Talk:List of social psychologists

[untitled]
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)

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)

The last entry in the conversation above was made a year and a half ago. I assume everyone agrees that a notable social psychologist ought to have an entry in Wikipedia. Those who didn't as of a year and a half ago but who were already on this list are overdue for at least a stub to be created. Recent redlinked additions may be more suspect. I'm moving them all here in hopes that it will spur articles to be written about those who deserve to be here (I can't believe there's no article on Ed Diener!), and to resist the addition of those who don't. - Do c  t  orW  05:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Icek Ajzen
 * Alex Bavelas
 * Arne van den Bos
 * Jack Brehm
 * Hadley Cantril
 * Donal Carlston
 * Shelley Chaiken
 * Joel Cooper
 * Richard Crisp
 * Patricia Devine
 * Ed Diener
 * Gerard Duveen
 * Alice Eagly
 * Rob Farr
 * Russell Fazio
 * Dennis Fox
 * Harold B. Gerard - key figure in research on cognitive dissonance and social comparison processes
 * Alexa Hepburn
 * Chester Insko
 * Gustav Jahoda
 * Robert M. Krauss
 * Arie Kruglanski
 * Robert Levine
 * P. Marijn Poortvliet
 * Leo Postman
 * Diane Ruble
 * James Shepperd
 * John Shotter
 * Abraham Tesser
 * Fahad Turk
 * Gregory D. Webster
 * Gary Wells
 * Alvin Zander

Article Deletion
Hi everyone.

I posted the “delete” query on this page. My argument relates to the Wikipedia guideline of “what Wikipedia is not”. Specifically, Wikipedia is “not a directory”.

I did think about this more freely and generally I do not see this page as a useful resource for either lay wiki users or social psychologists. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not familiar with the field. It really does read like a completely arbitrary list of names. Or perhaps, as someone else said, a vanity list. I.e. “look whose supervisor made it onto the list of prominent social psychologists”.

If a social psychologist is prominent then a wiki user is likely to search for that psychologist (or identify them through the documentation their contribution the field of social psychology). It seems improbable that someone would simply be interested in a list of social psychologists.

As it stands I believe this article is at best a distraction. However, in place of deleting the article, I do believe that it could be augmented to become a “History of key social psychological advances” article. This would contextualise those who are mentioned for the lay reader, as well as provide some idea of what criteria we should measure social psychologists against in terms of prominence.

If however we feel a history of social psychological advances would not be beneficial as a wiki page, then again, I propose deletion.

P.S. I am aware that some other industries have done this. I do not see those as useful Wikipedia articles either.

U3964057 (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is probably more useful than a list of Transformers. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. a) Unlike this list, lists of transformers have clear inclusion criteria as well as some other useful categorisation information. And b) transformers are heaps cooler than social psychologists. U3964057 (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)