- 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
Users involved
Dispute overview
two editors not engaging in discussion or even bothering to respond to my direct questions asked.
second time i have put a request here now as i read about dispute resolution being useful. want others to engage rather than threaten i first tried to put an attempt here on 05:21, 16 November 2016 however they were not interested they know best it appears to me
not sure why the first attempt was taken off here without action
- I can only once more possibly repeat the point Im making. Given that this is a list of disciplines, why dont we just keep it to disciplines - rather than specializations within disciplines such as social psychology - if we include social psychology which is a sub-discipline of psychology we then need to include all of the specializations within anthropology, sociology, economics - and that would then make the list extremely long. I just want this question to be responded to. That's why I came here first of all - after reading about how we should resolve things and i steadily followed all the steps asked to list this dispute we are having.Happydaise (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above is false problem. One does not have to include all the specializations within anthropology, etc. because a subdiscipline of psychology is listed. Two subdisciplines of psychology, in fact, are related to OB: social psychology and industrial/organizational (i/o) psychology. Social psychology and i/o psychology have a special relationship with OB. I am therefore in accord with the idea of listing those two subdisciplines along with psychology, the parent discipline. One does not have to include sociobiology and other fields that happydaise has previously added without justification. Iss246 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
i have kept trying to engage and offer dispute resolution asking questions that are ignored asked if they would participate in calm dispute resolution instead i get threats
How do you think we can help?
just someone objectiv to intervene and say hey lets talk eh and solve instead of threaten arrogantly that would sure help eh
Summary of dispute by iss246
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I observed that Happydaise deleted (e.g., social psychology) from and added topic areas (e.g., sociobiology) to the "contributing disciplines" section to the entry on organizational behavior. He made changes without justifying them. I first thought that the nonjustified changes reflected his being unfamiliar with WP because he had made no prior edits. When I restored the deletions such as social psychology and deleted topics he added such as sociobiology, he reversed my edits. I would be okay with adding, say, sociobiology if it were justified but it is not. He also showed that he had more understanding of the working of WP than I would anticipate of a newcomer with no prior experience with WP (e.g., use of this noticeboard). I suspected the he is trojan horse for someone who had been previously banned from WP.
I want to be clear. I am okay when an entry is edited and those edits are justified. But I am not okay when meritless wholesale edits are made or an individual simply provokes a needless dispute. Iss246 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
organizational behavior discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
- Can i ask what the next steps are here? The other person is continuing to make changes to the article instead of engaging here with me peacefully - they just want to continue warring- so what do I do next?Happydaise (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I would be definitely wanting a moderated discussion. can you notify Softlavender and others to join in ? it would be really good if they could join in that process because. Im really sick of them over-riding my work with out talking about it first and refusing to join in here - they just want to be edit warringHappydaise (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
I am willing to open this case for moderated discussion. See User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules for the ground rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think that the issues are? Be civil and concise, but I already said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors
Thats great thanks for answering the call - My view would be just keep it to disciplines as in economics, sociology, psychology and so on - but not sub - disciplines of these base disciplines.Happydaise (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Often a subdiscipline of a more general discipline is a contributor to organizational behavior. But another subdiscipline is not a contributor. For example, social psychology is more intimately related to OB than another subdiscipline of psychology such as biological psychology. There is a good deal of evidence, including from the OB WP entry, that social psychology is an important contributor to OB. I could find no evidence that biological psychology has contributed to OB. In the interest of accuracy, and in terms of helpfulness to readers of the encyclopedia, a subdiscipline such as social psychology should be included. Because psychology is such a vast field, it would not be helpful to include it as a contributing discipline because only a small number of its many subdisciplines are contributors. We want to be helpful to readers, particularly university students, by accurately identifying the contributing subdisciplines. With regard to other general fields such as anthropology and its subdisciplines, I would need to understand the situation on a case by case (discipline v. subdiscipline) basis. We need to think in terms of how accurate we are and how helpful we are being to the users of the encyclopedia. Iss246 (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
It appears that the issue has to do with the listing of disciplines in the Contributing Disciplines section. Is that correct, and are there any other issues? It also appears that the issue has to do with when to list subdisciplines within a discipline. One editor thinks that only main disciplines should be listed, and the other appears to be saying that a case-by-case basis is needed. Is that the issue? If so, will each editor please explain why they think that their position is better? Is there room for compromise? (Why not sometimes list specific subdisciplines that are directly relevant?) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
Social psychology should be listed as a contributing discipline because evidence from the OB article itself implicates social psychology in OB. Biological psychology should not be listed because of the lack of evidence for a connection between OB and biological psychology. Using the psychology sidebar, I counted about 40 subdisciplines within psychology, all of which are not related to OB. Including psychology among the contributing disciplines to OB can leave a reader with the mistaken impression that most of the subdisciplines within psychology contribute to OB when that is not the case. Of course another subdiscipline of psychology, industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, is closely related to OB, and I favor including it among the contributing disciplines. But I disfavor including psychology itself because it is such a wide umbrella discipline that one could claim that it is related to a thousand different entries. As for other more general fields and their subdisciplines, I favor examining them on a case-by-case basis depending on the generality/narrowness of parent discipline and the subdiscipline. Iss246 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Why not just list what is already said in the history part of the article and list just disciplines?
History
"As a multi-disciplinary field, organizational behavior has been influenced by developments in a number of allied disciplines including sociology, psychology, economics, and engineering as well as by the experience of practitioners." there are no sub-disciplines in that list.Happydaise (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about simplifying this all. when I first read this article and joined up at Wikipedia I thought this list seemed strangely placed. Another point is the many sub-disciplines of economics, mathematics, anthropology, sociology as well- why are you just focusing on one discipline - thats why I suggest just using disciplines - if you really have to have this un-sourced list at all - as well as it then all being mentioned again and repeated in the History part. Why not just delete it. Its already mentioned in the History part. I am glad I worked out how to use this dispute solving section here.Happydaise (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I am focusing on one discipline because that is a discipline I know very well. I am a professor of psychology. By carefully examining one discipline, we can develop some insight into how to address other disciplines and/or subdisciplines. Two subdisciplines of psychology are clearly relevant to OB, social psychology and i/o psychology; many other subdisciplines of psychology, however, are not. A careful examination of the other listed disciplines and subdisciplines is in order. Regarding the placement of the list, I need more time to think about that matter. Iss246 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator
There has been a suggestion that the problem here is that including a list of disciplines and subdisciplines at the beginning of the article is a little strange, and sets up controversy. Do the editors agree that perhaps either eliminating the list or moving the list would be appropriate? Please address this concisely, and please state any other issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, I think moving the list further down would be helpful to readers. It appears too early. I support retaining two subdisciplines of psychology, namely, social psychology and i/o psychology, and deleting psychology itself and the remaining subdisciplines of psychology (e.g., personality psychology, counseling psychology). Retaining social psychology and i/o psychology pinpoints just where psychology has contributed to OB. I support retaining sociology because of the influence of Max Weber. I support retaining anthropology but not political science. There is no mention of political science in the article whereas the article has implications for anthropology. Iss246 (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Third statements by editors
Yes - just eliminate the list solves all the problems. its un-sourced and its already in the article anyway isnt that enough - and why the repetition- too much emphasis is placed on a list of historically contributing disciplines and away from other parts of the article.Happydaise (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- including a list at all is just repetition and is the problem I have with this list - contributing disciplines are already mentioned in the History section. Can we possibly focus on this point im making?Happydaise (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should eliminate the list. It would be better for readers if the list were placed in a lower position. It serves the purpose of reminding readers that the subject known as organizational behavior did not appear ex cathedra out of the mind of some great authority but has roots in the social sciences.
I explain above which two subdisciplines of psychology are clearly relevant to OB, social psychology and i/o psychology. Those two subdisciplines should remain on the list. We should delete psychology itself and the remaining subdisciplines of psychology (e.g., personality psychology, counseling psychology). Retaining social psychology and i/o psychology pinpoints just where psychology has contributed to OB. As I wrote earlier, I support retaining sociology because of the influence of sociologists such as Max Weber on OB. We should retain anthropology but not political science. There is no mention of political science in the OB encyclopedia entry; by contrast, the article implicates anthropology in OB. Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- contributing disciplines are already mentioned in the history section of the article. Why the repetition and mentioning this twice and making such a focus on a separate list of disciplines and sub - disciplines that might have historically contributed - and i disagree with which disciplines and sub - disciplines to even include anyway if you really need to be repeating and including an un-sourced list that is already in the article - what about sub disciplines of anthropology like i've asked - can i suggest the moderator comments here please.Happydaise (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator
It appears that both editors are agreeable to having the list of contributing disciplines moved to a lower part of the article. Can it also be given a lower-level heading? What is I/O psychology, anyway? (To an information technology person, I/O is input-output, and I don't think that is what is meant.)
Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, I/O psychology is industrial/organizational psychology. Sometimes I/O professors land up in OB departments. OB professors sometimes publish in I/O journals. There is considerable overlap between the two fields. One I/O psychologist told me that the main difference between I/O and OB is that I/O professors are in psychology departments and OB professors are in business schools. Iss246 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors
I think anthropology is just as important and sub-disciplines of anthropology should be listed as well if the un-sourced list is included twice in the article, once in the list and the second time in the history section. And political science and mathematics are definitely as important too alternatively - if the list was just removed, the mention of a few contributing disciplines are still there under the history section - isn't it enough to mention contributing disciplines just once in the history section instead of repeating it again in the form of some un-sourced list and us arguing over which disciplines and sub - disciplines to include in this un-sourced list - maybe just expand the bit already there in the history section of the article?Happydaise (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Two concerns. First, anthropology and political science may or may not be contributing disciplines. Evidence is needed to justify that claim. So far I have not seen such evidence. Second, the list is as unsourced as almost every other list in WP articles. We are not in a position to go around to every WP article that has a list, and begin sourcing the lists contained therein. Iss246 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Im trying to solve this - the list appears twice and it shouldnt be in the article twice- and its un-sourced. could it just be deleted as contributing disciplines is already in the History part and it would solve the impasse. Would that be okay?Happydaise (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am trying to resolve this dispute too. The article, as it stands now, needs a great deal of editing. I did a little just before. I think the list could be shortened (e.g., delete personality psychology, etc.), and moved it to some place at the end of the article (just before the list of journals). On reflection, I agree that anthropology should remain on the list but not political science. Iss246 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- i cant seem to get a response in reference to the list being included twice already. can we delete the repetition of the un-sourced list. and i'm saying the sub-disciplines within anthropology and politcical science sub-specialties should obviously be included if you must include the un-sourced list twice. they are very important- You just wont respond to that problem of repetition however -can i ask the moderator to comment- responding backward and forward like this is not helpingHappydaise (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If we include a subdiscipline of anthropology, we should not include anthropology itself. For example, if it there is evidence that ethnology contributed to OB, then we should delete anthropology because subdisciplines of anthropology such as physical anthropology are not contributors to OB. In this way, we more precisely indicate what aspect of the discipline has contributed to OB. Iss246 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- i don't want to engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon could you please comment here. The list of disciplines and sub-disciplines is currently included twice in the article - can we delete one of the un - sourced lists?Happydaise (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator
What part of the request not to engage in back-and-forth discussion wasn't clear?
Will each editor please make a list of everything that they would like to change about the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors
I would like to place the contributing disciplines section just above the journals sections. I would like to shorten the contributing disciplines to look like the following.
Contributing disciplines
Iss246 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to see the other mentioning of the various sub - disciplines and disciplines removed from the History part - or remove the list - should not be repeating things. also if the un - sourced list is included maybe we could include a range of references for each of these areas. I would also like to see the heading of contributing dsisciplines and sub - disciplinesHappydaise (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article should include references from researchers who are identified with subdisciplines. For example, Kurt Lewin and Solomon Asch, two notable social psychologists, are mentioned in the text. Therefore, social psychology should be in the list of contributing disciplines. On the other hand, almost all the lists that I have found in WP are not footnoted. I would refrain from footnoting the list. Iss246 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Instead of back-and-forth discussion - will wait and see what Robert McClenon says to do nextHappydaise (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. We should wait to read what User:Robert McClenon and User:MjolnirPants write. Iss246 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator
First, do the parties agree that we need a stand-alone list of disciplines (and possibly subdisciplines) at all? Could the disciplines be listed in the course of a more general discussion of the subject? If we do need a list, should it be moved to lower down in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
What else do the editors think needs to be changed in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors
I dont think that there is any need at all for a stand-alone list of sub-disciplines and disciplines - especially given it is an un-sourced list - with many other sub-disciplines and disciplines that could equally be added to such a list. There is already mention in the History part of the article of contributing disciplines and sub-disciplines - so truly, why not just get rid of this un-sourced list of disciplines and sub-disciplines and be done with it. esp. as the reliable sources just don't mention a list like this- so why is it in the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happydaise (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think the list would be helpful to readers because it conveniently locates OB in the wider universe of research. It would be helpful if it weren't too long, and just pinpointed the key disciplines or subdisciplines that have made the heaviest contributions to OB. The contributing subdisciplines can be ferreted out by looking at the research reports that have been footnoted. I am opposed to footnoting list items themselves because doing so would be inconsistent with how lists are presented in the rest of WP. I agree that the list is in the wrong place. It should be near the bottom of the article. Iss246 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator
One editor wants to move the list further down in the article. The other editor thinks that the list is not necessary. Are the two editors willing to agree on moving the list down? Are the two editors willing to agree on omitting the list? Also, are the two editors willing to rely on a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, I would agree to move the list down. I would also agree to shorten the list. I would not agree to deleting the list. Perhaps user:MjolnirPants would add an idea. Iss246 (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- The un-sourced list of all the different contributing disciplines and sub - disciplines that historically may have possibly contributed is already mentioned in the article under the History part - so i don't see the need to repeat it again when it's already in the article. If we do have to keep an un-sourced list this at all then maybe make sure it is at least sourced and that all of the other many types of sub-disciplines and disciplines that also might have contributed historically are also given mention in the list like anthropology and statistics and many others - my choice is get rid of the un-sourced list. Robert McClenon i looked at the Request for Comments section like you suggested- and the number of different steps involved to list this matter at that place for comments - i think its a good idea but could you list it there please?Happydaise (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
We should limit the list, where possible, to the subdisciplines that made substantial contributions to OB. The list conveniently--for readers--locates OB in the wider universe of research but not in such a wide a universe as to include every discipline and subdiscipline in the social sciences. I gave an example of what such a list would look like in the section of this colloquy entitled "Fifth statements by editors". Iss246 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Im sure Robert McClenon said no back-and-forth comments and you didnt even comment on his offer to list this dispute on the Request for Comments section. i asked him to kindly list it there and we were waiting for his reply - so please don't comment again until he tells us what doHappydaise (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- User:Happydaise, your criticism of me is misplaced. I was anticipating that user:MjolnirPants would comment here before we go to the RfC section because he had an interest in the list. Otherwise I have no objection to using the RfC section. Finally, Happydaise, please don't instruct me regarding what I should or should not write on this page. I don't instruct you on what to write on this page. Iss246 (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2016 (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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.