Alcohol use or increased alcohol consumption

User:TylerDurden8823, you are not wrong when you mention AUD. I wanted to use a broader concept, "alcohol abuse" or "excessive alcohol use." The reason why those terms are somewhat better than AUD is because most research on job stress and alcohol consumption does not use AUD as its endpoint. Often there is a measure of how much alcohol the participant consumes but does not make a formal diagnosis. In fact, much of the research is survey research where it is impossible to make a formal dx of AUD. One needs to conduct a clinical interview, impossible in survey research, to make a dx. Sometimes the research shows that an elevation in job stress is related to a small elevation in alcohol consumption but such an elevation falls short of AUD.

So, while I appreciate your edit, I think the broader concept of excessive alcohol use, which embraces AUD and the kind of excessive use that job stress surveys ascertain but which cannot generate formal dxs. In the end, I think the best term to use is "increased alcohol consumption," which covers AUD and increases that don't necessarily qualify the individual for a dx of AUD. Iss246 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spector source

I contend that the Spector source for the definition and explanation of OHP is clear and stratightforward. It works for general readers, the kind of reader who would use the encyclopedia. The source should be included in the OHP entry. I refer to this source here: Spector, Paul. What is occupational health psychology https://paulspector.com/what-is-occupational-health-psychology/ Iss246 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that it needs to be added as an additional source (in addition to what was already cited). If there is sufficient support for adding a link to a personal website, I will accept that consensus. Otherwise I feel that we do not need to add cites to personal websites when other sources are available. Notifying Graywalls and ParticipantObserver, who have contributed to discussion of this issue on other talk pages. Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the insistence on adding one particular webpage in the face of opposition from multiple editors is suggestive either of COI (which has already been raised as a concern about the insertion of these links) or of a non-neutral point of view, or both. That the source "works" is not a sufficient reason for its inclusion. ParticipantObserver (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from Iss246's talk page

I have repeatedly asked Iss246 to continue any discussion here, but so far they have refused, instead trying to discuss with me on their talk page. This is the discussion that occurred after I asked Iss246 to stop edit warring:
User:Sundayclose, you posted this warning at about the same time as I did two things. I made an anodyne change of a verb in the OHP entry and I discussed a Spector source on the OHP talk page. Iss246 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You started the discussion on the talk page after adding the Spector citation. Simply starting a discussion is not sufficient to add disputed content. Please review WP:BRD, WP:CON, and WP:EW. You also did more than change a verb. But I'm not discussing here. Take it to the OHP talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little editing today. I added text to the sites devoted to the actors Clark Gable and Loretta Young. I placed a Spector source elsewhere, but in an appropriate spot, on the OHP page, a spot that was not part of the disagreement I have had with Graywalls. And I started a discussion of the Spector source on the OHP talk page. I also sent you an email. Iss246 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, read WP:BRD, WP:CON, and WP:EW. And for the last time, I'm not discussing here. Take all discussion to the OHP talk page. That's my final comment here. Sundayclose (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sundayclose, as I indicated above, I did take the discussion to the OHP talk page at about the same time you were posting the warning. It was at 19:30 Greenwich time today. Iss246 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me state a few facts. You added the Spector citation at 14:43. You started the talk page discussion at 15:30. As I have already stated, you should have started the discussion first, then wait for discussion, then only add the citation if there is a consensus. I'm copying all of this to the article talk page. NOW PLEASE, take all discussion to that talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End of that discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back from vacation; new start

I am discussing here that I would like to add the Spector source back into the article for a number of reasons. First, he is an expert with an excellent publication record. Second, he writes clearly enough that professionals in the field and educated members of the general public can understand his writing. Third, the site is noncommercial, despite the dot.com one sees in the URL. There is no paywall. The site provides a service. It is not a profit-making site. Fourth, in the service vein, the site provides information in a convenient, clearly written format. The author, in my view, has one of the clearest writing styles in psychology. That clear writing style is important, especially for readers who are not technically sophisticated.

I add that I put the Spector source in the article about (I think) four years ago. I am writing here because another editor took down my placement of the source without discussing on the talk page. But if I want to restore the source, I have to discuss restoring the source despite the editor who originally deleted it, having not discussed deleting the source on the talk page.

I add that the three-revert rule also works against me because the original deletion is one revert, my restoring the source is the second revert, editor reverting my restoration of the source is the third revert. If I restore the source a second time, that makes for a fourth revert, putting me in the doghouse. I don't want to be in the doghouse and I want my view of the source respected. Moreover, I don't like the accusation that I am a "fan." I'm a fan of Gershwin (I used play him on the piano when I was growing up). Maybe I'm a Yankees fan. To say that I'm a fan because I think a source is a good and clear is BS. Iss246 (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A "fan" is a reasonable way to describe someone who is really fond of a specific source. It appears you're quite familiar with this author and you may have a favorable perception bias towards affecting how you might see other sources. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "fan" accurately describes an otherwise very good editor who is obsessed with citing/linking a single personal website into multiple articles as much as they can get away with. In fact, so obsessed that they are willing to risk a block for edit warring and refactoring someone's talk page. To me that describes the slang term "stan". I'm very partial to the Rorschach test. I've researched it, published about it, and frequently used it, but I'm not going to get blocked over making edits about it. I had hoped Iss246 would back off on the Spector links so we could move on to more important matters, but apparently not. Sundayclose (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. "Fan" "Obsessed". I don't call either of you names or give you labels. Don't give me a label. User:Sundayclose, edit to your heart's content about the Rorschach test. The evidence bearing on its reliability and validity is thin but I don't call you names for being a "partial" to the Rorschach. And I don't back off on the Spector links. Iss246 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, hold on partner. You're the one who raised the issue of "fan" in this particular discussion. If you hadn't, no one would have said anything. Don't throw out barbs and think no one is allowed to respond. And the "label" is just a way to describe the behavior, and the descriptions of your behavior have been entirely accurate. But as far as I'm concerned, we can move on. And feel free to call me a Roschachie or a blotter (that actually has been used among those of us who are involved with the test) or whatever you wish because that would accurately describe a lot of my professional life. But what you can't call me is edit warrior or other policy-violator founded in an irrational obsession when it comes to the Rorschach. You know, more than anything else in this Spector mess, the greatest feeling I have is sadness that a good editor has stooped so low to do almost anything to shoehorn citations and links into articles. Sigh ... this discussion has veered very much off topic, so I hope henceforth we can discuss the issue at hand. So I'll try to get it back on track. I oppose any additional links or citations to the Spector website. It's already cited or linked four times in this article alone. Anything more would be excessive. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iss246, you express your fondness for Paul Spector in several different forms. Fan is not a dismissive statement. Someone that says they really like Taylor Swift, have lots of her albums and really enjoy going to her shows and show that with pride is reasonably described as a "fan". Graywalls (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not your partner. I don't call anyone names like "warrior" or anything else. Not for endorsing subject matter such as the Rorschach or any other entry. One of you guys raised the word "fan" in the Project Psychology talk page. The word "fan" here is dismissive, used facetiously terms like "sigh" and "fondness." The source I wanted to include is not cited four times although four different papers to which Spector contributed are referenced. My judgment about a source is based on my evaluation of the quality of the source not on a "fondness." One of you right here used the word "obsessed." Using that term too reflects also reflects on how inconsiderate you've been. Iss246 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finished here, Iss246. But you'll need a clear consensus to add a Spector link or citation to any previously existing information in any article. You burned your bridges. Sundayclose (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You burned those bridges for me with your sarcastic, dismissive remarks.Iss246 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to belabor this, but just to clarify: Where did I tell you that you could email me and then ask me to try to secretly influence another editor, but without letting anyone know any details about the email? Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC
There was an email slot on your user page, like a mailbox. I wanted to send you a discrete message. That's all. I had no nefarious motive. Iss246 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you ask me to secretly try to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place" after telling me that "Graywalls criticized the stevenspector website"? Sundayclose (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being secret. I was being discrete as I explained in the email. I thought the website was informative, yet clearly organized. The website could supply information to professionals and general readers alike. In addition, I wrote to you because I could not discretely get in touch with Graywalls. I had the impression that you would be sympathetic third party. Iss246 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if wasn't secretive, how was I supposed to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place" if Graywalls or any editor removed it? Why couldn't you just message me on my talk page and ask me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place"? Sundayclose (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have different points of view. I don't see how this discussion is going to reconcile them. I will continue to edit and add to WP entries. I will continue to use APA style for references in psychology-related articles and delete links that no longer work and replace them with working links. Iss246 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we have different points of view. But that's beside the point. And your comment about APA style is entirely off topic. This evasiveness suggests to me that you don't want to answer my question. Why didn't you just message me on my talk page instead of secretly emailing me if you wanted me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place"? I think you are avoiding an answer because you don't want to state the real reason you emailed me. That's your choice, of course, but I am left to conclude that you were trying to influence my edits regarding links to the Spector website, but you didn't want anyone else on Wikipedia to know that. If I'm wrong, please clarify. Otherwise, that's the only reasonable explanation. Sundayclose (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to you, everything I write here is off-topic. I don't owe you an explanation. Let's cut the BS and work on editing WP pages. Iss246 (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting words in my mouth. In no way have I indicated that "everything" you write is off-topic. And I never said you owed me anything, but it's clear you have refused to answer my question. You were trying to influence my edits regarding links to the Spector website, but you didn't want anyone else on Wikipedia to know that. Sundayclose (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to use a stonrger word, but I will just say, Baloney. Iss246 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not "baloney" or the stronger word. You were trying to influence my edits regarding links to the Spector website, but you didn't want anyone else on Wikipedia to know that. You have not denied it nor provided any explanation to the contrary by answering my question. Calling it baloney doesn't make it baloney. Sundayclose (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! Iss246 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that such an inane comment means you never intend to answer my question, and thus never deny that you tried to influence my edits regarding links to the Spector website, but you didn't want anyone else on Wikipedia to know that. Sundayclose (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I answered the questions. If you don't like my answer, lump it. You're neither the grand inquisitor nor the district attorney. I want to get on with contributing to encyclopedia pages rather than talk pages. Iss246 (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't answer my question. So here it is again: "You asked me in an email to 'ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place'. Why couldn't you just message me on my talk page and ask me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place?". If you've already answered it, please link your answer. But you can't do that because you didn't answer the question. You asked me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place", but you didn't want anyone on Wikipedia to know you did so. I have never claimed to be "the grand inquisitor nor the district attorney". I asked a simple question, and you refused to answer, thus confirming that you didn't want anyone on Wikipedia to know that you asked me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place". Saying you answered doesn't mean you answered, and you didn't. I could say I went to the Moon and it is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean it's true. Sundayclose (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah! Iss246 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another inane response, so clearly you are again refusing to answer, thus confirming that you didn't want anyone on Wikipedia to know that you asked me to "ensure that the [Spector] website would remain in place". For anyone who wants to read Iss246's secret email to me, I copied it in it's entirety (with nothing added or removed) to my talk page here. I'll kindly ask Iss246 not to remove it as they previously tried to do, nor remove this link. Sundayclose (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look in the mirror if you want to see inane. Iss246 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about references

On Sept 9, 2023 the citation for a paper by Probst and Sears was changed from APA style. Articles about topics in psychology can use APA style. I want to be clear about that. Iss246 (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about following "psychology style". I made that change to restore the original link. If the original link doesn't work, archived version is put into place, but we don't just purge the old one. Graywalls (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your maintaining a working link. I think we should stick with one working link and delete the nonworking link, in the spirit of being reader-friendly. Why send the reader to a nonworking link? A deleted nonworking link will be saved in the list of editorial changes. I also don't think "newsletter" should be in parentheses. I think it should be part of the name of the publication. My only other difference, and it's a minor one, is that I prefer to use APA Style, especially in psychology-related articles. I observed that the "5," denoting the volume number, is in bold using the current style. In APA style it would be italicized. The style I used goes like this:
Probst, T.M., & Sears, L.E. (2009). Stress during the financial crisis. Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 3–4. plus a link
The style you put in place, goes like this:
Cite journal |last=Probst |first=T.M. |last2=Sears |first2=L.E. |year=January 2009 |title=Stress during the financial crisis. Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology | plus a link
The difference is small. But I think psychology-oriented readers would benefit from seeing APA style. Iss246 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the auto fill template to put in the original link, then flag it as "dead" so the archive version defaults. As for the article citation style, I don't believe it's dictated by the subject matter. Wikipedia isn't the academic world. We can look into the edit history and see what the article has been historically using and stick with that version. If that's not satisfactory, we can go discuss this on WP:MOS WP:CITEVAR talk Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls, the relevant rule is at WP:CITEVAR rather than the main MOS page. Please note of the item about converting to citation templates under the heading of "to be avoided". This is probably counter-intuitive to people who have 'only' been editing for five years now, but that is technically the rule. If you want to change the rule, you might start by inquiring at WT:CITE about whether anyone's attempted to get that rule changed (in favor of even a slight preference for citation templates) any time recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my editing experience, I haven't experienced many issues with editing style thing. Although my understanding was that when you use an archive version of the website, you don't just purge the dead link. Feel free to correct it to conform to prevailing consensus for this article. Graywalls (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing dead links is permitted for print media (see #4 in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links), but if an online archived copy is available (and doesn't violate WP:COPYLINK), then editors usually prefer to add the archived link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing:, Ok, so you're suggesting completely purge the original link after adding archive.org version if the original is dead instead of flagging the original as "dead" so the archive is shown as default? Graywalls (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes editors do that; sometimes they keep both. Either approach is okay. (I'm assuming that the link is well and truly dead, and not just one of those situations where the server's having a bad day today, or it works in some countries but not others, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this became a point of contention in this talk, do you suppose you could provide supporting discussion or a guideline link? Graywalls (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, but could I suggest that a newer source might be better? Consider this textbook, which says that "The psychological demand of insecurity is often explored in OHP research", which appears to be exactly what that sentence needs from a supporting citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about guidelines or well established consensus on how to handle dead links so there's something I can reference when I run into this again. Graywalls (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories