Talk:Work & Stress

Tom Cox, Organizational Psychologist - Rock solid edit
However in relation to the other edit. That is, Tom Cox the Organizational Psychologist edit I have made. That is roick solid. And for all of the reasons already outlined. om Cox was the founder of the journal. He invented the Journal. He also was the founder of EA-OHP. He invented it in effect. Based on this reliable source. When Tom Cox founded Work & Stress in 1987, interest in work-related stress was accelerating and the contents of the first volumes reflect the fact that that the main interest in those years was on that specific subject.."."(Cox, T., Taris, T., & Tisserand, M. (2009). Across the pond: The journal Work and Stress. Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 17-18.) Regardless of whether you like the entry Tom Cox refers to himself as an Organizational Psychologist. The reliable source used is his own personal website. It is the most reliable source possible. It is written by him on the homepage, opening sentence, of his own website. I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life. http://proftcox.com/ This is a perfectly legitimate reliable source, in this case, the 'most' RS! Wikipedia says it is okay to use a blog or personal website. Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. Tom cox wrote it. I have presented a rock solid entry into this article. There is absolutely no reason for you to delete it. I am amazed that your possessiveness over this article has meant all this debate over the inclusion of 2 little words. "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist. This is a classic sign of '''"ownership behavior" see Ownership of articles.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In further support of my '2 word inclusion' in 'Your' article it seems, please also see: Verifiability Please see section: Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Tom Cox's own website iss246 is the reliable published source. Not just a 'blog' as you refer to it and it can be found here http://proftcox.com/. That source for the edit that Tom Cox is an organizational psychologist is not only a reliable source for that piece of information. But it is the 'most' reliable source to support that Tom Cox, inventor and founder of the Journal Work & Stress, is indeed an organizational psychologist.If having to go to these lengths simply to have such a simple edit included in Your article is not further proof of what Wikipedia refer to as "ownership behavior", I don't know what is! The edit in its 'full 2 word' entirety is rock solid. You and psyc12 have deleted it on no fewer than 10 occasions! using any and every possible excuse you could use to stop me from making even such a slight edit to Your article.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ownership behavior. Baloney. Iss246 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If having to go to these lengths, simply to have such a simple 2 word edit included in the article you wrote, is not 'further evidence' of what Wikipedia refer to as "ownership behavior", I don't know what is! The edit in its 'full 2 word' entirety is rock solid. You and psyc12 have deleted the Tom Cox Organizational Psychologist edit, at least 15 times! using any, and every, possible excuse you could think of to stop me from including it for some reason?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page
Why won't you discuss these issues you have iss246 on this talk page calmly and in a civil manner. We can work toward a civil conclusion based purely on reliable sources for this encyclopedic article? Why won't you do what Wikipedia instructs us to do? Please discuss rather than blindly delete and cause disruption to good faith editors. I know you originally wrote this article, but you do not own it. That's all I am saying. No one owns an article iss246. Please again refer to this Ownership of articles "This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page."Mrm7171 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Below I enumerate my response to the above claim. (Please don't interpolate between the items enumerated. You Mrm7171 can write underneath my response.)


 * 1. Mrm7171, I make no ownership claims. The person doing the accusing of others of ownership claims is, to use a mossy old term from psychoanalysis, projecting his feelings onto those others.


 * 2. You claim you want discussion, but it appears to me that you only want discussion if other discussants agree with you. I tried to compromise with you; however, you rejected the compromise I proposed about writing "psychologist Tom Cox."


 * 3. You continue to use a blog as a source although Wikipedia does not consider a blog to be a reliable source (Wikipedia recognizes that anyone can start a blog).


 * 4. You ignore the fact that Tom got his doctorate in behavioral pharma, which, by the way, is not a blemish on his fine record. It is a tribute to him that he moved over to research on job stress and health. What he did is admirable. You never address that doctorate in your walls of text. I mention Tom's doctorate because people who contribute to OHP come from several disciplines inside psychology (and not only from i/o), and some come from outside psychology (like Sergio Iavicoli).


 * 5. Mrm7171, you accuse me of not liking Tom when that could be furthest from the truth. You don't know me, and cannot know whom I like and dislike. Your claim regarding what I think of Tom is based on nothing. The truth is that I think highly of Tom. I say that here for what that is worth.


 * 6. Mrm7171, you make discussing edits a waste of time. Your discussions amount to a wall of text that rehashes your position. There is no nuance. No compromise. No nothing. Your walls of text amount to a steamroller on which the words "Do it my way" are engraved on the front wheel. Iss246 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is pretty obvious I think that you are the one creating 'walls of text' iss246, through your desperate opposition to 'any' change, even 2 single words, like Organizational Psychologist, it seems. I will not engage in personal attacks or edit warring with you iss246. It is ridiculous. As far as Tom Cox, the inventor of the Work & Stress journal, you have again clearly shown your dislike toward him personally, and his profession, as an Organizational Psychologist, over the past few months in multiple article talk pages. Stop backpedaling, and let it go please. I personally don't care.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Clearly." Yeah. You know nothing Mrm. Iss246 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I sure know more than you on issues relating to work stress iss246. And I sure know that your dislike of Tom Cox and his profession as an organizational psychologist can be clearly found throughout various Wikipedia articles over months and months. As I say though iss246, please drop the personal attacks on everybody else. Nobody owns Wikipedia articles, regardless of who wrote them. That's all I am saying.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's move on iss246. Now we have finally established some stability to this article I am hoping we can edit in a calm civil manner without personalizing things as you try to constantly do. It makes it very difficult to ignore when you make inflammatory comments like you did in your last comment. I have tried to mostly ignore your personal attacks as Wikipedia advises editors to do, if they are attacked. Personally attacking other editors is another classic sign of 'article ownership behavior'. I try to remind myself of that and it helps me ignore your continual personal attacks, just because I dare to try to edit an article that you wrote.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk about "civil manner" or "inflammatory comments" pal, don't tell me whom I like or dislike. Iss246 (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Calm down, iss246, I don't care, but your bias toward qualified organizational psychologists like Tom Cox, inventor of the journal work & stress and founder of 'OHP' is obvious. Your desperate attempts to not have Tom Cox's profession as an organizational psychologist, included in an article about the journal, he invented, illustrates my point.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mrm7171, you calm down. You can sling it. Iss246 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Iss246, I am always calm, but can I suggest you take a break from editing for a while? I doubt based on your childish go sling it comment that you would know organizational psychologists like Tom Cox. I seriously doubt you are a professor in educational/child psychology like you have said in previous discussions?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And even if you were a professor in child psychology why on earth are you editing articles on organizational psychology topics anyway and commenting on organizational psychologists like Tom Cox who invented the journal that this article is about? Very odd?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Tom Cox revisited
Tom Cox was the founder and inventor and editor in chief second to both of those, if anything 'editor in chief' needs to go.

There has been extensive changes made to the article recently with no discussion on this talk page? Please talk on here before coming in to this entirely separate article and making so many deletions with no discussion. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Where Tom Cox currently works, ie. reference made to a university, is irrelevant. In fact, it would be like saying he also has a private consultancy? That too would be irrelevant. So deleted that irrelevant reference to one of the founders current workplaces, made by un known editor, for some reason. Also reinstated critical section describving who the article is focusing on. That description is very important to journals and this article is ONLY about the journal, what is, who is it for, and who founded it.

Please discuss on these talk pages before making further deletions, which were important to this Wikipedia article, and based on reliable sources, without any discussion here. Thankyou. Mrm7171 (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an entirely separate article to any other Wikipedia article. Please discuss on these pages before other unknown editors make such sweeping deletions to this article with no discussion here on this talk page first. Thank you. It is just how Wikipedia would like editors tro edit 'their' articles. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bilby, please engage on this discussion page here rather than just constantly reverting other editor's edits in various articles you concern yourself with, blindly and with no dialogue or often no concern for Wikipedia protocol. This is an article only about this journal. 'The numerous 'Associations' the journal has with societies, clubs organizations is irrelevant. Based on this Wikipedia tenet removed reference you keep adding for some reason regarding one of the associated societies, clubs, organizations whatever with the journal. Why are you adding this Bilby? We can't add every association with journal? As you know? Please discuss on this page. Look forward to dialogue based on Wikipedia protocol only. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems the journal feels that mentioning the associated publisher is important enough be the first thing it says on the official page. I'm not sure why you feel that there is a problem with mentioning that the journal is published in association with one of the only professionals societies in the field, given the view that Francis & Taylor appear to hold of the relationship . - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Randykitten made the same point on the journal occupational health psychology article. This is about the journal only. Please refer to Randykitten's comments also, and see Wikipedia policy.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it seems he didn't. The issue there was that SOHP's relationship was simply that they offer a subscription to the journal to members, not that they are the associate publisher of the work. The relationship between Work & Stress and EOHP is much stronger, and worth mentioning. - Bilby (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yesterday I cleaned up this article in accordance with the journal article writing guide, as I have done with hundreds of journal articles. As such articles are seldom edited regularly, I admit not checking the history or talk page and it seems that I've landed in the middle of an edit war. (So, a an aside: Mrm7171, you have wildly exceeded the number of reversions allowed by WP:3RR and are at great risk of being blocked in consequence). Bilby is absolutely correct about the society association. With the other journal it was a tenuous link. Here it is essential. I'm absolutely baffled that someone would like to remove the name of the publisher, Taylor and Francis. That is, again, essential information. Neither can I understand why someone would object to saying that the editor-in-chief is editor-in-chief, with a wikilink to the appropriate article. And what is wrong with saying that this is a peer-reviewed academic journal? And some details: societies are founded, journals are established. The information on the editor(s affiliation is, again, essential info. One of the first things one wants to know about an academic is her/his affiliation. Any other info on the editor belongs in a biographical article on them (according to WP:ACADEMIC, journal editors like Tom Cox are notable). See also sections should only contain links to articles that have not yet been linked in the body of text. I probably have forgotten to mention something, but in any case, I am going to restore the version that I edited yesterday, which is like a good journal article should be. If somebody who has already done multiple reversions today is going to revert that edit, I will file a report at the appropriate noticeboard. If someone disagrees with any changes I made or thinks some essential information has been omitted, please post a brief note here and we'll discuss it rationally. I'm always willing to be convinced, but what is going on here is absolutely ridiculous. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I had left the publisher Taylor & Francis in the text. See my final version. I thought it was quite diplomatic and I offered discussion on this page throughout. Articles on a journal should be about 'that journal only' Therefore if the journal publisher briefly mentions this: "It is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all concerned with the interplay of work, health and organisations." it should be included. Why the deletion of that 'critical' information I am wondering?


 * As far as 'wildly exceeding' the number of reverts. That is not true. I respect Wikipedia's rules. I admit on this occasion, and after Bilby came in and blindly deleted so much of the article, with no discussion, I reverted no more than three times. I stopped editing and am talking it through here. Other edits I made were corrections to the text, and to get the referencing right. This article is currently deficient in regard to its lack of information regarding the article itself? Thoughts please Ranykitten?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I rather not get caught up in arguing about this, but your comments appear to be misleading. I didn't blindly delete much of the article - I reverted to remove two copyright violations, as noted in the edit summaries . And rather than not discussing this, I immediately informed you of my reverts on your talk page . - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No Bilby, I had just left the quotations off. Not copyright violations at all. That is completely misleading. I had included the exact source with the text too. I have noticed in many, many articles you come in and delete blindly, without discussing first. Or even discussing after, and then move on to the next article and often do the same. You don';t just correct grammar or the like, you actually get involved in a myriad of discussions momentarily make your hit and move on without discussion. I am pulling you up on this. That is inflammatory and discourages many good faith editors, even if they had got it wrong. It is much better if you are going to revert other editors edits to discuss with them first. The edit history on this article shows you deleting without discussion a large section of this article. I will get the diffs in a minute and prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs)


 * Unfortunately, directly copying text from a source that doesn't provide it under a compatible license is a copyright violation. I understand that you intended to turn it into a quotation, but in the form it was pasted it ran into Wikipedia's copyright policy, and I had to act on that basis as I didn't know your intent. Providing attribution is always good, but attribution alone isn't enough to remove copyright concerns - it solves any possible risk of plagiarism, but sourced text under an incompatible license is still a copyright problem. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mrm7171: You are right, you did leave in the publisher, but you removed the wikilink. As for the "critical' information that you mention: the text explains that this is a journal covering occupational health psychology, organizational psychology, and work/stress. Guess who are going to be interested in that stuff. Exactly: people working in that area. Adding the phrase lifted from the publisher's page therefore does not add any information that is not already in the article. As for your comments on Bilby's behavior, I don't see anything wrong with what Bilby does (see also WP:BOLD), but your comments could be seen as an ad hominem personal attack. Please comment on the issues, not the editor. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry Randykitten disagree with you on what should and should not be in the journal article. Have stood back from it for a couple of days to reflect on content. Won't engage in edit warring. As far as editors making significant edits, like Bilby did, and without discussing on this talk page, that is a point worth mentioning and relevant to this discussion. Asking another editor to discuss significant changes they make to an article is a fair point and it is what Wikipedia asks us all to do. Too many people come into an article, and 'blindly' revert some editor's good faith changes without discussion which is inflammatory. As Wikipedia tells us all, we should discuss with editors 'why' on the talk page. Most editors try and do this and it shows respect for Wikipedia and other editors.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I haven't been making many significant edits here, so I think that there may be some confusion. I removed two copyright violations, (as discussed above), added back the associate publisher, and removed a few words that seemed redundant . But otherwise most of my (very few) edits were simply formatting references or minor fixes. I assumed that was why you didn't end up providing any diffs. - Bilby (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As this just seems to be a matter of a bit of confusion about what changes I made, I think I'll leave this. If anyone has concerns about my editing here, they're welcome (as always) to check the history, and if they find any concerns they can always bring it up here or on my talk page and I'll certainly listen carefully to anything they have to say. But otherwise this seems to be a bit of a distraction from the article, so I'm just going to let the issue sit. - Bilby (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits
Taking into account comments from Bilby and Randykitten, I have made some changes which include a new history and a scope section. This is because the journal has had almost '2 lives' The first was from 87 onward and the other late 1990s. The history section discusses the founder and the early days when the journal just focused on work related stress articles. The scope section discusses the journal as it is today. I left the opening paragraph fully intact. However it still needs a reliable source that does not contravene Copyright laws as Bilby quite rightly pointed out. The opening paragraph which was unsourced before I made these changes today, and does need a reliable source added please. Hope I have considered all editor's points of view on this Wikipedia article, including my ownMrm7171 (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A final note to Randykitten was that the profession of Psychologist is different than the profession of Organizational Psychologist as the inventor/founder of the journal who 'also' happens to be the editor in chief as well, refers to himself as. It is a similar distinction in medical specialties with protected titles as it is in the UK for psychologists. A Cardiologist is not the same as a Plastic Surgeon for instance. So the simple reference just to psychologist is very misleading. I put a lot of work into these edits and carefully considered all of the points made by other editors and hope I have integrated these into the final product. Please discuss here first before further edits.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mrm7171, this is becoming tedious. I gave clear reasons for the edits I made. You don't, you just say, "I think this is better". You then change the article and demand that we first discuss any further changes, presuming that those can only be made if you give your permission. That's not the way things work here. So let me address the points that you mention above. (1) First, Tom Cox is notable because as editor of this journal he meets WP:ACADEMIC. Sooner or later an article should be created about him. As there are other people named "Tom Cox", we need what we call a disambiguator in the article title. According to Wikipedia's naming conventions, such a disambiguator should be as general as possible. So if we would have somebody name "Albert Einstein" who is a figure-skater from Austria, we would name the article about this person "Albert Einstein (skater)", not "Albert Einstain (Austrian figure skater". Similarly here, an organizational psychologist is a psychologist, so the article on Cox should be named "Tom Cox (psychologist)" (and in that article it would be explained exactly what he does and such). Note that because the link was "piped", the word "psychologist" was not visible in the article. Removing that link is not constructive. I would like to add that all this is ordinary Wikipedia procedure and that it should not be necessary to explain this to an editor with over 1400 edits here. (2) Then the "citation needed" tag that you applied. This information is on the journal's own homepage, maintained by a reputable publisher. I don't see any reason to doubt it, nor do I see any necessity to add a "reference" that would just be an extra link to the journal's homepage. Next to the history section. I'm sorry, but if you think that a journal has an "inventor", then you really don't know what you are talking about. (3) The article clearly stated that the founding EIC is Cox. There is no need whatsoever to add "Occupational Psychologist" (with caps, no less), as I have already explained above: that info belongs in a biographical article on Cox. (4) The change in scope does not belong in a different 1 phrase section, but is part of the history section and, again, was already present in the previous version, just written more concisely (without any loss of information). (5) To whom the journal is directed does not belong in the article because, again as explained already above, that is self-evident, directly taken from the publisher's website, and at best mildly promotional. I have reverted to the previous version. If you think anything is incorrect, should be added, or should be deleted, please mention that here with a good reason, not just "I disagree". --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not true at all. It has to be your way or nothing Randykitten, like you do on other articles, blindly deleting other editor's good faith edits, because you think you know best. You don't need to follow Wikipedia protocol or be civil and respectful toward other editors! I took into account all points you and other editors made. You open with a demeaning comment that this is tedious and then continue with a tirade of patronizing text. You also leave the first paragraph completely unsourced. I have not engaged in edit warring. I stepped back from the other day. You have not taken into account my perspectives. My changes were all well sourced. You are discouraging. You talk as if you own wikipedia. I will not engage in edit warring with you or your hostilities. Please discuss and we can work through changes together in a civil, respectful manner. Telling me "you really don't know what you are talking about" is bordering on a personal attack. I am amazed though that the entire first paragraph is left unsourced by you . That is with no reliable sources. I left a citation needed note there even. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Me thinks that the above extremely long post constitutes quite a lot of discussion, that you just brush aside as "patronizing text". Seems like you didn't hear that. And a lead is generally not sourced. Read WP:MOS and connected guidelines. And as far as I see, I've been civil and have not engaged in any personal attacks(like you actually do in your last comment). --Randykitty (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not mention "invented" in the article - obviously, and was explaining my point. I used founder. No point mentioning just one university, as you have either? Tom Cox chairs at three universities? So I admittedly deleted that. The first paragraph does still require a source. Despite you saying it does not. You left nothing of my careful changes, just deleted everything. You saying to me "you really don't know what you are talking about" because I used the word inventor on the 'talk' page 'only to illustrate a point' is not acceptable to me. Do you understand? I will ignore it once, rather abuse you back. But that is not how things are done on Wikipedia. You do NOT talk to other editors like that! Okay! You are edit warring by 'blindly deleting' my well sourced work. I will not participate in edit warring.


 * I re-included, a dubious reference to a 'separate society' in the article, which is simply 'in association' with the publisher, as a compromise here and proof that I listen and 'can cooperate' with other editors rather than 'blindly delete' their work. The only point now left to discuss, is the reference to Tom Cox's profession. And the fact that you left your edits in the first paragraph unsourced. So please don't just blindly 'delete and replace' with 'your version,' or no version. Please re-read all of my discussion on this talk page regarding Tom Cox's profession. He also 'happens to be' the editor and the founder of the journal and a famous Organizational Psychologist. It is a minor point, well sourced and justified in this instance. Every Wikipedia article is different. Journal articles are not duplicates of each other! Mrm7171 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're funny. You write repeatedly in your edit summaries "please discuss" and "I will not engage in edit warring", yet you don't discuss anything and you do revert repeatedly without any justification given (beyond "I carefully considered all of the points made by other editors"). I have explained my edits repeatedly, not "blindly deleting your careful work". Your edits are unencyclopedic and unexplained, you have responded to none of the points that I raised, all you do is complaining that "things are not done this way on WP". For the last time, could you please, if possible point by point, respond to my comments above? For your convenience, I have numbered the points that I made. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the citation for Randykitten, who said that opening paragraphs normally did not need a reliable source? Also, given you mentioned copyright issues, I had wondered why the opening paragraph had then been left entirely unsourced? As far as the deleting of the word 'renowned' I agree. It is not encycopledic. Fair point. Randykiteen, you left that paragraph unsourced for some reason. Obviously that is a major Wikipedia issue and definitely unencyclopedic. Everything but the reference to 'renowned' organizational psychologist has been discussed in detail. Please explain calmly and in a civil, respectful tone where else you see changes needed still. Please remember also. Articles do not need to be identical on Wikipedia. For example I have noticed no article on a journal is identical. I also commented on your tone and abusive comments. You have persisted. You really need to consider your tone with other editors please. Others can retaliate, instead of ignoring and focusing on things like why you did not source an entire paragraph for days? Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Two points further. Firstly, Tom Cox's occupation is worth a 2 word mention, I think, (not perhaps mentioning one of the 4 universities he Chairs though, as you included for some reason?) in this separate Wikipedia article and is very well sourced. Please the re-read sections at the top of the talk page on the Tom Cox issue, and why his profession is included. 2/ Nothing 'promotional' about mentioning the journal's readership either in my view? But I am open to civil discussion Randykitten, so please explain further. Cheers. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that this article has caused so much work and stress for the editors involved. As an outsider to this dispute, I'll comment on some of the issues raised. First of all, I must apologize for making some edits to the article before realizing the full extent of the dispute. Feel free to revert anything controversial I've done pending consensus. Below JCW means WP:JCW, the best practices guide for writing journal articles.


 * 1) The society association -- Both the Taylor and Francis journal home page and the EAOHP journal page  indicate a joint role for both of them in publishing Work and Stress. Every member of EAOHP gets a copy of Work and Stress. Based on these sources, it's appropriate to include both in the infobox and the body of the article. JCW says official affiliations should be mentioned in the article.
 * 2) The editor-in-chief -- JCW recommends indicating the founding editor and previous and current editors-in-chief.
 * 3) Peer-reviewed academic journal -- Mentioning that a journal is peer-reviewed is good policy per JCW: Explicitly mention if the journal is peer-reviewed or not.
 * 4) Editor in chief's affiliation -- adding the editor's affiliation is reasonable, as users may want to know the biases of this uniquely influential individual. But I have no policy to quote to support this.
 * 5) See also sections should only contain links to articles that have not yet been linked in the body of text. -- MOS:SEEALSO says As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.
 * 6) EIC Tom Cox is notable because as editor of this journal he meets WP:ACADEMIC. -- this is one of the criteria for notability listed in WP:ACADEMIC, so seems a true statement.
 * 7) On adding "Occupational Psychologist" descriptor to Tom Cox -- I'm neutral here. If there was an article on Tom Cox, yeah, take it out, put it in the bio, and link to his bio. Until then, the EIC's field of study is a kind of affiliation and could be left in. But "Occupational Psychologist", as a common noun, should be in lower case.
 * 8) A lead is generally not sourced. -- WP:CITELEAD indicates that leads are generally less cited, but allows for citations especially in the case that an assertion is controversial. In practice for short articles like this one, leads can also contain unique information that possibly needs to be cited. So citations in the lead, if needed or requested, are fine.

With a combination of WP policy and guidelines, JCW best practices, and constructive consensus, we can hopefully resolve these issues. --Mark viking (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mark viking, appreciate your input. I am fine with everything as it is and understand your points made. Given this is a small journal, and has a 'two part' history, it is fairly unique. As the article is right now, and the compromises made & time already spent, I would have no idea why any other editor would need to further 'upset the apple cart' over nothing of any further consequence. I think it is a good article.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just restored article to version from 25th December, last edited by Bilby. Not sure why one editor, iss246, came in on the 17th of January, 2014, and reverted all of the work and consensus established by 5 independent editors Not even any discussion on this talk page by iss246, after doing so? A history of the consensus developed over a couple of months, is documented above on this talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, in the above discussion meant WP:JWG, not WP:JCW. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did, thanks for the correction. --Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Work & Stress is a dedicated OHP journal
Mrm, in the first chapter (page 2) of Houdmont and Leka's Occupational health psychology, they call W & S along with JOHP a dedicated OHP journal. We are not going to argue about this again and again. On page 10 they called both W & S and JOHP occupational health psychology's flagship journals. Mrm this endless arguing about the status of OHP has to stop. You can't continue this fruitless assault. Iss246 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not reverted again. Let's try and discuss this issue instead please. My only point here is based on my understanding of Revert only when necessary, and other policies. On the 17th of January you made multiple reverts replacing a large portion of the article's 'established' content (and reliable sources), developed through consensus building over several weeks, by 5 different editors. And with no discussion here on this talk page?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am okay with the edits Randkitty made today between 11:13 and 11:23. Iss246 (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I too am fine with Randykitty's edits. As discussed a while back, even the editors Cox and Taris refer to W&S as an OHP journal (see footnote 3), so it is best to describe it that way. Psyc12 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We just need to get this article right and all move on. Thought that was achieved back in October 2013? Anyway, I'm all for consensus here, but the article obviously needs to reflect only what the reliable sources state. The reliable source used (publisher), under 'aims and scope' clearly says: "Work & Stress is an international, multidisciplinary quarterly presenting peer-reviewed papers concerned with the psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational and environmental health, and stress and safety management." http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=twst20#.Uu7bSz2SzFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [Mrm7171 (talk • contribs)
 * And since when do we copy publisher's statements word for word? "Multidisciplinary" is (as almost always when this word is invoked) basically meaningless here. It's promotional, not informational. --Randykitty (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Article lede was good in Oct 2013. Anyway, opening sentence stating "Work & Stress is a .............journal covering occupational health psychology and workplace health and safety" is just not what the publisher's reliable source says? Can we get it closer (not word for word) to what the reliable source actually says here. Then we can move on. Only saying it covers occupational health psychology is not accurate. It actually covers a range of disciplines that need to be reflected. Last version from December 25th 2013 was good. Let's just use that lede and move on?110.143.253.102 (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This was the original lede established through multiple editor consensus in October 2013. Seems good, not word for word either. And reflects what the reliable source actually says. "Work & Stress is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering the application of psychology and related disciplines to occupational safety and health." Will just put that back in then if that's okay? and we can move on? I'm fine with other changes made recently.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The editors of Work & Stress published an editorial (footnote 3) that clearly describes what the journal is, so this would be the best source to use. As you can see below, the title says it is concerned with occupational health psychology. Below that I reproduced the lead paragraph, where they repeatedly state the journal is an OHP journal.

Work & Stress 20: 1–5. 2006.


 * When the journal was first launched, interest in work-related stress was accelerating, and the journal caught the moment well. The journal then dealt mainly with this single topic, which was the central focus of occupational health psychology in its early years. The broadening of the journal’s remit then accompanied the natural development of occupational health psychology. By the late 1990s, the journal had re-focused on to the interactions among work, health, and organizations and placed itself firmly in the heartland of occupational health psychology. This transition was completed in the year 2000 when the journal became associated with the then newly formed European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology and, in the same year, with its North American counterpart the International Co-ordinating Committee for Occupational Health Psychology. The journal became part of an international process to define and promote occupational health psychology and, in 2002, published the definition of the area—the contribution of applied psychology to occupational health—that has become widely used in Europe if not elsewhere in the world (Cox, Baldersson, & Rial-Gonza´lez, 2000). Alongside that of Sauter, Hurrell, Roberts-Fox, Tetrick, & Barling (1999), this definition emphasises the status of occupational health psychology as a separate discipline (Barling & Griffiths, 2002). Psyc12 (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This 2006 source is not as reliable as the current 2014 publisher's statement about the journal as it is today. See here: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=twst20#.Uu7bSz2SzFA The current lede in the article, while not 'word for word' does reflect what this most reliable up to date source actually says about the journal's 'current' aims and scope today, not in 2006. This opening sentence was also established through consensus in October 2013. I also note editorial staff have changed recently (as often occurs) making the above 2006 reference quoted by psyc12, (now 8 years old) even more redundant. I'm fine with other changes made recently to this article, rather than debate them further. For all of these reasons can we please move on from this article, rather than create walls of text on this talk page?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Work & Stress is published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. In describing the journal's coverage Tom Cox, Toon Taris, and Mary Tisserand wrote in volume 6 (May 2009) of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology that "Occupational health psychology is an important and fastgrowing discipline, not only in the US, but also in Europe. It is sometimes said that occupational health psychology is still young but Work & Stress, which is the longest established journal in this area, is now in its twenty-third year" (p. 17). Tom Cox is the founder of W & S. Toon Taris succeeded Tom as editor. Mary Tisserand has been the editorial adviser of the journal. A little later in the article, Cox, Taris, and Tisserand wrote, "The journal publishes a wide variety of papers exploring psychological, social, and organizational factors in OHP, including empirical studies, reviews and position papers, theoretical papers, and case notes" (p. 17).


 * It is time for Mrm7171 to stop his efforts to reduce occupational health psychology with these attacks at the margins, such as his efforts with the journal Work & Stress. It is enough. Iss246 (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop personalizing please iss246, we are only talking about content here. I have asked you numerous times and you continue with the personal attacks & bad faith assumptions unabated. In relation to the opening sentence, the 2006 & 2009 sources you are quoting are simply outdated and are taken from a single professional society's newsletter? The 2014 publishers statement of article scope and aim, is the most reliable source available. Further the opening sentence was established through consensus in October 2013. All Wikipedia articles obviously need to reflect what the most reliable, up to date sources say, not what we would like them to say. Then we can move on rather than create unnecessary 'walls of text' on this talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article I cited above was written by the journal's founder/founding editor and the editor to whom the founder would pass the journal's leadership. Again, this is an example of Mrm's ignoring an inconvenient fact. The journal did not change its coverage between the time the article was written and today. You will find similar descriptions in Houdmont and Leka's textbook on OHP (which I cited earlier). If you read the report in the EAOHP's recent newsletter on the journals most connected to OHP, JOHP and W & S are neck and neck (see page 15 of http://www.eaohp.org/uploads/1/1/0/2/11022736/eaohp_newsletter_vol_6_issue_2.pdf).

Finally, here is a quote from page 14 of the October 2013 newsletter of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology, The Occupational Health Psychologist: "Toon Taris will take over from Tom Cox as Editor of the journal Work & Stress, becoming only the second editor since the journal began. Work & Stress has become a leading journal in occupational health psychology, last year achieving a five-year impact factor of 4.27."

I am not personalizing. I am reporting accurately. Repeating ad nauseum the words "bad faith," "good faith," "outdated," "reliable," etc. does not make a comment or an edit so. I think it would be wise that you stop the disruptive editing. Iss246 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * iss246, personalizing, rather than focusing on content is not helpful. As far as editing content, the most reliable sources supporting exactly what is in the article is all important. That's my only point here. The opening sentence of this article defines the aims and scope of the journal. The 2014 publisher's own statement is the most reliable source available to us defining the aims and scope of their journal. Mrm7171 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mrm, your cherry-picking is not acceptable. Iss246 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by that comment? The opening sentence is a very important one, defining this article, especially given the brevity. Work & stress is not a "dedicated OHP journal" that's my point. That is not what the reliable sources say, even the one's you quoted. It is instead (and I quote a section from the publisher's own site) "concerned with the psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational and environmental health, and stress and safety management. The opening sentence established through consensus building in October 2013 was good and accurately reflected what this publication's aim and scope actually are, based on the publisher's own statements under their aims and scope section on their website. "http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=twst20#.Uu7bSz2SzFA.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You keep taking aim at OHP. I think there are many things one can constructively do on Wikipedia besides taking aim at one subject. You ignore inconvenient facts such as (a) what Tom Cox, Toon Taris, and Mary Tisserand wrote about W & S and that I cited above, (b) the report in the Occupational Health Psychologist on W & S being a top OHP journal, or (c) the October 2013 report about Toon Taris is taking over as editor of "a leading journal in occupational health psychology," W & S. It seems as if you have no other reason for being on Wikipedia except to attempt to marginalize OHP. You cannot keep at the same old mischief you were up to before you were suspended. 07:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I won't revert here, and get into an edit war with you iss246. My points are clearly defined and you are just side-stepping these obvious points by your incessant personalizing and accusations of bad faith editing, despite me asking you to stop. I have accepted a number of other recent changes to this article, which I felt were unnecessary, so as to help build consensus and move on. I have also asked randykitten to comment further and any independent editor's views on this 'content issue' would be appreciated.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole discussion is becoming very tiresome. I see that the two of you are also fighting over another article (and I will not get involved in that). Perhaps it is time to see some help at WP:DR? As for the current dispute on the lead of this article, I think that " the application of psychology and related disciplines to occupational safety and health" is a pretty good definition of "occupational health psychology and workplace health and safety". The former is literally what the publisher's website says and the latter is in complete agreement with all statements by the editors that are available (and I don't care where that has been published, like a blog, if it is published by an established authority, it's an RS and the editors themselves are arguably the best experts here). Given that, I think that the second definition is vastly preferable (and not in disagreement with the text on the publisher's website) and I really fail to see why Mrm7171 keeps insisting on modifying the lead. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason it is an important point relates to what the publisher states, that is, the application of psychology and related disciplines. The journal is made up of contributions from other areas of psychology like the very significant contribution made by work and organizational psychology and work and organisational psychologists, as well as other disciplines, not just OHP. And that is what the publishers state on their journal's website. The way the lede is currently worded gives quite a biased slant. But I won't continue debating this point further and will accept the consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Randykitty. I agree this is getting tiresome. In many places the editors refer to W&S as an OHP journal, so it seems to me a good thing to put OHP in the definition with a hyperlink so a reader can click for details on what OHP is. I'll try a compromise and do both. Psyc12 (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see someone already made the change. I just added a reference that mentions OHP. Psyc12 (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am largely OK with the first sentence of the article as it stands now. Iss246 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Just streamlined article. Deleted sentences that were already stated. No point repeating things twice iss246? Mrm7171 (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I can okay with the edit. I just want the discipline in the box to reflect what was edited out. Iss246 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Was having this discussion with iss246? psyc12, once again you seem to suddenly 'join in.' Anyway the scope of the journal is already mentioned in the 'history and scope' section? We don't need it repeated? Have not reverted. Won't engage in edit warring with you both. Discuss here please psyc12&iss246. Its a matter of redundancy and brevity. Shouldn't repeat the same point again and again in an article?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)