Talk:History of psychology (discipline)

Older comments

This is a new page that needed to be created in order to reflect the history of the history of psychology as a discipline. It is full of gaps. And it doesn't yet have enough in-bound links. But we're working on that. Please don't delete it because it seems to overlap with other content elsewhere. Instead, leave your comments below and we'll clarify the relations between things: it's more than possible that certain details belong here but were put elsewhere because this page didn't yet exist. JTBurman (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

What is this article supposed to be about?

There doesn't appear to be any actual history here of psychology as an academic discipline, where it began, when, by whom etc. Why is this? A brief look at the literature suggests it began in 1879. Wilhelm Wundt opened first experimental laboratory in psychology at the University of Leipzig, Germany. The most basic fact not even mentioned here. How odd. The article appears to be too mired in political correctness to be of any possible value.--Gueux de mer (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

What you're talking about is the history of psychology (after Wundt), not the History of Psychology (after Boring). Those are two different things. But I got busy, so I couldn't keep expanding in the way that I had intended. I knew that this would happen eventually, though, which is why I added some plans here. JTBurman (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Plans for comment

There needs to be a section added at the front: "Early history of psychology." This would describe the first textbooks by Brett, Baldwin, etc. A further sub-section would introduce Boring, since that's a well-recognized focal point. This ought to then be followed by a sub-section on the criticisms of Boring, as a segue to "new history." JTBurman (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The sub-sections grouped under "new history" need to be extended. I intend to add one about "digital history of psychology." But there are many others that could go here. How these get organized should be discussed before they are implemented. JTBurman (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am noodling over the idea of adding a "contemporary historiographic debates" section. This might be too specific, though. Any thoughts about that? JTBurman (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Because "Historians of Psychology" often trained first as Psychologists, a separate methods section would not be out of place: oral history, archival study, material culture, perhaps prosopography.... JTBurman (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The sections at the end that show the traits of a discipline (graduate programs, journals, etc.) ought to be combined under a heading that says something about how disciplines are defined. These then each get a sub-heading. That will help to keep it clean. JTBurman (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"It is now common practice" (according to whom?)

If you can't find a secondary source that supports the statement "it is now common practice" then that statement should not be used.

Please read: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Using_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:4380:54B7:0:0:0:2973 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The correct reference here is to Jim Capshew's 2014 chapter reviewing the recent history of the History of Psychology as a discipline. I will add this once I have a spare moment. JTBurman (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a student at Brigham Young University-Idaho. As a part of an assignment we have to make comments on Wiki pages. I noticed while reviewing this article it does not describe the need or importance of Psychology. I believe this would be a beneficial thing to add to the article to give an overall understanding of the concept of Psychology. Through this we could add the different focuses of psychology and the way they influence individuals as well.PsychmajorChick3 (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)