Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Psychology	In Progress	Brokenrecordsagain (t)	11 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours
Palmer Report	Closed	2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 (t)	1 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours
Jeremiah Lisbo	Closed	Koikefan (t)	1 days, 7 hours	TransporterMan (t)	2 hours	TransporterMan (t)	2 hours
Negi (surname)	Closed	JayPlaysStuff (t)	1 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours
Palmer report	Closed	2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:FDC3:575E:CC36:8C83 (t)	19 hours	TransporterMan (t)	1 hours	TransporterMan (t)	1 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 16:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Current disputes

Psychology

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Brokenrecordsagain on 02:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Brokenrecordsagain (talk · contribs)
• Iss246 (talk · contribs)
• Psyc12 (talk · contribs)
• Ohpres (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We have reached a position in the Psychology article where no consensus has been established. I have attempted to include Lillian Gilbreth in the article as the reliable sources show she had a influence in the early 1900s There also seems to be an inflation and promotion of a society of occupational health psychology that the other three editors appear to be from and an attempt to attack the major specialization within psychology industrial and organizational second only to clinical psychology.

I am concerned that the Lillian Gilbreth sentence with reliable sources attached is being disputed by Psyc12 although Iss246 does not mention my main issue in their summary of our dispute. In fact, Iss246 believed before I corrected them she was not even a psychologist. Writers in previous decades never gave our pioneering female psychologists the recognition that their works deserve in the history books. I'm sure this happens in all areas of days gone by. Also Wikipedia is a worldwide resource and Iss246 does not want to recognize this fact and only concentrates on the United States and ignores the field throughout the rest of planet earth. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Psychology I have attempted to get support for dispute resolution which the other editors have not agreed or ignored.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need a completely uninvolved, neutral and independent editor to mediate a resolution based only on Wikipedia policy.

Summary of dispute by Iss246

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I objected to some of BR's edits on the grounds that they were inflating the contribution of i/o psychology to research on work and health. Except for some work in the UK (not Gilbreth but Mayer), i/o psychology has been on the side of management and not workers. BR likes to cite the 20th century industrial psychologist Kornhauser as an i/o psychologist who was interested in worker health. That is true. Kornhauser was an admirable industrial psychologist. But Kornhauser was a lonely figure, with most of his colleagues on the side of management. I documented this point but my documentation was probably blown away in the blizzard of edits BR has made. It was only in the 21st century that i/o psychology shook off its earlier indifference, an indifference I also documented, to the work-health interface. Of course, occupational health psychology (OHP) by the turn of the 21st century had emerged.

I also objected to BR's attempt to undermine the field of occupational health psychology by first claiming that it is a mere subfield of i/o psychology (there is a later claim that I will get to a little further on). OHP has its origins in health psychology, i/o psychology, and occupational medicine, according to Everly (1986)--I think that citation remains in the article. But OHP became a field in its own right. The origins of i/o psychology are in social psychology (e.g., leadership, work climate, work teams) and psychometric psychology (selection, testing the abilities of job applicants) but I don't claim i/o psychology is a subfield of social psychology or psychometric psychology. I/o psychology has become a field in itself. Much the way OHP has become a field in itself.

BR has gone on to say that OHP is not really a branch of psychology (this was their later claim), yet the American Psychological Association publishes a journal called the Journal of Occupational Health Psyhology and many of its editors and reviewers are members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. The APA teams up with the Society for Occupational Health Psychology to run a prestigious international conference on work, stress, and health. Another such a conference is planned for November.

My dispute with BR centers around two things. One is his inflating the history of i/o psychology's contribution to research on the work-health interface. The other is his denigrating occupational health psychology. It has nothing to do with the views of other WP editors. If anything, I tried to get an experienced editor, WhatamIdoing, to intercede in the dispute, not because she would be prepotently on my side, but because I have seen her in action previously, both on my side and opposed to some of my edits, and I think she is a thoughtful and fair-minded Wikipedian. She did intercede a little on the talk page in the context of the present disagreement but I wonder if the walls of words discouraged her from interceding more. I also think someone mistakenly deleted her comments. Iss246 (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Psyc12

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

BrokenRecordsAgain refuses to accept input of 3 other editors who are in agreement that Lilian Gilbreth does not belong in the section of the article on worker health/well-being. A few weeks ago BRA put mention of her in the article and included sources that did not support what was written and/or were unreliable (self-published web-articles). I have discussed for weeks on the talk page how several peer reviewed reliable sources from renowned scholars specifically on Gilbreth and more broadly on the topic of worker health do not support BRA's point that she was a pioneer for worker health. BRA has not addressed those reliable sources, and continues to claim to have multiple sources and has not addressed that they do not support their position and/or are unreliable. BRA's position seems to be that because they can find a source (even an unreliable one) that says something they want to put in the article, that it doesn't matter if multiple reliable sources say the opposite.

When their arguments on this issue failed to convince other editors who were focused on reliable sources, they resorted to personal attacks. Their most recent post on the talk page claims that I just automatically support the other editors regardless of position. This is untrue. I have supported BRA's position versus ISS246 on several other issues (e.g., 100 year history and Charles Myers) because I could find reliable sources that explicitly supported them, and those points are still in the article. I tried hard to find support for their position on Gilbreth by consulting many reliable sources, but none support it. When I explained this, they resorted to edit warring and then personal attacks.

At the top of this section of the talk page (link below) I summarized why Lilian Gilbreth doesn't belong in the article. Further up in the talk, I have elaborated on these points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychology#Regrouping_about_worker_health

On the talk page ISS246 (and OHPres agreed) suggested eliminating BRA's historical discussion that noted some random examples of IO contributions. In a spirit of compromise I suggested that rather than just deleting, they be replaced with major contributions as noted by reliable sources. BRA's response was to attack my integrity. To be honest, I don't think this entire paragraph is necessary in this section of the article, and it is too focused on IO psychology, but I supported leaving it in as a compromise. Psyc12 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by OHPres

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

BrokenRecordsAgain tends to overestimate the focus of I/O psych on worker health and to underestimate the autonomy of occupational health psych.Ohpres (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Psychology discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

First statement by moderator (Psychology)

I will act as the moderator. Please read the usual rules and follow the rules. You are expected to be able to understand and follow the rules as they are stated. However, I will repeat a few of them. Be civil and concise. That means be civil and concise. Neither of those has been followed in the talk page discussion. Your statements are too long, and some of them include personal attacks. I will not tolerate personal attacks. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. All comments must be in the context of how to improve the article (or what should be left the same). It appears that there is disagreement about Lillian Gilbreth. I do not see her mentioned in the History section, so I am assuming that the issue is whether to mention her in that section along with a brief summary of her work. If I have interpreted the disagreement about her correctly, then I will prepare an RFC on whether to include her, and we first need to resolve the wording of the RFC. I am asking each of the editors for a two-paragraph statement. First, state concisely either what should be said about Gilbreth in the History, or why mentioning her would violate due weight or some other guideline. Be civil, and keep your statement to one paragraph. Second, state concisely what other issues if any there are about article content, in one paragraph.

Be civil and concise. Overly long statements will be collapsed, and you will be asked to provide another one-paragraph statement, while other editors may be asked another question. Incivility, including personal attacks, will be collapsed or worse. The objective is to improve the article. You have been warned about incivility. Now please provide two one-paragraph statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Psychology)

Gilbreth should not be mentioned in the history paragraph at all. This paragraph is noting major developments in employee health/well-being, including some of the people who made those contributions. I have checked several reliable sources from renowned experts about Gilbreth and about history of occupational health and IO psychology. None of these scholars credit Gilbreth as being a pioneer in occupational health/WB. Her contributions are in other areas having to do with efficiency and productivity which was the main the focus of early 20th century American IO psychology.

This paragraph should provide a concise overview of major developments as noted in reliable sources. The earliest figure is Charles Myers followed by Arthur Kornhauser, and the paragraph currently provides sources. From here other major developments could be added based on reliable sources such as Barling & Griffiths or Cooper & Dewe who talk about history of occupational health and note significant milestones. It should not contain an assortment of miscellaneous studies. The paragraph should be clear that concern with worker health/WB did not become mainstream in psychology until the 21st century. That is why the field of occupational health psychology developed. It also should be careful not to attribute all of it to one subdiscipline of psychology because contributions came from many disciplines within and outside of psychology. This should be a paragraph about applications of psychological principles to enhancing employee health/WB. History of IO itself should go in the article on IO. Psyc12 (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

More First statements by editors (Psychology)

Psyc12 showed evidence that Myers had a research interest in work and health. So I changed my mind a little about i/o psychology. But the documentary evidence regarding Gilbreth does not demonstrate sufficient interest in work and health. The work of Gilbreth or Myers does not change the fact that industrial psychology was largely concerned with helping management. Even industrial psychologists' interest in rest periods in munitions plants during World War I (i/o had hardly a footprint in that era anyway) was motivated by concerns for productivity; the motivation came from the British government. As admirable as industrial psychologist Arthur Kornhauser was, he was a lonely figure in i/o psychology with most of i/o psychology on the side of helping management rather focusing its attention on worker health and well-being. Koppes showed little in the history of i/o psychology of an interest in worker health. Also see leading i/o psychologist Spector's observations on 20th century i/o psychology's lack of interest in worker health. Iss246 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The section we are talking about "Health, well-being, and social change" also includes worker "wellbeing" which is separate to health. And I think we need to look at things from a worldwide frame not just in the USA. Lillian Gilbreth's entire career as an industrial psychologist was devoted to worker happiness, job satisfaction, welfare and wellbeing. I have included seven reliable sources. I am okay with leaving a source or two out. A couple of sources here describe her achievements in that way. The fact that writers of text books omit female pioneers like Gilbreth is not remarkable in a patriarchal society. But things are changing slowly.https://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/lilian-gilbreth-biography The Sullivan source supports the inclusion too. Sullivan, S.E., (1995). Management’s unsung theorist: An examination of the works of Lillian M Gilbreth. Biography 18(1), pp. 31-41. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

BR posted Laura Koppes's fine piece about Gilbreth. I don't dispute that Gilbreth was an accomplished person. Koppes itemized Gilbreth's work in industrial psychology: "Gilbreth’s writing on topics such as leadership, motivation, selection, job analysis, quality, promotions, group cooperation, training and nonfinancial incentives..." There is no mention of the work-health interface. If the work-health interface was in Gilbreth's portfolio, it was a very small part of that portfolio. Like BR, I admire Gilbreth. But I can admire her without artificially inflating her accomplishments. Iss246 (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The section we are talking about "Health, well-being, and social change" also includes worker "wellbeing" which is separate to "health" which Psyc12 and Iss246 are focusing solely on. The sources also certainly mention Gilbreth as a pioneering industrial psychologist and has nothing to do with my admiration of her. The Laura Koppes's source for example that Iss246 liked and quoted from also includes this paragraph not just the one Iss246 chose to include. "She believed that Taylor’s scientific management system neglected individual needs in the work setting. Gilbreth understood the importance of identifying the best motions to improve efficiency but she also wanted to know if those best motions provided the happiest result to those who used them. While Frank Gilbreth was studying the employee’s motions, Lillian was observing and analyzing the employee’s dedication to his/her job. In Gilbreth’s doctoral dissertation, she asserted that scientific management proponents should consider the perspectives and happiness of workers". The sources all talk about Gilbreth's unique interest over 100 years ago in the happiness and job satisfaction and welfare/wellbeing of workers, whereas scientific management considered only efficiency. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion (Psychology)

BR's above paragraph underlines a part of Gilbreth's portfolio of interests. In that paragraph is, at best, the slimmest foundation for asserting that she was concerned with the work-health interface. I think we should proceed to the second round of statements/discussion. Iss246 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I said worker-wellbeing interface. There is a difference between the constructs of job happiness/satisfaction and worker health. No other early industrial psychologists were so concerned with worker happiness and wellbeing and job satisfaction. The sources I have provided all support the facts that she was a pioneer in psychology and everything she did considered worker wellbeing and happiness. Here is another source. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/a-genius-in-the-art-of-living-lillian-moller-gilbreth-industrial-psychology-pioneer.html Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect to BR, they are splitting hairs. Worker health is not mentioned in the article. Job satisfaction is a very small part of her portfolio. More importantly, the article underlines the following: "Gilbreth relentlessly closed holes in efficiency design and, whether working in factories, schools, or kitchens, she always considered the human element of any environment." Efficiency is the center of her contribution. Not only in work but also in homes and schools. I am concerned that BR are inflating Gilbreth's contribution to the work-health interface and, even, work-well-being interface. Let's move on to a second statement. Iss246 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

My statement above referred both to health and well-being, and the sources I cited dealt with both. They do not attribute to Gilbreth a major (or even minor) contribution in areas of health, satisfaction, or other indicators of positive or negative well-being. I read BR's Sullivan paper that claims Gilbreth was interested in stress and well-being based on two cited sources. I read them both and cannot find anywhere that Gilbreth was focused on stress, health or well-being. The closest I can find is that Gilbreth wrote a comment that she believed workers would be happier if they were making ideal motions and getting ideal rest breaks. But it was clear in her writing that it all was in service to efficiency and productivity, as noted by the sources I cited. I cited in my opening statement a Kornhauser paper in which he talks about Gilbreth, so he was aware of her, but he notes that she was focused on efficiency, and also that American industrial psychology was focused on efficiency/productivity and was indifferent to the negative things work did to people. A similar statement about the U.S. was made by Warr (I cited above). I also consulted a 1934 paper by Uhrbrock who reviewed research at that time on job satisfaction (the main measure of employee well-being). He mentioned Kornhauser and several others who did early work on the topic, but there is no mention of Gilbreth, which is consistent with other histories on the topic. She is a leading early figure in industrial psychology because of her insights about factors that affected efficiency and productivity, not because her work focused on employee health/WB because it did not.Psyc12 (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Psychology)

It appears that one point of contention is the sentence about Lillian Gilbreth in the Worker Health, Safety, and Wellbeing section. That statement is currently in the article. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. That means that the RFC will ask whether to delete that statement due to undue weight. Please make a one-paragraph statement as to any other changes that you want made to the article, specifically stating where the changes should be. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the section above for back-and-forth discussion.

Do we agree that one issue is whether to remove the statement about Gilbreth? What else is in dispute? Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Psychology)

Koppes Bryan and Vinchur, in a 50-page history of industrial/organizational psychology, showed that i/o psychology manifested a great deal of interest in important topics such as selection, testing, productivity, training, team relationships, leadership, task analysis, performance appraisal, and organizational culture; the chapter, however, barely contained two sentences on job stress and health. Koppes Bryan is the same person as Koppes, the author cited above in an earlier publication on the history of i/o psychology. This authoritative history of i/o psychology indicates that the work-health interface played barely a minor role in i/o psychology. The observations of leading i/o psychologist Paul Spector are consistent with that view.

With regard to BR's claim that British industrial psychology was more attuned to worker health than i/o psychology in the U. S., Peter Warr, a renown British occupational psychologist, a psychologist that BR elsewhere has cited, observed that "occupational psychology was held in low esteem within the British academic community" (p. 99). Iss246 (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The disputed paragraph begins by noting that interest in employee health/WB had its start in the UK with Charles Myers. In the U.S. it began with Kornhauser. Reliable sources support this, so I am ok leaving them in the article. Later the paragraph talks about IO contributions to the study of health/WB by sprinkling a few random primary studies. These studies have no place in this article because they are not major developments but just random examples. There is no basis for choosing them over hundreds of other examples. I would be fine in deleting this part, but if the chapter is going to give a historical overview, I would be fine with including what reliable sources such as Barling & Griffiths or Cooper & Dewe note as important milestones, such as Herzberg's work on job enrichment, the Institute for Social Research work on role stress, Trist & Bamforth's work in the UK on sociotechnical systems, work in Nordic countries on job demands (much by nonpsychologists), and Karasek's control-demand model of stress (all noted by Barling & Griffiths). Psyc12 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator (Psychology)

The RFC concerning Lillian Gilbreth is available for view at Talk:Psychology/Gilbreth and will be moved to Talk:Psychology unless someone persuades me that it should be changed.

There is discussion in the second section about a disputed paragraph. Please specify exactly what paragraph, and sentences if necessary, the dispute is about. The purpose of this dispute resolution is to improve the article. Maybe all of you know what and where you are arguing about, but if you ask for moderation, you need to specify what and where you are arguing about. Specify exactly what the disputed paragraph is, and then we can decide whether to compromise or use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors (Psychology)

The disputed paragraph is the third in the section "Worker health, safety and well-being", beginning with "Concern for the health..." Which is part of the larger section on Applications.

Given placement/heading, this section should be about psychological applications concerning employee health/WB. As it is written, this paragraph is a history of IO psychology (which doesn't fit in the section), and a distorted one at that. This paragraph needs a lot of work. I'll break it down.

1. First three sentences on Myers should be condensed to one. This is too much space devoted to Myers who was an early pioneer, but had little lasting impact. 2. Gilbreth--delete as discussed above. 3. Kornhauser--condense to one sentence. He was an early pioneer, but the space could be better used by noting other major developments. 4. From "More recently" to end. Delete. These are some random examples that do not move the story forward. Here's my suggested re-written paragraph, that replaces the random examples with contributions noted by a reliable source. There can be links here to other articles that provide details.

"The origins of interest in psychology applied to worker health and well-being can be traced to Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the UK during the early part of the twentieth century. In the U.S. mid-century Arthur Kornhauser did groundbreaking work on the study of occupational mental health and the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. Barling and Griffiths history notes some groundbreaking contributions in the area that include the Institute for Social Research studies of occupational stress, a program of research on workplace health begun in the 1960s in Scandinavia, a seminal publication on occupational stress by Beehr & Newman, and publication of Karasek's control-demand model that linked work demands and lack of control to heart disease."Psyc12 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I totally disagree based on the fact that the sources attribute the first research into worker health and wellbeing to industrial psychologists. Industrial and organizational psychology is a major specialization in psychology whereas this field of occupational psychology is not even one of the 56 divisions of psychology in the USA. https://www.apa.org/about/division We are giving way too much weight in this section of the psychology article to an area of study that is not even one of the 56 divisions of psychology. If the American Psychological Association does not recognize it as an area of psychology why are we even including this multidisciplinary society in this section and such a large part of the article violating due weight? It is similar to the field of psychological medicine which is not part of mainstream psychology either and is comprised mainly of medical doctors, not psychologists. We do not include this multidisciplinary field in the psychology article either as it is not part of mainstream psychology or even one of 56 separate divisions within psychology!

We currently have this paragraph in the article that needs to be trimmed significantly and given due weight only. The problem is that this other multidispinary area competes with the major recognized field of industrial and organizational psychology. Both fields seem to study and apply the exact same issues. "As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the field of occupational health psychology emerged. Occupational health psychology (OHP) is a branch of psychology that is interdisciplinary.[240][241][47][242] OHP is concerned with the health and safety of workers.[47][242] OHP addresses topic areas such as the impact of occupational stressors on physical and mental health, workplace mistreatment, work-family balance, the impact of involuntary unemployment on physical and mental health, safety/accidents, and interventions designed to improve/protect worker health.[47][243] OHP grew out of health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology.[244] OHP has also been informed by disciplines outside psychology, including occupational medicine,[244] industrial engineering, sociology, and economics.[245][246]"

Why are we including sentences on irrelevant points of where and how this multidisciplinary society came from and what is involved when it is not even one of the 56 divisions within psychology and only attempts to compete with industrial and organizational psychology. I think we should remove this from the psychology article or trim it significantly based on undue weight in that section.Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point BR. There is too much detail on OHP which has its own article. I combined/condensed the last two paragraphs below.Psyc12 (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator (Psychology)

When the moderator says to be concise, they mean to be concise. Many of the replies are too long. But also read Be Specific at DRN. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, so specify exactly what you want changed where. Please reply in two parts, as described below.

First, it appears that the paragraph in dispute is the paragraph in the section on Worker health, safety and wellbeing and is the paragraph beginning with 'Concern with the health and well-being of workers goes back over a hundred years in British industrial psychology.' Each editor should prepare a proposed rewrite of the paragraph. Do not give arguments in favor of the changes at this time; just provide the revised text.

Second, is there any other section or paragraph of the article that requires dispute resolution? If so, please identify the paragraph, and specify in one paragraph what you want changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Addendum to Fourth Statement by Moderator

I will repeat here what I said at Talk:Psychology. When an RFC says to make a statement in the Survey and to engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion, it means not to engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Survey. You are bludgeoning the discussion of the RFC, and that is disruptive. You came to DRN because you were not able to resolve the content dispute by back-and-forth discussion. That was a good idea. I determined that an RFC was the best way to resolve the issue. So why do you now think that back-and-forth arguing with the RFC respondents is likely to force a consensus? If there is any more disruption of the Survey, I will collapse the coloring outside the lines, and I may report the disruption at WP:ANI. Arguing with the respondents to an RFC is not an effective way to "win" a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors (Psychology)

Here's my suggestion without cites. I combined/condensed the last two paragraphs.

The origins of interest in psychology applied to worker health and well-being can be traced to Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the UK during the early part of the twentieth century. In the U.S. mid-century Arthur Kornhauser did groundbreaking work on the study of occupational mental health and the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. Barling and Griffiths history notes some groundbreaking contributions in the area that include the Institute for Social Research studies of occupational stress, a program of research on workplace health begun in the 1960s in Scandinavia, a seminal publication on occupational stress by Beehr & Newman, and publication of Karasek's control-demand model that linked work demands and lack of control to heart disease. As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the interdisciplinary field of occupational health psychology emerged, bringing together people from different areas of psychology (e.g., health and industrial-organizational) and disciplines outside of psychology.Psyc12 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is my preferred wording. I am still wondering why a multidisciplinary field like occupational health psychology which is separate and competing with psychology (like psychological medicine does) which while including the word psychological is a discipline mainly comprised of medical doctors.

Concern with the health and well-being of workers goes back over a hundred years in industrial psychology. Industrial psychology's interest with worker fatigue for example, began during World War I, when government ministers in Britain were concerned about the impact of fatigue on workers in munitions factories but not other types of factories. British interest broadened to worker health and well-being by Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the period between the two world wars. During the early part of the twentieth century American industrial psychologist Lillian Moller Gilbreth was a pioneer in the areas of worker efficiency, satisfaction, welfare, happiness and safety. During the mid-twentieth century another American industrial psychologist Arthur Kornhauser was another pioneer in the study of occupational mental health, having examined the link between industrial working conditions and mental health as well as the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. More recently, industrial organizational psychology research and pracrtice has found that staying vigorous during working hours is associated with better work-related behaviour and subjective well-being as well as more effective functioning in the family domain. Trait vigor and recovery experiences after work were related to vigor at work. Job satisfaction has also been found to be associated with life satisfaction, happiness, well-being and positive affect, and the absence of negative affect. Other research indicates that among older workers activities such as volunteering and participating in social clubs was related to a decrease in depressive symptoms over the next two years. Research on job changing indicates that mobility between, but not within, organizations is associated with burnout.

As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the multidisciplinary field of occupational health psychology (OHP) emerged. Just as industrial and organizational psychology does, OHP is also concerned with the health and safety of workers. OHP addresses topic areas such as the impact of occupational stressors on physical and mental health, workplace mistreatment, work-family balance, the impact of involuntary unemployment on physical and mental health, safety/accidents, and interventions designed to improve/protect worker health.

Above portion by User:Brokenrecordsagain

Fifth Statement by Moderator (Psychology)

There have been two versions of the material in question offered. One editor wants to make relatively minor changes that will leave the material at two paragraphs. The other editor proposes to condense it to one paragraph. I am asking each editor for one required paragraph and one optional contribution. The required paragraph is a brief explanation of why you think that one paragraph or two paragraphs in the article is the proper length. One of the key guidelines is due weight.

The optional request is a proposed compromise, which preserves your length but addresses the other editor's content differences.

Other editors may also propose a version, or a brief explanation of why they think that someone's length is correct.

After this round, if we do not have a compromise, I may ask for another round of back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Palmer Report

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 on 07:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Palmer Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dr. Swag Lord (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Thank you. Palmer Report is a political blog and today an editor added "fake news" to the header. I am a reader and asked that "fake news" not be used in the header. Also, this editor,when adding that term SAID while adding it, "feel free to revert back." I do not have an account so I asked on talk page to revert back. Having that term in header could hurt the business deeply plus editor said feel free to revert. We could not resolve and editors closed talk page to non-regulars. All I seek is help with this. I was honestly told I was disrupting but nobody would address the question. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk. I stopped posting because editors told me I was getting on their nerves or to be more specific I wasn't indenting my signature, I shouldn't be posting so much without researching Wiki. Recovering from knee accident so cannot spend hours a day on this like these people. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I do not get why they keep closing the talk page. Wiki says to resolve there but if I post there more then once or twice they get really mad at me. I just -- I do not want to be intimidated or disparaged. And I really do not know where else to post. I would like to move that term from the header since the editor who made th change said himself anyone should feel free to do so. I do not know how to "ping." I'm sorry. N ```` Summary of dispute by Dr. Swag Lord Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Palmer Report discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeremiah Lisbo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Koikefan on 10:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Jeremiah Lisbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MaccWiki (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This is concerning the article Jeremiah Lisbo. The article contains the following statement: In February 2020, Lisbo was among thirteen young actors selected to be a part of the Rise Artists Studio, a new talent agency developed under Star Cinema, the Philippines' largest movie production company. The phrase "the Philippines' largest movie production company" was removed by an editor because it was not supported by the source. I then provided a source for the statement, undoing the deletion. The source I provided is a journal article. Subsequently, a different editor removed the statement. I created a section on the article's talk page and brought to this editor's attention that the reference they removed was a journal article. The editor then revealed that they did not bother reading the reference that they removed. They also seem pretty adamant in refusing to revert the statement back because they arbitrarily dislike the source and don't want to read it. So to summarize: an editor removed a statement and its reference (which they did not read). When it was brought to their attention that the source backed up the statement, they insisted that the source is not good enough because they can't be bothered to read the source. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jeremiah_Lisbo How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? An independent editor to mediate a resolution based on Wikipedia policy. Summary of dispute by MaccWiki Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jeremiah Lisbo discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Lisbo. The question of whether the article content should be in the encyclopedia takes precedence over any discussion of what the content of the article should be, if the content is kept. Also, sometimes an AFD results in changes to the content of an article while it is kept. Editors should discuss the existence and content of the article at the article deletion discussion. If the article is kept and if the content issue remains unresolved, there can be new discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Negi (surname)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JayPlaysStuff on 17:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Negi (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JayPlaysStuff (talk · contribs) Nikki00786 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The other user keeps claiming that Negi is a Kshatriya surname, even though the article said Shudra. When I asked him to add a reliable source, he said that "The only two Victoria Cross recipients from India were Negis." I don't want to violate 3rr, so I am bringing this dispute to this noticeboard. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I contacted him on his talk page. User talk: Nikki00786 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Find a reliable source that proves either them or me right Summary of dispute by Nikki00786 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Negi (surname) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Palmer report

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:FDC3:575E:CC36:8C83 on 22:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Palmer report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dr. Swaglord (talk · contribs) GorillaWarefare (talk · contribs) DAZMasters(he is trying to help) (talk · contribs) Chetsford (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi. My previous request for help was denied because I did it wrong. I am sorry. I am asking for help regarding Palmer Report. They are a Political News site. For many years they have ben referred to as "liberal" in the header which they are. The other day the term "fake news" was added.The editor who added it also said to feel free to discuss in talk or feel free to revert his edit. Please understand I CANNOT create an account now. I am recovering from a broken acl/knee after a bad fall and have no computer-- I borrow someone else's and his is not comfortable with my creating an account on his computer. I attempted to have a discussion on the talk page. At first it went ok I guess. But nobody ever answered my questions which I am seeking help with here as Wikipedia says to do. I asked why the term fake news could not be taken out of the header. I do not like it there at all but if it must be, it does not need to be in the header and the editor who added it even said that as he said feel free to revert back. Some editors got irritated at me for posting and I get that but Wiki says to try talk first. There was an issue with my indenting comments. I also felt I was irritating them and could see the discussion wasn't working. Having fake news in header could hurt the business. The implication is not neutral. There are dozens of sources for PR so picking those two very non-objective words as the actual header implies quite a bit of bias and there ARE no sources that say every article PR wrote was a fake. I believe another editor raised this issue. Plus, that term has not BEEN in the header and the person who DID put it there seemed to know his edit might not go over well as he openly invited other editors to revert back.So I do not know what the issue is. They then locked the talk page down. I have seen that done before but that meant I could not continue discussion. I am well behaved, never threatened anyone, felt very bad that I irritated the editors and am just seeking help to resolve this. It could hurt their business plus they are not fake news but I understand you cannot evaluate the aunthenticity of the "fake news" comment. I'd appreciate if the comment could be taken out of header. But if not possible could talk be unlocked or can a consensus be reached about editing? Because there is at least one other Wikipedia editor on there who agrees with me. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? palmer report talk page and here. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? At least one, possibly two other experienced Wiki editors share my feeling. I would like either the talk page opened, consensus or discussion on the fake news comment being in the header, permission to other editors to be able to actually edit it or any other way you deem fair. Summary of dispute by Dr. Swaglord Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GorillaWarefare Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DAZMasters(he is trying to help) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Chetsford Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Palmer report discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.