Talk:Psychology/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Fatigue

BR's attributing to industrial psychology concern about fatigue during World War I is highly inflated. The concern of government ministers for whom Myers operated was with preventing worker fatigue from impeding the production of munitions. The government was concerned with "productivity," even if that productivity was aimed at producing weapons to kill. See Adam Hochschild's To End All Wars.

We don't see in government ministers a parallel concern for fatigue in, say, British textile workers. What helped enormously to reduce worker fatigue in the UK and elsewhere was not industrial psychology. It was the struggle of the labor movement to improve working conditions, which included giving workers a living wage and an eight-hour workday and a five-day workweek. That is what reduced worker fatigue. See Linder and Nygaard's Void Where Prohibited.

BR gives too much credit to industrial psychology, which, with very few exceptions (e.g., Arthur Kornhauser) was on the side of management, not labor. Iss246 (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The edits were made by Psyc12 including the very good source they added today regarding early British industrial psychologist's interest areas. You forget that the field is worldwide as is Wikipedia. You keep focusing on the USA only for some reason and ignore logic and the sources presented to you which is not helpful. Despite this there is no consensus for your forced changes that you keep making Iss246. Just stop edit warring as it is disruptive and both Psyc12 and myself have made significant concessions in the spirit of collaborative editing. It would be appreciated if you could do the same. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

BR, you inflated the role i/o psychology made in the area of worker health. I left in your sources regarding the research by Sonnentag, etc. But I deleted the string of sentences enumerating this finding and that finding. These micro-findings don't belong in a summary. A summary gives the big picture, not a string of micro-findings.

In addition, the motivation for the British government to reduce worker fatigue was not its humanity. Efforts to reduce worker fatigue were initiated in order to improve the production of munitions. See Hochschild. If the British government around the time of World War I and its aftermath were so concerned with worker fatigue, it would have tried to reduce worker fatigue in all factories. What reduced worker fatigue were the struggles of the the labor movement and, eventually, Labour governments, not i/o psychology.

Have some perspective. Iss246 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I have read two additional sources on the issue of history. Quick (1999 Health Psychology) in his history of OHP talks about the earliest work in the US relevant to worker health and safety. He says OHP is a combination of health psychology, clinical psychology, public health and medicine in an IO context. He downplays the importance of IO, and notes that IO needs to get into this area. He mentions that Munsterberg was interested in accidents and the next person mentioned is Kornhauser. There is no mention of Myers or the UK, but this is not unusual for Americans as noted by Kwiatkowski et al. (2006, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology). They talk about how Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology was concerned with many IO topics including employee health. The earliest work was focused on fatigue. I found a 1920 book by Myers that was focused on efficiency and productivity. The discussion of fatique was from that perspective.

Putting all this together with earlier readings, my conclusion is that we can find early examples of interest in worker health and well-being associated with IO clearly in the UK in that there are peer-reviewed sources that say so. The earliest interest was focused on fatigue and how it affected efficiency. Later the interest broadened. But as Kwiatkowski notes, the impact was fleeting as by WWII much of what they had accomplished was abandoned and most of what he did was forgotten. We cannot find the same in American IO where there was little interest until after WWII.

I am going to try a compromise between what ISS wants to say and what BR wants to say. Psyc12 (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these first two sentences ("The concern of industrial psychology, in its infancy, with worker fatigue began during World War I when government ministers in Britain were concerned about the impact of fatigue on workers in munitions factories but not other types of factories.[224][225] British interest broadened to worker health and well-being by Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the period between the two world wars.[226]") in the paragraph on i/o psychology should remain. Iss246 (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I propose we include a detailed description of the field of industrial organizational psychology similar to occupational health psychology. Will go ahead and include that if nobody objects with solid reasoning. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I object to BR's inflating i/o psychology in this section by including a detailed description of i/o psychology. This is a broad summary of psychology. It is not about the details of i/o psychology findings, a concatenation of individual studies' findings. Moreover, Psyc12 and I finally achieved some consensus. BR, join the consensus. Iss246 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I object. I deliberately kept the text on occupational health psychology brief. This is a broad article about psychology in general. It is not for pumping up the i/o psychology text in this section. Iss246 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Iss246 stop inflating this other competing field occupational health psychology more like it and then trying to make it appear that the major field of industrial organizational psychology had little to do with worker health and wellbeing. That is not what the sources say. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Also would you mind indenting your comments please Iss246. It makes it difficult to read the thread and wiki rules are there for a reason. You are not bigger than Wikipedia and you do not own this article or any article Iss246. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

In the area of work and health OHP is bigger than i/o psychology. Of course, i/o psychology is bigger than OHP in areas such as selection, task analysis, etc. I note that you are copying my words. "Inflating," indeed. Iss246 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you indent your comments Iss246 like we are instructed at Wikipedia. It makes it difficult for others to follow the thread. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to get my head around this. I just looked up the 54 divisions of psychology with the American Psychological Association (APA) and this other field of yours occupational health psychology is not listed at all Iss246? https://www.apa.org/about/division Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You haven't tried hard enough BR. Your comment reveals your bias against OHP by grasping at every tidbit of information in your attempt to undermine OHP. Your choices show your prejudice. The Society for Occupational Health Psychology and the American Psychological Association and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have teamed up to organize a conference on work, stress, and health in November. They have teamed up for years in organizing the conference. If you would have dug deeper, you would understand. Iss246 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Again would you please indent your edits like we are supposed to Iss246. I think that is a reasonable request. Your disregard of the rules makes it difficult for other readers to follow the thread by not properly indenting. As far as my last comment no bias. Just complete confusion on my part I am afraid to say! Please humor me. Now you say this field is supposedly part of psychology yet in the USA the peak body for psychology the American Psychological Association does not even list this other field of occupational health psychology within the 54 divisions which make up the field of psychology Iss246? https://www.apa.org/about/division. Given this article is about psychology and the major disciplines within psychology such as clinical, health, industrial and organizational, sport and so on we are giving this other area, not even on the list of 54 divisions within psychology so much attention. We need to show readers what the reality is and not try and inflate this other interdisciplinary field of study. It would be absurd to list ALL of the actual 54 divisions within psychology, yet alone this hazy interdisciplinary area that you are here pushing into the psychology article. I have also read other sources yesterday that say this field is separate to psychology. I will find the article I was reading. So yes I am completely confused. Please understand other editors are not as personally invested in this area as you and Psyc12 appear to be Iss246. I'm just trying to understand why you are so insistent on inflating this field. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hazy-Shmazy. Here you go again. Mrm7171. Lightningstrikers. Sportstir. Yep. You're a broken record alright. You play the same tired old song. You are very invested in attacking OHP. That is almost all you do on Wikipedia. If it weren't for your attacks on OHP and your inflating i/o's contribution to health, you would have very little else to do on WP. It galls you that OHP exists. Yeah, the "P" stands for psychology. Ne l'oubliez pas. And now you are copying my words. Iss246 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Indentation talks about indenting which you obviously you feel doesn't apply to you. By not following that simple rule it is very difficult for others to follow the thread. Obviously you are a nutter and have no response to my genuine questions trying to understand why you are using Wikipedia to push your views against all reliable sources. You've had trouble with lots of editors it looks like looking over your block history for edit warring. Don't go pointing your finger at me you misogynist! Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Laughable accusation. Iss246 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's get back to the issue at hand. Should there be more about IO in this section? I don't understand why this section needs to list some miscellaneous studies and claim they represent IO. First, we do not quote a source that says these represent the contribution of IO to employee health. According to what WhatAmIDoing told us, such a source is needed to make such a claim. Second, an earlier subsection listed some major health areas where psychology has contributed, so why split the discussion into two places. The earlier spot would be the place to talk about specific contributions of psychology, but I wouldn't claim they are all IO without some source saying they are. How do we know all of these authors were IO psychology.

I would delete from "More recently" to the end of the paragraph.Psyc12 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that Brokenrecordsagain tends to oversell i/o psychology as a health specialty. A more careful phrasing would strengthen the piece.Ohpres (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Ohper (Iss246) can you please indent so it is readable.

I am not Ohper. Sorry to disappoint you MRM. Iss246 (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah right. Do you know Psyc12 outside of Wikipedia Iss246? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not see the purpose of including all of this detail in such a small section on health and wellbeing? "OHP addresses topic areas such as the impact of occupational stressors on physical and mental health, workplace mistreatment, work-family balance, the impact of involuntary unemployment on physical and mental health, safety/accidents, and interventions designed to improve/protect worker health. OHP grew out of health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology. OHP has also been informed by disciplines outside psychology, including occupational medicine, industrial engineering, sociology, and economics.

I added Lillian Gilbreth. The entry is really well sourced. She is a pioneer and big in feminist psychology. She was not recognized earlier last century as misogynist male authors chose to not recognize her achievements of 45 years past her husband Frank's death. She was a true pioneer and very much concerned with worker wellbeing, welfare, job satisfaction and worker happiness. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

BR, you are editing against the consensus of other editors by adding in Gilbreth again, and now you are going against consensus of 3 other editors in putting back the material on IO and edit warring. Please remove these items. If you feel strongly that they should be in the article, then take it to dispute resolution where you can make your case and other editors can make theirs, but edit warring and refusing to listen to now 3 other editors is not productive.Psyc12 (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you and Iss246 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I responded by adding a summary to the dispute resolution page. Iss246 (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposed Paragraph on Worker Health/WB

I suggest we work on this suggested paragraph and see if we can reach consensus.

Concern with the health and well-being of workers goes back over a hundred years in industrial psychology. In Britain there was concern with fatigue of munitions workers during World War I that broadened to worker health and well-being by Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the period between the two world wars. At the same time in the U.S. American industrial psychologist Lillian Moller Gilbreth focused on employee fatigue, satisfaction, welfare, happiness and safety, although most biographies note her most important contributions were in introducing human elements into scientific management and finding the most efficient ways to perform job tasks. In the U. S. during the mid-twentieth century industrial psychologist Arthur Kornhauser was a pioneer in the study of occupational mental health, having examined the link between industrial working conditions and mental health as well as the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. Zickar accumulated evidence for the view that "no other industrial psychologist of his era was as devoted to advocating management and labor practices that would improve the lives of working people." Barling and Griffiths history notes important contributions in worker health/well-being that include the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research studies of occupational stress, a program of research on workplace health begun in the 1960s in Scandinavia, a seminal publication on occupational stress by Beehr and Newman, and publication of Karasek's control-demand model that linked work demands and lack of control to heart disease. As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the interdisciplinary field of occupational health psychology emerged out of industrial-organizational psychology, health psychology, and other fields.Psyc12 (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There is already a RFC for this Psyc12. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I note that the interest in fatigue of industrial psychologists and the people for whom they worked was more aligned to productivity and efficiency, particularly in the area of the manufacture of munitions, than to protecting worker health. I also note that the the University of Michigan psychologists to whom the paragraph referred were social psychologists. I am not adding any changes to the paragraph from Psyc12 right now. I only want to share my thoughts. My buy-in is almost there. Iss246 (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No one but us has responded to the RFC on the paragraphs.Psyc12 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

References

RFC: Lillian Gilbreth

Should the sentence referring to Lillian Gilbreth be deleted from the subsection on Worker health, safety and wellbeing?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Enter Yes or Delete, or No or Keep, in the Survey section with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion should be in the Threaded Discussion section.

Survey

• Delete. Iss246 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete.Psyc12 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Ohpres (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. If we specify it was worker welfare/wellbeing not so much health that Gilbreth was one of the pioneering industrial psychologists in. The sources even Lauara Koppes clearly say Gilbreth interceded psychology and worker happiness with every efficiency improvement. Worker health including physical health is a different construct from worker wellbeing and happiness. The argument against the inclusion of Gilbreth in this section is that she was not known for worker health but she was known for improving worker wellbeing and happiness in the history books particularly the 45 years of her career after her husband died. Can we just say wellbeing/happiness rather than worker health as a compromise? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)  Checkuser note: Harrow1234 and Brokenrecordsagain are confirmed sockpuppets of Patriciamoorehead. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honestyisbest. Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources provided appear to support her work in employee well-being, and her contributions to workplace psychology. I see no issue. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  The sources I cited talk about well-being and not just physical health, and they do not credit Gilbreth with being a major figure in that area. If you read her work and sources that talk about her work, Gilbreth was focused on efficiency/productivity, and she had an appreciation for individual differences and psychological factors that would affect performance. She wrote that she thought her methods would be more satisfying, but a passing comment doesn't make her a major figure. Koppes wrote an article on 4 early female IO pioneers including Gilbreth. She summarizes their major contributions this way, "The four female psychologists used scientifically rigorous methods to conduct research on areas of I/O psychology typically examined by applied psychologists of the time, such as selection, acquisition of skills, and work methods and job design for improving efficiency...Gilbreth conducted extensive time and motion studies to understand methods of work and design of jobs." There is no mention of worker well-being.Psyc12 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  But even a brief search turns up a biography via JSTOR that on the first page says she was "more concerned about people than production rates". And it goes on to talk about worker welfare, not efficiency. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  During the early part of the twentieth century American industrial psychologist Lillian Moller Gilbreth was a pioneer in the areas of worker efficiency, satisfaction, welfare, happiness and safety. The section in this article is titled health, wellbeing and social change. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  These sources don't all say that. One of them is about homemakers and not employees. Psyc12 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep (invited by the bot). I only gave it a quick look. Apparently she has enough prominence that nobody is arguing that she shouldn't be in the article. It's a wide-ranging section under a wide-ranging title. So including her in the section is not an explicit statement in relation to the title. So IMO she should not be excluded due to the section title. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It looks like a pretty solid entry based on the plethora of references provided so I don't see why there is any argument. Harrow1234 (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)  Checkuser note: Harrow1234 and Brokenrecordsagain are confirmed sockpuppets of Patriciamoorehead. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honestyisbest. Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• User:North8000, there needs to be more than a quick look. There is no consensus regarding her contribution to worker well-being. The piece in the journal Biography differs from what is found in other sources. Please read the other sources (for example, Katzell & Austin's paper on the development of i/o psychology, which was published in the J of Applied Psy in 1992). I think we can come to a consensus on her contribution to efficiency/productivity but a note about her contribution to efficiency/productivity would belong in the WP article about her. Iss246 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Iss246 this editor only needed a quick look and that is their vote on the matter which should be respected not downplayed. The reliable sources clearly state that Gilbreth was concerned with worker welfare throughout her career which is a word synonymous with general wellbeing. Multiple sources state in her career as an industrial psychologist she was concerned with worker "welfare" as other editors correctly pointed out after reading the sources currently attached to that sentence in the article. See Welfare (disambiguation) general wellbeing. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23539641 Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  The Sullivan article has a different take than other reliable sources I consulted on Gilbreth or the history of work on health and on well-being None of these scholars credit Gilbreth as being a pioneer in occupational health/WB. Her contributions are in other areas having to do with efficiency and productivity which was the main the focus of early 20th century American IO psychology.. So there is no consensus among scholars about her well-being contributions. Further Sullivan claims that Gilbreth was a pioneer in the area of work stress citing two of Gilbreths works which do not discuss stress, which is odd. To mention her accurately in the context of well-being, we would have to say that some authors claim she made a major contribution, but most scholars disagree. She deserves to be in the Psychology article, but focused on contributions where there is consensus that fit in another section. Psyc12 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  User:Brokenrecordsagain and User:North8000 I appreciate that North8000 may not have time for more than a "quick look." But for the sake of accuracy, Wikipedia needs editors who can provide a more detailed examination of the sources. The abovementioned articles by Koppes, Cooper & Warr, and Katzell & Austin provide a different perspective from that of Sullivan, the first page of whose article user:Pyrrho_the_Skeptic cited. Iss246 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  I add the following. Koppes Bryan and Vinchur, in a 50-page history of industrial/organizational psychology, showed that i/o psychology manifested a great deal of interest in important topics such as selection, testing, productivity, training, team relationships, leadership, task analysis, performance appraisal, and organizational culture; the chapter, however, barely contained two sentences on job stress and health. Koppes Bryan is the same person as Koppes, the author cited above in an earlier publication on the history of i/o psychology. This authoritative history of i/o psychology indicates that the work-health interface & work-WB played barely a minor role in i/o psychology. The observations of leading i/o psychologist Paul Spector are consistent with that view. Iss246 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Here are two additional sources in favor of keep. And I echo User:Brokenrecordsagain that all votes here ought to be respected, quick glance or not:

  Harvard blog: "Lillian would be more concerned about worker welfare and reducing stress, fatigue, and boredom."

  MIT paper: "Fatigue study also had strategic and psychological value ... Such vision ... enhanced by an immediate fatigue survey, and reinforced by such basic industrial betterment techniques as open meetings to discuss installation progress was meant to give reality to industrial welfare leader H.F.J. Porter’s imprecation that, 'Men can easily be led and they will then be imbued with a better spirit than when they are being driven'" Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Saw this on WP:DRN and while many of the sources are paper sources that I can't double check easily, her own page does seem to reliably source that Gilbreth's work did indeed have to do with "Worker health, safety, and well-being". Given this, I think one sentence about her in that section is clearly appropriate. Loki (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Out-of-place back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
User:LokiTheLiar, the WP on Gilbreth, rightfully, credits her for work on motion and human factors. But it does not credit her for work on health.In reading about her, I noted that the principle thrust of her was important to motion/human factors, which I think is great. But her work on well-being is much thinner. Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Threaded Discussion

Oppose keeping well-bring. Just as worker health was virtually a nonexistent part of her legacy, worker well-being was a tiny part of that legacy. Efficiency and productivity were the major features of her legacy. The Psychology entry provides a broad outline of psychology. In an entry like Psychology, we should stay away from emphasizing the tiny bits. Iss246 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We also need to delete the smorgasbord of random micro-findings on the work-health interface. They don't belong in an entry devoted to the broad outline of psychology. Iss246 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Color within the Lines

User:Brokenrecordsagain, User:Iss246, User:Psyc12 - The Survey section is for answers, not for back-and-forth. When an RFC says to do back-and-forth in the Threaded Discussion, that is what the Threaded Discussion is for. You couldn't resolve the question about Lillian Gilbreth by back-and-forth discussion above, and came to DRN, and I concluded that an RFC was in order. Why do you think that bludgeoning the RFC discussion will result in consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I agreed at the time you wrote this and your message was loud and clear to any of us reading it. Frankly I have shut up on this RFC discussion. I've cast my vote. That's it. However editor Iss246 continues to come into the discussion and attack any entirely independent impartial editor's opinion that disagrees with them. Can you please do something to stop Iss246 ignoring your warnings, disrespecting the RFC process and trying to intimidate and disrespect the opinions of other editors casting their vote as they did earlier with this comment to editor User:LokiTheLiar [5]. I think we all should cast a vote and then just shut up and allow the process to take its course as intended by Wikipedia. Thank you. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Brokenrecordsagain and User:Robert_McClenon, what BR just wrote is hyperbole. Because I disagree with you and argue that the facts speak otherwise does not mean I am on the "attack." One person can never disagree with another person's claims if the person disagreeing is reduced to being an "attacker." Iss246 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Worker Health, Safety, and Well-Being

Which of the following sections should replace the section on Worker Health, Safety, and Well-Being? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A. Leave the section alone.

B. The following one paragraph:

The origins of interest in psychology applied to worker health and well-being can be traced to Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the UK during the early part of the twentieth century. In the U.S. mid-century Arthur Kornhauser did groundbreaking work on the study of occupational mental health and the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. Barling and Griffiths history notes some groundbreaking contributions in the area that include the Institute for Social Research studies of occupational stress, a program of research on workplace health begun in the 1960s in Scandinavia, a seminal publication on occupational stress by Beehr & Newman, and publication of Karasek's control-demand model that linked work demands and lack of control to heart disease. As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the interdisciplinary field of occupational health psychology emerged, bringing together people from different areas of psychology (e.g., health and industrial-organizational) and disciplines outside of psychology.Psyc12 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

C. The following two paragraphs.

Concern with the health and well-being of workers goes back over a hundred years in industrial psychology. Industrial psychology's interest with worker fatigue for example, began during World War I, when government ministers in Britain were concerned about the impact of fatigue on workers in munitions factories but not other types of factories. British interest broadened to worker health and well-being by Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the period between the two world wars. During the early part of the twentieth century American industrial psychologist Lillian Moller Gilbreth was a pioneer in the areas of worker efficiency, satisfaction, welfare, happiness and safety. During the mid-twentieth century another American industrial psychologist Arthur Kornhauser was another pioneer in the study of occupational mental health, having examined the link between industrial working conditions and mental health as well as the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. More recently, industrial organizational psychology research and pracrtice has found that staying vigorous during working hours is associated with better work-related behaviour and subjective well-being as well as more effective functioning in the family domain. Trait vigor and recovery experiences after work were related to vigor at work. Job satisfaction has also been found to be associated with life satisfaction, happiness, well-being and positive affect, and the absence of negative affect. Other research indicates that among older workers activities such as volunteering and participating in social clubs was related to a decrease in depressive symptoms over the next two years. Research on job changing indicates that mobility between, but not within, organizations is associated with burnout.

As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the multidisciplinary field of occupational health psychology (OHP) emerged. Just as industrial and organizational psychology does, OHP is also concerned with the health and safety of workers. OHP addresses topic areas such as the impact of occupational stressors on physical and mental health, workplace mistreatment, work-family balance, the impact of involuntary unemployment on physical and mental health, safety/accidents, and interventions designed to improve/protect worker health.

D. Other (specify).

Enter your letter choice with a brief statement in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey

Choice: A. This is a compromise among the editors. It condenses discussion by removing unnecessary details found elsewhere, and is based on reliable sources on history of the field, as opposed to editor conclusions (primary research) based on conflicting statements from biographies on Gilbreth and her own writing, or editor opinions which findings represent milestones.Psyc12 (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I meant B not A. Psyc12 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Choice A The way it is written right now seems ok. The RFC relating to Lillian Gilbreth also needs to be respected and final result should obviously be included in the section of the article. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I propose a compromise. We condense the two paragraphs to one as I suggested in choice B, replacing the individual study examples with a few milestones noted by Barling. We briefly mention OHP as a milestone deriving from IO and other fields, but leave details for the OHP article. We put Gilbreth back, but we do it in a balanced way, with something like. "Some credit IO Psychologist Lilian Gilbreth with pioneering work on employee well-being [cite the Biography paper], although others view her contributions as indentifying psychological factors leading to on employee productivity [cite one or two sources]". Are you both ok with that? Psyc12 (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I support this idea for a compromise proposed by Psyc12. Iss246 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two separate RFCs running already guys. You have both had your single vote. Let's just let the dispute resolution process run its own course now as entirely independent editors are also voting which is a good thing. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RM closed the dispute resolution case, and I don't see anyone else voting among the choices.Psyc12 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the compromise proposed by Psyc12.Ohpres (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Leave it for 30 days to get an outcome. No rush. Also it is clear that the RFC on Lillian Gilbreth shows a consensus to include the statement voted for in the first RFC. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Psyc12's compromise proposal works. It should be the consensus choice. Iss246 (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

We never reached a consensus conclusion before the case was shut down. Some editors suggested mentioning Gilbreth because of the Biography source, so my proposal is that we do just that. But Wiki articles are supposed to be balanced, so I suggest we cite a source or two with an opposing view about her major contribution. I took your point about too much focus on OHP and suggest only a brief mention so we can link to the OHP article for more on worker health/WB. Psyc12 (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two RFCs. The Gilbreth RFC was not to water down the edit. The majority of independent detached editors voted for the Gilbreth sentence in full. That was what the RFC was for. We need to respect the result not continue to do your own thing despite the majority of votes in the RFC. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that way. There is not a clear consensus on Gilbreth's contribution to the impact of work on health. Her interest in efficiency and productivity--there is nothing wrong with that--dominates her interests. We also need to delete the string of unrelated articles in the paragraph on i/o. Iss246 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The vote was whether to delete mention of Gilbreth from the article, and my compromise respects that. None of the editors said that the sentence should not be modified for balance.Psyc12 (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The vote which is becoming very clear was to keep the sentence or delete the sentence. That is what RFCs are for. And that is why I took it to dispute resolution. Not to go over it again but to resolve the dispute. Independent editors obviously voted on that whole sentence Psyc12 and Iss246 including all of the sources. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. The evidence that Gilbreth was involved in health remains sketchy given the evidence provided by Psyc12. The string of unrelated, miscellaneous findings that inflates the paragraph does not work. Iss246 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What the editors wrote was that a sentence on Gilbreth noting her contribution to WB was appropriate, not that the current sentence should not be modified.Psyc12 (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The vote was to keep the sentence or delete the sentence. Independent editors obviously voted on that whole sentence Psyc12 and Iss246 including all of the sources. That is how they formed their vote which seems very clear to keep. Don't undermine Wikipedia's dispute resolution process just because you do not like the result. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A side remark that “Worker Health” may be too broad a term, I tend think of that as the Victorian era public health meaning physical health measures -the beginning of time off and pleasure piers, as well as sanitation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christinegardella.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gsmiller2, D ramirez22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Faroule15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ariannajones.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 15 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madisonodell5. Peer reviewers: SidneyStablein, Sk005aq.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ref

At page 13 (and again 1t 111) following book discusses false charges on an atheist Mubarak Bala. I could not make mind which article and in what form we can take encyclopedic note of the same.

• Brinkmann, Svend. Diagnostic Cultures: A Cultural Approach to the Pathologization of Modern Life. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2016.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

I would like to request that the sentence 'Psychology is the science of mind and behavior.' Be changed to: 'Psychology is the study of mind and behavior.' TKTwastaken (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Psychology is a science. The American Psycholocial Association has a Science Directorate. I recommend against changing the sentence 'Psychology is the science of mind and behavior." Iss246 (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I also would oppose this change. Psychology has a long history of using the scientific method. Sundayclose (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly support this change. It is misleading to characterize psychology as distinctly one or the other. The lead actually acknowledges this by mentioning the aspects of it that are closer to being a natural science and those that are closer to being a social science. This is why groups like NSF only view very specific parts of psychology as "official STEM" (Look at this list). The word 'study' is neutral and reflects this duality. LeBron4 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, if it's worth noting, our portals have psychology listed alongside history and law, not chemistry and physics. This article should reflect that. LeBron4 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed change. Use of the word "scientific" in this instance doesn't really communicate anything useful that isn't already assumed by the English speaking world. To include it begs the question "In contrast to what?" The 'silly' study of the human mind and behaviour? The irrational study of ...? No. At best the word is a redundancy. Mycos 20:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycos (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

205.253.57.182 (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I am also  pursuing my M A degree psy.   I want to join wikipedia due to my interest for know  & write more about psychology ( specialy in clinical psy.) & issues relate towards mental health.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Scientific Study wiki disambig page

I have edited part of the Wikipedia disambiguation page for Scientific Study. Should a link about scientific study be placed in the wiki page of Psychology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdc250 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Some psychological disorders

Anxiety, depression,personality disorders and more. Savage DB (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

21 days

Scychology in this 21 days 2409:4041:2D05:3453:0:0:144A:7709 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

Can you allow me editing please Mamoon 16 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Social vs. Natural Science - Changes to lead

The lead of this article states "It (Psychology) is an academic discipline of immense scope, crossing the boundaries between the natural and social sciences.". I do not believe this is correct, Psychology and employs scientific methods but it is however undoubtedly a social science by definition of its domain. Natural sciences tend to be defined as scientific disciplines that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena. Psychology (excluding the separate field of Neuroscience) does not live within this domain of Natural Science, nor do it's measures exist as objective measures outside the domain of Psychology. I believe the lead should drop the phrase "crossing the boundaries between the natural and social sciences.". Psychology is a Social Science, it is not a natural science. Please let me know if I've overlooked something here. Sadke4 (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Craighead,W.E. & Nemeroff, C.B(2004) The concise corsini encyclopedia of psychology and behavioral science(3rd):NY.NY.John Wiley and Sons. Just to let you know I made some changes that I thought would be helpful in completing this assignment; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychtech1 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Replication Crisis

I wonder, perhaps in the section on criticism, if there ought not be some discussion of the replication crisis issue in psychology? See some of the recent furor over the special edition of the journal Social Psychology on replication studies (most of the furor appears to be regarding just one of those studies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneProphet11 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022

Consider getting rid of the "however" in this sentence: "Although the Hawthorne research can be found in psychology textbooks, the research and its findings, however, were weak at best." It is unnecessary as the "although" is already sufficient. 168.11.48.112 (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 October 2023. Further details are available [[=== Heading text === project _Ed/_technical_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_SP23_-_Sect_201_-_Thu_(Spring_2023)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): User:bhavdip (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by User:bhavdip (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Correction proposed

Wikipedia states: "psychology is the scientific study of mind and behavior in humans and non-humans. Psychology includes the study of conscious and unconscious phenomena, including feelings and thoughts." Therefore neuroscience of religious behavior, feelings and thoughts is psychology. I propose deleting this sentence since it is incorrect.

"This contrasts with the psychology of religion which studies mental, rather than neural, states." TMM53 (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@TMM53: Which quotation above do you propose deleting? The second quotation is not in the article as far as I can see. If you refer to deleting the definition of psychology (the first quotation above), that is a widely accepted definition of psychology and should not be deleted. I don't see any problem here. Please explain. Sundayclose (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

My error. I intended to place this in a different Talk page and placed the comment in this article's Talk page. My apologies. TMM53 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023

Change "The Latin word psychologia was first used by the Croatian humanist and Latinist Marko Marulić in his book, Psichiologia de ratione animae humanae (Psychology, on the Nature of the Human Soul) in the late 15th century or early 16th century.[9]" into "The word psychology was first used in the Renaissance [9[. In its Latin form "psychiologia", it was first employed by the Croatian humanist and Latinist Marko Marulić in his book, Psichiologia de ratione animae humanae (Psychology, on the Nature of the Human Soul) in the decade 1510-1520. [9,10]"

REFERENCE [9]d'Isa R, Abramson CI (2023)"The origin of the phrase comparative psychology: an historical overview". Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1174115. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1174115 Article link: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1174115/

[10] The reference 9 of the previous version of the article now becomes 10 (+1 to the number of all the subsequent references) Conrad65 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I could not find the location of the sentence you want to change; it was prolly changed to something else before this request was awnsered. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

In the article "Psychology", under "Disciplinary organization" - "Institutions", the text reads:

The Interamerican Psychological Society, founded in 1951, aspires to promote psychology across the Western Hemisphere. It holds the Interamerican Congress of Psychology and ha had 1,000 members in year 2000.

Request: changing of ha had to it had Nail Karajić (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Multidisciplinary nature

A quick note to explain why I have removed the unsourced, unqualified, and IMO WP:UNDUE claim that psych is scientific from the first sentence:

Psychology encompasses so vast an area of study that it is not exclusively scientific. Some of psychology is the scientific study of the mind/behaviors; some of it is a non-scientific study.

In an oversimplified form, the logic looks like this: Psychology includes Psychoanalysis; psychoanalysis is not scientific; therefore, psychology is not purely scientific.

Consider how this source describes it:

"To early psychoanalysts, 'science' had nothing to do with controlled experiments, interviews, or statistics. In constructing what they saw as a 'science of the mind,' psychoanalysts relied solely on their own interpretations of cases they saw in therapy, of myths and literature, and of people's behavior....[a 1978 book describing types of psychology] included marathon therapy, encounter therapy, body-image therapy, deprivation therapy, expectation therapy, alpha-wave therapy, 'art of living' therapy, 'art of loving' therapy, and 'do it now' therapy....the Graham potentializer, the Tranquilite, the Floatarium, the Transcutatneous Electro-Neural Stimulator, the Brian SuperCharger, and the Whole Brain Wave Form Synchro-Engergizer" [6]

– all of which are "psychology", but almost none of which are "science" as that word is now understood, or even attempting to be "science". NB that I don't say that none of psych is scientific; I only say that there are non-scientific aspects to psychology as well. The opening sentence should not pretend that non-scientific psych isn't also psych. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Disciplinary organization section - psychology 'growing pains'

Disciplinary organization section - boundaries Re: Paragraph 2 including references to "soft science". I think this passage should at least refer to, or reflect, what is written in the 'Contemporary Issues' section.

The way the 'boundaries' topic is written now seems out of date.

I also suggest lines acknowledging issues or current discourse interrogating psychology shouldn't be be written overly negatively, or undermining the discipline, but still frank and honest.

~~ee 84.65.96.97 (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Equally important, please provide reliable sources. What do you mean by "interrogating psychology"? and "undermining the discipline"? Sundayclose (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis ( freud etc )

Psychoanalysis is not psychology or scientific ! I propose to explain it, to group all the psychoanalytical informations on this page in a specific section that is NOT named a major school or a current of psychology ! T0t0 Cugn0 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Totocugno: Your premises are faulty. The fact that psychoanalysis lacks scientific rigor does not mean it was never a major school of psychology, and it certainly was. Virtually every undergrad psych major or anyone who has taken an intro psychology course knows that. Secondly, the fact that many in the field currently don't subscribe to psychoanalysis does not mean that no one in the field does so. There are still plenty of such people around. To say it was never a major school or that it has no currency is patently false. The article is not titled "Predominant 21st century trends in psychology". It is titled "Psychology". Most of the headings and subheadings have links to other articles with much more detail. This article is an overview. For readers interested in more details, they can click those links. Sundayclose (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

To present psychoanalysis as a current of psychology (now or historically) is fraudulent and maintains confusion--T0t0 Cugn0 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Totocugno: You clearly have very little knowledge in this area. But the bottom line: STOP making edits based on your faulty understanding without a clear consensus. You're creating a mess that others have to clean up. Sundayclose (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You have insults and authoritarian positions but no encyclopedic arguments ! --T0t0 Cugn0 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"Human trait" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Human trait has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14 § Human trait until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Paul Spector

I'm involved in some editing disagreement about the same user persistently re-inserting the personal website of https://www.usf.edu/arts-sciences/departments/psychology/people/pspector.aspx I don't know a whole lot on this subject. Is he a truly distinguished prominent figure or nothing special? I looked him up on Google Scholars and I do see him cited 12541 times. Graywalls (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I saw that User:Graywalls posted the above note. You wrote that you don't know a whole lot about the subject. I happen to know a great deal about the subject matter. He is a distinguished scholar. In fact, he has been a distinguished professor of IO psychology at the University of South Florida. I am not sure why you are policing this guy when you are unfamiliar with the subject matter. You could go to PsycInfo (at your university or at a good public library) and look Spector up to check if he is an important scholar. I don't see why you are looking to knock out citations of his informative and accessible website. Iss246 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology. I removed it from here, because I originally meant to post it there. Why did you restore it here despite the clear edit summary? Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Graywallsl, I changed it because you can't come busting in, admitting that you don't know much about the subject matter, then delete relevant text. Iss246 (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Struck out, so the discussion can take place over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology where I originally intended. Graywalls (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You can't exit after reporting this is subject matter with which you are not familiar. Let's put back what you deleted. Iss246 (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Those seeking to include are responsible for establishing consensus, not the otherway around. Consensus doesn't mean the person wishing to include it just need to come up with an argument to their own satisfaction. One part of the concern is reliability, and the other part is due weight and/or COI and it is latter that is the cause of concern around all those Spector insertions. Your edit summary which uses "justified" suggests you feel re-inclusion overrides exclusion. Graywalls (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Psychology Honors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PapiMan1, CHawks17, Sxndrx2828, Addisonel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mirmir77, AstroWiki143, Inferior12, Ph1275, TheOneCheese, 18roo, Strawberryshortcake10.

— Assignment last updated by Sxndrx2828 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Goals in psychology 2402:FD00:111:1325:7032:CC0:F770:8D08 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

I'd like to add a short paragraph in the WEIRD section about WEIRD research in AI.

The challenges of WEIRD research appears in other research communities too. For example, one of leading venue in exploring Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems’ (ACM FAccT) relies on WEIRD samples. An analysis of a sample of 128 papers published between 2018 and 2022, accounting for 30.8% of the overall proceedings published at FAccT in those years (excluding abstracts, tutorials, and papers without human-subject studies or clear country attribution for the participants) shows that 84% of the analyzed papers were exclusively based on participants from Western countries, particularly exclusively from the U.S. (63%). 2607:FEA8:539E:5D00:BD21:4A43:1025:9812 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This does not seem to have to do with psychology, but just research bias. Perhaps this could be added to the article ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency as a criticism section and/or added to the section Research#Bias.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems too niche for the Psychology article. I agree with Richard-of-Earth. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)