Talk:Occupational stress
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupational stress article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here. |
![]() Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit] 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
[edit] 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
[edit]Collapsing wall of text as issue has been addressed
|
---|
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)
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)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningstrikers (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC) I am super confused:
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)
|
This can be returned by removing collapse top and bottom, if desired.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Occupational Stress RFC
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]- Is there a reason to delete it? AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: 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)
- @Robert McClenon:, @AnomalousAtom:, @Ohpres:, and @Tartan357:, 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)
- @Iss246: 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)
- @Robert McClenon:, @AnomalousAtom:, @Ohpres:, and @Tartan357:, 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)
@Tartan357:, 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.[1] 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#Edits to the lede. About 80% of the content on this page is about these changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: 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)
- Start reading above approximately at Talk:Occupational stress/Archives/2020#Edits to the lede. About 80% of the content on this page is about these changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Formatting
[edit]This is a badly-formed RfC. This is how it shows in the listings - 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. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I've fixed the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: 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)
- @WhatamIdoing: 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)
- There are two different questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: It's still pretty confusing. Why does it need two RfC tags? — Tartan357 (Talk) 05:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Second Part of RFC
[edit]Should the Occupations section be rewritten as specified below?
Occupations
[edit]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
[edit]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 Iss246, 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
[edit]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)
- @WhatamIdoing: 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 Wikipedia: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)
- @WhatamIdoing: 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)
- @WhatamIdoing: 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)
- Both of these questions were already discussed at length on this page plus at the Wikipedia: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)
- @WhatamIdoing: 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)
- 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)
Wiki Education assignment: Industrial Hygiene and Ergonomics- Graduate Student Projects
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 10 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Talomani (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Communicating the Fundamentals of Epidemiology
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 27 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GP0322 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by GP0322 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- B-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
- High-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
- WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles
- B-Class organized labour articles
- High-importance organized labour articles
- WikiProject Organized Labour articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Physiology articles
- Mid-importance Physiology articles
- Physiology articles about an unassessed area
- WikiProject Physiology articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- Psychology articles needing attention
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class Health and fitness articles
- Mid-importance Health and fitness articles
- WikiProject Health and fitness articles
- Wikipedia articles as assignments