This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To Crusio: I read the importance class. It says, "Subject is peripheral knowledge to the field of psychology and possibly trivial but still notable. There may be limited research on the topic, or most professionals in psychology have not yet taken note of it. Example: Liberation psychology." This is not liberation psychology. Iss246 ( talk) 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you but I have a number of other things to do right now. I promise to revisit the matter. Yes. A number of experts in psychology will know about OHP topics as work and cardiovascular disease. However, not all experts in psychology will know about that particular OHP topic. By the same token, not all experts in psychology will know about the genetic contribution to risk for certain mental disorders but some experts will. That does not invalidate clinical or abnormal psychology. I don't have the time right now to go into an extended colloquy and change the code because I have other matters to rush off to. I will revisit the matter of importance some time next week. However you cut it, rating the importance of the journal as low is insulting to the psychologists who publish papers in the journal and their colleagues who edit and review for the journal. Iss246 ( talk) 16:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with everything this learned editor MartinPoulter, says above to iss246. This editor makes excellent sense. Mrm7171 ( talk) 04:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To Crusio: I read the importance class. It says, "Subject is peripheral knowledge to the field of psychology and possibly trivial but still notable. There may be limited research on the topic, or most professionals in psychology have not yet taken note of it. Example: Liberation psychology." This is not liberation psychology. Iss246 ( talk) 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you but I have a number of other things to do right now. I promise to revisit the matter. Yes. A number of experts in psychology will know about OHP topics as work and cardiovascular disease. However, not all experts in psychology will know about that particular OHP topic. By the same token, not all experts in psychology will know about the genetic contribution to risk for certain mental disorders but some experts will. That does not invalidate clinical or abnormal psychology. I don't have the time right now to go into an extended colloquy and change the code because I have other matters to rush off to. I will revisit the matter of importance some time next week. However you cut it, rating the importance of the journal as low is insulting to the psychologists who publish papers in the journal and their colleagues who edit and review for the journal. Iss246 ( talk) 16:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with everything this learned editor MartinPoulter, says above to iss246. This editor makes excellent sense. Mrm7171 ( talk) 04:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)