Talk:Occupational stress

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morriha01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 16 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mollycoleman514.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You are the abuse editor, coming in like gangbusters and pretending to be a newcomer. Iss246 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Mrm7171, I will explain when you explain why you are masquerading as a newcomer to WP. Iss246 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Explain why you are masquerading as a newcomer to WP. You ignore that Mrm7171. Iss246 (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Will remove this then. Both sources do not support the statement. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the inclusion you want to make before doing so. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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, . 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)
 * Can't we just work together to get this right? Lightningstrikers (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * CaroleHenson I simply restored what the other editor removed. Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

This can be returned by removing collapse top and bottom, if desired.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Occupational Stress RFC
Should the following sentence, which makes up the second paragraph of this article, be removed? "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology." 20:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer Keep or Delete in the Survey. Please do not answer Yes or No, because the closer will not know what you are saying. Engage in threaded discussion only in the section for Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey
Keep Iss246 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC) I would have placed information like this lower in the article but given the forced choice, I selected keep. Iss246 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Keep Ohpres (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep if we must. Sportstir (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep – It appropriately conveys that there has been scholarly discussion about occupational stress in those work environments and cites multiple sources to support that. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 05:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

 * Is there a reason to delete it? AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please answer this? I don't see any rationale here for the proposed removal of content. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 05:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Iss246 requested deletion of the paragraph. I think that the reason was that they did not want to "pick winners" as to what disciplines contributed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ,, , and , yes, the idea is to keep the sentence because I do not want to a pick winner, i.e., claim that one discipline is more prominent than the others in terms of addressing research and/or practice in the area of occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, but how did this become an issue controversial enough to merit an RfC? Was there prior discussion about this change? — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 17:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

, the issue became controversial because I objected to another editor's attempt to make industrial/organizational psychology more prominent than other fields in the study of occupational stress. In my view, we should not elevate one field over the others. Evidence from Prof. Paul Spector, a leading figure in i/o psychology, wrote that i/o psychology in fact came late to the study of occupational stress. I prefer not to dwell on who came late and who came early. I prefer to list the fields the investigators and practitioners allied to which conduct research on occupational stress and engage in practices to remedy occupational stress. I prefer not elevate one field over the others. Iss246 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Start reading above approximately at Talk:Occupational stress/Archives/2020. About 80% of the content on this page is about these changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keep in mind that respondents to an RfC are commenting on a content question, and aren’t expected to be familiar with the page history. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 19:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Formatting
This is a badly-formed RfC. - that tells me absolutely nothing about the issue at hand. Please fix the RfC in accordance with WP:RFCST paying particular attention to WP:RFCBRIEF - we should not need to be given a list of instructions on how to behave. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still pretty confusing. Why does it need two RfC tags? — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 05:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two different questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Both questions don't automatically warrant RfCs, though. I fail to see how these changes are sufficiently controversial to merit the use of one RfC, let alone two. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 17:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Second Part of RFC
Should the Occupations section be rewritten as specified below?

Occupations
Should the two paragraphs at the end, in the Occupations section, be replaced by: Professionals from several fields conduct research on the causes of occupational stress and interventions that prevent or treat occupational stress. Other professionals are practitioners who consult with organizations regarding how to make the work environment less stressful or to treat individual casualties of job stress. These professionals come from a number of fields including occupational health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, sociology, human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, and occupational safety and health.

22:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer Keep or Delete in the Survey. Please do not answer Yes or No, because the closer will not know what you are saying. Engage in threaded discussion only in the section for Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey
Keep. (Replace the two existing paragraphs with the new, briefer paragraph.) Iss246 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Keep. Ohpres (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't use the proposed wording. It does not provide an accurate picture of occupations involved and to what degree they are involved. Sportstir (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep. The wording indeed provides an accurate picture. I have cited sources to that effect. If an editor thinks the wording is inaccurate, he or she should provide sources to support such a view. Iss246 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep – I agree with, sources need to be cited to support this. The paragraphs as written are well-sourced, and this proposed replacement does not cite a single source. What's the case for making this change? — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 05:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep the current wording in the article. This new proposed wording has no sources as Tartan357 noted and is completely misleading to readers and entirely inaccurate given each field is involved with occupational stress by 'weight' and we should acknowledge 'how much' each fields contribute and how they contribute and for how long. Sportstir (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
Comment This survey is confusing. Does "delete" mean replace the current page content with the proposed change? Or does it mean something else? Comatmebro (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's also unclear whether the second RfC is intended to supersede the first or if they are somehow separate. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 05:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * These are completely separate questions. The first is about what to do to the second paragraph (the TOP of the article).  The second is about what to do with the last section (the END of the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why have two RfCs just because you have two questions? It seems like both of these proposed changes are pretty minor and could be worked out on this talk page with discussion between involved editors. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 17:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of these questions were already discussed at length on this page plus at the Dispute resolution noticeboard without the editors involved being able to resolve them. Perhaps reasonable people might think that it "should" be possible to work it out, but that was tried, and it didn't work this time.  RFCs are a reasonable and normal next step in such circumstances.  If you want to discuss which disputes truly need RFCs, then let's continue that discussion at WT:RFC instead of here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s perfectly fine, but it should be explained in the RfC so uninvolved editors can know what this is about. There’s no text in this RfC giving context to commenters on why this is controversial or how previous discussion failed. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 19:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the question of the "weight" each field contributes to research and practice devoted to occupational stress, I tend to think occupational health psychology contributes the most. To know for sure would require an intensive study of articles published in various journals (e.g., Journal of Occupational Health Psychology). But that would not be enough. The published articles are not likely to reflect on the work of the practitioners out in the field helping to alleviate problems of occupational stress because the practitioners who are not academics tend not to publish articles on what they are doing in job after job, and thus would not be counted. It is best to leave the list of contributing fields without singling out one field as the more important than the others. Iss246 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Industrial Hygiene and Ergonomics- Graduate Student Projects
— Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communicating the Fundamentals of Epidemiology
— Assignment last updated by GP0322 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)