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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Archived the talk page...it seemed like all those conversations had been concluded or resolved. If not, then please bring it back here. Psykhosis 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this article is getting close to being worthy of an "A ranking". Before sending it for Peer review, I would really like others to take a close glance and see how it compares with The perfect article. I think the history section needs references (anyone willing to add some?). Does anyone see anything else...? Psykhosis 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this article has come a long way in a short time. Is there any issue to avoid duplicating content most directly related to psychotherapy, to focus only on clin psych context? Could the focus on clinical psychology and clinical psychologists be tightened generally...e.g. victor frankl picture but he was psychiatrist i believe, Carl Rogers picture but not clinically trained I do'nt think, more called a psychotherapist? Picture of Prozac & DSM but these more psychiatric/medical things, in origin/design/ownership. I know they're all strong influences of course and DSM and ICD widely used by many clin psychs. Also a random minor point, the "clinical" part of the term, could its relevance/meaning be specified more? i.e. originally referred to something practiced in clinics, by "clinicians"? but actually it often isn't? Would it be true to say it actually kind of means the psychology of (especially as it relates to psychological help for) mental disorder or serious/dysfunctional mental distress? EverSince 10:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up some good points... I don't think we can have an article without covering the basics of psychotherapy. True, some of it is in the Psychotherapy article, but I believe this is one of those times when it is warranted—remember, Wikipedia isn't paper. I think the professional background of historical figures isn't of much import...Freud was a neurologist and Witmer did no psychotherapy at all...yet they are key figures in clinical psychology. The goal, rather, is presenting the essential theories and practices that make up our profession today.

I also agree that defining clinical psychology is difficult...I got in a few arguments about it. The final issue is the fact that this is an encyclopedia...its job is to reflect what's out there, not just what we personally think. For example, I personally think that the practice of "clinical" psychology is restricted to those with a doctorate; but I have to concede that the US has many Masters graduate programs in "clinical psychology" and that the field is in flux. We have to reflect what exists in citable references, and I believe that what we have does that pretty accurately. Psykhosis 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do disagree about the pics. The Witmer one is appropriate of course and I think the group therapy one is great. But I think the rest overall give an impression that isn't so much clinical psychology as assorted mental-health-related miscellany. Plus at the end there's a list of notable figures who influenced clin psy, why not a list of notable actual clin psychs, including current ones? Perhaps the DSM pic could be replaced with a diagram or something illustrating a dimensional model or something. The Rorshach pic - controversial, most associated with psychoanalysis, widely accepted as poorly evidenced and with limited usage - could be replaced with a pic of a common standardized self-report questionnaire or something. The notable inluential figure pics could be replaced with notable clin psych pics.

I do feel the psychotherapy section goes into too much historical detail, info that can be found on (or could be very usefully moved to) linked pages by those interested. I mean there's so much current stuff to cover that isn't really yet - including not just in terms of interventions but also in terms of models by which clin psychs research and conceptualise problems and derive interventions (e.g. the many varying cognitive behavioral models of the cause or maintenance of this or that disorder.). And I think it needs to address not just the details of interventions but crucially how they are used by clin psychs as opposed to others, and depending on what, and how prevalently they are used by clin psychs.

I agree about the defining being challenging, and my point was to more fully explain the term and actual practice in an encylopedic fashion. Don't think it's a big issue, is probably best left to just trying out edits I think. EverSince 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In virtually every clinical psychology program out there, students are being taught the fundamentals of psychotherapy as developed by Freud, Ellis (and Beck), and Rogers. All other things aside, their ideas and practices form the modern therapeutic foundation of our field as it exists today. For the other pics, remember, their job is illustrative...the Rorshach, while a questionable tool, is still widely used and is recognized by many readers, thus helping to make the section more understandable. Likewise, the DSM, while disliked by many psychologists (and myself), is nevertheless the dominant tool used in diagnosis today. None of this is to say that other pics couldn't be added...I'm very open to other ideas.

The psychotherapy section is, IMO, appropriate and necessary at near it's current length. Since therapy is, essentially, what clinical psychologists are mostly concerned with, it deserves a full treatment. Moreover, the individual sections, outside the big three, provide a general outline of the scope of theory. To neglect this would be a disservice to those readers trying to find out what it is we do.

If you can find some good sources and come up with some paragraphs about research and application of psychotherapy, I'd be thrilled. We definitely need a research section.

For the purpose of my question, I'm also seeking input on making the article FA-worthy. Any comments about that would be welcome. Psykhosis 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psykhosis, I agree that a general outline of the theories is relevant and that historical context is important. I sense we might be obliquely agreeing that some of the extensive detail on historical related figures and influences could be replaced by more directly relevant information - however, you unfortunately seem to be wanting to put the onus on me to achieve this rather than all of us. I do resassert that the whole article is fundamentally in need of differentiating more clearly between clinical psychology (ists) and psychotherapy(ists), not just in the pics but in the content. If your last point is intended to imply that my comments are not relevant to improving the class of this article, I disagree.

The Rorshach is more illustrative of psychoanalysis than modern clinical psychology, and is not widely used across the range of mainstream clinical psychology, and therefore is misrepresentative to choose as the pic to illustrative clin psych assessment. I will seek to replace it with pic of a more generally used standardized questionnaire, unless any objection.

I never said the DSM pic shouldn't be there for reasons of like or dislike. The DSM pic certainly belongs on the psychiatry page, and perhaps the American Psychiatric Association page. I'm going to put it there. The usage of the DSM has to be covered well in relation to clinical psychology also, of course, but the book itself is psychiatric in production and publication, and so rather than duplicate that pic here again I believe it would be better to illustrate something more specifically representative of clinical psychology - perhaps a table comparing the categorical and dimensional approaches - so I will replace the DSM pic with something like this in due course unless objections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EverSince (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There is a section for therapy models with one called "Postmodern" - I haven't done any editing in there, but I see a real lack of discussion on the major shifts in viewpoint represented by those who picked up "Systems" theories - i.e., stating that if you didn't work with the entire system you could never achieve success - this was the beginning of family therapy. Narrative therapy and constructivist views came from the same roots - evolving out of the systems approach (see Haley's references to Bateson). The emphasis on communications from the point of view of language in particular gave rise to NLP. So you can see why I put Jay Haley into that list - he stands as the point where conventional, neo-Freudian or Existential or Humanistic psychology splits in a major way to give birth to systems, narrative, NLP, etc. (Steve)

Actually, I still don't see how Haley can be said to have made an impact on the field of clinical psychology. He studied under some interesting people and has done a lot of teaching, but what has he actually added to further the field? (Psykhosis)

Your list is very heavy in Freudian and neo-Freudian names. I can't stand the orthodox Behavioralists, but they ought to have a representative in there - like Watson. After all they are the ancestor that modern day cognitivists want to forget. (Steve)

Any list of important psychologists will be heavy in Freudian names, because to date they've been the predominant groundbreakers. I am not Freudian at all, so the list doesn't reflect my own position, but that of history. I can state the major impact each of those people had on the field. I agree that the list could use a behaviorist or two. (Psykhosis)

I see things a little differently. I see major intellectual threads that differ in important ways. Freud started a major thread that remains important to this day. But others changed their underlying model so much as to be an entirely new thread - examples of these are: Existentialism, Behavioralism, Cognitive, Humanism, Systems, Communications theory (which is how I lump NLP and Narrative, for example), Transpersonal. Where are the systems people in the list? Steve 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how I think these areas are now represented:

• Freudian/Psychodynamic: Alfred Adler, Erik H. Erikson, Anna Freud, Sigmund Freud, Karen Horney, Otto Kernberg, Melanie Klein, Heinz Kohut, Harry Stack Sullivan, Donald Woods Winnicott
• Existentialism: Viktor Frankl, Rollo May, Fritz Perls, Otto Rank, Irvin Yalom
• Cognitive/Behavioral: Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, Marsha Linehan, Joseph Wolpe
• Humanism: Carl Rogers (who are other major influences here?)
• Systems: Milton Erickson, Haim Ginott (who are other major influences here?)
• Transpersonal: Stanislav Grof, Carl Jung
• General: Mary Ainsworth, Albert Bandura, John Bowlby, Hans Eysenck, Abraham Maslow
• Other: Wilhelm Reich (somatic), Morita Shoma (Eastern), Lightner Witmer
• Communications—I don't know what you mean by this. Narrative Therapy is postmodern and NLP is a practice not generally recognized by the field.

Keep in mind that several of these people fit in multiple categories (like Maslow and Rank). Further, I haven't claimed the list is complete...it certainly could use more names. However, we should be judicious in picking out people who have truly made a large-scale impact. Psykhosis

I WAS being judicious. Looking at your comment above here are some thoughts that come to mind:

• I wouldn't have put Perls in Existentialism - better in Humanism, or Experiential and
• Maslow fits better (according to academic sources) in Transpersonal - but I would put him with Rodgers as a humanist.
• When I say "Communications" I'm describing a school of theories who all share the concept that language is the key to dysfunction and to treatment (Narrative therapy, Coherence therapy, Solutions-Focused Therapy, and almost everything Milton Erickson did - he wasn't a Systems person, and NLP (which might be very fuzzy as a theory has lots of research generated as techniques - they set the standard in "reframing"), Haim Ginott goes under communications even though he wasn't postmodern.
• Transpersonal also has its new age side - Ken Wilber
• There are also evolutionary psychology and social psychology (which is really Bandura's home)
• Under Systems you should have Gregory Bateson, Jay Haley, and a list of Family Therapy Theorists - that whole school of thought owes its existence to Systems Theory: Murry Bowen, Jay Haley, and others. I'd be happy to make more entries on the page but having you delete them is discouraging. Steve 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far a putting Branden into the list, his pioneering work in Self-Esteem (and in the philosophy of psychology) which started in the late fifties made changes still rippling through the approaches to motivation, development and treatment. He was ahead of the recognized "Positive Psychology" advocates in the theory and practice of positive psychology by decades. Before Branden you could hunt through the index of books on psychology and find little to no reference to self-esteem. (Steve)

Branden is another example of someone interesting, but who has not made a major impact on the field as a whole. But perhaps I'm wrong...anyone want to chip in on this one? (Psykhosis)

We certainly disagree on this one. Are you saying that self-esteem is of no importance in the field of psychology? I could do you no greater favor, psychologist to psychologist, than to recommend reading the first few chapters of "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" for the philosophy of psychology (I've never seen the equal anywhere else) and "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" for a powerful model of positive psychology therapy. Steve 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that self-esteem is of no importance in the field of psychology? This is the kind of debating approach that gets you in trouble, I think. Ironically, I actually think that "self-esteem" is a vague and poorly constructed concept, and that Bandura's concepts about self-efficacy are of far greater import for clinicians. Be that as it may, while Branden's publication might be a popular self-help book, his works have not really made a major impact on the field as a whole. However, I'm willing to be persuaded...can anyone offer evidence of his import on the field? Psykhosis 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Branden's "Psychology of Self-Esteem" is not a self-help book. Part one is pure philosophy of psychology. Part two is about self-esteem as a psychological need. I have found over fifty cites in just one look at Scholar.Google. "The six Pillars of Self-Esteem" showed 74 cites. But those numbers are nothing - Self-Esteem has over 19,000 cites and Branden is the one that started the interest in it, developed it, and remains the recognized expert in the field. The Wikipedia article on self-efficacy is pretty bad. What it defines as self-efficacy is a close copy to what Branden said, but decades earlier, except that Branden's description of Self-esteem described two aspects - efficacy and worth. He was the first to recognize that dual nature of self-esteem. The description of self-esteem on that Self-efficacy page is not very good. Steve 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people get all politically correct or religious on making lists like that when what is needed is a more factual, encyclopedic account of history. Steve 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more...it is guiding my own editing. Let us work to keep the article unbiased and factual. Psykhosis 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you are clearly passionate about your beliefs and your practice, and you've brought up several points that persuaded me to change what I edited in this article. However, I think you would profit from learning more about Wikipedia, so that your passion doesn't get in the way of good encyclopedic writing. I highly recommend reading the Manual of Style and the article on bias. Learning both will save you a lot of headaches in the future.

Nothing personal, Psykhosis, but there are times where what you write in your comments strikes the reader as condescending - to the point of being insulting. Suggesting that someone go off and study this or that is one of those cases. It leaves one asking themselves, "Did he mean to insult me? Is he trying to be helpful and just doesn't realize that he was rude? "Or, is this just a way to have his way?" And you went way beyond just implying an ignorance on my part. You implied that I have a bias that informs my writing in ways that violate WP Policy. I believe it is much better to not get personal when there is another way to go and it is better not to make accusations of something in a general fashion - if you need to make an accusation it should be specific, include a quote or link to the evidence. As long as we are giving advice (an awful thing to do) here is how I would word such an accusation, "George, at this location (link goes here), I think the words, "quote-goes-here" might not be NPOV." It is specific enough to research and answer, it is not a personal attack. It leaves the person's edit in place long enough for them to correct or remove it. It is respectful and protects the collaborative environment that generates Wikipedia content. Steve 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quick tip...unless the issue is Google itself, a search engine is not evidence of relevance. I can find even more search results for Ann Landers, but I'm not going to put her on the list. If you want your people on the list (or really anything in an article), and others disagree with their importance or relevance, you need to make a good argument for them based on relevant sources...ie. sources from the relevant literature (in our case, books and peer-reviewed journals on clinical psychology). To this end, I highly recommend reading the article on verifiability. And speaking of Google, their Book Search is very useful for finding printed material. If you can find a recent book on Systems Therapy with Bateson's or Haley's name listed as prominent, major contributors, I'll gladly admit I was wrong and welcome them to the list.

Psykhosis, what I wrote was "Scholar.Google" - just a short-cut to seeing some of the scholarly entries for a name or search term. Had I used regular Google the numbers would have been much, much higher but not as relevant. There is no "Systems Therapy"; it is "Systems Theory" - you can look up Gregory Bateson's contributions just by typing his name into Wikipedia's search box - same with "Systems Theory". It is a theory that Family Therapy owes its conception to and most of the PostModern schools. Also, this is something you might want to hear. When you say something like, "I'll ...welcome them to the list" it gives the impression that you 'own' the page. And, as a practical point, if you nit-pick or rewrite everything a person contributes, and delete much of what they enter, it generates ill-will and is harmful to the collaborative environment. I have seen many things that you have written that I would have worded differently but I always remember that this entire structure of Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and we need to be more respectful of one another. And to let others feel welcome and make contributions. Steve 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, keep me on my toes and question me when you think appropriate. At the same time, please learn how to appropriately handle disputes and how to argue for your contested additions. It will help us create better articles in the end. Psykhosis 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you can see from my comments above, that I've taken the section heading of 'Cutting through it' to heart. Your way of phasing things in these comments often feels very condescending almost insulting, like above where you imply I don't know how to handle disputes. Your tendency to change or delete nearly every entry I make is unpleasant and not welcoming. I have not done any of these thing to you and have been appreciative of your accomplishments. I hope you understand how much less you would have accomplished if someone were deleting most of your entries, demanding sources for everything you enter, and making condescending remarks towards you in the talk pages. Your first efforts on this page appeared to have some clumsy wording and you had some facts wrong. I pointed out the factual errors politely, and submitted to your requests for proof (on your talk page if I remember right). I was right to ignore your wording because you kept going back and polishing, again and again, till you have very well written entries. It is a shame you won't accord others such the same common curtesy. Clinical psychology is a very large area and one person, especially if they have not been involved in it for many decades or in very many of its different areas is likely to have blind spots - that is why a collaborative effort is beneficial. Steve 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your intention is just to have your own way, than I've wasted my time. But if your purpose really is to create better articles, then you will take seriously that you could handle some of these things better and appreciate the feelings of other editors and attempt to see things from their perspective.

You mention dispute resolution. One principle I try to follow is to not criticize things until I have examined them myself. I try not to delete someone else's entry and then demand that they put up a source. Instead I go look to see if their entry has merit. This has the added benefit that I learn more and if it does become a dispute I won't be the fool, disputing an area in which I don't know what I'm talking about. If my quick research say the entry is wrong, then I take my evidence to the person - that is a sign of respect and it is more likely to increase their knowledge without making them feel attacked. After that, if there is a disagreement I delete and ask for a source. That, my friend, is a better way to resolve disputes - especially since it creates fewer of them and they tend to be less emotionally charged. Steve 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condescending or not, becoming familiar with the Manual of Style, verifiability, and bias is a good idea for all editors, and I offer that advice to you because your writing shows evidence that you haven't become familiar with them yet. I will indeed continue to delete material that does not meet high encyclopedic standards...the burden is on you—as well as myself and all editors—to provide good material from relevant references. At the same time, as I've shown on several occasions, I'm always willing to be corrected (as in the case of clinical psychology MA programs...I was wrong and happily wrote the initial section on it myself). On the topic of dispute resolution, I think you are confusing normal editing procedures with actual disputes. You might find the article on Civility useful (you will note that despite your accusation of condescension, I have always been civil with you and others, and even though I might question information, I do not label, attack, or insult individual editors). I also suspect that you might be taking my edits personally...they aren't, period. In the end, if you want me to not delete or edit your additions, then you need to be prepared to add material that meets the standards set forth in WP:TPA. Psykhosis 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said you were not civil. I pointed out that condescension was present in your communications to me and that it felt insulting. I said that it was not good for Wikipedia because it harmed the collaborative environment. I didn't say you ever stepped outside of civility when being condescending and insulting - you haven't. You still make accusations without giving some kind of evidence ("your writing shows evidence that you haven't become familiar with them yet.") If you don't show an example of what you are saying it is just a condescending insult (delivered very civily). You say that you do not label, attack or insult other editors. Well, yes and no. You most certainly are civil and don't attack them or ever do any name calling. But the insult comes from making accusations that have no specifics offered as examples. If I said "George's writing shows he doesn't understand npov" it would be up to me to give an example where he did this. That is the difference. As to the taking it personal, I can only say that you continue to say that I'm ignorant of editing style, civility, bias/npov, and the wikipedia goals expressed in The Perfect Article. You say I am confusing normal editing with dispute resolution. No, I'm not. The word dispute and resolution also have normal English meanings. I also think you remain unaware of how unaccepting you are of any view point but yours in the article. Falling back on the WP Policy of verifiablity isn't an answer to my point about your acting as if you 'owned' the article.

You have worked with me before you should know that I'm not a nut-case and that I am knowledgable in the area of clinical psychology, and that I approve of your contributions and intentions (apart from our current disagreement). I would have expected greater understanding, more respect and less ridgity on your part. Steve 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't cut deep enough. Steve, you and I both have the authority to remove information that we deem inappropriate to an article. I removed one name because his works don't seem to be comparable with the others on the list...if we were to list every person who ever wrote a referenced book, the list would be gigantic. If you believe I'm wrong, as you seem to, then I'm willing to be corrected (as I've proven already). Simply saying that his book has lots of references isn't enough...you need to provide some kind of evidence that he himself made a major impact on the field. If you do, I'll gladly welcome the name (I've done a little web research on him, BTW, and am more convinced than before that he doesn't belong on the list). On all the other items...I don't know you. I have no idea who you are or what you are like in person. I only know your contributions. Based on those, I think you would seriously benefit from becoming familiar with the articles I pointed out. If that makes me condescending, then I'll accept that, because those articles are the backbone of keeping this site excellent. Moreover, if you did become highly familiar with them, you would have a far better idea of my "viewpoint" within this article. As long as you think this has anything to do with me promoting my own personal agenda, then you do not understand what I'm doing here or what Wikipedia is about. Read those articles, then get back to me...I'm confident that we will then be able to move on and keep making this article even better. Psykhosis 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an "a-bit-useless" comment. Maybe the Greek letter Psi picture on the top of the article should be changed. As far as I know about the topic, this symbol refers to the whole psychology, not only clinical. According to me, we should find a picture that is more representative. (a couch?) What do you think about that? Frédérick Lacasse 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or a picture of a self-help book. Clincal psychologists have written more of them then there are scholarly works on psychology (I just made that up, but it's probably true.) Maybe a picture of Psi on a couch? Just kidding. I like the Psi - but I don't care what image is used - I think all the visual changes user Psykhosis has made do improve the page. Steve 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, i do not care so much me too, i was wondering if somebody had a better idea. I won't remove the picture myself. Anyways, i guess it doesnt change the article's quality. Frédérick Lacasse 01:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My entry of Branden was deleted and I was asked to come up with sources. I'll put them forth, with my reasoning. I do this here to permit discussion (not because of WP Policy, which would allow me to simply enter the edit and cite my source) but in hopes of restoring good will among editors.

That Branden has been one of the earliest to do a substantial amount of writing on self-esteem is beyond dispute (just look at the number of books he has written on self-esteem and their publication dates). In an earlier comment it was implied that self-esteem might be too vague of a concept or that Branden might only be a 'self-help' author. I have a respected, valid, verifiable source to substantiate the following statement: Self-esteem is an important topic for clinical psychology and Branden has made major contributions.

Christopher J., Ph.D. Mruk,. Self-Esteem Research, Theory, And Practice: Toward a Positive Psychology of Self-Esteem. New York: Springer Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8261-0231-X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The book has been recommended reading for advanced psychology courses at the university level (at Universities other than the one Dr. Mruk is associated with).

Christopher J.Mruk, Ph.D. is a professor of clinical psychology with practical experience in many different clinical settings. He was the director of the counseling center at St. Francis College and he has taught clinical psychology at Firelands College of Bowling Green State University. He has trained and supervised clinicians. He has researched and published in the field of self-esteem. He is currently a consulting psychologist to Firelands Community Hospital of Sandusky, Ohio.

Page one, Dr. Mruk states, "Even a cursory database search of PsychINFO will reveal... more than 23,215 articles, chapters, books that directly focus on self-esteem as a crucial factor in human behavior." and later, "In fact, Rodewalt and Tragakis (2003, p. 66) stated that "self-esteem is one of the 'top three covariates in personality and social psychology research,'..."

Page 114 of the third edition is just one of many that detail the depth of Branden's work in self-esteem. Branden is referenced on pages 4, 19, 20, 34, 42, 43, 100, 114, 128, and 146. Steve 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating Branden with the topic of self esteem. It is a logical fallacy to say that because Branden wrote on self esteem and then other people wrote on it that somehow he is a vital influence on the field as a whole. The issue isn't "self esteem" but Branden...you need to provide some evidence that he himself, via is own works, made a substantial impact comparable with the folks currently on the list. If you can come up with any published source, even one, that provides evidence of his importance, I'll return the name myself. Psykhosis 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did just what you request. Dr. Mruk's references to Branden when discussing self-esteem are quite explict - Branden occupies pages of description. Steve 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I asked for a reference and you gave me one. While I still maintain that his contributions are nowhere near that of the others on the list, you seem to think he is worth all of this conversation. I find it odd that you are so passionate about adding him...but I'm too worn out talking about this to care anymore (which is kinda sad, actually). I really wish you would reconsider, for the sake of keeping the article as relevant and accurate as possible. Psykhosis 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]