Talk:Occupational health psychology

Back from vacation; new start
I am discussing here that I would like to add the Spector source back into the article for a number of reasons. First, he is an expert with an excellent publication record. Second, he writes clearly enough that professionals in the field and educated members of the general public can understand his writing. Third, the site is noncommercial, despite the dot.com one sees in the URL. There is no paywall. The site provides a service. It is not a profit-making site. Fourth, in the service vein, the site provides information in a convenient, clearly written format. The author, in my view, has one of the clearest writing styles in psychology. That clear writing style is important, especially for readers who are not technically sophisticated.

I add that I put the Spector source in the article about (I think) four years ago. I am writing here because another editor took down my placement of the source without discussing on the talk page. But if I want to restore the source, I have to discuss restoring the source despite the editor who originally deleted it, having not discussed deleting the source on the talk page.

I add that the three-revert rule also works against me because the original deletion is one revert, my restoring the source is the second revert, editor reverting my restoration of the source is the third revert. If I restore the source a second time, that makes for a fourth revert, putting me in the doghouse. I don't want to be in the doghouse and I want my view of the source respected. Moreover, I don't like the accusation that I am a "fan." I'm a fan of Gershwin (I used play him on the piano when I was growing up). Maybe I'm a Yankees fan. To say that I'm a fan because I think a source is a good and clear is BS. Iss246 (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * A "fan" is a reasonable way to describe someone who is really fond of a specific source. It appears you're quite familiar with this author and you may have a favorable perception bias towards affecting how you might see other sources. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that "fan" accurately describes an otherwise very good editor who is obsessed with citing/linking a single personal website into multiple articles as much as they can get away with. In fact, so obsessed that they are willing to risk a block for edit warring and refactoring someone's talk page. To me that describes the slang term "stan". I'm very partial to the Rorschach test. I've researched it, published about it, and frequently used it, but I'm not going to get blocked over making edits about it. I had hoped Iss246 would back off on the Spector links so we could move on to more important matters, but apparently not. Sundayclose (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Baloney. "Fan" "Obsessed". I don't call either of you names or give you labels. Don't give me a label. User:Sundayclose, edit to your heart's content about the Rorschach test. The evidence bearing on its reliability and validity is thin but I don't call you names for being a "partial" to the Rorschach. And I don't back off on the Spector links. Iss246 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hold on partner. You're the one who raised the issue of "fan" in this particular discussion. If you hadn't, no one would have said anything. Don't throw out barbs and think no one is allowed to respond. And the "label" is just a way to describe the behavior, and the descriptions of your behavior have been entirely accurate. But as far as I'm concerned, we can move on. And feel free to call me a Roschachie or a blotter (that actually has been used among those of us who are involved with the test) or whatever you wish because that would accurately describe a lot of my professional life. But what you can't call me is edit warrior or other policy-violator founded in an irrational obsession when it comes to the Rorschach. You know, more than anything else in this Spector mess, the greatest feeling I have is sadness that a good editor has stooped so low to do almost anything to shoehorn citations and links into articles. Sigh ... this discussion has veered very much off topic, so I hope henceforth we can discuss the issue at hand. So I'll try to get it back on track. I oppose any additional links or citations to the Spector website. It's already cited or linked four times in this article alone. Anything more would be excessive. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Iss246, you express your fondness for Paul Spector in several different forms. Fan is not a dismissive statement. Someone that says they really like Taylor Swift, have lots of her albums and really enjoy going to her shows and show that with pride is reasonably described as a "fan". Graywalls (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not your partner. I don't call anyone names like "warrior" or anything else. Not for endorsing subject matter such as the Rorschach or any other entry. One of you guys raised the word "fan" in the Project Psychology talk page. The word "fan" here is dismissive, used facetiously terms like "sigh" and "fondness." The source I wanted to include is not cited four times although four different papers to which Spector contributed are referenced. My judgment about a source is based on my evaluation of the quality of the source not on a "fondness." One of you right here used the word "obsessed." Using that term too reflects also reflects on how inconsiderate you've been. Iss246 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm finished here, Iss246. But you'll need a clear consensus to add a Spector link or citation to any previously existing information in any article. You burned your bridges. Sundayclose (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You burned those bridges for me with your sarcastic, dismissive remarks.Iss246 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to belabor this, but just to clarify: Where did I tell you that you could email me and then ask me to try to secretly influence another editor, but without letting anyone know any details about the email? Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC
 * There was an email slot on your user page, like a mailbox. I wanted to send you a discrete message. That's all. I had no nefarious motive. Iss246 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you ask me to secretly try to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place" after telling me that "Graywalls criticized the stevenspector website"? Sundayclose (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being secret. I was being discrete as I explained in the email. I thought the website was informative, yet clearly organized. The website could supply information to professionals and general readers alike. In addition, I wrote to you because I could not discretely get in touch with Graywalls. I had the impression that you would be sympathetic third party. Iss246 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So if wasn't secretive, how was I supposed to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place" if Graywalls or any editor removed it? Why couldn't you just message me on my talk page and ask me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place"? Sundayclose (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We have different points of view. I don't see how this discussion is going to reconcile them. I will continue to edit and add to WP entries. I will continue to use APA style for references in psychology-related articles and delete links that no longer work and replace them with working links. Iss246 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course we have different points of view. But that's beside the point. And your comment about APA style is entirely off topic. This evasiveness suggests to me that you don't want to answer my question. Why didn't you just message me on my talk page instead of secretly emailing me if you wanted me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place"? I think you are avoiding an answer because you don't want to state the real reason you emailed me. That's your choice, of course, but I am left to conclude that you were trying to influence my edits regarding links to the Spector website, but you didn't want anyone else on Wikipedia to know that. If I'm wrong, please clarify. Otherwise, that's the only reasonable explanation. Sundayclose (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

According to you, everything I write here is off-topic. I don't owe you an explanation. Let's cut the BS and work on editing WP pages. Iss246 (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop putting words in my mouth. In no way have I indicated that "everything" you write is off-topic. And I never said you owed me anything, but it's clear you have refused to answer my question. You were trying to influence my edits regarding links to the Spector website, but you didn't want anyone else on Wikipedia to know that. Sundayclose (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I was going to use a stonrger word, but I will just say, Baloney. Iss246 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not "baloney" or the stronger word. You were trying to influence my edits regarding links to the Spector website, but you didn't want anyone else on Wikipedia to know that. You have not denied it nor provided any explanation to the contrary by answering my question. Calling it baloney doesn't make it baloney. Sundayclose (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! Iss246 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume that such an inane comment means you never intend to answer my question, and thus never deny that you tried to influence my edits regarding links to the Spector website, but you didn't want anyone else on Wikipedia to know that. Sundayclose (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I answered the questions. If you don't like my answer, lump it. You're neither the grand inquisitor nor the district attorney. I want to get on with contributing to encyclopedia pages rather than talk pages. Iss246 (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No you didn't answer my question. So here it is again: "You asked me in an email to 'ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place'. Why couldn't you just message me on my talk page and ask me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place?". If you've already answered it, please link your answer. But you can't do that because you didn't answer the question. You asked me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place", but you didn't want anyone on Wikipedia to know you did so. I have never claimed to be "the grand inquisitor nor the district attorney". I asked a simple question, and you refused to answer, thus confirming that you didn't want anyone on Wikipedia to know that you asked me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place". Saying you answered doesn't mean you answered, and you didn't. I could say I went to the Moon and it is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean it's true. Sundayclose (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah! Iss246 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Another inane response, so clearly you are again refusing to answer, thus confirming that you didn't want anyone on Wikipedia to know that you asked me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place". For anyone who wants to read Iss246's secret email to me, I copied it in it's entirety (with nothing added or removed) to my talk page here. I'll kindly ask Iss246 not to remove it as they previously tried to do, nor remove this link. Sundayclose (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Look in the mirror if you want to see inane. Iss246 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarification about references
On Sept 9, 2023 the citation for a paper by Probst and Sears was changed from APA style. Articles about topics in psychology can use APA style. I want to be clear about that. Iss246 (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It isn't about following "psychology style". I made that change to restore the original link. If the original link doesn't work, archived version is put into place, but we don't just purge the old one. Graywalls (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I applaud your maintaining a working link. I think we should stick with one working link and delete the nonworking link, in the spirit of being reader-friendly. Why send the reader to a nonworking link? A deleted nonworking link will be saved in the list of editorial changes. I also don't think "newsletter" should be in parentheses. I think it should be part of the name of the publication. My only other difference, and it's a minor one, is that I prefer to use APA Style, especially in psychology-related articles. I observed that the "5," denoting the volume number, is in bold using the current style. In APA style it would be italicized. The style I used goes like this:


 * Probst, T.M., & Sears, L.E. (2009). Stress during the financial crisis. Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 3–4. plus a link


 * The style you put in place, goes like this:


 * Cite journal |last=Probst |first=T.M. |last2=Sears |first2=L.E. |year=January 2009 |title=Stress during the financial crisis. Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology | plus a link


 * The difference is small. But I think psychology-oriented readers would benefit from seeing APA style. Iss246 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's part of the auto fill template to put in the original link, then flag it as "dead" so the archive version defaults. As for the article citation style, I don't believe it's dictated by the subject matter. Wikipedia isn't the academic world. We can look into the edit history and see what the article has been historically using and stick with that version. If that's not satisfactory, we can go discuss this on WP:MOS WP:CITEVAR talk Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Graywalls, the relevant rule is at WP:CITEVAR rather than the main MOS page. Please note of the item about converting to citation templates under the heading of "to be avoided". This is probably counter-intuitive to people who have 'only' been editing for five years now, but that is technically the rule.  If you want to change the rule, you might start by inquiring at WT:CITE about whether anyone's attempted to get that rule changed (in favor of even a slight preference for citation templates) any time recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In my editing experience, I haven't experienced many issues with editing style thing. Although my understanding was that when you use an archive version of the website, you don't just purge the dead link. Feel free to correct it to conform to prevailing consensus for this article. Graywalls (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing dead links is permitted for print media (see #4 in Citing sources), but if an online archived copy is available (and doesn't violate WP:COPYLINK), then editors usually prefer to add the archived link.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , Ok, so you're suggesting completely purge the original link after adding archive.org version if the original is dead instead of flagging the original as "dead" so the archive is shown as default? Graywalls (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes editors do that; sometimes they keep both. Either approach is okay.  (I'm assuming that the link is well and truly dead, and not just one of those situations where the server's having a bad day today, or it works in some countries but not others, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this became a point of contention in this talk, do you suppose you could provide supporting discussion or a guideline link? Graywalls (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, but could I suggest that a newer source might be better? Consider this textbook, which says that "The psychological demand of insecurity is often explored in OHP research", which appears to be exactly what that sentence needs from a supporting citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was talking about guidelines or well established consensus on how to handle dead links so there's something I can reference when I run into this again. Graywalls (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The guideline is WP:DEADREF, and it doesn't specify whether, when not using a citation template, one should keep or remove the dead link. Editors are therefore permitted to make their own decisions, at each article, based on whatever criteria they choose to use.  (Dead links in citation templates are usually handled by bot.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

More footnotes
@Graywalls, it's not normal to add More footnotes to an article that already has at least one Inline citation in every single paragraph. If you want editors to change something, I think you're going to have to be more specific. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * , I think that original research template is still the correct one, although another editor continues removing it.


 * @Graywalls, I don't want to be overly argumentative. I recognize that you have done some good work doing things like getting press releases and plagiarism out of WP. I want to be clear about the issue you raise here. I wrote the text in question. I read every paper, which we are supposed to do. I am accustomed to placing footnotes next to certain words when a reference is called for. For example, if the text reads "A meta-analysis showed...", I would place the footnote right after the word "meta-analysis" as in AMA style. In APA style, a writer would place the reference there too but in a little different way, for example, "A meta-analysis (Johnson & Wales, 2016) showed...." Do you want the footnote to be placed at the very end of the sentence? Is that the complaint? The way I see it, putting the reference right after the word "meta-analysis" in my example tells the reader the source of the meta-analysis. This can be helpful if a sentence contains more than one bit of informational text, each of which has a source.
 * I want to cooperate. I would like you to understand that the placement of the citations is consistent with AMA and APA style. Those styles are compatible with a WP entry on occupational health psychology. Citation placement helps the encyclopedia user know what source goes with what bit of informational text when a sentence contains multiple bits of informational text. Iss246 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This is just one example. The way citations are applied and the lack of citation on the very end leaves it very unclear which source lead to the very last statement however, suggests that what is termed burnout is a depressive condition, which could explain burnout's relationship to outcomes like CHD.. So, which one source suggested this concluding remark? Although we don't necessary have to have a citation for every single sentence, the last sentence could have been tacked on at some point, or it could be a WP:SYNTHESIS from multiple sources combined. Graywalls (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @User:Graywalls, again, I want to be helpful. I am glad you pointed this out on the talk page rather than delete text. I will do the fix-up. I think you and I work better when we work in the spirit of cooperation. Iss246 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The relevant guideline reference is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.". I haven't had a chance to investigate all of the sources cited. So, to me, it's still a mystery to me if the said conclusion was reached by Wikipedia editor analyzing multiple sources and reaching a conclusion (original research), if it's a conclusion by one of those three four sources, or from a different source that's not included. There are multiple occurrences that raises this kind of question throughout this article and I think "may contain original research" template is justifiable. Graywalls (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you read the sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I don't have access to those journal articles beyond abstracts. The template says This article possibly contains original research. (emphasis by me) and the explanation I have given satisfies reasonable suspicion. Note that "possibly" means I don't need to positively disprove unverifiability., what I am asking Iss246 is (and I don't know who inserted this claim) (tracked down the insertion occurrence to this edit "however, suggests that what is termed burnout is a depressive condition, which could explain burnout's relationship to outcomes like CHD". So, can you look at any SINGLE cited reference and verify this conclusion? or was this done by a Wikipedia editor who consulted multiple sources and based on the multiple sources, drew their conclusion? If source A says this, source B says that... and conclusion could be C, if you can not find the conclusion C without analyzing A and B, then that is not acceptable on here. Original research is suspected, because this sentence was not ahead of any footnote. Graywalls (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, when a source has been cited, and a given editor doesn't have access to it, the best approach is to ask for access to the source (e.g., at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request) instead of assuming that there is a problem, despite having no factual basis for this assumption. While I have no idea what prompted your expression of concern, I can say that in my experience the usual reason for this is that the factual contents of the article do not align with a reader's belief.  To give an unrelated example, I based Breast cancer awareness primarily on scholarly sources, which happened to say that awareness was a good thing but not a totally harmless thing.  The idea that it could be anything other than perfect surprised a lot of people, so we got complaints.  The complaints had no factual basis; they just assumed that since it didn't align with their personal views, it must be wrong.  In the ~dozen years since then, Komen blew up and the public views have changed, but for the first couple of years, we got complaints that the article was "wrong" or "original research" because it did not confirm people's existing, unverifiable beliefs.
 * Second, this (the example about what burnout is) is a big area of debate, especially since the pandemic. While I haven't looked at the cited source, I have certainly read sources that say that burnout is everyday, garden-variety depression, and that therefore (←this is a conclusion made in some sources) the bad outcomes attributed to it are obviously the same as, and due to, depression.
 * I couldn't tell you what the real relationship between burnout and depression are (partly because the researchers have more than 100 definitions of burnout), but I can tell you that there is a thread in there that says burnout is just a socially acceptable spelling for (mostly mild) depression, and therefore the claim that people with burnout have depression, and the side effects of depression, doesn't surprise me in the least. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - What you're suggesting as the best approach disproportionately places verification on those suspecting original research. Graywalls (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Or we could call it "not tagging articles for no apparent reason". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * that's a given. Agree to disagree on how you interpret the presence of "apparent reason" with regard to this article. Graywalls (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"""@Graywalls, in response to what you wrote here on the talk page, I edited the section on BO and heart disease. I renamed the section, expanded it a little, and trimmed it a little by deleting the A says this and B says that and possibly C. I'm glad you identified the problem. I will continue to edit it to improve the section as I review the literature. Iss246 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Since my further investigation points to the insertion was done by you, you're in the position to be explain it. Please provide a direct explanation for how you came up with the conclusion in question, which I see you have removed. This is just one example of many such concerns within the article. I believe that reasonable evidence of original research being present in article absent proper answer for this concern. Graywalls (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I probably made the insertion and drew a conclusion but the conclusion was not warranted. That is why I removed it. If you think there is an instance of an editor, including me, jumping to a conclusion, please alert editors by putting your concern on the talk page. Of course, I can't say that at some future post on the talk page I will automatically agree with you, but I would take seriously what you write if you think there is a problem. WP works better when we cooperate. Iss246 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The explanation of original research (which is _PROHIBITED_ on Wikipedia) in WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS is quite clear, yet you removed the original research template from the talk page. Why? It's completely acceptable to tag up articles with templates. You're objecting to removal of challenged contents, as well as tagging. Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably because Template:Original research says "This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given."
 * Maintenance tags are supposed to result in article improvements. They are not badges of shame.  If nobody can figure out what needs fixing, then the tag should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , Had I not explained adequately, you have a point, but I made it quite clear why I believed original research existed and such explanation isn't expected to point out every instance. You're falsely inferring it was placed as a "badge of shame". My suspicion of original research in article was founded as shown by the edits made and Iss246 response above acknowledging they probably OR'd. Graywalls (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't explain until after the tag was removed, and now that the one (1) problem you mentioned has been resolved to your satisfaction, you are still complaining that the tag has been removed, despite not identifying any other possible problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you're expecting:
 * itemized concerns are presented, one by one
 * with explanation for each item presented
 * is that correct, WhatamIdoing? Graywalls (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I'm expecting that when other people indicate that they have no idea what part(s) of the article might, in your opinion, possibly contain OR, you should either accept their removal of the unhelpful and unclear tag – you said it might have an OR problem, and by removing it, they said that they don't see any OR problems – or provide enough information that they can figure out what your concern is.  You might find the Original research inline tag useful for this purpose.  Explanations are only necessary if you want to argue that the other editors' conclusion that there's no OR is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , that's one way of doing it and it is probably the sensible way if there is only one instance and appears preferable in your opinion however there is no prescribed number of original research instances before the hat note can be used. In my opinion, several apparent OR is a reasonable cause to tag it right on the top, especially if it's scattered throughout the article and not confined to one section. Graywalls (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The point behind a maintenance tag is to communicate a concern to other editors.
 * To be functional, the tag needs to communicate enough information that those other editors will actually be find and fix the problem. This:
 * is not a useful tag, because nobody looking at that tag will be able to figure out what the actual problem is, which means that – unless they can read minds – they can't actually fix it.
 * At this point, you've tagged the article to say something that amounts to:
 * So far the conversation is:
 * Graywalls says there might be a problem.
 * Nobody else can see the problem.
 * Graywalls points out one possible problem.
 * The one passage gets changed.
 * Nobody else can see any more problems.
 * Graywalls complains that people don't magically know which parts of the article Graywalls is still concerned about.
 * Mind reading is not a skill you should expect in other editors. That means that if you want your concern addressed by other editors, you will have to effectively communicate your concern to those other editors.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While our guidelines don't impose one citation per sentence, we don't just have a trailing statement placed outside of cited material. Logically, if the sources support the said statement, it goes in front of the references, not behind. This seems pretty clear.
 * Is giving an example or two and explanation of pattern inadequately clear to you?
 * Going through one by one, tagging issue one by one takes excessive effort.
 * When the pattern is shown and it appears clear, top tag is reasonable.
 * WhatamIdoing implies identifying a pattern is a "magic", but it is not. \
 * This is yet another of many concluding remark/summary which leaves uncertain who made this assessment.
 * What's "similar"? Who said they're similar? Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you having trouble differentiating between WP:Glossary sentences and "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists" (i.e., no source in the world has ever been published that contains the same information)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you having trouble understanding the burden isn't to disprove? To satisfy what you're suggesting, it requires an exhaustive search. Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want a problem to be fixed, you have to identify what the problem is with enough specificity that other editors know when they've finished fixing the problem – a definition of done, if you will.
 * You say "When the pattern is shown and it appears clear, top tag is reasonable". I'm saying:  I do not see "the pattern".  It does not "appear clear" to me.  So far, I wonder whether your complaint, which you have called "original research" is merely that there are a small number of sentences that are WP:Glossary.  Is that your complaint? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you having trouble understanding the burden isn't to disprove? To satisfy what you're suggesting, it requires an exhaustive search. Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want a problem to be fixed, you have to identify what the problem is with enough specificity that other editors know when they've finished fixing the problem – a definition of done, if you will.
 * You say "When the pattern is shown and it appears clear, top tag is reasonable". I'm saying:  I do not see "the pattern".  It does not "appear clear" to me.  So far, I wonder whether your complaint, which you have called "original research" is merely that there are a small number of sentences that are WP:Glossary.  Is that your complaint? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You made a good suggestion about the section on BO and heart disease, which I appreciate. I am not sorry to write this @Graywalls, but the comment about the underlined text not having a source is petty bullshit because correlations and SEM are woven deeply into psychology. I thought you were going to point to something more important in the OHP entry that could benefit from a source, something more helpful. Evidentally I was wrong. Iss246 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I was met with INCIVIL comment, of sort that is rather frequent from Iss246. Undid revision 1179527534 by Graywalls (talk)What is wrong with you Graywalls? The sentence you removed covers information in the Adkins article. Iss246, what is wrong is the exhibition of apparent signs of article ownership even though nobody owns articles. The removal was proper given the contents were found in a way that looks like personal reflection or original writing, given it was placed after citations. They've also been previously counseled to cite the source, not describe them. If I remove contents, they restore back, if I tag, they detag. Providing relevant policies do not help. Following your re-insertion of the removed contents, you simply shifted the citation location around. , did you re-consult the source, and does the citation you shifted around DIRECTLY support what is said without needing to do any interpretation of the source? Graywalls (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to cooperate with you. I cooperated with you on the OHP section on BO and heart disease. But NO to your assertion above, @Graywalls. It wasn't personal reflection that I wrote into the text on Adkins. If you would have read Adkins's article you would have known that I summmarized information in the article. You are on a vendetta to tear up WP articles to which I have added edits. I don't why you have become a kind of Savonarola-type editor, looking for sins in all the wrong places. Although my edits are on your hit list, know that I'm not one of the neophytes you police, the neophytes who place copied text into WP articles. You are very good at policing that type of problem. You are out of line in attacking my edits. Iss246 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just don't like it ≠ out of line. Others shouldn't have to comb through all the nearby, but not directly attached sources to verify the source and it shouldn't have to depend on the reader having subject area expertise to prove/disprove. If the reader already has the necessary knowledge, they're not going to be the one to be coming to encyclopedia to come for knowledge. If a student submitted something that had an entire paragraph saying something/some organization has helped accomplish a certain thing with no citation attributed to this statement, that's gonna get flagged by the teacher as questionable. If the grader had personal knowledge and happens to recognize what's said is true, they'd recognize it was just missing a citation, but Wikipedia pages are not designed for professors/teachers who already have deep knowledge into the subject.
 * A textbook won't be written with citations like this, but authorship is known and assumption is made that the person who wrote the textbook knows what they're talking about. This is never the case on Wikipedia. We NEVER lead, but rather follow what's directly said in reliable sources and always directly cite it. Otherwise, it's unusable information. Graywalls (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are talking in circles in the first paragraph. A WP editor has to read reliable sources in order to write cogent text on subject matter covered in an encyclopedia entry. We are not discussing a student taking a test; we are discussing the creation of an accurate encyclopedia. Reading reliable sources and writing citations matters. What you wrote in the second paragraph is wrong. Psychology textbooks have lots of citations and often spotlight important publications. Iss246 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that on Wikipedia, things can not be written without explicit citations. Movie plots and such might be the only exception. So, if you acknowledge writing citations matter, why are you inserting uncited contents at times?? Graywalls (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, on Wikipedia, things can not be written without explicit citations is not a true statement. See WP:MINREF and note that "I hereby WP:CHALLENGE all uncited information" is one of a traditional example of block-worthy WP:POINTY behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The material in this article is something that's non-obvious. That's a first I hear things maybe added without references. Graywalls (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)