be much easier for readers to find if their names were alphabetized to their surnames, isn't that true? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. Seems the list of people would appear much shorter if the dates were omitted altogether. Those dates are, after all, included in the lead sentences of the people's articles. PS added by P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My view is that the chronological order gives a little more context for the names, providing an overview of the development of the field and the place of each person in history, which provides so much more informational value than an (effectively random) alphabetical list. The list of names in the template is not a comprehensive index (Category:Psychotherapists is a better place to browse through all psychotherapists with a Wikipedia article) and is not very long, so I don't find it difficult to find particular names in the list; navigation templates are more for casual browsing than for searching anyway. See also: Template talk:Psychology § Birth-death dates. Biogeographist (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing in the WP:NAVBOX guideline that says that lists of person names in navboxes must be last names only, as Trakking claimed in this edit summary. First and last names were long established in this navbox, and there are no established inclusion criteria that would justify removing the notable therapists that Trakking wished to remove. Biogeographist (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need to follow the principle of putting quality over quantity. There are clear levels of notability. The people who were removed would rank very low on a scale of notability, for which there are many indicators: their articles are meagre, they have articles in few languages, their works have few citations, they are not mentioned in general encyclopedic works on the topic etc. They simply do not qualify for representation.

Also—we need to strive to make templates like these concise and easy to navigate. And one way of doing this is by referring to the people by their last names, as is the norm in normal life as well as on Wikipedia, although it may not be a written norm. Trakking (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with many of the judgments you made about who merits inclusion. You removed therapists who definitely should be listed here. For example, you removed Eugene Gendlin and Hans Herrman Strupp who are both listed among the approximately 30 major psychotherapy researchers in the reference book: Castonguay, Louis G.; Muran, J. Christopher; Angus, Lynne E.; Hayes, Jeffrey A.; Ladany, Nicholas; Anderson, Timothy, eds. (2010). Bringing Psychotherapy Research to Life: Understanding Change Through the Work of Leading Clinical Researchers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12137-000. ISBN 9781433807749. JSTOR j.ctv1chrz0b. OCLC 463855600.

I don't think the current list is too long; I think it gives a good overview of developments in the field.

And as should be obvious, I disagree that removing first names makes the navbox easier to navigate. But thanks for hiding the birth dates, which is something I had contemplated doing in the past but never got around to doing. Biogeographist (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate that you cited a reference to your defence, but top 30 among now living people is way too extensive. In order to merit inclusion they would have to be in top 5 or at least top 10, if the list is supposed to be relevant.

Imagine if you were the summarize the history of Psychotherapy as concisely as possible. You would not mention these people, because they are too low in the hierarchy.

That does not mean they are not interesting, intelligent, original etc. But they are not notable. Trakking (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I would mention most of these people. I don't agree that 5 or 10 people is enough, if there is going to be a list of people. But I'm not opposed to removing the list entirely. That would certainly be "concise" if concision is what you're going for. Biogeographist (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should keep the list. But it ought to be more concise, lest it becomes diluted.

You made the bold claim that Hans Herrman Strupp is notable. Yet, for example, there are Wikipedia articles written about him in only three languages. That is just pathetic and awkward.

If a scholar is truly notable, people all over the world will be interested in him and write about him. People like Carl Rogers, Erik Erikson, and Wilhelm Reich are brilliant examples of internationally notable scholars, who deserve representation in a template on the topic. Having studied Psychology for one year at university, I know that these people are mentioned in the literature. Trakking (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also—I said 5–10 people currently living. Then perhaps 30 historical figures is an adequate number added to that. Right now the list includes too many obscure people; it is diluted. Trakking (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only eight of the people currently listed are still living, so even by your standard there is no problem.

I disagree that number of Wikipedia articles in other languages is important. This is the English-language Wikipedia; it's irrelevant what other Wikipedias do.

The fact that you studied psychology for one year in university is also irrelevant; this template is about psychotherapy, which is typically a graduate-level specialty, and I am not at all convinced that you know the field of psychotherapy well enough to be dictating what should be removed from this template. Biogeographist (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hans Herrman Strupp’s article in English generates 4 views a day. Basically, you are the only person in the world reading about this guy. It’s blasphemous putting him next to Freud as if they’re equals. It is like putting the majors and the generals next to the privates and corporals. We need to obey the rule of hierarchy. Trakking (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Biogeographist (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, if this guy wasn’t on the list, nobody else would ever add him here in a million years. Trakking (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL. Actually, I had forgotten that I was the one who added him. I went and checked the history and it was me. OK, I'll remove him. If someone else wants to come and defend Strupp, they can; I really don't care. Biogeographist (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]