Talk:Society for Occupational Health Psychology

Untitled

Over time, there were changes in the URLs since the SOHP entry began. I updated them bit by bit.Iss246 (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Explanation for edit. I just deleted this: The term "occupational health psychology" first appeared in print when, in 1986, George Everly, Jr. used the expression in a book chapter in which he showed that it is possible to integrate psychology and occupational health. The field advanced with the advent of its first journal, Work & Stress, in 1987.

I deleted the reference to "Occupational health psychology first appearing in print ....." as this is the SOHP article page only. An updated point is correctly made on that article page. I deleted the reference to the journal 'work and stress.' here on the SOHP article page, purely about the society. The journal is in fact, "published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP)" cited on APA website. The reference to this journal is made on the EAOHP Wikipedia article page.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

iss246, further citation is needed from a reliable published source please, clearly stating this statement made in the Wikipedia article. In this instance the society's own newsletter does not suffice as a reliable, published source that "SOHP was the first organization in US to be devoted to psychosocial factors and work organisation. at work/OHP"Mrm7171 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for now adding additional citation to the statement, it was necessary.

In relation to my justified minor edit here, I make the obvious point again. This is the SOHP article. It is not the occupational health psychology article. History of OHP does not belong here. History of SOHP, only belongs here. That is why i deleted these couple of sentences. Please discuss on this talk page, rather than blindly undoing my well grounded edits to this Wikipedia article as an independent Wikipedia editor. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK.Iss246 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

iss246 I deleted the reference to the journal 'work and stress.' here on the SOHP article page, purely about SOHP. The journal is in fact, "published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP)" cited on APA website. The reference to this journal is made on the EAOHP Wikipedia article page. I believe that is a well founded edit. Please discuss here if you or other editors do not believe it is justified based on these reasons I have provided.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine.Iss246 (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The undo you did on the occupational health psychology link in the membership criteria section of the article iss246, is okay with me. That makes sense.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

D'accord.Iss246 (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

404 links for all references 9-13'Bold text' to OHP newsletter PDF files. Will remove these references from article.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Just leaving another note here. Most of this article relies on a series of external links to an 'OHP' society newsletter? As noted a day ago, none of these links work? and go to 404 errors?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The University of Connecticut, the web site's host, has been making changes in their server, so the links have to be updated. I will update the links.Iss246 (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are also references in the newsletter of the EA-OHP that could be added. Iss246 (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources and notability

Please see WP:WTRMT. This is an article on an organization, which means it is expected to meet the criteria for notability for organizations and companies. As it stands, it is substantially written from primary sources published by SOHP, list servs, and others associated with SOHP, such as the APA. There needs to be enough detailed, in-depth coverage on the organization in sources totally independent of the organization. Graywalls (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This is all you do. You police my edits as if you're Sherlock Holmes. The SOHP entry has been here for a few years without the fuss. And Yes. There is a mixture of primary and secondary sources. I've been adding secondary sources, too. But I've also been looking at the entries for other learned societies and for journals. They typically have a mixture of primary and secondary sources (e.g., American Psychological Association, Psychological Bulletin). Go police those entries, and leave me alone. And go create some new WP entries or edit the entries you already created. It is time for you to lay off of entries I created in good faith. I'm sick of the occasional Savonarola coming around looking undermine another editor's work for no good reason. Iss246 (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Look at how many times List Serv and newsletters of SOHP is used to flesh out the contents. This is at an unacceptable level of dependence on primary sources for any article. Graywalls (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is your intruding and threatening to impose destructive edits to a lot of what I do. I have been adding sources from books about OHP and articles about the history of OHP. These are secondary sources, not primary documents from the organization's archives. Tend your own garden, and lay off of me. Iss246 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody owns any contents. I've edited on this before and noticed you came along and removed the non-notable template which brought it into closer scrutiny. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Meaning that there's no "your garden" vs "my garden". Graywalls (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point Graywalls about the need for more independent references and I added one, and I see Iss246 has added others. I also replaced one of the newsletter articles with a book chapter. The article is now better balanced.Psyc12 (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The garden idea is a metaphor. What is intrusive is that Graywalls you go about destructively deleting text rather than trying to improve upon the text. Iss246 (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Additions made by Iss246

Iss246, you added the contested text with for Occupational Health Psychology&diff=prev&oldid=1222136551 this edit on May 4. This edit was challenged. Per WP:BOLD, you should now discuss this here on the talk page and obtain consensus instead of edit warring. As you don't seem to be willing to do that (given your somewhat immature edit summary of your latest revert), I'll do this.

1/ Number of article downloads. To start with, this metric is sourced to the journal itself. There is no independent source for this factoid. In addition, this metric doesn't mean much: numbers of downloads heavily depend on how many articles a journal publishes and how long it has been around. As it doesn't mean much and cannot be verified by a non-promotional independent source, it doesn't belong in the article.

Here I am on the talk page. I think you should have discussed your proposed edits on the talk page before taking a knife to the entry rather me going to the talk page in restoring the edits.

That's not how it works, please see WP:BOLD. You made an edit, this was challenged. The correct response to such a situation is discuss on talk, not revert and edit was. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Occasionally, I have gotten sources internal to the publisher. Occasionally editors do obtain information from a publisher because that is the only source for a very specific piece of information. I doubt that the publisher lies about the number of downloads because the counting is automatic. Everywhere there are journal entries in WP, there a small number of sources from the journal/publisher. For example, the entry for Psychological Bulletin has a source the publisher, the American Psychological Association. The entry for the American Journal of Psychiatry has the American Psychiatric Association, its publisher, as a source. That is unavoidable. Iss246 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep, we use sources from the publisher for non-controversial matters (like when a journal was established, how many issues there are per year, etc). We don't do this for material that is trivial or promotional (not even mildly promotional). Mentioning the number of downloads looks impressive to the uninformed reader (it isn't, 135,000 is rather paltry; this journal, despite publishing only a handful of articles each year had 4 times as many downloads -note that the publisher is owned by SpringerNature) and therefor is at least mildly promotional. In addition, it has to be seen in the context of how long a journal has been around and how many articles it publishes. In short, it's uninformative and trivial. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

2/ "The Occupational Health Psychology–Total Worker Health program housed at Portland State University[17] identified the journal as one of the resources applicable to the discipline occupational health psychology." This is so trivial that I don't even know where to start. Let's assume, as I am sure you will argue, that this program at a minor university is highly notable. Then it still is a meaningless factoid. So this program judges that the journal covers the discipline "occupational health psychology"? So what? That's the title of the journal and nobody contests that this is the journal's scope. Looking at the source for this factoid, it lists three categories of journals: "Top Ten IO Journals", "Selected OHP Journals", and "Additional OHP Journals". This journal is listed in the last category. That's it, it just states what we already knew: the journal covers OHP. It clearly is not an endorsement or something like that (and even if it were, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement). Such trivial stuff is not encyclopedic and doesn't belong in the article. For these reasons, the latest revert should be undone. --Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is an external source. You complain about internal sources. I supply an external source. But the external source is not good enough. The site didn't say "OHS is the greatest journal in the world." Sure, the endorsement isn't "ringing." These organizations are not inclined to writing ringing endorsements. I note that the Total Work Health source is a pioneer in developing innovative approaches to making workplaces healthier. It is well credentialed, supported by the CDC, and the people who work there know what they are doing. You may be implacably opposed to OHS--I don't know. I am willing to discuss edits on this page before a Wikipedean suggests a deletion. But I don't want to go to the WP site, and see edits slashed without having a discussion first.

The source is fine, but the content that it is sourcing is utterly trivial. As fo your "edits slashed", again, see WP:BOLD --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

For a long time I've had to combat a troll who mucked up my work on WP until the troll was booted off the platform. Unfortunately the troll changed their name, returned, then got kicked off again. This happened over and over until the troll problem got finally resolved although I anticipate the troll returning after a period of hibernation. I endured this problem of a troll relentlessly attacking my edits. I'm not saying that you are a troll. I don't think you are. I think you are a good citizen judging from your history of edits. You have to understand that I do get concerned when I see my edits get summarily canceled. Iss246 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If you don't think I'm a troll, then why do you bring this up here? You're skirting mightily close to violating WP:NPA. And if you make edits adding trivial stuff to an article, you shouldn't be surprised if you get reverted. And if you don't agree with the revert, you go to the talk page per WP:BOLD. Anyway, I suspect that my answers/explanations above are not going to convince you, so I propose that we look for a third opinion. What do you think? --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The number of downloads is not trivial. It is only trivial if you want to get rid of the sentence mentioning the number. I suspect my response is not going to change your mind. The wp:bold page is interesting because it can give an editor license to disrupt my edits but it also gives me license to respond in kind. Editing on WP is not a one-way street.

I brought up my experience with the troll to indicate that the experience has colored my thinking when I witness another editor enter the picture to wholesale reverse my edits without sufficient justification. Iss246 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

As you didn't react to my proposal to look for a third opinion, I assume that you don't want to go that way. I have therefore placed a note on the talk page of the Academic Journal's WikiProject asking for input of knowledgeable editors (see here). I also request that you read Wp:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure get another opinion. Iss246 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me the sentences belong. I see nothing wrong with including them. 2A02:1210:58C6:5C00:DC3:1374:657B:F213 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that both the download counts and the inclusion of the journal on a list of disciplinary journals are likely WP:UNDUE. If those details were that important, we would know because they would be discussed in multiple secondary sources. Suriname0 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there are better sources than the Total Worker Health Program website. I found a recent book that makes the same point--Cunningham and Black. I'll make the edit. As for whether it is worth listing the number of downloads--I am ambivalent. I can see why it is relevant to suggest that people are paying attention to the articles, but then it is hard to interpret. The impact rating is easier because Clarivate provides the rank order so you can see where a given journal stands next to others in the field.Psyc12 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In order to include anything on Wikipedia, the contents must be directly verifiable from a reliable source. That's part of the core policy. If you look at WP:ABOUTSELF, you can use the website of the subject or the company themselves for basic dry neutral factual information expected of most entries like when it was established, birthday or the founder's name. Any sort of statement that maybe used to instill superiority or importance should be independently sourced, like performance metric such as engagement counts, or statements like "the first in the industry", or the largest in the field.

While it is required that contents must be directly verifiable, not everything verifiable should be included, per WP:DUE. If disputed, the editor wishing to include the disputed contents needs to establish consensus per WP:ONUS. Not the other way around. Graywalls (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Every WP article about a journal has one or more citations from the publisher's site. That is not unusual. The context is that there has been some dispute about the notability of the journal; that is how it lost it's on WP page. I want to show evidence that the journal is notables. One way to show it is to include the number of downloads. Iss246 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing from the company itself or its publisher can be used to assert notability. Please stop continuing to reinstate disputed contents and adhere to WP:ONUS. You need to establish consensus. Courtesy ping to @Randykitty and Psyc12: Graywalls (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There are two different things being conflated here. It is fine to include factual information from a website, particularly if that's the only source. You can cite a publisher on details about a journal, e.g., purpose, number of issues/year, number of downloads. What you can't do is cite the publisher's claim about the notability of their own journals. We need an independent and reliable source for that. Where the information came from should not be the reason to delete the number of downloads from the article. The reason should be the consensus judgment that it isn't important enough.Psyc12 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Which as already been stated by a different editor earlier In short, it's uninformative and trivial., which I agree. Where the information has everything to do with whether the information is worth including or not. The sources say about the reliability of information, as well as the level of importance. Here, the editor Iss246 is trying to convey notability with number of downloads but we don't emphasize what we think is important by cherry picking something we like from a primary source. We leave it to a secondary source. If the Washington Post or NYT chooses to feature how many times it's downloaded citing the same source Iss246 did, that would give it some weight in favor of inclusion. Articles would be full of POV push if Wikipedia editors chose things out of article subject person/company/org related material and pick and chose what they want to feature. @Iss246:, Randykitty started this discussion to object what you added. It should be rather obvious to anyone seeing this discussion that consensus has not been established to include it. The responsibility to achieve consensus on disputed contents falls on those wishing to include it, which you've failed to do. Graywalls (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What you don't like is uninformative and trivial. Iss246 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You got it, exactly! Graywalls and I don't like uninformative and trivial stuff! Now can we go back to normal editing? --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)