Talk:List of psychologists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: I intend to replace this with Category:Psychologists at some point, (automatic sorting, easier to keep updated, etc) and will be copying info from it so don't just delete it as a duplication.... - Xgkkp 18:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Psychologists, psychiatrists etc.[edit]

This group includes people who have made significant contributions to the subject of psychology. Some are psychologists, some are psychiatrists and some are neither (e.g. Melanie Klein, Virginia Satir). What we need is a grouping that is all embracing. If it continues to be under the category psychologists then you will need to remove many people such as Sigmund Freud, Melanie Klein, Alfred Adler, Havlock Ellis, Milton H. Erikson, Alfred Kinsey, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, William Masters and Virginia Johnson, Ivan Pavlov, Virginia Satir, Irvin Yalom to name but a few. --CloudSurfer 06:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Psychologists, psychiatrists etc.[edit]

(I am not sure how to do this "Talk" thing. I assume I just edit it?) There needs to be distinction betweeen psychologists and those who have made significan contributions to the field of psychology. Being a psychologist, I feel very strongly about this. Maybe a solution is to have linking pages, one specifically a listing of psychologists, i.e., people with PhDs (MAs as well?) in the field of psychology and a list of others, either "non-psychologists who have made significant contribution to the field of psychology," or just "siginficant contributers to human psychology"? Rsugden 21:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small point: APA regards the term "psychologist" as being reserved for those with a Ph.D. in psychology or a closely related field (i.e., human development). Of course, some allowance can be made for equivalance in a previous era.... -DoctorW 08:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small point: Many clinicians view the APA's attempt to monopolize the term "psychologist" as inappropriate. It is too early in the development of this science for one membership group to claim sole ownership of standards not yet agreed upon.

Reformating and recategorizing[edit]

Since no one has commented on my above idea about the list, I am proposing that I change things around a bit: 1) make a table with letters for last names. 2) Do something about segregating psychologists from those who have made contributions to psychology. As I said before I feel strongly about this. At least in the US, there is a big struggle to have psychologist seen as unique contributors to mental health as well as scope of practice battles where were are legally designated as such. I want a page where someone can come to see what people formally trained in psychology have done, not a huge list of everyone who has done something that is "pscyhological". Most of the people mixed in have done nothing to advance psychology but have usually added something to psychotherapy. So, if there are no objections, I will proceed in my single-minded mania! Rsugden 14:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Here's my list in progress My Sandbox3. Unless I hear otherwise I will post it in the next day or so. Rsugden 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wish you had done so! I alphabetized the list that was there (on Psychologists), but your version in User:RSugden/Sandbox3 is much better. I am happy to help put it in place, but I will need some help integrating it. My thinking is that it would be best for now to use your list down to the end of your section on "List of Antecedents to Scientific Psychology." -DoctorW 08:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right way to respond, but I would like to make an objection to treating the category of "psychologists" as restricted to those who are licensed under APA guidelines. What then would you call Freud, Milt Erickson, and all the others who have made great contributions. Having a separate list, a category under "Psychologists" would be the proper way to do that - perhaps called something like, "Psychologists with APA licenses."

Current Events?[edit]

Here's another idea: Have a section for psychologists mentioned in the public media? I thought about this with Pinker being in Time's 100 influential people. I don't agree but maybe a section that could be updated regularly with a purge every so many months? Rsugden 17:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Psychologists by Nationality[edit]

There are a number of living psychologists, including John Darley, Bibb Latane, Harold Kelley and Daniel Batson, who have entries in Wikipedia but are not included in this list. This is rather strange, given that the red indicate that certain people in the list do not have Wikpedia entries! (Well, as from early May 2006, they are now as I have added them to the list). No one is expecting any one to know all of the "psychologist" entries in a reference work as expansive as Wikipedia, but can I please propose that we try something to make this list more manageable? How about having several psychologist lists, one of "U.S. psychologists", one of "U.K. psychologists", one of "German psychologists" and so on and so forth? This would also be a good way for Wiki-readers to read about how psychological trends in different countries might differ. ACEO 20:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Does any know anything of the Argentine psychoanalyst, Ana Maria Rizzuto? If any one would like to take up the above offer, it would certainly be interesting to have a category of "Argentine psychologists". Other categories could be U.S. psychologists, French psychologists, German psychologists, Spanish psychologists, Dutch psychologists, British psychologists, Belgian psychologists and Scandinavian psychologists. That all might sound a bit biassed towards the States and Europe, but it would be good if, in response, some people could write about psychologists in other parts of the world. ACEO 19:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a new entry, Hussein Olad, under the 'D's. I can't find a reference to someone in the field of psychology with that name, and it is under the wrong letter of the alphabet. Does anyone else recognize that name? SteveWolfer 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why a name without an article was added to the list. I haven't heard of him. Maybe he is well known in non-English speaking countries, but not elsewhere. There have been other names added recently I haven't heard of. My opinion is that names should only be allowed onto the list if an article exists to explain the person's contribution to the field of psychology. -- Bookish 14:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. There should be an explanation or an article. And I'm guilty. I added a name yesterday that doesn't have either (Robert A. Johnson). I'll go start an article for him immediately. I added another name, John Rowan. He is a psychologist and therapist with a number of publications. His work on subpersonalities was my reason for including him, but if there are others who feel it isn't sufficiently notable, I'll understand. There is another problem with John Rowan - there is another John Rowan whose article answers the link. No clue how that might be resolved. SteveWolfer 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've heard of a primal integration therapist in England called John Rowan. What you would need to do is create a disambiguation page as described in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages). John Rowan's name would become John Rowan (psychologist), or (psychotherapist). Here is an example disambiguation page (it includes a psychologist): Alice Miller. -- Bookish 18:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed 'Boo la ca sha' which was just a text string (not formated as an article name) and it was at the bottom of the entries for the letter 'A'. It had been added by some time ago. If it is a valid name, I'll add it back - just let me know what letter of the alphabet it goes under :-) SteveWolfer 23:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was removing a name with no notability and noticed how many names have no article. I started going through and googling the people and some of them have not made what will be seen as a lasting contribution. I repeat what others have said, if the person doesn't have an article in Wikipedia, they should not be on the list. If there are names that don't have an article, but deserve one, let's create an article. Steve 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm removing Proxy Papadopoulos because there are no references to such a person existing anywhere online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No article, no entry - what do you think?[edit]

I'm concerned about the number of names on the list that I have never heard of, that have no Wikipedia article and don't show up in Google (at least not in the first 100 items or so). It might be that some of these entries are valid, but I suspect that many are not. I propose that any name that has been in the list for more than 24 hours without an article be deleted. Any comments? If there is consensus on this, then we can put that requirement at the top of the page and start deleting. SteveWolfer 16:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea. If users think some psychologists in the list without an article are enough notable for Wikipedia, they could put their names in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy#psychology if it's not already done. Frédérick Lacasse 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example: The last name entered was - no article, not a name I'd heard before, and I didn't find anything on Google. I also followed Frédérick Lacasse's suggestion and checked requested articles - nothing there either. So, I looked at the contributions of the user who added the entry (from the List of psychologists page, click the History tab, then click It's clear that this user, apart from heart-felt additions to some articles on contemporay rock bands, mostly uses Wikipedia for vandalism. This IP address might be common-use computer at a high school or college. SteveWolfer 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started searching for some of the other names with no articles. I found info on the first two I tried in Google: Narziss Ach and Thomas M Achenbach. On Achenbach all I found was CV page at the Univ. of Vermont so he may not be "notable" enough to have an article. SteveWolfer 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had a quick scan through. Quite a lot of the no-article names are in fact distinguished psychologists who ought to have articles. Indeed, quite a few of them already *do* have articles - they have been listed with additional initials, misspelled, etc. This article badly needs some cleanup, but wholesale deletion of non-linking names may not be the best way. seglea 00:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new user named JC Grey added JJ Celia Grey to the list. There is no associated article and I find nothing with a Google search. If we don't require that entries be notable, the list will soon become unusable. SteveWolfer 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Entries must be notable. -DoctorW 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also lack of viable references are a worry to me for example 'James C. Ronning (Offered what is considered the definitive explanation of hypnosis)' this chap has no Wiki article, there is no obvious reference to the statement after his name, no notable articles in Medline, Google, etc. I think a manual edit of this page must be made before it just becomes a worthless list of favoured people. WikiKonspire (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think generally existing article = "favoured person"! If someone feels there is a real omission, then by all means an article could be created first. If a contribtion is really notewothy but not sufficent for a whole article, I don't see anything wrong with a name and a citation. But I'm sure there are very many already with articles not yet yet included here. Would it be useful fot all entries to have a brief description of main interest/ achievement (single short sentence)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where are my articles going?[edit]

I've put in two articles (just stubs) and they both disappeared. One on Narziss Ach and one on Hagop S Akiskal. The other articles I created have stayed. I did the one on Narziss Ach twice - just to make sure I remembered to push the 'Save' button. Any ideas? SteveWolfer 02:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked the deletion logs (they're hard to find). They said:

Narziss Ach

  • 02:36, 1 November 2006 Makemi (Talk | contribs) deleted "Narziss Ach" (copyvio. Attribution does not take away the fact that you copied it part and parcel from another website)
  • 21:28, 31 October 2006 Merope (Talk | contribs) deleted "Narziss Ach" (csd g12)

Hagop S Akiskal

Wikipedia has a lot of rules. One of them is that the content has to be written by contributors. Thus copying a section from another web site is not allowed (it is assumed to be a copyright violation). I think it would have been nice if some one had explained that to you. Also, I would have listed "csd" in the edit summary as WP:CSD, so you could click on the link and check item # G (General criteria) 12. Don't be discouraged by the number of policies here and the sometimes apparently impatient way in which they are enforced. If you can't figure something out, you can put the template "Helpme" on your Talk page. (Search for "Template:Helpme" for more information).

If you create the articles again with content you write yourself, I suggest you use Hagop S. Akiskal as the name (period after initial). -DoctorW 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of psychiatrists[edit]


I have created List of psychiatrists. All individuals on this list are medical doctors. They are board certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, or are members of the American Psychiatric Association, or the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the United Kingdom, or another professional medical psychiatric association in a different country. Smeelgova 12:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

People who make important contributions to other fields[edit]

People who make important contributions to other fields don't necessarily belong on this list. "Memes" (Biologist Richard Dawkins) are a clever idea, and have become a prominent concept in popular culture, but psychologists have not made this idea an important part of their research as far as I can tell, so Dawkins' contribution to psychology is minimal. There are thousands of people who have made more important contributions. He should not be on this list. -DoctorW 06:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The amount of research generated isn't a required criteria for this list. But if it was, Dawkins would still belong on the list. The concept of the 'meme' is generating a great deal of research in many different areas of psychology, sociology, philosophy of the mind, and various cultural disciplines. Dawkins would also belong on the list for his contribution to evolutionary psychology.
Here are just a few of the first 100 items listed out of 8,390 hits for "meme" and "psychology" on Google scholar.
  • Human evolutionary psychology - a textbook favorably reviewed by Jack Demarest, Ph.D., Dept of Psych - the book features Dawkins and Memes prominently
  • Evolutionary Psychology and Cultural Transmission an article by P Boyer in the American Behavioral Scientist - discussing memes.
  • Connecting Culture, Psychology and Biology an article by RK Sawyer - in Human Development, 2000 "...drawing on Dawkins’s concept of the meme ..."
  • Conceptions of Culture and Person for Psychology an article by Y Kashima in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2000 - "...Dawkins’s meme theory..."
-- And I found articles in on memes in these journals --
  • Journal of Consciousness Studies,
  • Journal of Adaptive Behavior,
  • School Psychology International,
  • The Journal of Memetics (not all psychology articles),
  • Journal of Cognition and Culture,
Steve 08:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said "The concept of the 'meme' is generating a great deal of research in many different areas of psychology" [and other fields, which is irrelevant to inclusion on this list], but your citations seem like pretty slim pickins indeed. Your response seems rather to support my assertion that, though popular, Dawkins work has had less impact on the field of real psychology (as opposed to pop psychology) than thousands of other psychologists and non-psychologists. -DoctorW 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I quickly grabbed several sources of the great many available. Those are academic journals, not pop psychology (although there is NO criteria that would keep notable pop psychologists out of the list). Your argument makes no sense. I have to ask, is it that Dawkins has been fairly militant in his atheism? Do you object to him for that reason? You must have some reason for attacking Dawkins given that many others on the list are practically unknown. Are you requesting sources for any others? Steve 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the stig[edit]

The stig is an awsome character and the mascot of Crawford College Pretoria this mascot has a motorcycle helmet and a engineering suit and in rumours it is said that the stig is a girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planning to take out the pre-modern theorists[edit]

These are people widely recognized as philosophers, not psychologists. The term is hard to define before the modern era, and so the list doesn't seem useful here. Churn and change (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems perfectly sensible. Which did you have in mind? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking of merging Haly Abbas, Abu Zayd al-Balkhi and Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari into the main list since their articles claim notability in psychology, and taking the list out altogether. The rest are famous philosophers, physicians, polymaths, theologians and the like. Psychology has its roots in many fields, but we can't include them all as pre-modern theorists. The three names I cited are also probably controversial (not sure) but that is a discussion which can be carried on the article pages if needed. If they are not controversial, fine. Churn and change (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't know enough about those three to comment, (although I had noticed that about their articles, which is why I had not previously deleted them) (honest!). But I would agree that Aristotle, Descartes and Kierkegaard don't really belong here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A list of psychologists generated from Category:Psychologists[edit]

At my request, Legobot generated a list, traversing subcategories. The list is here: User:Legobot/Psychologists Clearly, manually adding entries is hopeless. We can ask the category be "listified," that is auto-generated from the category. That means we lose the short descriptions we have here. There are 40 or so entries here not in the category; I can fix that. Churn and change (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Edwin Ray Guthrie (now added) was among the missing -- for me, inexplicably except for the fact that our article's lead section disses him; nevertheless WikiBlame did not find evidence of him ever being removed!
--Jerzyt 05:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
   If you're interested enuf, download both lists into a spreadsheet (one below the other), including the descriptions and indication of which list contributed each occurrence. The Cat should already be alpha by surname; you can probably write a formula to guess from the section letters where the last name begins, and another to detect out-of-order entries like Daniel Gilbert. One column for surnames, another for the rest, maybe one for Jr/Sr etc. Sort. Another column filled by a formula that means Article-only, Both, Cat-only (easy as ABC), where B indicates Article name matches with the alphabetically preceding or following Cat name. (If you can carry out that much, you can prolly figure out what to do next; if not, you might better leave implementation to someone else ... not to mention that also i'd likely drive myself to distraction trying to over-specify -- or to resist over-specifying -- the rest.)
--Jerzyt 05:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]