Talk:Organizational behavior/Archives/2017

Social psychology

why is a type of psychology included when psych is already mentioned? mentioning psych is enough seems like pov at work here. nonsensical inclusion.Happydaise (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

First, you did not justify the deletion. I restored social psychology. Now you write a justification. But the justification for deleting social psychology lacks merit. Social psychology is not mentioned explicitly. Although the social psychologist Kurt Lewin is mentioned, that does not equivalent to indicating social psychology as a related topic. 03:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Iss246 (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

hey there. appreciate your take so let us ponder this shall we.

Contributing disciplines

Psychology Social psychology Sociology Human Resources Management Anthropology Political science Economics Mathematics and Statistics

why just social psychology? seems pov i mean other areas of psychology also have contributed to OB. why just mention social psychology?

secondly it appears to me that this section is talking about disciplines. why are you insisting on a sub discipline being included in psychology but not economics as an example?

lets talk this through to a mutually satisfying resolution thenHappydaise (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

also have you got a good reliable source for social psychology being a contributing discipline to OB? just that unsourced inclusions like yours should be removed which im thinking is probably bestHappydaise (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Every item on the list of contributing disciplines is not footnoted; lists like these usually don't contain footnotes. If another branch of psychology, e.g., i/o psychology, has contributed, it should be listed. Individuals such as Fiedler and Lewin tie social psychology to OB. Iss246 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

obviously this entire list should just be removed then - its a hotch potch of un-sourced disciplines and sub disciplines none of which have footnotes as you say. all material in wikipedia should be based only on what reliable sources say anything to add to this any reason why not to remove this made up un-sourced list I don't see logic in indiscriminately adding even more - as you suggest - that makes little senseHappydaise (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Many, perhaps most, Wikipedia articles have such lists to help readers pass through to related topics. The items on such lists are typically not footnoted. It is better to leave the list intact rather than to footnote the list. Iss246 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

could you please show me where other articles have un-sourced material like this list? or can you provide reliable sources? the list is un-sourced. if un-sourced it needs to go. thats how wikipedia is supposed to work you know. will boldly remove un-sourced list. And if you do put it back in could you please include some reliable sources.Happydaise (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry references the leading social psychologist Kurt Lewin, Fiedler's article in Experimental Social Psychology, Adams's article in Experimental Social Psychology, and Katz's book in the Social Psychology of Organizations. I recommend that you not boldly make bold changes. Moreover, judging from your edit history, you are a newcomer to Wikipedia. Check with various Wikipedia editors before you make bold moves. Iss246 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

thats not what the sources you quote say. and more to the point why just include social psychology? Other areas of psychology also have contributed to OB. why just mention social psychology? - And it really appears to me that this section is talking about broad disciplines. so why are you insisting on including a sub discipline of psychology being included but not sub disciplines of economics or sociology for example? can we just keep it at disciplines as the title says or take the whole un-sourced section out? two good options thereHappydaise (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You keep changing the story. First you said social psychology is not appropriate to the list. However, you could have easily found sources in the OB entry that indicate otherwise. Now you change the subject to ejecting the entire list. But many, many Wikepedia entries have lists of related topics. A variety of editors incrementally created those lists. Moreover, you are brand new to Wikipedia, and make all kinds of assertions about what should be ejected from the list or that the list should be entirely ejected. Then you referenced me on the Noticeboard with the comment "someone has added with their own little favorite group of disciplines and sub-disciplines" as if I created the list when I had nothing to do with the creation of the list.

My concern is that I don't want to see wholesale changes. Especially by a "newcomer," who has been on Wikipedia for exactly three days. Iss246 (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

based on advice at the reliable sources noticeboard and after reading over the Wikipedia:Content removal article and i do not beleve sources can be found and no sources added still by iss246 either gold standard approach is bold content removal pure and simpleHappydaise (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• As the party giving the advice, I want to state categorically that I did not advise you to remove the entire section. As I explained, what you believe about what the sources say is irrelevant: you must know that no sources support each entry before it can be removed individually. My advice to you was to tag the section if you were unwilling to put in the (rather large) amount of work required to do this. Deleting the entire section constitutes the continuation of an edit war which can result in your being blocked from editing. I know for a fact that at least one entry on that list is sourced; (social psychology) is tied to organizational behavior in The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process by Fred Fielder which is cited by the article. So once again, I strongly suggest you go through the rest of the sources used to check if the other entries are supported. You may request help here and at the RSN. You may tag the section to attract additional editors. I will even help, if you ask for my help. But if you insist upon deleting information from the article based on your own beliefs about what the sources might say, you will face sanctions.

@Iss246: At this point, I want to also remind you that, while it is not always done, unsourced content is subject to removal. The advice I've given to Happydaise is predicated upon the accuracy of your own claim that these items are sourced. If you are wrong, then so am I, and Happydaise is right to remove the list (except for social psychology). That means that you should really be helping Happydaise do this, as your knowledge of the sourcing should allow you to quickly cite at least a few of the items, and it's not fair to make the new editor spend hours doing something you could do in minutes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants:sorry for deleting the list prematurely. obviously the list requires sources but this other person @Iss246: believes that no sources are actually needed which certainly doesnt seem right to me. Is that right what iss246 says? my understanding is we need sources for the list plonked in the middle of the article body and iss246 is just plain wrong despite them thinking they are right and putting me down as if im stupid. MjolnirPants could you please comment on your understanding of thisHappydaise (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Happydaise:Well, the issue here is that you have a point, but you are a very new editor who doesn't seem to get a lot about how WP works. That's fine, that's forgivable. We were all in that position once. Iss246 is right that most such lists do not have references. It's generally considered acceptable, even though it's not technically in line with the rules because the rules have been known to make things worse. In this case, it looks, frankly, ridiculous to have a citation next to every entry on that list. But you have a problem with that, so you are allowed to fix it. However, the way you've gone about doing that has been more disruptive than collaborative, and that's a problem.

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that we must, at all times, assume good faith with our fellow editors. Thus far, you've assumed that Iss246 is trying to fight you, because they disagree with you. You've assumed that Iss246 is just plain wrong (despite being absolutely correct about the social psychology thing) because, (apparently) they disagree with you. In short, you came here, told the editor most active on the page, who has likely contributed much more to it than you that they're plain wrong and should get lost and let you take over. That's a surefire recipe for conflict, right there. Instead, you should have explained why you had concerns about the sourcing of this list, in language that allows for the possibility that you are wrong, then you should have asked for help in correcting this. Right now, I see you badly mischaracterizing Iss246's position, which tells me you don't understand what they're saying. The best way to fix that is to ensure that they want to help you understand, instead of simply wanting to stop you from disrupting the article.

In short, it's better to ask why something seems to be wrong than to simply state categorically that it is wrong. It's better to ask others to help you improve the article than to ask them to let you do whatever you like to it, regardless of what they think. So give that a shot. Try engaging Iss246 instead of fighting them. You might be surprised at how forgiving us Wikipedians can be when given the chance. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, thank you for your concern about the list of contributing disciplines to organizational behavior. Happydaise reminded me of some other "newcomers" to Wikipedia. He seems to be a "newcomer" to Wikipedia, but he acts like a past user who went by various names (Mrm7171, Psych999, Mattbrown69, Docsim). Under each name, he would join Wikipedia, and then proceed to make wholesale, unilateral changes with a swiftness that undercut his newcomer persona. Iss246 (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

my concern is that social psychology is just part of the larger psychology discipline - have changed the wording. personality psychology contributes too to be sureHappydaise (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: would it be easier to stick to disciplines like psychology, sociology instead of all the different sub-disciplines like social and personality psychology.Happydaise (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

can a person tell me if this list should be alphabeticalHappydaise (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've taken to adding a large number of entries, but if you are trying to prove a point, you are violating one of our rules. When I have the time, I intend to go through and trim this back up to something more manageable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

certainly am not. hey ive already requested dispute resolution here but noone participated are you able to participate in dispute resolution. iss246 has just taken out very clear disciplines from the list. i intend to add them again they are just as eligible as any other area if you intend to trim perhaps we can discuss it instead would that be cool with you both that would avoid conflict thats all. also may i note that i asked whether it be easier to stick to disciplines like psychology, sociology instead of all the different sub-disciplines like social and personality psychology/ before your trimming maybe you could discuss this here too would that be cool with you bothHappydaise (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

biological psychology, ethnology, sociobiology have been added again they definitely contribute to OB and easily as much as the other things on the list if you dont agree with this could you have the decency to explain yourself thatd be really great thanksHappydaise (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for any of those additions? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants you wrote "Iss246 is right that most such lists do not have references. It's generally considered acceptable, even though it's not technically in line with the rules because the rules have been known to make things worse. In this case, it looks, frankly, ridiculous to have a citation next to every entry on that list." so do we need sources or not? also why are you both avoiding a constructive talk about my point - this being whether it be easier for all of us to stick to disciplines like psychology, sociology instead of all the different sub-disciplines - and would you be okay with or do you think we need dispute resolution. i noticed that this other person iss 246 just took out my additions today without even so much as discussing why they felt that way and they accuse me of wholesale changes - goodness me what hypocrisy that isHappydaise (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so by your own implied admission you are editing to make a point. That needs to stop, right now. Furthermore, you are engaging in personal attacks and misconstruing (willfully, it seems) my previous words and quote mining me. I made it quite clear that this was predicated upon the accuracy of ISS246's claim that the existing sources verify this. I even added an inline citation to one of the entries, and explained to you in detail how to do so, yourself. I'm reverting the list back to the state it was in when I added my cite. If you insist upon continuing to edit war over this, or continue to engage in further battleground behavior here on the talk page, I will report you at WP:ANI, which is very likely to result in you facing sanctions, which may include being blocked from editing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iss246: Your own behavior has not been ideal, either. Thus far, you have not contributed meaningfully at talk, while continuing to enable Happydaise's efforts to edit war by edit warring yourself, including reverting my attempt to help. You are not offering compromises, arguments, or explanations at talk. I'm asking you now, as the more experienced editor, to set a good example and make a good faith effort to help improve this article. If one editor questions the sourcing of this list, many readers will, as well. Therefore, it's not too much to ask that we stop making an exception for the sake of aesthetics and start applying the rules to this section. Please, help. If not, then please go away. If you suspect Happydaise is a sockpuppet, please raise your concerns at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, where they can be dealt with appropriately. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, I think you are a worthy editor. I have no beef with you although I think your criticism of me is misplaced. An editor should write a brief justification when he or she makes a change in an article. I saw no justification for including sociobiology among the disciplines that contributed to OB. I could not find a reference to a sociobiological article in the footnotes. When I made the change I wrote that there was "no clear link" to sociobiology. I wrote the equivalent when I deleted biological psychology. That is what editors are supposed to do, namely, write a brief justification when we edit.

I add this. Happydaise wrote the following about my edits: "hey why you taken these out would it be cool to maybe explain your choices." I did just that. I explained my edits. That is what one is supposed to do when editing. I cannot do more. If Happydaise thinks sociobiology is a contributing discipline, he or she should justify that claim. I expect no more, no less. Iss246 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that your edit summary when you removed the in-line ref I added contained no justification for it. I should also point out that my most recent edit to the page (reverting to my last edit) undid the additions Happydaise made. Hence my edit summary of "This seems to be the last revision which helped to progress the page." What I'm trying to encourage here is collaborative editing from both of you, whereas what I'm seeing is an argument. Happydaise's concern is that these disciplines may not be supported by the existing sources. You seem to have a good grasp of what the existing sources say, therefore, you should be able to easily add in-line cites to some of these, similarly to what I did with these two edits: [1] [2]. I know it looks ridiculous, and other such lists don't always contain them, but the key here is that their accuracy has been challenged. That means it is incumbent upon all of us to prove their accuracy. Yes, Happydaise is the one who should be spearheading this effort, but as experienced editors, it is incumbent upon you and I to set a good example. This is Happydaise's first experience editing WP (assuming your implications of sockpuppetry are inaccurate). You and I are setting the standard of what they will expect from WP, and teaching them how to behave on WP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, you again raise the issue of my reverting a recent edit by you. I responded to you earlier. I indicated that I did not revert your edit. I was working on an edit when there was a hiccup on my screen and that unfortunate reversion came through. I cannot say enough that the reversion was not my intention. If you check my contributions you will see that I almost always justify my edits. That is my practice. I don't know why you don't believe me about that hiccup, and raise it again and again. Iss246 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen where you had previously mentioned anything about that edit. Furthermore, the above comment was the first time I mentioned it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

a couple of aspects need to be high lighted. mainly - i certainly am not adding more to make a point - i added more sub-disciplines to disciplines already in the list such as within sociology and anthropology. these additions are legit as anthropology and other disciplines are already in list i can only high light again my previous point of you both not addressing these question of - why dont we just stick to disciplines rather than add sub-disciplines as well -overkill is it not and it is making the list monstrous - also I have already attempted dispute resolution at the dispute resolution page once before - would you both be willing to participate or not? as for edit warring well gosh I just dont see it when my questions are not addressed and you wont join me in dispute resolution only wanting it your way - not fair i say.Happydaise (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

i added other areas again and they are referenced already - under psychology and sociology. dont you see. dont go changing it please unless you start responding to my question of not including sub-disciplines at all maybe and as i said - lets try dispute resolution peoples if you are going to not participate or respect what im sayingHappydaise (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You added entries based on your own knowledge, then. And you have already strongly implied that you did so to make a point, else there's no purpose to adding specific sub-disciplines when the overall field is already included. Also, you are continuing to edit war over this. At this point, I think administrative intervention is the way to go. I have tried to explain to both of you for several days now that you should be working together, but instead you both seem intent upon fighting over who gets to decide what goes into the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, I am not fighting. I am insisting that edits to the OB entry (for any entry) be justified. For example, sociobiology should not be considered a contributing discipline without clear justification. Iss246 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

as required I have notified you of the dispute resolution i have started once again. so if you want to talk about it how about participating in that formalized process. it will prevent problems. ive asked both of you twice now.Happydaise (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If social psychology is going to be mentioned, Industrial Organizational Psychology should definitely mentioned along with reference to how other psychology disciplines contribute to the study of Organizational Behavior. Industrial Organizational Psychology is also more relevant than social psychology since it is a very similar discipline to Organizational Behavior since both disciplines have similar end goals and career paths. Klmay1029 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klmay1029 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Klmay1029: You raise a non-issue. Social psychology and industrial/organizational psychology are already part of the OB entry. There is an entire section in the OB entry devoted to the relation of i/o psychology to OB [3]. In addition, i/o is listed in the section called "see also." [4]

As far as other branches of psychology, sure you can argue that any other branch of psychology is related to OB including biological psychology because people who work for organizations have a biology. You could say chemistry is relevant to OB because all people who work for organizations are made up of molecules. It is never-ending what you can link to OB or, for that matter, any other subject. The "see also" section is limited to disciplines that are most directly pertinent to OB. Social psychology and i/o psychology are part of the "see also" section. Iss246 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There is something else that I don't like about the issue Klmay1029 raises. As of the writing of my response to the issue Klmay1029 raises, he had four edits attributed to him. It is highly unusual for someone so new to Wikipedia to start turning to a talk page to raise issues about about what an entry should or should not cover, a matter that echoes what some past Wikipedia users have done. The matter reminds me of efforts by happydaise--docsim--Mrm7171--Truthbringer1--Psych999--Mattbrown69--Barniecadd--110.143.253.102--50.162.117.88--73.206.251.196. Iss246 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to apologize. I am still learning the details of the talk pages and their sections and how they relate to the article itself, and I had become confused as to what sections were where. I apologize for raising a non-issue.Klmay1029 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What you klmay1029 wrote above is too "confused" and self-contradictory to be credible. Iss246 (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)