	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The URLs that were working when the entry began changed. I updated the URLs one by one.Iss246 (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cox on his own personal website http://proftcox.com/ says..... "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life. This reliable source from the man who created the journal work & stress and the EA-OHP on his own personal website prefers the world to know he is a Organizational psychologist. If you don't like that reference, iss246, that is irrelevant. This article is about RS. not your opinion! Discuss on this page before blind deletes on no basis. This is a RELIABLE SOURCE!

If I were to write about, say, Stan Kasl's contribution to OHP, I don't write Stanislav Kasl, who has a Ph.D. in social psychology, researched the impact of unemployment.... It's too much. In any event, Tom Cox's CV on LinkedIn indicates that his Ph.D. in applied psychology (behavioural pharmacology). I don't want to include what his Ph.D. was about or where he got it. Piling up biographical bits every time a researcher's name is mentioned isn't warranted.Iss246 (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iss246 who cares what his qualifications are? Irrelevant. That reliable source in the first line on his own personal website http://proftcox.com/ says..... "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life."

That is what is important to Wikipedia. Reliable sources.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iss246 you have undone my edits on 4 separate occasions today. You have also refused to discuss them on this talk page as is required. You have obviously done this today only to provoke an edit war.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute what is written on Tom's blog page. I dispute the need to include "organizational psychologist" prefixing Tom's name in the EAOHP page. If you want to start a Tom Cox entry, just as an Ian K. Smith entry was started by someone, go ahead. You can include his training in behavioral pharma and how he became an organizational psychologist. I did not prefix Marie Jahoda's name with "social psychologist" or anybody else's. I didn't prefix Robert Feldman's name, Raymond Wood's name, or George Everly's name. Iss246 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-worded the section and it has a solid reliable source. It is completely acceptable to include from a major published reliable source, the mention of Tom Cox's profession as he proudly does. He invented the journal work & stress and the EA-OHP. He is obviously the most important person in those 2 Wiki articles.

Here is a direct example of how many Wikipedia articles are written. This directly relates to this issue of Tom Cox. Please see this Wikipedia article Induction motor It states in the first line of the History section: "In 1824, the French physicist François Arago formulated the existence of rotating magnetic fields, termed Arago's rotations, which, by manually turning switch........"

And here is another example of including a person's profession. Perhaps even more relevant given its psychology connection. Please refer to the intelligence quotient article. It clearly states this: "French psychologist Alfred Binet, together with psychologists Victor Henri and Théodore Simon, after about 15 years of development, published ....." You have engaged in 'unprovoked' edit warring and disruptive editing and have reverted this article page on 4 separate occasions. Further your reasons for doing so are baseless.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mrm you had to look hard to find it. It just said Binet and colleagues were psychologists. Moreover, that they were psychologists in an era when there weren't many psychologists.

Here is another direct example of how many Wikipedia articles are written. I think you missed it. Please see this Wikipedia article Induction motor It states in the first line of the History section: "In 1824, the French physicist François Arago formulated the existence of rotating magnetic fields, termed Arago's rotations, which, by manually turning switch........" I could find another 100 articles which refer to the profession. And not bios.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know your motivation. You are trying to knock down OHP. You do nothing else on Wikipedia except work around OHP. You do nothing for science entries. Nothing for math entries. Nothing for literature or history entries. You just hang on looking for ways to diminish OHP. Iss246 (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not personalize this iss246 like you have just done. Nor will I engage in edit warring. I will not accuse you of bad faith, like you have just nor personally attack you or put your editing down as you have just done. Further your claims are false and your behavior is intimidating. You had 2 clear examples from other Wikipedia articles I showed you why the Tom Cox edit was solid. I could easily find 100. But I don't need to. The reliable published sourced edit from 2 weeks ago, that you deleted today on numerous occasions was disruptive editing and you have now made 5 separate reverts on this article page today.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cox

Psyc12 blogs can be used as a reliable source when it is Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves Wikipedia:Verifiability You did not discuss. The edit on the EAOHP article, has been on the site for 2 weeks. It is well sourced and solid.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Discuss on article talk page if you have any other justification to blindly come in today and delete my edit. However I will not participate in your attempt to create an edit war. It is a good edit. It needs to be restored please. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV6May2009.pdf This is a reliable source stating word for word, "When Tom Cox founded Work & Stress in 1987, interest in work-related stress was accelerating and the contents of the first volumes reflect the fact that that the main interest in those years was on that specific subject. That reliable source also clearly shows that in those early years before it was bought by the EA-OHP, it was devoted to work stress, not OHP as such. So I have deleted that inaccuracy. This reliable source is from Tom Cox himself, saying it was devoted to occupational stress. Any other source would obviously be wrong. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against my better judgment, I edit Tom to a psychologist. I don't like these prefixes. It is a compromise on my part. But Mrm, you need a better source than a blog. Iss246 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cox refers to himself as an Organizational psych. And from the best source. His own website. Blogs in these circumstances are allowed. Reliable source word for word. Encyclopedic.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is a blog. Its gotta go. Iss246 (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Wikipedia says. 'Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves;' The Tom Cox RS is written by Tom Cox. The most reliable source possible in this case. When Tom Cox states proudly, he is an Organizational Psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources 'actually' say about Work & Stress journal

I add that W & S to the best of our knowledge was the first OHP journal. Iss246 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say "to the best of our knowledge" iss246? That is not encyclopedic.

This is what the most reliable source actually says. The Wiki article needs to to obviously reflect only and exactly that. Wikipedia is not a story book or fictional novel, it is an encycloedia. The reliable source says:

"When Tom Cox founded Work & Stress in 1987, interest in work-related stress was accelerating and the contents of the first volumes reflect the fact that that the main interest in those years was on that specific subject. However, following the natural development of occupational health psychology, journal coverage has broadened. By the late 1990s, the journal, although retaining its original title, had widened its focus to cover the interactions among work, health, and organizations. Today, Work & Stress is concerned with the application of psychology and related disciplines to occupational health and to health and safety. It is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all those concerned with the interplay of work, health, and organizations."."(Cox, T., Taris, T., & Tisserand, M. (2009). Across the pond: The journal Work and Stress. Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 17-18.)

The way you wrote this iss246 is inaccurate and very misleading. I am sure a Wiki administrator would also see that based on how you wrote it up and what the reliable source actually says. I have re-written it based on the reliable source. Also regardless of what other sources say, Tom Cox himself states all of this. Any other source on this topic therefore is NOT reliable. Based on this reliable source, I do not see how any statement could possibly be made that the journal is devoted to OHP?? Discuss on this talk page, but the black and white is right in front of us now to look at objectively.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mrm, I have the source. I will source the sentence soon. Iss246 (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Tom Cox and Toon Taris (the next editor) wrote about W & S: "Occupational health psychology is an important and fastgrowing discipline, not only in the US, but also in Europe. It is sometimes said that occupational health psychology is still young but Work & Stress, which is the longest established journal in this area, is now in its twenty-third year."(Cox, T., Taris, T., & Tisserand, M. (2009). Across the pond: The journal Work and Stress. Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 17-18.)

Iss246, you had written this up in the article 'as if' the journal has always been associated with OHP.

This is who publishes the journal.

Work & Stress is an international, multidisciplinary quarterly presenting peer-reviewed papers concerned with the psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational and environmental health, and stress and safety management. It is published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The journal publishes empirical reports, scholarly reviews, case notes, research notes and theoretical papers. It is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all concerned with the interplay of work, health and organisations.'

You just deleted Tom Cox's profession again too. You have no grounds whatsoever.

"When Tom Cox founded Work & Stress in 1987, interest in work-related stress was accelerating and the contents of the first volumes reflect the fact that that the main interest in those years was on that specific subject. However, following the natural development of occupational health psychology, journal coverage has broadened. By the late 1990s, the journal, although retaining its original title, had widened its focus to cover the interactions among work, health, and organizations. Today, Work & Stress is concerned with the application of psychology and related disciplines to occupational health and to health and safety. It is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all those concerned with the interplay of work, health, and organizations." BY TOM COX himself!

Work & Stress was founded in 1987 by Tom Cox, Organizational Psychologist[7][8] and although the contents of the first volumes reflect the fact that that the main interest in those years was on work related stress, in 2000, the journal became associated with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology[9] With the first APA/NIOSH conference on Work, Stress, and Health in Washington, DC in 1990, EA-OHP was gaining adherents. Cox pursued the idea of founding a professional organization around which OHP researchers, teachers, and practitioners could coalesce.[2]

This whole paragraph has used reliable published sources, word for word.

The publisher's website and other sources clash. One says work & stress is related to OHp, the actual publisher's site says it is not exclusively OHP? We have a dilemma? Please discuss, so we can come to a conclusion as to how we move forward.

Tom Cox, Organizational Psychologist - Rock solid edit

However in relation to the other edit. That is, Tom Cox the Organizational Psychologist edit I have made. That is roick solid. And for all of the reasons already outlined.Tom Cox was the founder of the journal. He invented the Journal. He also was the founder of EA-OHP. He invented it in effect. Based on this reliable source. When Tom Cox founded Work & Stress in 1987, interest in work-related stress was accelerating and the contents of the first volumes reflect the fact that that the main interest in those years was on that specific subject.."."(Cox, T., Taris, T., & Tisserand, M. (2009). Across the pond: The journal Work and Stress. Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 17-18.) Regardless of whether you like the entry Tom Cox refers to himself as an Organizational Psychologist. The reliable source used is his own personal website. It is the most reliable source possible. It is written by him on the homepage, opening sentence, of his own website. I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life.http://proftcox.com/ This is a perfectly legitimate reliable source, in this case, the 'most' RS! Wikipedia says it is okay to use a blog or personal website. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material Tom cox wrote it. I have presented a rock solid entry into this article. There is absolutely no reason for you to delete it. I am amazed that your possessiveness over this article has meant all this debate over the inclusion of 2 little words. "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist. This is a classic sign of "ownership behavior" see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psyc12, once again, no discussion from you on this talk page? Just delete. You and iss246 are both protecting and taking ownership of your same related article. You are showing what wikipedia defines as "ownership behavior". If you delete my solid edit on Tom Cox again, I will ask for dispute resolution and possible mediation over this article, and work & stress. I will also detail all edit behavior, since you and all of the other members of the "SOHP community' 'joined in' in early June, to support the opinion of iss246, when he 'enlisted' you all at once: only you stayed on. I have calmly explained my points and reasoning for the inclusion. However you have not discussed on this talk page. Just because you and iss246 don't like it, does not mean I cannot include it. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page

Why won't you discuss these issues you have iss246 on this talk page calmly and in a civil manner. We can work toward a civil conclusion based purely on reliable sources for this encyclopedic article? Why won't you do what Wikipedia instructs us to do? Please discuss rather than blindly delete and cause disruption to good faith editors. I know you orginally wrote this article but you do not own it. Noone owns an article iss246. Please again refer to this Wikipedia:Ownership of articles "This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page."Mrm7171 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]