Talk:Subfields of psychology

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Top‑importance This article 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wow, no discussion yet?! Anyway, re. [1]: True, critical psychology is rather esoteric. But a passage on critical psychology "spices things up" a bit; it adds some pertinent--if surprising--variety. And, since Wikipedia is

P.S. As far as due weight is concerned, the subsection (if re-added) would be one of twenty-three listed. And 1/23 (roughly 4.3%) is not very much at all. Too much "spice" can be overwhelming, but even just a little bit can help to keep the intellectual taste buds awake. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the lede for the page says that the article covers the "major areas of inquiry that comprise psychology." It is not meant to be a comprehensive list. To me, due weight is the consideration of whether or not a topic should be included at all. If a subfield is notable, then editors should work to create a useful entry (of any length). If it is not notable, then it shouldn't be included at all (at least not on a list of major areas). The argument that the section is not very long, doesn't speak at all to whether or not the subfield is notable. And since this is a collaborative encyclopedia, section length will always be in flux. My opinion has nothing to do with the merits of critical psychology - it has to do with the fact that is is not a major research area or degree specialization. To include it in the same list as social, cognitive, and developmental psychology (which gives it the appearance of equal weight) just seems absurd. Because of its breadth, psychology is already a difficult topic for people to understand. We're not doing anyone any favors by clouding the picture and highlighting niche disciplines. This list is entirely too long (there isn't a psychology department in the world that has 23 separate areas); eliminating critical psychology, global psychology, and postmodern psychology seemed like a conservative approach to focusing the scope of this list. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]