Jump to content

Talk:Occupational stress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lightningstrikers (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 11 January 2020 (→End of Argument). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

Many assertions have citations that are old and need updating. For example, the second sentence in the section on prevalence ("About one-third of workers report high levels of stress.") has a 20-year-old source.Iss246 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material

Beginning with the section on factors affecting workers and continuing on, there is a multitude of unsourced claims. Sources need to be supplied or I will delete the unsourced material. I started noting that the material is unsourced 10 days ago. I will wait another week before I start to delete the unsourced material in the section in the section on factors affecting workers.Iss246 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material

The branch of psychology most concerned with occupational stress is occupational health psychology. Only the source added does not say this. Can someone find a source that says this. Lightningstrikers (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mrm1717, you don't give up on your negative attitude with regard to occupational health psychology. The CDC does not reference another branch of psychology with regard to occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is with the Mrm71! Is there a source that says that please? The source you have included just does not say that. Lightningstrikers (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mrm7171, You continue with the negative attitude regarding OHP. Judging from the swiftness of your edits and your facility with the administrator page, it is clear that you are not a newcomer to WP. Iss246 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am now going to report you for being abusive to a fellow editor and even following me over to another article page that I was editing earlier to try and intimidate me. you are harrassing me and obviously trying to force me away because you don't like me saying you need to provide a reliable source. I am going to overturn your edit because you have failed to provide a reliable source which says what you want it to say. Do you have a reliable source which say that or not? Obviously you do not otherwise you would add it. Lightningstrikers (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the sources you added actually say what you have written in the article. Can you please show where it says in either of those sources you just added what you have written in the article? Otherwise it needs to be removed. Lightningstrikers (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are the abuse editor, coming in like gangbusters and pretending to be a newcomer. Iss246 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got another reliable source or not because the two you have included do not say what you want them to say? Lightningstrikers (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read the paper by Quick? And explain why you are masquerading as a newcomer to WP. Iss246 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. It doesn't say that. Exactly where? Could you paste the quote here please. Lightningstrikers (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mrm7171, I will explain when you explain why you are masquerading as a newcomer to WP. Iss246 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinpoint where it says in either source what you want it to say? Obviously you cannot do so as it doesn't say what you want it to say. I will need to delete if you don't. I've tried to discuss this with you long enough. Lightningstrikers (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why you are masquerading as a newcomer to WP. You ignore that Mrm7171. Iss246 (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will remove this then. Both sources do not support the statement. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the inclusion you want to make before doing so. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
user:Dawn Bard, this user Lightningstrikers is pretending to be a newcomer to WP but has on WP before under other names. He/she has had a long-term hostility to occupational health psychology. On page 4 of their article Quick and Henderson (2016) wrote that research on preventing occupational stress could proceed "by using preventive medicine and epidemiology as a launch point while adding contributions from psychology (especially occupational health psychology." Lighteningstrikers goes of his/her way with an intense singlemindedness to strike out against OHP. Iss246 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could include a new section detailing the various professions involved in occupational stress. I feel like you are trying to dominate this article instead of working collaboratively. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning, I don't want to work collaboratively with you because you unilaterally revert my edits. And also you falsely represent yourself as a newcomer to WP. Iss246 (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to include a section on the various professions involved in occupational stress? There are many professions involved. What do you think? Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just add a section to an article that doesn't follow rules and procedures. You also refuse to talk about it and all you want to do is unfairly attack me and intimidate me. Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the section until we can come to an agreement. Does that sound fair or does it have to be your way only. Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this earlier. There had been a back and forth for awhile. I don't know who added what first. Sorry. I don't think that's important right now. I think what's important is to see how you can work together more effectively. I am trying what I think is the best way to get to that point and have you both involved, instead of having this devolve to one or both of you getting blocked or a topic ban, in a worse-case scenario.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have been warned about reverting edits and had an issue opened on the Administrator's notification page, I would not recommend that as an approach, Lightningstrikers. I think when it comes down to it, you do have some valid issues, but it would help if you would communicate more clearly the nature issue. "Unsourced" for instance, should only be used when there is literally no source. In that case, it would be better to add {{cn}} template after the sentence. Please see WP:BRD and you would do better to focus on consensus-building and not in removing content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just work together to get this right? Lightningstrikers (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should use the CDC. Outside of the USA it means nothing and should not be used in an international article as far as I am aware. Lightningstrikers (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You had a chance to address this when it was discussed at ANI. I agree with the comment that it's recognized outside of the US. In any event, am not sure what information would be in this article if every source was considered illegitimate because it's an international article.
I can understand your concern, though, about wanting to ensure that issues covered around the world are covered in this article. Do you have a suggestion for how to do that? Are there UN or WHO sources that discuss occupational stress, for instance?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightningstrikers I reverted your edit where you started out by reverting content again. I will start adding warnings to your talk page if you continue to do that vs. talking the issues out. Since you have been warned about reverting content, removing content, and now replacing contents--continuing that activity is not helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence in the Wikipedia article on the CDC reads as follows as of today: "Its main goal is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and internationally." Yes, the CDC is a major health research and disease-prevention institution that works internationally. Iss246 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although it might not seem so, I am not trying to pick sides. I am hoping that you can come to an agreement or approach that both of you can live with. But removing content is not a helpful approach, regardless of how it is removed. I think it's a valid concern to ensure that the article has an international approach. But I am not sure how Lightningstrikers sees that playing out. Noone owns this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson I simply restored what the other editor removed. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of the CDC. I don't think anyone who does not live in the USA would. Not a good source for an international article. Also why are we sticking this section in at all. It is not discussed in the article. Why is it in the opening paragraph at all? Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on the ANI page, the opening section - the intro - can set the stage for the discussion and contain a summary of the content. There is no rule that everything in the intro needs to be a summary of article content.
I am still trying to figure out what you want vs. what you don't like. It's very hard to come to common ground if all you do is send negative messages of what you don't want in the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re the CDC, you may want to look at CDC Global Health for 60 years. Who do you think, though, would be good sources of information about projecting Occupational stress from an international perspective? Would any of these scholarly articles be helpful?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the opening paragraph summarises the main points contained within the article. However there is no discussion at all about this section the other editor has bolted on to the end of the paragraph for some reason. This section about the CDC is not even discussed in the article. I've looked at lots of articlres. The lead summarizes the main points in the article too. I think we need to remove the section as it is misplaced and not in the article. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningstrikers (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am super confused:

  • The second sentences of WP:LEDE says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." It does not say that it should only be a summary of the article.
  • If you are drawn on rules-based decision making to the extent it goes against common sense, etc., please look at WP:IGNORE and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
  • I am not understanding the lack of ability to communicate what you do want.
  • I am not understanding why you are making such a big deal about the CDC statement.
  • I do not know what is motivating you. What would make you happy about the direction of the article.

This is beginning (for me) to seem to be a reluctance to work on consensus and being here to build an encyclopedia. Please address how you think this article could be made better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to incliude a section in this international article on all of the various professions which deal with occupatiuonal stress? In each country different professions deal with it. The section in the opening paragraph only talks about the USA. Then the section in the lead can summarize that section in the article. Let's work on this together and in good faith eh? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also CaroleHenderson if you break rules it must be to improve the article. Currently this section certainly does not improve this international article at all. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could be very interesting and helpful and think it might be a good think as a starting point to 1) identify sources for that section and 2) hear from Iss246 about what they think would be a good approach for that section. I cannot think of a reason not to have that section.
Again, it would be helpful to hear what you thing would be good to cover the content from an international point of view. I can understand your issue, but I must say that this is not a strictly one-sided point of view from what I can tell. Do you have sources for information that would help make it better from an international perspective?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bibliography

Potential sources

Occupational stress - blog

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Works for me at this point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I did not say Mrm71! I said Mrm7171. Iss246 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Good night. Iss246 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[citation needed] Other professions such as medicine and occupational hygiene also deal with occupational stress.[citation needed]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Failed Verification Tag

CaroleHenson you added a failed verification tag for good reason [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

User:CaroleHenson, thank you. I think you are getting to a better place. Iss246 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
User:CaroleHenson, I edited what you wrote a little. Iss246 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do you have links to the books? Or draft language citing the sources?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupational_stress&oldid=935182146"