Talk:Organizational behavior/Archives/2014

Subjective List of journals in article necessary?

This article has quite a long list of journals. Many more could be added too? I suggest this list of journals are taken out of the article entirely, or expanded significantly, for balance, rather than only presenting a subjective list of journals, as they currently stand? Thoughts from other editors first, and before I edit that section accordingly please?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Will leave this here a bit longer then. I take it that no other editors object and why they object to me either deleting this subjective list of some editor's favorite journals or add a whole lot more for balance and prevent bias?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I object. Psyc12 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, could other editors please remember to sign their posts as a courtesy and requirement. As I said, if object, why and which part? 2 options moving forward delete or expand significantly for balance. The current list of favorite journals is very subjective. More detailed response please on these specific points?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a list of journals. I can't comment on additions without knowing what they are. Psyc12 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Will develop a much more extensive list then. I think adding a publications section is worthwhile too, that is, texts etc for balance. Probably shouldn't just have journals. Point is psyc12, currently this subjective list of favorite journals, has no objective criteria to it. That was my point and why I thought deleting the section is best. Therefore no need to list them all here either, before adding to the current subjective list. Anything subjectively relevant should obviously also be included.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on deleting other editors work

You are missing the obvious point regarding Wikipedia policy on all articles. I am sure any experienced editor would agree. I am talking about how Wikipedia works on any article. Editors cannot come in and delete whole sections of long standing reliably sourced text in articles iss246. And if they do and another editor restores the long standing text, then we discuss it on talk, but the text is retored. Otherwise it is edit warring. Can you restore the text you just deleted again please iss246 as a good will gesture and compliant with Wikipedia policies?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Will go ahead and restore sections you deleted, based on how editor's should act in these cases as per the policy I outlined above, as you have ignored my request to restore thaose sections you blanketed iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You have ignored my request to restore the 'long standing' reliably sourced section you blanketed, in the first paragraph as a good will gesture and we can work toward a civil resolution about any concerns you have to this section?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier, let's hear from fellow editors, user:Richard Keatinge, user:WhatamIdoing, user:Bilby, and user:Psyc12. Iss246 (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

These policies have nothing to do with other editors iss246. These policies apply to all articles, all editors, regarding how to deal with editors that come in and aggressively blank out and entirely delete 'long standing' reliably sourced sections of articles. I am open to discussion, but coming in and blanking mine and other good faith editor's reliably sourced edits is not on! It is not civil and is against Wikipedia policy. Can you restore the sections you have deleted please and we may then start a civil discussion as to your concerns.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

My take on the issues of discussion. 1. The article should definitely note the overlap between OB and I/O, but it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. The overlap is not complete, so care must be taken not to give the reader the impression that they are the same thing. 2. It is important in the history section to note the impact of Hawthorne, but to say it changed the field requires mentioning what it changed from. It is possible to note the contribution of Hawthorne without talking about the field changing, in which case it is not necessary to say it went from this to that, just what Hawthorne contributed. Psyc12 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: I am fine with discussing where these long standing, reliably sourced sections of the article go. However the glaring issue of editor conduct and iss246's unacceptable behavior of just coming in and aggressively deleting these whole sections has not been addressed? How would Wikipedia operate if we all did did this to other editor's work and actively created conflict? It goes against everything Wikipedia is about. I have patiently asked iss246 to restore these sections as a good will gesture and then I am happy to work toward a civil resolution?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Will leave this here a bit longer. These conduct issues obviously need to be addressed before a civil discussion and consensus building can begin. Will restore these long standing sections that were blanked/deleted by iss246 if no response to my fair request for editor iss246 to restore as a good faith gesture.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I leave this here for 2 days in good faith without reverting and to avoid edit warring. You ignore it iss246 and your conduct issues explained above. I am more than happy discussing in a civil manner but how can we do that with your lack of civility, ignoring Wikipedia policy. As soon as I restore the long standing edit, you immediately revert again in an aggressive manner, indicating that you were watching this page all along. It is your editing conduct I am concerned with here iss246. If civil consensus building is to take place in any article editors need to be civil toward each other and respect Wikipedia protocols and policies? You can't just come in and aggressively delete other editors 'long standing' reliably sourced work. That's not how Wikipedia works iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Now you have talked about my conduct. Let's discuss your conduct. You have tried to convert this article about OB into an article about i/o psychology. There is already a paragraph (unless it was deleted) about the overlap between OB and i/o. You keep trying to give i/o a big play in this article about OB. For example, you insisted on putting i/o in the first paragraph of the OB article. Now you are turning to putting i/o into the second paragraph but it still doesn't belong that far up.

Furthermore, you failed to respond to another of my concerns. When I wrote to you about the sentence in the first paragraph of the history section in which you mentioned a "shift." I indicated that if you are going to write that there was a shift in OB to some new topic, you ignored my comment that a shift has to be away from one thing and toward something else. You insisted on writing about a shift without mentioning what the shift was away from. You have the temerity to call me aggressive.

In addition, you neglect to mention that before and up around the time of Hawthorne studies, industrial psychology existed but organizational psychology did not. You make this big deal about the organizational psychology being the real OB. Iss246 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You Mrm, complain when someone deletes some text you wrote, but you go ahead and delete other people's contributions without looking left or right. Recall that when Psyc12 added a definition of OHP that came from the Centers for Disease Control's web site, you went straight ahead and deleted it. Oh. The selective memory. Iss246 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I really do not appreciate your sarcastic, patronizing comments iss246, such as: "Oh. The selective memory." It is not helpful. And I won't accept your abuse and personal attacks. Please simply respond to the straightforward issue of editor conduct and Wikipedia policy.

Conduct issues & Wikipedia policy

Again, you aggressively delete the long standing reliably sourced edit and ignore my conduct points regarding civil, respectful consensus building? I am fine with discussing where these long standing, reliably sourced sections of the article should be placed. However the glaring issue of youreditor conduct and unacceptable behavior of just coming in and aggressively deleting these whole sections has not been addressed iss246? How would Wikipedia operate if we all did did this to other editor's work and actively created conflict? It goes against everything Wikipedia is about? Again, I ask you to simply restore these long standing sections you have blanked, as a good faith gesture. Then we can commence a civil, respectful discussion.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: Why can't you just restore the long standing reliably sourced sections you aggressively blanked, and then we calmly discuss your concerns in a civil respectful way iss246 and reach an outcome? Isn't that fair enough?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider as an example, any other Wiki article and a long standing, reliably sourced section within that article. If an editor comes in (who does not like that section for whatever reason) and blanks/deletes it, and then the original editor who wrote it restores it once, then ideally at that point, the editors should discuss the issue on the article talk page. This is what Wikipedia asks editors to do in such a situation. Help:Reverting Wikipedia:Reverting Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Wikipedia:Civility

But if the editor who came in, and again blanks that whole section, instead of leaving it and discussing their concerns, that is not helpful nor civil and creates conflict. I would not do that myself, but that is specifically what you have done iss246. And you have done it over and over in many articles. I'm sick of it, quite frankly! And this is specifically the editor conduct issue, which needs to be addressed. So, again would you please restore the sections you blanked and I am more than happy discussing your concerns and us reaching an outcome. It would also diffuse the conflict you are creating, for some reason. So, can you restore it please and we discuss things calmly and come to a resolution.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

What you don't understand is that I want a section on the overlap of OB and i/o. I even edited a small section on overlap. The matter of overlap belongs further down in the article. We should not begin an article on OB by making it into an article on i/o. Iss246 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As I say. I'm more than open to discussion. But that has nothing to do with points of editor conduct. I will restore my blanked/deleted long standing sections, then we can talk and come to a resolution, I'm sure. Please don't revert again iss246 while, discussing.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think this section needs to be further down. These reliable sources state there is a lot of confusion and overlap. Not my opinion? Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is why. The article is about OB. It is not an article on i/o. You have a history of taking other topics, and attempting to make them provinces of i/o. You did with OHP. You tried and tried to make OHP a province of OHP. You cannot take a topic, and make it intersect with i/o just because there are a few points of contact. Yes, there are points of contact. No, that is not the entire story. Putting i/o in the second paragraph makes the reader who is unfamiliar with the terrain think OB is just i/o with another name. Iss246 (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

First, thank you for not reverting the section, and respecting Wikipedia protocols and so we can get a civil resolution here. I edit a huge number of articles on Wikipedia in a broad array of topics iss246. We are also only talking about this article. Please only focus on this article. The long standing section is based not on my opinion, but on what a lot of the reliable sources say. We can't censor these sources. Articles need to be objective. A great deal of confusion does exist? Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were getting somewhere here. And that you were at last respecting Wikipedia's rules and protocol on how ALL editors on all articles should behave in this exact scenario. I even thanked you. But I feel you are 'taking the piss' now and not respecting me, as a fellow editor, or Wikipedia who owns this site. They make the rules iss246. One last time, please leave the long standing reliably sourced section in place while we discuss these issues. Okay? Mrm7171 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter what I write on these pages. You do what you want anyway hiding behind so-called protocols. Of course, what you did on the OHP page is relevant. You go tiptoeing around adding i/o psychology to lots of places. You added i/o psychology to the epidemiology entry as if i/o had something to do with epidemiology. Iss246 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Unlike your edit history I just looked at iss246, I actually edit a huge number of different articles and contribute positively and widely, to the project in that way. And in a wide array of topics, certainly not just I/O! My edit history over the past few months for example, clearly, without any doubt, show this objectively. Many, if not most, have nothing to do with I/O, nor have I added I/O to the article, in any way!

However these Wikipedia protocols I talk of above, are in place for a reason, and will obviously need clarification now from other experienced editors on. They are Wikipedia's protocols, on editor conduct and in this 'exact case' detailed above, what we ALL need to do. So for the last time, please consider, (as a good faith gesture) restoring the long standing sections you blanked and then we can try and reach an outcome, but in a civil manner, where one editor does not come in, like you did iss246, and blank an entire long standing section from an article and then refuse to restore it while discussing any issues, directly creating conflict and edit warring. I even reverted my own last revert as a good faith gesture!Mrm7171 (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: My understanding of this core Wikipedia policy is as I have tried to outline aboveWikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The particular point I have repeated is Status quo ante where editors are asked to: "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" Particularly with long standing sections of an article. I have asked you to please restore it iss246 to the Status quo ante, as a good faith gesture, and diffuse this conflict you are creating. Otherwise I will restore the sections you blanked and refer on to dispute resolution. Again, I am totally open to a civil discussion on any concerns and am totally willing to compromise also. However I strongly believe ALL editors on all Wikipedia articles should firstly, comply, with this basic fundamental BRD cycle, as this is Wikipedia's site, not ours!Mrm7171 (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: I am totally open to discussion and open to compromise on where that well referenced long standing section needs to be placed. But instead of commenting on the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy that you continue to ignore on this, and many other articles, you sit and ignore it for another day or two, and then as soon as I restore in good faith the Status quo ante, as is protocol for all editors and all articles, you come in and again aggressively revert again away from the Status quo ante, where editors are asked to: "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made"? This needs to stop. This is a editor conduct issue iss246. It seems you just want to create conflict and edit war and ignore very sensible Wikipedia policies that all editors should abide by?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

Moving forward with editing and clearly separating the distinct conduct issues discussed above from content issues, I have restored a number of other longstanding, reliably sourced, well written and very relevant sections in this article written by numerous editors over the years. I could not find any discussion on the talk page here as to why these sections had been deleted? Always good to discuss here first when deleting such substantial sections of an article written through the efforts of multiple editors over the years on this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: Hi Iss246. Have you any interest in discussing these Wikipedia protocols you keep breaching? Your editing is disruptive and you are creating conflict rather than attempt to come to any resolution over these issues?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Mrm. I have been discussing. I summarize what I wrote. I don't want to see the OB article turned into an article about i/o. You have a history of attempting to make some subject matter either a province of i/o (e.g., OHP) or related to i/o (e.g., epidemiology) when that is not the case. Those efforts you your part call into question what you are trying to do in the OB article. Your work on the OB article is part of that pattern. Moreover, just as I don't want to see the OB article converted into an article about i/o, I don't want to see the article about i/o turned into an article about OB. A paragraph that I originally placed way down in the OB article explains the subject's relation to i/o. Similarly, a paragraph that I placed way down in the i/o article explains i/o's relation to OB. It is important to respect the integrity of the subject matter, and not subordinate OB to i/o. Iss246 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey iss246, you got that wrong! And all your bad faith accusations. Wrong. This is actually another editor's work/section of the article you just blanked [1] all the while accusing me of writing was written by another editor years ago in this article? Why did you delete their long standing edit as well?

Your editing on articles seems very targeted. You seem to have a history of trying to eliminate the legitimate field of work psychology from every article on Wikipedia? That was my only issue I had with you on other articles too. You have a pattern of doing this? Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective account of what the reliable sources say. Giving due weight to all major points of view. Not censorship. Why are you deleting all other editor's legitimate mention of work psychology? What's going on with that?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is right that you targeted this editor's work/section of the article, because they correctly mentioned I/O psychology's (and social psychology for that matter) which is also correct and what the reliable sources say!) influence in OB? which you just blanked [2]. This section they wrote was very long standing. Seems legitimate to me? Will restore this editor's work out of respect for them if thats okay iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246:I was just reading what some more reliable sources say about organizational psychology and orgnizational behavior. There definitely seems to be a great deal of overlap to say the least! and this is from the experts.

Given you seem to be so convinced they are so distinct disciplines, could you please 1/ just provide a reliable source stating that organizational psychology is distinct from organizational behavior?

and 2/ could you please provide some details as to exactly how organizational psychology is so distinct from organizational behavior? (ideally quoting some reliable sources)

That would be helpful here rather than just you saying they are distinct without any concrete evidence or explanation through reliable sources.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote parallel paragraphs, one for the OB entry and one for the i/o entry mentioning that there is some overlap. Iss246 (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Iss246. Any response here to the above questions? Or are you just saying this? It sure isn't what the reliable sources say? You can't just make things up out of thin air on Wikipedia? Evidence? Reliable sources? This is what we need please? not your subjective opinions?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You also made points about history of org psych and org behavior? Fine. But again, please provide reliable sources, ie published evidence for your points of view. Otherwise please leave reliably sourced and long standing edits made by myself and other Wikipedia editors over the years alone. It would be great if you could answer my straight forward questions above too. Otherwise I take it you are just making things up out of thin air? What the reliable sources say is all that matters.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 I note you reverted 4 times within a 24 hour period recently, instead of simply responding to the questions above and providing some reliable sources for your personal opinions. I have chosen not to to revert, but to discuss here instead. You also deleted this section by another editor, who obviously also believed the influence of I/O on OB should be higher up in the article? [3]. And another editor Eustress wrote this sentence into the opening paragraph back in 2011: "The field has its roots in industrial and organizational psychology." The reliable sources also support these editor's? So why are you deleting, but then not providing any alternative reliable sources or published evidence of any kind?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You can look at our disagreement another way. You reversed my edits.

Also bear in mind that industrial psychology antedated organizational psychology. When OB began, there was no i/o, but there was industrial psychology. In fact, it was industrial psychology (not i/o) that James McKeen Cattell was doing. The field of i/o began as industrial psychology. The organizational part grew onto industrial psychology later.

I don't dispute that there is a degree of overlap between i/o and OB. What I do dispute is your making OB a small dominion within i/o. You wouldn't like it if someone without any sense of nuance broke into the i/o entry to write in the first or second paragraph of that entry a spiel about how OB and i/o are really the same topic. You appear to want to do that to the OB entry but you probably wouldn't want someone do the same in the i/o entry. Nor would I. I think a little restraint is in order. Iss246 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: I am totally open to discussion and open to compromise on where this [4] well referenced, 'long standing' section you blanked, needs to be placed in the article. However you have completed ignored discussion on these following points.

You have not commented on the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy that you continue to disregard on this, and many other articles and specifically Wikipedia's clear protocol Status quo ante for all editors and all articles.

You ignore the fact that you also deleted this section written by another editor, who obviously also believed the influence of I/O on OB should be higher up in the article? [5]. you ignored the fact that yet another editor, Eustress, also wrote this sentence into the opening paragraph back in 2011: "The field has its roots in industrial and organizational psychology."

You ignore these questions: 1 just provide a reliable source stating that organizational psychology is distinct from organizational behavior? 2 could you please provide some details as to exactly how organizational psychology is so distinct from organizational behavior? (ideally quoting some reliable sources) 3 some reliable sources please asserting OB came before I/O psychology?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If again you choose to ignore these 3 specific sets of issues clearly outlined above, and after trying to discuss these with you for 4 days now, and not reverting your edits, I will restore mine and other editor's reliably sourced and long standing sections in the article that you blanked last week. Iss246, Wikipedia is only about what published reliable sources say. Not editor's personal opinions. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sourcesMrm7171 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Mrm7171: Is John Miner a professor at Harvard? You cited him in the section on the i/o - OB paragraph. Iss246 (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: Not sure. Why do you ignore these straightforward questions directly above and why not just provide some reliable sources? I'm completely open to compromise and civil discussion here on the talk page to try and resolve any concerns.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Mrm7171: I didn't know if John Miner came from HBS.

I have been very busy (searches, a new paper, book chapter, a revise-and-resubmit) but there is a hold on the editing now. It is difficult at this moment follow up on OB but I am inclined try to iron out disagreements. At what university is John Miner a professor? Iss246 (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: No idea where this reliable source is a professor iss246, nor why that is relevant? But anyway, the references used in this article are reliable, and the wording is what these reliable sources objectively say, not editor's subjective opinions. My questions above remain unanswered too. Please refrain from deleting/blanking or reverting mine and other editor's reliably sourced, long standing sections in the future, especially while providing no contrary reliable sources of your own and while we are discussing these issues here on the article talk page, to try and understand your concerns. I am sure we can reach a civil outcome without edit warring.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Iss246: Just following up on this iss246. I take it that you still had no response?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Mrm7171 and Talk: Just very busy. I have professional writing to complete. I was, however, able to get John B. Miner's volume on the historical origins of OB. The book is very interesting although I only have time to read it in brief bits of time. The book shows that this site has a few things wrong. For example, the book shows that the relation of OB to i/o is overstated. The book also shows that Hawthorne was a watershed for the birth of OB although Max Weber's work, which was earlier, influenced the later development OB. Miner also makes it clear that Elton Mayo was not a psychologist. I am, however, too busy to do more than glance at Wikipedia for five minutes during on any given day.

I don't want to get into a long tedious debate with you. Read the best material for supporting evidence. Don't rely on expediently written encyclopedia articles. I still believe that i/o is a solid academic subject and that we should show the proper respect for other subjects in the academy (e.g., OB, OHP) by not treating them as small provinces of i/o. Iss246 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think myself and these other editors. like Eustress etc are treating the topic as a province of I/O, like you say iss246. But we do need to base edits on what the reliable sources say, that's all. That's how Wikipedia works. Just provide reliable sources to back up your opinion. No big deal.

• @Iss246:We are all busy iss246, I'm sure. So when you do get a chance to provide some reliable sources, I'm open to discussion here on talk. The main thing is that we all follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and clear protocol on Status quo ante for all editors and all articles. That will avoid an edit war. Please refrain from deleting/blanking or reverting mine and other editor's reliably sourced, long standing sections in the future, while we are discussing these issues here on the article talk page. I am sure we can reach a civil outcome through discussion.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)