Talk:Timeline of psychology

message: There was a lot of overcapitalization here, of psychological concepts that are not normally capitalized per MOS:CAPS as well as .  I've done my best to put these into lower case in accordance with these style manuals.  If anyone would like to discuss this issue, please do so here, rather than putting loads of extra capital letters into the article itself.  Thank you.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! Lova Falk talk 16:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overcaps 

message: I like reference books that take a historical approach, and I have some to suggest to editors of this page. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page.  -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography for updating this and other articles 

message: The IP is removing content sourced to a website called "Feminist Voices" (http://www.feministvoices.com/), which is "a project directed by Alexandra Rutherford at York University in Toronto, Canada.  She is joined on the project by a dynamic group of undergraduate and graduate students who use historical, feminist, critical, and constructionist approaches to analyze the past and present experiences of women and minorities in psychology and society." Alexandra Rutherford is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology. It's difficult to know how to treat this site. It may be worth raising it at WP:RSN. Assertions cited to it do seem rather dubious. "1903 – Helen Thompson Woolley published the first dissertation on sex differences, The Mental Traits of Sex" Are we seriously to believe that there were no studies of "sex differences" in psychology before 1903? According to Barbara Lloyd "At the beginning of the twentieth century, Helen Thompson Woolley commented on nineteenth and early twentieth-century psychologists' and physiologists' efforts to understand sex differences. She wrote: 'There is perhaps no field aspiring to be scientific where flagrant personal bias, logic martyred in the cause of supporting prejudice, unfounded assertions, and even sentimental rot and drivel, have run riot to such an extent as here'" (Sex and Gender, Cambridge University Press, 2002). In other words she was responding to previous theories. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the Helen Thompson Woolley article, roughly the same claim ("Being that it was the first known dissertation on sex differences, it received mixed reviews.") sourced to Benjamin, Ludy T. (2007). A Brief History of Modern Psychology. No page number, and the Google Books link provided has no preview. On the other hand, the 2nd edition does have a preview and "Woolley" has no results. However, I found another book stating saying "[Woolley's] doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago was the first experimental test of the Darwinian notion that women were biologically inferior to men, an idea assumed at the time to be so obvious that it needed no scientific study (James, 1994)."  I can't get Google Books to show the references section, so I can't tell you what James 1994 is. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, found out what James, 1994 is. We can't cite it directly as it's an unpublished manuscript (or at least it was in 2000, in the 7th edition I was able to get access to an ebook of), and the title doesn't pull up any hits anywhere other than Google Books (as a reference in the Schultz and Schultz book). But given Schultz and Schultz makes the claim and cites to something, that makes it a secondary source for the purposes of the claim that Woolley's study was the first one. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: IP edits

message: I don't see any mentions of the Positive Psychology movement here...I'm unable to add them as I've just begun learning about it's history. Can anyone contribute those? Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:200:6FFB:5C8C:BAD0:F96D:B0B5 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive Psychology 

message: Apparently Traite Clinique et Therapeutique de L'Hysterie wasn't written by Breuer but by Pierre Briquet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.11.9.175 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1859