Talk:Occupational stress/Archives/2020

Professions involved in treatment of occupational stress

I started this section to start collecting sources for this section.. and engage in discussion about an approach for this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Global / international perspective(s)

I started this section to start collecting sources for this section.. and engage in discussion about an approach for this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, from a very quick and simple google:

Would any of these scholarly articles be helpful?
— User:CaroleHenson

–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Good start. I think we could look at it from a continent and country perspective. List of national public health agencies. What is the justification then for using a USA health agency when different countries all have their own agency? How is that improvement? I've never even heard of the CDC before it was mentioned. Just as I've never heard of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention or any of the other country specific agency. Only the World Health Organization. I'm sure I'm not alone around the world. Having a link to it doesn't change that. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said earlier, for the past 60 years the CDC has had programs for Global Health. It is a premier health organization.

I believe that the World Health Organization is absolutely a good source of information.

I believe that organizations from countries that are doing ground-breaking work on occupational stress are also good potential sources. The real points are: 1) having a global presence and/or 2) doing ground-breaking work, per scholarly articles or really good, reliable news sources. That's my take, anyway.

I seriously believe if you lock in on the addition of content from the CDC and make that an ongoing issue, without making the article better in other ways, you will be doing yourself a great disservice.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you know what agences per your List of national public health agencies are doing ground-breaking work on occupational stress? Or is it best to search scholarly articles and books published by third parties (not self-published) with good reputations / book reviews?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes it seems like a good idea to look at the types of journals that publish anything on occupational stress. The CDC is USA based. I'm sure every country and the different professionals are doing ground breaking work. Are you saying only the USA CDC is? I'm confused. We would be doing Wikipedia a great disservice by focusing on the CDC when it is only one health agency arounbd the world List of national public health agencies We should use the WHO and see what professions they say are involved in occupational stress. I think at least. Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I am just trying to figure other sources. I think CDC is a good source. I think WHO is a good source and added one article below as a potential source. Who else? My goal is to get the Bibliography rolling with a good list of articles and books that would improve this article from a global perspective.

I don't want to do this, though, if I misunderstand what you want to do. Do you want to work on this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

Potential sources

• Managing occupational stress: A national and international perspective This might be old enough to be discussed with pros/cons in other scholarly articles or books. Anything useful here?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Raising Awareness of Stress at Work in Developing Countries, WHO–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Occupational stress - blog

Collapsed as this issue has been resolved, re: an expert

Lightningstrikers, I reverted the most recent edit here because: Blogs can be acceptable if the author is an expert in the field. I cannot see how you can question that he wasn't writing about occupational stress See source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC) CaroleHenson Can you show exactly where it says occup-ational stress? I can only see that this person's opinion refers to occupational health? The two are not the same thing. This is a specific article about occupational stress. Nothing else. Lightningstrikers (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Lightningstrikers, I think the biggest question right now is do you have sources, as you mentioned below. But, just so I am clear, are you saying that there is no connection between discussion of stress within the context of "Occupational health psychology" and "Occupational stress"? –CaroleHenson (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "If the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources" Surely for such a big statement there were more reliable sources than a blog! I cannot find anything at all on Google that says that? I found lots and lots of sources which state otherwise though. Lightningstrikers (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC) That sounds like a valid point. Do you know how to show examples you found by putting the links here inside brackets?–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC) I will make my question more specific and clear then CaroleHenson. The blog source used and you restored, does not actually say "Other subdisciplines within psychology have been relatively absent from research on occupational stress" This article is solely about occupational stress, nothing else. Occupational health is extremely broad and "occupational health" is what the blogger says. However occupational stress and occupational health are quite different constructs. We cannot use sources (especially blogs) which do not actually state what is written in the article. Again, can you show me exactly where the blogger states it is occupational stress rather than occupational health? This would really help? Maybe we could use some kind of dispute resolution if you can't see my point? Lightningstrikers (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Lightningstrikers, I thought part of your issue was that you had a lot of sources that said otherwise. Was that not so? I am not sure how Iss246 saw it, but I thought "The psychology establishment was ignoring stress and other OHP issues." and "The area of psychology most concerned with the workplace, Industrial-Organizational (IO) psychology, until recently, rarely dealt with issues of employee health." I think Iss246 should address this, though. And, as I mentioned before, if you don't think it's covered, a {{failed verification}} tag should be used. And, the more I think about it, it is thin for the point being made It is best not to overuse dispute resolution before attempting to resolve the issue. Please read WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lnfo. There was no traction at ANI, for instance, because there was no real effort to resolve the issue. I added an underlined statement above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC) I am seeing that it might be stretching things, though, to come up with that sentence. I will add a "failed verification tag until we can get this resolved.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC) You didn't answer my question, though. Do you really want to work to build this article? Or, is the real issue that you content things (more things) that are in the article? If you think that there are statements that are incorrect, then it's important to discuss that, too. You just need to provide sources with opposing points as a counterpoint. I am just trying to figure out where you are coming from. And, you cannot go straight from, contesting content, saying you contest it, expect it to be removed without working through it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC) User:CaroleHenson, I cited the i/o psychologist Paul Spector, a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of South Florida. He is a leading figure in i/o psychology. Spector wrote a major textbook on i/o psychology wrote and has written a great deal about OHP. In his blog he wrote, "The psychology establishment was ignoring stress and other OHP issues. The area of psychology most concerned with the workplace, Industrial-Organizational (IO) psychology, until recently, rarely dealt with issues of employee health. For example, when I wrote the first edition of my IO textbook in the early 1990s, one of the publisher’s peer reviewers recommended I remove the health and safety chapter because it did not fit in a book on IO psychology. Those interested in OHP issues felt they needed their own identified field." Thus I don't think the sentence tagged with "failed verification" deserves that tag, and I ask you to please delete it. Please bear in mind that I have been dealing with Lightningstrikers for years. He has used other monikers, like Mrm7171, in the past. He has generally tried to undermine a great deal of what I have written for the WP occupational health psychology entry, to the extent that he has gotten himself suspended and then permanently banned from WP. Now he has returned under a new name. He has trained his sites on the occupational stress entry because of its close connection to OHP. Even Lightningstrikers's claim that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is unworthy of a mention because it isn't international enough is one of the niggling things he does to try to undermine my writing. I appreciate your efforts to create a dialogue with Lightningstrikers but every dialogue turns into his pulling another rabbit out of the hat to undermine what I have written about OHP. Iss246 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Sorry user:CaroleHenson, I deleted the "failed verification" by mistake. I will leave it there for you to delete. Iss246 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC) For what it's worth, I have been amazed that you have dealt with these issues for years. I haven't seen a proven sockpuppet between the different usernames you mentioned, but I get that if it's not the same person, they sure are similar. And, I haven't read a denial of a connection/sockpuppet issue between Lighningstrikers and Mrm7171. Unless there is a proven connection, I would refrain on focusing on that... and focus on the behavior that isn't working here, which seem pretty clear to me. It seems like pulling teeth to get to what the real issue is. I don't have a clue whether the intention is to improve the article... or nitpick their way through this article, removing content bit-by-bit. It is beginning to seem to be the latter, since there's greater focus on CDC being an American organization, regardless of that they do groundbreaking work and have worked on Global Health for 60 years. Really zero progress on professions or improving the article to ensure a global/international perspective. That said, I do get that the blog was written by an expert. I did, it appears, identify the right info that you were looking to cite. But, I think it's not as clear connection between the source and the content in the article. I thought they made a good point if there are sources that have content in direct opposition, but they haven't provided even one yet. Arghhh! It's hard, because it seems to me that it's trying to prove a negative, which is difficult. And, if it was a notable issue, shouldn't others have commented about the lack of disciplines involved in Occupational stress in scholarly, etc. articles? i.e., I am a bit lost in the impact of the content (e.g., the occupational stress field hasn't been as effective as it could have been with more disciplines involved, etc.) and how to ensure that the article has the best source for the point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC) I will find sources that say the opposite CaroleHenson. I am also sick of this other editor bullying me. I don't know what their problem is! Lightningstrikers (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Are we going ahead with the section on all the various professions around the planet which deal with occupational stress? Lightningstrikers (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) I am getting that, too. If you can begin a habit to try to work through things, don't make removal/replacing content your modus operandi, find sources to explain your points and proposals, and give clear indication of what you want that would go a long, long way. I am about to give up on continuing to engage in dialogue that mostly doesn't go anywhere. Cool, re: finding sources. That helps.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Re: Professions, I was waiting to see what sources you find. That will help give me an idea of where you are looking to go... and how to shape the section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Regarding the {{failed verification}}tag in relation to the blogger on his blog, surely someone else will have published this in independent reliable sources. Is there any reliable source apart from a blogger's opinion please? Occupational health is a broad topic. This article is only about occupational stress, what it is, models and so on. The blogger did not say occupational stress they said occupational health. Very different. How long do we leave a false statement like that in the article given it has failed verification do you think? Lightningstrikers (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC) I believe the phrase was "Occupational health psychology" - not the broader "Occupational health". See this book with descriptions of "Occupational health psychology" and "occupational stress". Right now, I have zero evidence that it's a false statement. It's hard to prove a negative. I agree, there's probably a way to look at it to get to more sources if it's an ongoing issue. Want to be a problem-solver and help get this to resolution (i.e., find a way to reword a sentence about disciplines and find sources)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC) I am getting a migraine and need to focus on productive things for a bit. The back and forth without progress is too frustrating.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC) I restored the failed verification tag that CaroleHenson put on the statement. However Iss246 keeps removing it. I didn't put it there but I do agree it should be there. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I saw. I think both of you really deserve a warning for edit warring. Lightningstrikers, it would really help if rather than picking things apart you would take a step to making things better. I call you out because that's what I am seeing. But, I think both of you have ownership issues about this article, but I think that Iss246 may more deservedly have a good reputation for their work here. I will explain below. Can you find sources about the engagement of disciplines in Occupational stress? I would think treatment could be a good search item. You have said for awhile that you have sources, but I have yet to see one to support your viewpoint. My recommendation is to search generally for what disciplines are involved in the treatment of Occupational stress now, and over time. I don't mean to pick on you. I am hoping to change the dynamics from what seems to be a very frustrating situation for years. In terms of content, IMO: I see that Iss246 has made a lot of edits and is the first or second largest contributor to text depending which graph/table one looks at here. On that same page, you rate for a number of edits, but don't show up at all on the table as being one of the key contributors of actual content to the article. This query shows you seem more interested in removing text. And, when you are adding text, it's hard to tell the nature of the content, because there is no edit summary (i.e., you are not making it easy for other editors to work with you). I think it would be a good show of good faith towards making the article better if you took on something / anything constructive to make the article better. Otherwise, you don't have a good track record of having good intentions. You have a track record for being disruptive.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I.e., this is a chance for you to shine by coming forward with content that you feel strongly about and have sources to support it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I think we are not getting anywhere. I will seek dispute resolution to improve the article. I am a new editor so please don't keep making bad faith accusations. I am sick and tired of it from both of you. I don't see why this section is in the opening paragraph at all given it is not even discussed in the article itself. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Works for me at this point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I am trying to make the occupational stress entry as clear and comprehensible as I can. When I started, the entry was chockablock full of unsupported claims. I have a reasonably good command of the literature on job stress. Iss246 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Why are we including this section in the opening paragraph at all? The article does not even mention what professionals are involved in occupational stress yet we are arguing over it. All of the actual topics I've listed below are not even mentioned in the opening paragraph! I would like to see us adhere to the guidelines which ask us to summarise the main points in the article. Including this section is not an improvement to the article and breaches guidelines. Can we remove it do you think and instead summarise the main contents in the article? Contents 1 Psychological theories of worker stress 1.1 Demand-Control-Support Model 1.2 Effort-Reward Imbalance Model 1.3 Person-Environment Fit Model 1.4 Job Characteristics Model 1.5 Diathesis-Stress Model 1.6 Job Demands-Resources Model 2 Factors related to the abovementioned psychological theories of occupational stress 3 Negative health and other effects 4 Gender 5 Causes of occupational stress 5.1 General working conditions 5.2 Workload 5.3 Long hours 5.4 Status 5.5 Salary 5.6 Workplace bullying 5.7 Narcissism and psychopathy 5.8 Workplace conflict 5.9 Sexual harassment 5.10 Work-life balance 5.11 Occupational group 6 Prevention/Intervention 6.1 Signs and symptoms of excessive job and workplace stress Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Are you kidding? I have explained that the lede is an intro + summary of the article I think three times now. I provided the guideline that says intro + summary Why does this keep coming up?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC) If you don't like the guideline as it is right now, perhaps you could take it up on that talk page WT:LEDE. For someone who claims to be new, you contest a lot of Wikipedia guidelines... and are sure of your understanding. And, you have not added one character on the work section on the professions involved in Occupational stress–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Please be respectful CaroleHenson. Yes I googled these policies and just read the one about Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight too. We have included in the lead this large section about professionals but completely ignored all of the other contents in the article. I don't know but it seems like we are giving this undue weight given porofessionals are not even discussed in the article? Dispute resolution may clarify this for us if you don't think there is an issue with this. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I am not sure how I was disrespectful, but how do you think I feel when you keep asking the same question - don't like the answer - wwait a bit - rinse and repeat? You are essentially saying that whatever I am saying is not of value. And, for that reason I refuse to answer a question from you until you are willing to WP:LISTEN. I have given you resources, though, that you can go to.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Lightningstrikers, like Mrm7171, asks everyone to be respectful but he is not respectful. He does not respect me. Iss246 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I am not Mrm71! Would you like to respoond to the question I've asked about undue weight? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I did not say Mrm71! I said Mrm7171. Iss246 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I looks to me, Lightningstrikers, like you are guideline shopping and fixated about removing cited sentences. I have told you, you can raise a question at WT:LEDE, WP:Teahouse, get a mentor... so many options. But for this question, you seem very determined that it's a lede question, so I would go to the Lede talk page or Teahouse and ask the question of a disinterested third-party. You can also go to dispute resolution, as you said you would. I am not going to continue to answer the same question multiple times.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC) No it's a new question. You refuse to engage. It is about undue weight. I've mentioned 2 policies. Hardly shopping now is it. Anyway obviously you do not want to work toward consensus here otherwise you would respond to these new questions. The lead is bogged down by the weight of this large section on professionals which you both seem trasfixed on for some odd reason. Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I am looking at our dispute reslotion options. Which noticeboard would be best to use please or which form of dispute resolution that can resolve this? Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Please see my last post to your question above. I don't know where you are, but I hope you can have a good day or night. For me, I will say good night.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Good night. Iss246 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Iss246 and CaroleHenson I have opened a case at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to resolve this and cool things down. Sorry I'm not sure how else to notify the other two editors so I put this alert here instead. Lightningstrikers (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits to the lede

Rather than engaging in an edit war:

Do you have a source, Lightningstrikers for

Traditionally clinical psychology, counseling psychology, health psychology and industrial psychology have dealt with occupational stress at both the individual and organisational level. Other professions such as medicine and occupational hygiene also deal with occupational stress.

You have been trying to add this sentence for awhile, but have not added sources.

Other than that, these edit involved a paragraph break. Not really a huge deal in the end. I don't seen that it's such a big block of text that it needs to be subdivided, though.

If you would like to expand the lede to include a summary of content within the article, that would be great! Are you interested in drafting content for the lede?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you or Iss246 outline exactly why you are both so determined to have this strange section in the lead at all? Is there some agenda here that I'm unaware of. It is not discussed in the article at all. Baffling. Lightningstrikers (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

See this response and the one above.

I have no idea how you are making the conclusion you are making and am tired in your just asking questions when you don't like the answer or if it involves work on your part. Are you saying that you have an issue, but have no intention to do anything that would solve the issue? (This is really a rhetorical question until you have a meaningful, helpful response. Otherwise, I refuse to engage in further non-productive conversation that goes in circles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you are not addressing getting sources for content that you added, I am going to remove that content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

please don't do that while we are trying to work this out. And please respond to why you are so hell bent on including this strange section at all? Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The point is: you are NOT trying to work this out. Got sources?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stay calm. Not answering direct questions is disruptive. Why won't you explain why you believe this section in the lead which is not discussed at all in the article is there? Please respond. We can work this out. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are trying to revert again. I didn't want this to be an edit war. I wanted you to find sources for the sentences you have added. This has gone back and forth for awhile.

With about six people having warned you about disruptive editing, which has gotten to Level 2 twice... and is now about to go to Level 3, that could result in your being blocked. You can solve this really easily. Find sources to support your position. This is my last discussion with you until / unless you want to engage in productive conversation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What an absolute lie. 6 people. You are edit warring. We are trying to work this out and you go and delete. Argggh! Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

we really do need another form of dispute resolution. We are getting nowhere. I want to resolve this. Will do some reading about what type of dispute resolution would be best. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Failed Verification Tag

CaroleHenson you added a failed verification tag for good reason [4] Why have you now deleted the tag? The source does not say occupational stress which is a very specific construct it says occupational health which is obviously very broad. Please explain? Lightningstrikers (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You must be referring to a time I reverted you reversion of the content. That was because you started, but did not complete, the conversation about this. I began to get "clued in" that your focus seems to be removing content, not providing sources to support your position, and then making another attempt to delete content. I am just getting over having discussions with you that involve a complaint but no effort to really discuss your concerns with sources.

I had offered to help you add content about disciplines and international or global view. That went nowhere.

So, your efforts seem to be more a means of disruption than improving the article... and Iss246 has a source, as much as you don't like it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one who thinks this section should be there so obviously no I'm not interested in it. There is no justification for it being there. Why do you believe we should have this section in the lead? Why won't you answer the question? Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No you added a failed verification tag. Why are you pretending you didn't. Why are you being so deceptive. This is disruptive. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson now you see the failed verification tag you added for good reason. Why did you delete it please? Please just answer that question. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

user:Lightningstrikers, the source is a respected figure in the fields of both i/o psychology and occupational health psychology. Your doppelganger Mrm7171 even cited this psychologist's work. I see no explanation for your questioning the source. Iss246 (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Who is he? He's a blogger! Have you got an international source. Sounds like he's a friend of yours. Beseides the blogger doesn't say that about occupational stress. He talks of occupational health. Big difference. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude but do you have a conflict of interest here. You say you are a professor. Is the blogger a friend of yours? Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is what I mean by niggling arguments. Spector, who is not my friend but I know who he is because of his prominence, writes about "job stress" which is synonymous with occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is the discussion of professions in this article

The question I've asked is why are we talking about professionals in the area. Trying to say one is better than the other seems pointless. It seems very fishy to me. Can either of you please just provide some reasons why we need to be including this? Removing it would then allow us to focus on expanding the lead to include a sumnmary of all the actual content like guidelines tell us to do. Please answer my question. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about occupational stress only. I feel like there is an agenda here to be saying this occupational health psychology is better than everyone else. What's going on here Iss246? Why are we including this section in the lead? Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting why neither Iss246 not CaroleHenson answer this direct question? Lightningstrikers (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's all stop

This is going nowhere. It won't hurt for right now to have content that is tagged with needing sources in the article.

Hopefully dispute resolution will step in and help sort this out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Let's try and resolve this. Can we all agree not to reveret while we try and resolve it. What do you both think? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

looks like Iss246 doesn't want to stop. Can you agree to not reevcerting please Iss246 just while we resolve this mess? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot agree because I explained my actions in the section entitled "End of Argument." Lightning, you cannot by fiat without a coherent justification change my edits. Your having a feeling is not enough. Iss246 (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. I am only making the suggestion because I am hoping someone will respond to the dispute soon. It's really best right now to let that play out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am looking for a source. Please don't keep removing content until we resolve this mess. I think dispurte resolution will help. That's why I requested it. Please be patient Iss246.Lightningstrikers (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to take a step back from this article for a while or at least concentrate my efforts on improving other articles. You've both given me a migraine. Lightningstrikers (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Working on the new lead together

I would like to hear from Psyc12 and Sportstir who both indicated industrial posychology and occupational health psychology are the areas which deal with occupational stress. I hope we can all reach a civil resolution and come up with a great 'live" version of the lead for our readers. There has been far too much coinflict here. Hope that sounds like a fair approach? Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the draft so far.

All that is needed is a link, rather than copying text and references

Although professionals in occupational medicine have been interested in occupational stress, the CDC indicates that the relatively new field of occupational health psychology is "all about" research and practice aimed at the prevention of "occupational stress, illness, and injury." According to Paul E. Spector, other subdisciplines within psychology have been relatively absent from research on occupational stress. Occupational psychologists diagnose and treat cases of occupational stress. They seek to reduce occupational stress by working with individuals and in some cases changing the workplace to make it less stressful. Cooper's 1986 model of occupational health suggests that for the development of programs to benefit workers to advance, collaboration is needed between occupational psychologists and clinical psychologists, and perhaps other professionals. Clinical psychologists and health psychology has a history of providing expertise on health, mental health, and stress. Another tangential field is counseling psychology, where in addition to expertise in to perform assessment, address normal development issues, and implement therapeutic interventions—counseling psychologists also have expertise in career development and vocational psychology. Industrial and organizational psychologists have a broad skill set to address occupational stress and workplace safety, due to their expertise in organizational development, job design, training, and employee assessment, according to Spector. Joseph Hurrell, a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) researcher, states that there remains a large disconnect between these fields of psychology and general occupational health: "Psychologists need to make the relevance of OHP clear to the field of occupational medicine by focusing on outcomes of public health significance". References

Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

We are making progress with the draft. Thank you CaroleHenson. Hope you can see my logic in just waiting a bit while we get it right before going 'live'. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson can I ask why you have not included those two references I provided. They seem the most comprehensive and I spent quite a while going through sources today. Are you okay with me including them please? Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced sentences which all of us agree were not appropriate. Consensus. I also added three sources to the statement about industrial psychology. Both psych12, Sportstir and I all agree that industrial psychology and occupational health psychology are the only two professions. Going against that is going against consensus. Please lets just get the lead sorted now together. I respectfully listened to your concerns about consensus and unsourced statements CaroleHenson and made the changes you wanted and it is now very well sourced. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In general, this is a good step forward!

Where is the conversation where you say you came to an agreement - that is different from what they said earlier? I would not summarize what they said as to coming to

Both psych12, Sportstir and I all agree that industrial psychology and occupational health psychology are the only two professions.

What happened to the other content? It's not all that Iss246 posted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

End of Argument

Tonight I did a little research using PsycInfo.

21 (0.4%) articles published by the Journal of Counseling Psychology of the 5,029 articles it published since its founding in 1964 concerned occupational stress.

155 (0.8%) articles published by the Journal of Clinical Psychology of the 18,423 articles published since its founding in 1945 concerned occupational stress.

367 (42.4%) articles published by the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology of the 866 articles published since its founding in 1996 concerned occupational stress.

Clearly occupational stress plays a small role in counseling and clinical psychology as the leading journals in those fields indicate. Occupational stress plays a much larger, more important role in OHP. User:CaroleHenson, the argument user:Lighningstrikers is making is fallacious. It involves quibbling over minor stuff and unnecessarily magnifying small things. The situation would resemble in an odd way my arguing in the anxiety WP entry that OHP plays as important a role as clinical psychology plays; I would not make such an argument. Anxiety only plays a small role in OHP; 60 (6.9%) of the 866 Journal of Occupational Health Psychology articles concern anxiety. I am going to make a change in the occupational stress entry. I insist that Lightningstrikers leave my edits alone. Iss246 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That is helpful information. I think it is fair to ask for Lightningstrikers to not change your edits in any way unless they can come up with sources. The failed verification conversation is just a recapitulation of previous conversations on this page at Talk:Occupational_stress#Occupational_stress_-_blog.

I don't mean to "pile on", I am just of the mindset as well to end unproductive conversations, when energy could be expended by Lightningstrikers to follow the intention of the dispute resolution: To look at ways to enhance the Lede with information that summarizing content from the article. That seems like a good idea to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

the statement is these fields are also involved. I am in the middle of collecting sources. Very rude to be deleting while in the middle of this. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree we need to expand the lead to include a summary of all the actual content as suggested by CaroleHenson which seems like a good idea. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You have been warned Lightningstrikers about reverting edits. You can wait until you provide sources. You have said that before, but not delivered. Please don't revert again or I will give you a Level 3 warning.

I didn't suggest the work to add to the lede, you did.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Clinical/counseling/health psychology deal with stress in general and have not been much concerned with occupational stress or other occupational issues. That has not been their focus. This is reflected in the PsycInfo data Iss246 provided. Unless someone can come up with data that shows otherwise, these fields should be struck from the lede. The only psychology fields concerned with occupational stress at present are OHP and IO, and those are the only ones that should be mentioned in the lede.Psyc12 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Psyc12, that would explain why I am not getting anything with a query of: "occupational stress" clinical OR industrial OR counseling OR health that gets specifically to the disciplines involved.

It would be helpful to find more about this. Do you know what would be a good query to get at "occupational stress" professions. I have been trying, but am unsuccessful and am not sure what query Iss246 used.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

In other words, I am trying to get sources that answer the question what disciples/professions etc. are involved in treatment and research, but "professions" gets at what professions are at most risk of OS. I have tried treatment, which gets at methods and not professions or disciplines. i.e., this isn't my field of expertise, but I am trying to move this along.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been searching for sources that talk about disciplines/professions involved in occupational stress. The only one that comes up is occupational health psychology. For example, Cooper & Dewe state "The history of stress is also the history of OHP" (p. 107). They refer to Barling and Griffiths Handbook of OHP chapter on this point. Both sources, by the way, talk about the prominence of NIOSH, which is the occupational part of CDC, as well as some other organizations.

Cooper, C. L., & Dewe, P. (2004). Stress: A brief history. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Barling, J. & Griffiths, A. (2003). A history of occupational health psychology. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.) Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 19-33), Washington, DC: American Psychological Assocation. Note: There is a 2nd edition of this handbook with the same chapter.

I guess people aren't focused on identifying the disciplines of those who publish on this topic, so it is hard to find a source. Barling & Griffiths note the disciplines of some of the early occupational stress researchers, some of whom were physicians, but they don't talk about the professions concerned with the topic other than OHP. Psyc12 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing the search and responding here!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I know that in the UK it is only occupational psychologists that are the ones who deal with occupational stress so they need to be mentioned. Sportstir (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. Between Occupational health psychologists, occupational therapists, and OIs that's a good start for queries. There's also this article that may be helpful. And some books where it's discussed in the context of the Occupational health psychology field. It will give me something to work with to try to come up with a good cited draft that I will absolutely need help from other to review to ensure it's accurate, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about including a separate section in the article CaroleHenson to justify the inclusion in the lead? Lightningstrikers (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I have started Draft:Occupational stress (lede) to start drafting content regarding of occupations in Occupational stress. So far, I see consensus about the types of occupations to look for and that the uncited content as-is should be struck out. If it works out better to comment on the draft there, and avoid filling this page, that's fine with me.

Yes, I could absolutely see this as being a separate section in the article. I don't see an issue with that. Let's see how much content can be created, based on the number of sources that can be found.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, thank you. I think you are getting to a better place. Iss246 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Iss246, It's like my dad used to say to me, it feels so good when you stop banging your head against the wall.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, I edited what you wrote a little. Iss246 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this might be a good source. An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: An International Perspective 3rd Edition by Nik Chmiel (Editor), Franco Fraccaroli (Editor), Magnus Sverke (Editor). Separate chapter on occupational stress. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This Handbook of Work Stress Edited by: Julian Barling - Queen's University, Canada E. Kevin Kelloway - Saint Mary's University, Canada Michael R. Frone - State University of New York, Buffalo, USA. This handbook seems to talk about 40 years of research but states that organizational psychology is the area which covers occupational stress the most. Can't really find mych for clinical psychology. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have links to the books? Or draft language citing the sources?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/handbook-of-work-stress/book226100. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/An+Introduction+to+Work+and+Organizational+Psychology%3A+An+International+Perspective%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9781119168027 It looks like all textbooks on organizational psychology include separate chapters on occupational stress so organizational psychology appears to be traditionally the profession which is involved in occupational stress for the longest period of time dating back to the industrial revolution it looks like. I just did a google search and there are far too many handbooks and texts to include. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Both links seems to require a purchase - it's just got abstract kind of info. Am I missing something?

Perhaps there is enough at the draft now?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted. We need to develop consensus. The draft needs work. There is no rush. Also Iss246 deleted the section on organizational psychology. The sources I've provided seem to say it is the main professional area which deals with occupational stress internationally. Not waiting is disrespectful. We were making progress. Let's get tis right. Hope that sounds fair. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a 4-1 consensus to remove the uncited content as it was not correct.

Please feel free, though, to comment on how the draft is coming along, come up with additional content, etc. If you start reverting again, I am taking this to 3RR.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to be so aggressive. If you do that I will point out the 4 reverts in 24 hours you did and the 14 in 24 hours Iss246 did. The draft needs much more work. No harm in getting it right for readers of Wikipedia. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are realizing that you are:

• Going against consensus
• Replacing cited content with uncited content (a no-no)
• Going against what you have said you wanted to have done, have the intro improved. Can some of this be moved into a separate section... Or the current version of the draft moved into a new section, of course. It does not hurt anything to have properly sourced content in the article.

Meters Would you mind weighing in on this? It seems my next step is to take this to 3RR, unless you have other guidance for us. Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree counselling psychology, clinical psychology, health psychology, occupational medicine should be removed. As psyc12 said and Sportstir said organizational psychology and occupational health psychology are the only two professions which deal with occupational stress. Currently you are asking to have a draft which is live on the internet for readers with statements like occupational psychology diagnoses mental illnesses! That's clinical psychology. We need to have a good version that goes'live' and work on the draft collaboratively. We were making progress. You are creating conflict and hostility. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page, and you prefer to have mentioned here, I am getting reading to go to 3RR.

At this point I consider your actions vandalism, due to the number and quantity of people who have warned you about reverting content:

Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. From: 3RR Excemptions

and will take it there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It has been taken to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

My 3RR report edit conflicted. This was the quickest resolved 3RR report I have ever seen. Meters (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

lede looks a lot better--making progress. The only thing that might be added is a sentence at the end of the first paragraph giving a quick overview of the consequences of occupational stress for individuals. What do others think of that? Psyc12 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was good. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Consequences of job stress

A part of the occupational stress article that needs more work is the section on the consequences of job stress. That could be done in the section entitled "Negative health and other effects." Iss246 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Put some of the OS profession information in the "Prevention/Intervention" section

I think I have all the content now that Iss246 added and edited from the draft - as well as some additional content that I gathered and the link that Psyc12 added.

What do you think about having a summary of this in the lede and moving most of it to a subsection under the "Prevention/Intervention" section?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I will go ahead with that, but anyone that wants to change it, please feel free to revise because it's too heavy right now to be in the Lede I think.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I commented briefly earlier but had to go to work. I think I added to the confusion after reading through all of this for the past hour. I wish I had been able to comment earlier. When I said occupational psychology in the UK is the area which deals with occupational stress, I should have said industrial psychology. As another editor pointed out occupational psychology is just the UK title for industrial/organizational psychology in the USA. Occupational psychology is not the same as this area of occupational health psychology which I've never heard of until just reading that article on Wikipedia now. It is very widely known around the world that industrial/organizational psychology is the area of psychology that primarily deals with occupational stress. No doubt about it. Sportstir (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like in the carnage there were three really good sources added by editor psyc12 to back up what I said about industrial/organizational psychology. I am going to add these by cutting and pasting them back into the article I think. Hope nobody objects. Sportstir (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This new section is well written CaroleHenson but as I noted above I think I confused the matter by mentioning occupational psychology and how it is just the UK title for industrial/organizational psychology in the USA. Would you mind if I make a few changes to this section to correct that? I will wait to get confirmation from you before doing so. Sportstir (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Should occupational health psychology be mentioned in the lede along with I-O? I-O is a very broad field, with stress being one small part, but the field of OHP is entirely focused on stress and other aspects of worker health/well-being? The two sources I found both linked occupational stress with OHP. Of course, this is complicated because most (not all) OHPers are also I-O psychologists. Psyc12 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The lede says that IOs treat stress. Did the sources cited actually say I-Os treated stress? Or did they say I-Os might design interventions, which would involve redesigning jobs, or providing various kinds of training? If the latter, this should be restated to be more clear. To me treating stress suggests some form of psychotherapy, which IOs are generally not qualified to do. Psyc12 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sportstir and Psyc12:,

I don't know what sources were added by psyc12. I thought I looked at the edit summary thoroughly. I apologize if I undid helpful changes.

I defer to both of you on the content and sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not understanding

It looks like in the carnage there were three really good sources added by editor psyc12 to back up what I said about industrial/organizational psychology.

This is the net-net of two edits made by Psyc12 yesterday. I still absolutely defer to the two of you... I just was confused by the work "carnage". Perhaps you mean that the intro now just has a summary of the Occupations section. If I did anything along the way that undid work that you did, I apologize.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what the carnage is either. The lede is looking pretty good. I just had the one clarification above about whether the sources said IOs treat stress--just so we are accurate.Psyc12 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I think I figured it out. Lightningstrikers reverted the addition of the draft content and then had a sentence that they added three sources here. But that change had resulted in the deletion of information from Draft:Occupational stress (lede)‎, so I reverted back to the state where Iss246 had added and edited content from the draft. Now, we have the draft info + your and Iss246's edits + the sources provided by Lightningstrikers.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the separate section on occupations that mentions OHP and other disciplines relevant to occupational stress.Psyc12 (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for your input for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do too. Made several minor alterations. I'm open to Psyc12's suggestions. What did you envisage? Sportstir (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

From a quick look, Sportstir it appears as if the meaning of some sentences was changed - particularly the CDC comment. And, a sentence was removed.

I don't think Psyc12 was making a suggestion, I think they were making a comment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Were you referring to the sources to ensure that your changes were in synch with the meaning of the sources?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I really like the sentence order better that were made with your edits. I made some minor edits - and a major edit to the CDC statement - to get to the original meaning of the sources. And, I am trying to figure out the missing sentence... and if it truly a duplicate statement / or duplicate meaning, I won't add it back.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)I

Occupational psychology has been the occupation who pioneered the research and application in occupational stress within organizations. Occupational psychologists in the UK are very involved in occupational stress, health and safety and wellbeing interventions according to the sources I've looked at. Sportstir (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

user:Sportstir, it is important to identify the sources you looked at. I am all for sources. Iss246 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am not understanding your point. Occupational psychologists are mentioned in the Occupations section. What do you think needs to be done?

Do you have additional information that you would like to add with sources?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Terms by country / area

I think one of us should mention that the term "occupational psychologist" is used more often in the UK than the US. Iss246 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Would this page in a book about being an Occupational Psychologist work, Iss246?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, thank you for the heads-up about the book. This is what I read. The work of an occupational psychologist involves the following: assessment at work-related tests and scales (documenting the reliability and validity of selection tests and measurement of performance)

advise on team building

advise on teamwork

development of training programs to enable workers to gain new skills

evaluate the success of training programs

coaching workers

recruitment and selection of new employees

assessment of worker performance for management.

I didn't read anything about the occupational psychologist dealing with job stress. Perhaps I missed it. Is there something about the occupational psychologist and job stress that you could document. I am not against mentioning the work of occupational psychologists. I suspect that given the above tasks in the portfolio of the occupational psychologist, dealing with employees' job stress is only a tiny part of the occupational psychologist's portfolio. Iss246 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Iss246 Ahhhhh. I was just trying to identify the difference between the occupations in UK vs. US. Two thoughts:

• I wonder if we could say that generally, perhaps in a note:

  "The title "Occupational psychologist" means that the psychologists are trained and registered practitioners to treat occupational concerns. The title is unique to the United Kingdom. In Europe, the relevant title is 'Work and organizational psychologist' and in the United States, it is 'industrial and organizational psychologist'. Throughout the remainder of the world, it is one of these terms."

• I don't have access to psychnet, but there is this source that may discuss it. The abstract says that the article:

"Discusses steps that can be taken by the UK to identify sources of organizational/occupational stress and reverse the rising trend of occupational ill-health. Topics of discussion include the cost of stress and the sources of stress (e.g., factors intrinsic to the job, shift work, job overload, physical danger, role in the organization, career development, relationships at work, homework pressures, dual-career stress). Attempts of organizations in the US to decrease organizational/occupational stress are discussed, and the new role of the clinical occupational psychologist in this effort is outlined."

Or perhaps another article that I am not seeing... Or address the titles one-by-one with US, UK, Europe and occupational stress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This comprehensive international handbook talks about organizational psychology (or occupational psychology in the UK) in different parts of the world. Section seven is also all about occupational stress and safety. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-industrial-work-organizational-psychology/book236914#contents Sportstir (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)\

I looked through that source in preview mode and found five hits on "occupational stress", none of which mention the variances in occupational titles of practitioners around the world. As I missing something, though?

The more I think about it, I propose use of the general statement, which I have now highlighted above seems good to me... as long as we're clear that "generally" these are the titles of occupations that deal with occupational psychology issues. I stuck out the part about being in a note. I don't think that is needed.

@Sportstir and Iss246: others -- do you have any comments about the proposal of using the highlighted "general" text above?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me why we are doing this about occupational psychology? Occupational psychology is IWO psychology. This is a really good reliable source https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-industrial-work-organizational-psychology/book236914#contents with a section on work stress. It takes away all confusions about occupational psychology which is referring to exactly the same occupation or international field, industrial-work-organizational-psychology IWO. IWO is occupational psychology. There is no need to be discussing occupational psychology at all. It has chapters on IWO in North America then Europe, Australia and New Zealand, Africa, Latin America and so onward. I think we should include reference to this fact. I'm not sure where occupational health psychology fits into this large international occupation. We should be talking mainly about IWO psychology and how it is the leading global field in occupational stress. Sportstir (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I included this source to help with you trying to make sense of occupational psychology for some reason when IWO psychology is what we are talking about. Can you talk to me about this please CaroleHenson? Sportstir (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) it looks like

Again, Iss246 questioned the source I provided because it didn't explicitly mention "occupational stress". I still don't understand why we cannot use a general statement about the title variation... and perhaps the wording needs to be tweaked. I can totally see that would be the case.

I thought you were providing a source that did mention what titles are used in different places / countries to address "occupational stress". But, again, I didn't find anything in preview mode.

It seems now that you have a completely different point. You give the table of contents, which does not help me at all to narrow down to what you are saying. Also I don't know that I would agree that IWO psychology is used everywhere. Is there somewhere in the source that says that? More pointedly, what is your proposed language with a page number, etc. that supports the proposed language?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, it's very hard to talk to you about sweeping statements when you don't have specific content that backs up your point. A table of contents for an entire book does me absolutely no good. No suggested of proposed language makes it hard to figure out what your real point is. i.e., This feels like Original research.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain the purpose or rationale for what you are trying to do? That will help with us communicating CaroleHenson. My point is IWO is the global term for occupational, industrial, organizational psychology. Although different countries refer to it differently (for example occupational psychology in the UK) they are all talking about the same field of psychology. This being IWO psychology. So I don't see why we don't refer to IWO psychology and link that article. People in the profession would understand what I am saying CaroleHenson. Sportstir (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If you were going to explain that section you've highlighted we would need to say IWO is the overriding international title tittle for this large field of psychology both the research and practice levels. So an occupational psychologist falls within IWO and can also be called an IWO psychologist. Sportstir (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source or sources for that? I.e., is that a common opinion? I haven't seen that anywhere yet.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You avoided my question about the rationale? I provided you with the source https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-industrial-work-organizational-psychology/book236914#contents. It is covered within Part 1 and 2 of the reliable source. It is covered in more depth in chapters 1-7. Another source is International collaboration on the Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology: Editorial perspectives

N. Anderson, Deniz S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, C. Viswesvaran. Sportstir (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is very much a common opinion as you asked. However it is a fact not an opinion. Have you read those chapters CaroleHenson? It will become clear that what I am saying is true. Sportstir (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

From my response to you:

More pointedly, what is your proposed language with a page number, etc. that supports the proposed language?

and

A table of contents for an entire book does me absolutely no good. No suggested of proposed language makes it hard to figure out what your real point is. i.e., This feels like Original research

–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand what I am saying. What precise statement are you asking for a source? Sportstir (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Does this help? https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Q8V4UVbQ_MYC&pg=PR23&lpg=PR23&dq=what+is+iwo+psychology&source=bl&ots=KRnZUtmVPE&sig=ACfU3U1-n4aLqjKtPLlIkM2mAlU3XvArog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlu8XVjpvnAhVOIbcAHfLFCbE4ChDoATADegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20iwo%20psychology&f=false Sportstir (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm lost. I have a source for my proposed content. You don't seem to agree with it and want to make a general, overarching comment:

If you were going to explain that section you've highlighted we would need to say IWO is the overriding international title tittle for this large field of psychology both the research and practice levels. So an occupational psychologist falls within IWO and can also be called an IWO psychologist. Sportstir (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to follow you. Just so that I am clear:

Are you disagreeing with my proposed language about titles used in UK, Europe, US and other?

Are you wanting to edit that language?

Or, do you want the language about IWO psychologist?

If you want to edit or entirely change the proposed language please provide a source and page number (not a table of contents). Please put a Yes or No after each question, so that I know what is going on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I just provided you a source and exact page number. Did you read this CaroleHenson? https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Q8V4UVbQ_MYC&pg=PR23&lpg=PR23&dq=what+is+iwo+psychology&source=bl&ots=KRnZUtmVPE&sig=ACfU3U1-n4aLqjKtPLlIkM2mAlU3XvArog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlu8XVjpvnAhVOIbcAHfLFCbE4ChDoATADegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20iwo%20psychology&f=false Sportstir (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm done. I don't know what your proposed language is. Your intention seems to be different based on your search query "what is iwo psychology" which is very different than what we are talking about. I thought we were talking about what occupational titles are used to treat occupational stress. Really, I am done with this topic.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson and user:Sportstir, I think we can agree on this. The portfolio of the occupational psychologist is large. It includes advise on team building, advise on teamwork, development of training programs to enable workers to gain new skills, evaluate the success of training programs, coaching workers, recruitment and selection of new employees, and assessment of worker performance for management. It may also include something do with occupational stress. Occupational stress is a relatively small part of the portfolio of the occupational psychologist. By contrast, occupational stress is a major part of the portfolio of OHP. The psychologist Paul Spector, who works in both i/o psychology and OHP, indicates as much. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates as much. Iss246 (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in. If you can help sort this out, that would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sentence order in the lede

@Sportstir and Iss246:,

It seems like there is an edit battle going on regarding the order of the sentences, but neither of you posted anything here, on the talk page. Please see WP:EDITWAR and note that if there's already an edit war situation going on, and no attempt to resolve it, admins don't have to wait for three reverts.

Is there a way to resolve this? Find out what other readers of the article and this talk page think? Explain more fully what the issue is?–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I just read about edit warring. The sentence order makes sense the way it was but this other guy jut put in this other sentence even though there was three reliable sources saying occupational psychology is the leading field of work when it comes to occupational stress. Sportstir (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes most sense the way it is right now, from this edit.

Basically, though, it seems that conversation in the edit summaries that each of you think that you are right. I encourage the two of you to seek consensus and compromise rather than edit war. If you think it is a big deal, perhaps you could make a proposal on the talk page for others to weigh in. Or, let it go. Is this worth being blocked over?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sportstir and CaroleHenson: Sportstir, I justify putting the sentence "The subfield of occupational health psychology has made occupational stress a major research focus" at the beginning of the second paragraph on two grounds. First, the CDC identifies OHP as the leading arm of research on occupational stress. Second, the psychologist Paul Spector, who is a leading researcher in both i/o psychology and OHP, identifies OHP as a leading arm of research on occupational stress. Spector also describes how i/o psychology was slow to endorse research on occupational stress. Sportstir, you may have experts who can weigh in too. That is only fair. Please weigh in with their expert opinion. Iss246 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure, Iss246, but I think that Sportstir is from the UK, which may be why they see it differently. I think because they have different disciplines / professions involved in OS in the UK. So, US sourced info might not fit with their take on this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

See this comment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a good point. User:Sportstir may not be aware that the UK also has programs in OHP and the headquarters of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology is at the University of Nottingham. Iss246 (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Sportstir, I am sorry if I am sounding too preachy, but part of coming to consensus is explaining your position well and providing proposed solutions. See WP:BRD -BRD doesn't work if: ... people are talking past each other instead of getting down to brass tacks with concrete proposals."–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It is the sentence order currently in the article makes most sense. The other point is that industrial / organizational psychology / occupational psychology is the occupation that was first involved in occupational stress and still is in different countries not just the UK. The three sources seem to very much support these facts. I do not see what the debate is. Sportstir (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

user:Sportstir, what are the three sources you refer to? Iss246 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

user:Sportstir, why do you keep reverting my edits? I support my edits with sources. You said that you had three sources but haven't presented them. Please present them. Iss246 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Iss246, I think that they meant that the sentence in the lede that talked about industrial and occupational psychologists had three sources. It was something that was added originally by Lightningstrikers and was mentioned in the "carnage" comment awhile ago. Sportstir added them back. I think what they meant was those three sources were removed, but they are back now, so they are good.

Right now, for this moment, I think we are good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes CaroleHenson I did obviously mean the three sources I added. I have no problem to be including this occupational health psychology in the lede but organizational / occupational / industrial psychology (same occupation, different name depending where you are in the world) was the first and still is the leading field of psychology involved around the world in dealing with occupational stress. This other editor is trying to make out that is not the case. And just because one researcher out of thousands around the world has an opinion does not negate the fact that most reliable sources clearly show what I am saying. Sportstir (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Every book on organizational psychology talks about occupational stress and how it was originally researched by organizational psychologists. https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_orgpsych2/n6.xml Sportstir (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I am lost. Is this just a general comment so that I am better informed? Does it hint at a change that is needed? If you don't answer, I will assume it was just an FYI.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

user:‎Sportstir, why doesn't the sentence I entered not belong in the lede? Iss246 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a tiny little field so should just get a brief mention. Sportstir (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

user:‎Sportstir, you have 129 edits on Wikipedia as of today. And I have more than 12,000. When did you become an expert on Wikipedia? And when did you become an expert on what is "a tiny little field" and what isn't. Your comment is insulting. Iss246 (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me why it is important to say that the study of occupational stress comes mainly from I-O-occupational psychology. My reading of sources like Cooper and Dewe's Stress a Brief History (I provided the full cite earlier) does not say that. They talk about the early development of the study of occupational stress, and they mention quite a few individuals. Some might have been I-O-Os but many are not. One of the most influential early works is Katz and Kahn's The Social Psychology of Organizations that is the origin of role stress theory/research. Some are from other fields. I just don't see where Cooper and Dewe single out I-O-O as the dominant field that set things moving. Many of the major figures like Theorell and Frankenhaeser aren't even psychologists. I think it is fine to mention that the roots of occupational stress come from many disciplines including I-O-O, but it is not accurate to say it comes mainly from I-O-O, and this is true in the US, the UK and Europe. Note Cooper and Dewe are from the UK, not the US. Psyc12 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The following sentence "Occupational stress is primarily assessed, treated and researched by Industrial and organizational psychologists" is factually incorrect. I-O psychologists do not treat stress--that is the domain of clinical psychology, and the study of occupational stress is multi-disciplinary. There are people from many fields studying it. It is fine to say I-Os are involved in assessment and research, and perhaps interventions to reduce stress, but is not the same as treating it. I doubt that the sources cited, if they are reliable, actually say this. I raised this issue before. What do these sources actually say? Psyc12 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I just checked Hart and Cooper (one of the sources cited) and I cannot find anywhere where they say that IO psychologists assess, treat and research stress. This chapter develops a framework to understand stress and integrates/critiques various theoretical perspectives. It does not deal with fields concerned with stress. So this cite does not support the statement and should be deleted, or moved elsewhere. Psyc12 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Checking Griffin and Clark. They too do not support the above comment. What they say relevant to fields of study and occupational stress is:

"Researchers from psychology, economics, sociology, public health, engineering, and medicine represent just some of the major disciplines that have addressed the nature and consequences of work stress (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). Within the field of psychology, Beehr and Franz (1987) identified medical, clinical psychology, engineering psychology, and organizational psychology approaches."

Vinchur and Koppes don't deal with occupational stress at all. Here is their only mention of the topic

topics of relatively recent interest such as organizational communication and stress, are beyond the scope of this narrative. We now turn to three topics with a long history of interest in I/O psychology: leadership, motivation, and job satisfaction."

I reworked this unsupported statement to reflect what Griffin and Clark said. The other two sources did not deal with the issue. If someone can come up with a reliable source that actually supports this statement, it can be restored, but absent that the statement should reflect what the reliable sources say.Psyc12 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Psyc12 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your huge changes to the article which had been built by several editors. Please don't come in and make substantial edits until we can discuss what you want to do. I have major issues with your logic and the sources you are trying to introduce. Sportstir (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources that are currently in the lede support the statements about IWO psychology. You need to read the sources psyc12. Sportstir (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

These sources do not support your claims, as I have shown above. Either provide quotes and page/paragraphs from these sources where they do, or revert back to my changes. Otherwise I will report you for edit warring. All statements must be supported by reliable sources, and those sources must actually say what you claim they say.Psyc12 (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead with your your threat Psyc12! Your sources prove nothing. IWO psychology is, as anyone in psychology knows, the main field of psychology which deals with work stress. Be careful when you are reporting me that your own abusive demanding behaviour is not looked at instead coming in and aggressively pushing your edits into the article. Your threatening behaviour does nothing for consensus building. Sportstir (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. So let's discuss. I went through the three sources cited and I do not see where any of them support the statement noted above. I have provided summaries/quotes above from these sources. So where do any of them say that IWO is the main field that assess, treats, and researches stress? Please provide quotes from the sources, and not just claim they say it. I can't find it in any of these sources. Psyc12 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I revised to better reflect what sources said, while still acknowledging Sportstir's point about the prominence of IO psychologists in the field of occupational stress. The main issue to me is to accurately reflect what the sources said so the article is as accurate as possible.Psyc12 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, i/o psychology is not "particularly" concerned with occupational stress. It is concerned with occupational stress much the way other disciplines are concerned, disciplines such as occupational health psychology and human factor psychology and ergonomics. You do not have a source to indicate that i/o psychology is the preeminent discipline concerned with occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Iss246 the word "particularly" was inserted by Psyc12 not me! i agreed to their compromise. Please don't pretend you were not aware of this 6 weeks ago. Let's try and discuss your concerns here instead of edit warring with us all. I looked at the ergonomics article and work stress is not even mentioned. Do you have sources please? Sportstir (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I asked to have the matter taken up on the Noticeboard. I placed a message to that effect on your talk page. Better to have WP editors adjudicate the matter. Iss246 (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You continue to avoid any attempts by other editors to discuss the article and the content issues and only want to edit war with me and demand that only your wording be accepted and all other editors are wrong and you are the only one who is right. Sportstir (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

First Paragraph

User:Sportstir, thank you for the correction. I goofed. It was the Vinchur-Koppes chapter that I meant to delete. I haven't looked at it in a few months. Please tell me the page in which Vinchur and Koppes cover occupational stress. I remember that the Vinchur-Koppes chapter was about leadership, performance appraisal, and the usual topics found in i/o psychology but not about occupational stress. I remember them writing that job stress was beyond the scope of the chapter. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir Please see the occupational stress talk page.. Did you read all the references you cite in the first paragraph? I think you missed something because you don't need all those citations in the first paragraph. For example, Vinchur and Koppes wrote "topics of relatively recent interest such as organizational communication and stress are beyond the scope of this narrative." One or two citations is enough to cement your point. Iss246 (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it's too much. In fact many Wikipedia articles contain more than 3 or 4 sources. In this case here the ease at which high quality reliable sources can be found reflects the significance of IWO to the field of occupational stress. Whereas it is a struggle trying to find any sources to support your inclusion in that sentence of ergonomics and its direct relation to work stress. Sportstir (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I also think you are reading the wrong chapter in the APA Handbook which is very expansive so I can understand you mixed it up. It is the stress and well-being at work chapter by Mark A. Griffin and Sharon Clarke that should be noted. Sportstir (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I am referring to the Vinchur-Koppes chapter. It does not cover occupational stress. I don't have an objection to leaving the Griffin-Clarke and Hart-Cooper chapters. Let's remove the Vinchur-Koppes chapter because the authors explicitly report that they don't cover occupational stress. See for yourself. I refer to page 22.

Regarding the book by Ones et al., I am not sure you are entirely familiar with it. There are barely two pages on stress in this 600-page book.

The chapters in Ones et al. cover the following: ethics, job performance, OCB, CWB, adaptive performance, political effectiveness, cognitive ability, job knowledge, political skill, personality and work, taxonomies relevant to cognitive ability and personality, work/vocational preference, employee selection, decision making, recruitment, training, and another decision-making chapter. The book covers valuable subject matter. But stress is only small part of i/o psychology although I agree with you that job stress is worth mentioning in connection to i/o psychology.

We should leave the Griffin-Clarke and Hart-Cooper references. I plan to delete the Vinchur-Koppes and Ones et al. references. Iss246 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't delete good sources and create unnecessary conflict. I will add more today no problem. Sportstir (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You deleted this source https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_orgpsych2 and Chapter 6: Occupational Stress: Toward a More Integrated Framework

By: Peter M. Hart & Cary L. Cooper? Even in 2001 occupational stress has an entire chapter devoted to the topic. Can you explain what problem you have with this source? Sportstir (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Hart-Cooper chapter should remain. If I deleted it earlier, I did it by mistake. The Griffin-Clarke chapter should remain. The Ones et al. reference should be deleted because it barely mentioned job stress. Iss246 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)