@Graywalls, it's not normal to add {{More footnotes}} to an article that already has at least one Wikipedia:Inline citation in every single paragraph. If you want editors to change something, I think you're going to have to be more specific. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, I think that original research template is still the correct one, although another editor continues removing it.
There is evidence from a prospective study that job-related burnout, controlling for traditional risk factors, such as smoking and hypertension, increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) over the course of the next three and a half years in workers who were initially disease-free.[1] Meta-analytic[2] and other evidence,[3][4] however, suggests that what is termed burnout is a depressive condition, which could explain burnout's relationship to outcomes like CHD.
— Graywalls 21:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
- @Graywalls, I don't want to be overly argumentative. I recognize that you have done some good work doing things like getting press releases and plagiarism out of WP. I want to be clear about the issue you raise here. I wrote the text in question. I read every paper, which we are supposed to do. I am accustomed to placing footnotes next to certain words when a reference is called for. For example, if the text reads "A meta-analysis showed...", I would place the footnote right after the word "meta-analysis" as in AMA style. In APA style, a writer would place the reference there too but in a little different way, for example, "A meta-analysis (Johnson & Wales, 2016) showed...." Do you want the footnote to be placed at the very end of the sentence? Is that the complaint? The way I see it, putting the reference right after the word "meta-analysis" in my example tells the reader the source of the meta-analysis. This can be helpful if a sentence contains more than one bit of informational text, each of which has a source.
- I want to cooperate. I would like you to understand that the placement of the citations is consistent with AMA and APA style. Those styles are compatible with a WP entry on occupational health psychology. Citation placement helps the encyclopedia user know what source goes with what bit of informational text when a sentence contains multiple bits of informational text. Iss246 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This is just one example. The way citations are applied and the lack of citation on the very end leaves it very unclear which source lead to the very last statement however, suggests that what is termed burnout is a depressive condition, which could explain burnout's relationship to outcomes like CHD.
. So, which one source suggested this concluding remark? Although we don't necessary have to have a citation for every single sentence, the last sentence could have been tacked on at some point, or it could be a WP:SYNTHESIS from multiple sources combined. Graywalls (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @User:Graywalls, again, I want to be helpful. I am glad you pointed this out on the talk page rather than delete text. I will do the fix-up. I think you and I work better when we work in the spirit of cooperation. Iss246 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The relevant guideline reference is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.". I haven't had a chance to investigate all of the sources cited. So, to me, it's still a mystery to me if the said conclusion was reached by Wikipedia editor analyzing multiple sources and reaching a conclusion (original research), if it's a conclusion by one of those three four sources, or from a different source that's not included. There are multiple occurrences that raises this kind of question throughout this article and I think "may contain original research" template is justifiable. Graywalls (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Did you read the sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, I don't have access to those journal articles beyond abstracts. The template says
This article possibly contains original research.
(emphasis by me) and the explanation I have given satisfies reasonable suspicion. Note that "possibly" means I don't need to positively disprove unverifiability. @Iss246:, what I am asking Iss246 is (and I don't know who inserted this claim)(tracked down the insertion occurrence to this edit "however, suggests that what is termed burnout is a depressive condition, which could explain burnout's relationship to outcomes like CHD". So, can you look at any SINGLE cited reference and verify this conclusion? or was this done by a Wikipedia editor who consulted multiple sources and based on the multiple sources, drew their conclusion? If source A says this, source B says that... and conclusion could be C, if you can not find the conclusion C without analyzing A and B, then that is not acceptable on here. Original research is suspected, because this sentence was not ahead of any footnote. Graywalls (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, when a source has been cited, and a given editor doesn't have access to it, the best approach is to ask for access to the source (e.g., at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request) instead of assuming that there is a problem, despite having no factual basis for this assumption. While I have no idea what prompted your expression of concern, I can say that in my experience the usual reason for this is that the factual contents of the article do not align with a reader's belief. To give an unrelated example, I based Breast cancer awareness primarily on scholarly sources, which happened to say that awareness was a good thing but not a totally harmless thing. The idea that it could be anything other than perfect surprised a lot of people, so we got complaints. The complaints had no factual basis; they just assumed that since it didn't align with their personal views, it must be wrong. In the ~dozen years since then, Komen blew up and the public views have changed, but for the first couple of years, we got complaints that the article was "wrong" or "original research" because it did not confirm people's existing, unverifiable beliefs.
- Second, this (the example about what burnout is) is a big area of debate, especially since the pandemic. While I haven't looked at the cited source, I have certainly read sources that say that burnout is everyday, garden-variety depression, and that therefore (←this is a conclusion made in some sources) the bad outcomes attributed to it are obviously the same as, and due to, depression.
- I couldn't tell you what the real relationship between burnout and depression are (partly because the researchers have more than 100 definitions of burnout), but I can tell you that there is a thread in there that says burnout is just a socially acceptable spelling for (mostly mild) depression, and therefore the claim that people with burnout have depression, and the side effects of depression, doesn't surprise me in the least. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: - What you're suggesting as the best approach disproportionately places verification on those suspecting original research. Graywalls (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Or we could call it "not tagging articles for no apparent reason". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- that's a given. Agree to disagree on how you interpret the presence of "apparent reason" with regard to this article. Graywalls (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Toker, S., Melamed, S., Berliner, S., Zeltser, D., & Shapira, I. (2012). Burnout and risk of coronary heart disease: a prospective study of 8838 employees. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, 840–847. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31826c3174 Schonfeld, I. S., & Bianchi, R. (2021). From burnout to occupational depression: Recent developments in research on job-related distress and occupational health. Frontiers in Public Health, 9(796401), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.796401 Schonfeld, I. S., & Bianchi, R. (2022). Distress in the workplace: Characterizing the relationship of burnout measures to the Occupational Depression Inventory. International Journal of Stress Management, 29, 253-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000261
"""@Graywalls, in response to what you wrote here on the talk page, I edited the section on BO and heart disease. I renamed the section, expanded it a little, and trimmed it a little by deleting the A says this and B says that and possibly C. I'm glad you identified the problem. I will continue to edit it to improve the section as I review the literature. Iss246 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Since my further investigation points to the insertion was done by you, you're in the position to be explain it. Please provide a direct explanation for how you came up with the conclusion in question, which I see you have removed. This is just one example of many such concerns within the article. I believe that reasonable evidence of original research being present in article absent proper answer for this concern. Graywalls (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I probably made the insertion and drew a conclusion but the conclusion was not warranted. That is why I removed it. If you think there is an instance of an editor, including me, jumping to a conclusion, please alert editors by putting your concern on the talk page. Of course, I can't say that at some future post on the talk page I will automatically agree with you, but I would take seriously what you write if you think there is a problem. WP works better when we cooperate. Iss246 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- The explanation of original research (which is _PROHIBITED_ on Wikipedia) in WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS is quite clear, yet you removed the original research template from the talk page. Why? It's completely acceptable to tag up articles with templates. You're objecting to removal of challenged contents, as well as tagging. Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Probably because Template:Original research says "This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given."
- Maintenance tags are supposed to result in article improvements. They are not badges of shame. If nobody can figure out what needs fixing, then the tag should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, Had I not explained adequately, you have a point, but I made it quite clear why I believed original research existed and such explanation isn't expected to point out every instance. You're falsely inferring it was placed as a "badge of shame". My suspicion of original research in article was founded as shown by the edits made and Iss246 response above acknowledging they probably OR'd. Graywalls (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't explain until after the tag was removed, and now that the one (1) problem you mentioned has been resolved to your satisfaction, you are still complaining that the tag has been removed, despite not identifying any other possible problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you're expecting:
- itemized concerns are presented, one by one
- with explanation for each item presented
- is that correct, WhatamIdoing? Graywalls (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. I'm expecting that when other people indicate that they have no idea what part(s) of the article might, in your opinion, possibly contain OR, you should either accept their removal of the unhelpful and unclear tag – you said it might have an OR problem, and by removing it, they said that they don't see any OR problems – or provide enough information that they can figure out what your concern is. You might find the {{Original research inline}} tag useful for this purpose. Explanations are only necessary if you want to argue that the other editors' conclusion that there's no OR is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, that's one way of doing it and it is probably the sensible way if there is only one instance and appears preferable in your opinion however there is no prescribed number of original research instances before the hat note can be used. In my opinion, several apparent OR is a reasonable cause to tag it right on the top, especially if it's scattered throughout the article and not confined to one section. Graywalls (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The point behind a maintenance tag is to communicate a concern to other editors.
- To be functional, the tag needs to communicate enough information that those other editors will actually be find and fix the problem. This:
| An editor thinks something is wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, but they think that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking tags or even tagbombing it.Please allow these tags to decorate indefinitely the page, since nobody can decipher what the tags mean. |
- is not a useful tag, because nobody looking at that tag will be able to figure out what the actual problem is, which means that – unless they can read minds – they can't actually fix it.
- At this point, you've tagged the article to say something that amounts to:
| An editor thinks there might be one or more problems with original research in this page. They can't be bothered to tell you what those problems are, or even which parts of the 4,600+ words in this article editors should look at, but they think that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking this tag here.You should expect the tagging editor to complain if you remove this tag without correctly guessing all the places that he thinks you screwed up. |
- So far the conversation is:
- Graywalls says there might be a problem.
- Nobody else can see the problem.
- Graywalls points out one possible problem.
- The one passage gets changed.
- Nobody else can see any more problems.
- Graywalls complains that people don't magically know which parts of the article Graywalls is still concerned about.
- Mind reading is not a skill you should expect in other editors. That means that if you want your concern addressed by other editors, you will have to effectively communicate your concern to those other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- While our guidelines don't impose one citation per sentence, we don't just have a trailing statement placed outside of cited material. Logically, if the sources support the said statement, it goes in front of the references, not behind. This seems pretty clear.
- Is giving an example or two and explanation of pattern inadequately clear to you?
- Going through one by one, tagging issue one by one takes excessive effort.
- When the pattern is shown and it appears clear, top tag is reasonable.
- WhatamIdoing implies identifying a pattern is a "magic", but it is not. \
- This is yet another of many concluding remark/summary which leaves uncertain who made this assessment.
"The main aims of OHP research is to understand how working conditions affect worker health,[1] use that knowledge to design interventions to protect and improve worker health, and evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions.[2] The research methods used in OHP are similar to those used in other branches of psychology." (underline added by me)- What's "similar"? Who said they're similar? Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Are you having trouble differentiating between WP:Glossary#uncited sentences and "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists" (i.e., no source in the world has ever been published that contains the same information)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Are you having trouble understanding the burden isn't to disprove? To satisfy what you're suggesting, it requires an exhaustive search. Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you want a problem to be fixed, you have to identify what the problem is with enough specificity that other editors know when they've finished fixing the problem – a definition of done, if you will.
- You say "When the pattern is shown and it appears clear, top tag is reasonable". I'm saying: I do not see "the pattern". It does not "appear clear" to me. So far, I wonder whether your complaint, which you have called "original research" is merely that there are a small number of sentences that are WP:Glossary#uncited. Is that your complaint? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Kasl, S.V., & Jones, B.A. (2011). An epidemiological perspective on research design, measurement, and surveillance strategies. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (2nd ed., pp. 375–394). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Adkins, J.A., Kelley, S.D., Bickman, L., & Weiss, H.M. (2011). Program evaluation: The bottom line in organizational health. In J.C. Quick & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (2nd ed., pp. 395–415). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
You made a good suggestion about the section on BO and heart disease, which I appreciate. I am not sorry to write this @Graywalls, but the comment about the underlined text not having a source is petty bullshit because correlations and SEM are woven deeply into psychology. I thought you were going to point to something more important in the OHP entry that could benefit from a source, something more helpful. Evidentally I was wrong. Iss246 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
