Talk:List of social psychologists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Michael Argyle entry: The linked page conveys no sense in which Argyle might be considered or known as a social psychologist. Is this a mistake? I think it should be removed unless there's some evidence that Argyle actually is a psychologist.

65.24.92.175 21:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well spotted! Different Michael Argyle. I've turned it into a disambig page and added a stub about the psychologist, I hope some of his many friends and students will expand it into something worthy of him. seglea 17:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who should be on this list

Being unregistered, I'm not going to be presumptuous and make any deletions. However, I'm becoming concerned that this page is increasingly becoming a list of "psychologists we like," without careful consideration as to whether or not their contributions were relevant to the field of SOCIAL psychology in particular. (There are many people on this list who are certainly important academics, but for whom classification as "social psychologists" would be stretching it.)

Good point. I removed a few, but there are still some that may be questionnable. This page could use some careful going over, to remove people who aren't prominent social psychologists, and to write brief summaries for anyone who is. --Jcbutler 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the list diminishes in value if it is simply a vanity page or page of likable psychologists. To be an encyclopedia, the entries must be notable. To prevent deletion of any item that is thought not to be notable, a source must be cited or an explanation attached.

It is only wrong to delete someone if there is no source or explanation and the person doing the deletion hasn't done at least a superficial search (e.g., Google).

I think it would be a good thing to automatically delete the name of everyone on the list that doesn't have an article in Wikipedia, doesn't have a source cited, has no attached explanation of why they are notable, and don't show up in Google with something notable. The same is, or should be, true of the List of psychologists page.

Wikipedia policy specifically asks us to be bold. As long as we act in good faith, respect someone's dissent, and make a modest effort to see if the person is notable, it is not only acceptable to delete - but a requirement of having a good encyclopedia. I think an unregistered user helps by taking a tiny bit more effort to comment their actions on a talk page but, given that, they should still be able to delete. Well, that's my two cents. Steve 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We should be careful about deleting them just because they don't have a Wikipedia entry (yet), but otherwise I agree. I'd also add that the index of any social psychology textbook would be an excellent criterion for exclusion or inclusion. --Jcbutler 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion on the textbook index. And I would always say that using good faith and consideration for others when deleting is of primary importance. If I can't find anything to support an entry (despite looking in Wikipedia, the entry itself, the talk page, or google), I make the deletion, but I put an entry on the talk page saying what I did, show the entry I deleted, and invite objections. Steve 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)