Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:49, 11 October 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupational health psychology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Psychology B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Disability B‑class
Occupational health psychology is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

External links to Newsletters

Iss246, I did not delete any text only a few dead links to club newsletters in the reference section. These links in the reference section were definitely 404 errors. The other links to the same newsletter that are 'active' have been left in the article. Again, NO text from the article has been deleted.

However if you have now somehow 'reactivated' those dead 404 'newsletters links' that were used as primary sources in the reference section of the article restore them.

Otherwise they need to be deleted as Wiki in any case cannot have 404 outdated links. Are there no primary sources you could use either? I am also concerned that your links to the club newsletters. (Again please refer to the Wiki definition of club under professional societies) are advertising the club membership itself. It is a private club (professional society) not a government run Psychology Board for instance. Including direct links on a Misplaced Pages article, an encycolpedic article, to that club newsletter and website, where monetary dues are paid, in my opinion, is dubious at best. However more experienced Wikipedians can make a judgement on this.

Recent changes to the lead

Richardkeatinge, on your other point, I think you removing the obvious long list of journals and ensuing OR from the lede as you said, is a big improvement and consistent with what Misplaced Pages wants.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the cleanup of the third paragraph you both have just done is much clearer now. Nice job. One thing I have included though, is a 'citation needed' template, after looking into the statement saying that "ICOH-WOPS is a professional organization in the area of 'OHP' It clearly is not. ICOH-WOPS is an independent organization. I think it just needs to be deleted, but what do you think RichardKeatinge and Randykitten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, ICOH is a real organization. You could have looked it up instead of doing nothing but detracting, detracting, and more detracting. Of course it is concerned with OHP. I even gave an OHP-related paper at the conference when the meeting was in Quebec. The initials WOPS concerns psychosocial factors at work. ICOH is a large international organization concerned with the health of people who work. Mrm7171, if you don't succeed in pushing one button to detract from OHP, you look for another button to press.Iss246 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

ICOH, EAOHP, and SOHP are independent organizations although EAOHP and SOHP have been cooperating on conference scheduling. ICOH is more than 100 years old. In the 1990s, it became interested in the impact of workplace psychosocial factors on health, and formed a scientific committee to investigate the impact of those factors and think of ways to make improvements. There are individuals who attend meetings of two of the three organizations and even individuals who attend all three of the organizations' meetings.Iss246 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed 'sociology' from the list of disciplines in the first paragraph so the citation is now accurate. Psyc12 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Calm yourself down iss246 and stop the personal attacks please. I know ICOH is a real organization! I was viewing their website earlier. I think you mis-read my point or something? My point again is that of course ICOH WOPS is a real organization but it is an independent organization, and independent from the 2 'OHP' societies! 'OHP' is a term invented by 2 OHP societies. Other professionals just use terms like psychosocial factors at work, or occupational stress, as ICOH does. SOHP may help out their organization at conferences or whatever, but ICOH entirely separate independent organization from SOHP & EAOHP. You mislead readers by including that statement.Mrm7171 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

One clarification. The term OHP was not invented by EAOHP and SOHP. It was invented before these societies existed, and the societies borrowed the term when they formed. Psyc12 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Barling and Griffiths chapter in the OHP Handbook 2e traces the history of OHP. They have a section on pp. 30-31 dealing with professional OHP organizations. They mention three: EAOHP, SOHP, and ICOH-WOPS, all of which they characterize as OHP. This argues for keeping ICOH-WOPS in the article, as it is not just Iss246's opinion that it belongs, but rather the position of this source. Psyc12 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, of course, ICOH is independent of SOHP and EAOHP. You don't question whether APA and APS are independent. You only target any organization that something to do with OHP. You raise one distracting issue after another distracting issue. One meaningless distraction after another.Iss246 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Every single organization in the world is "independent" of any field, concept, or idea. "Independence" is about whether or not someone else controls you. It is not about whether you are involved in or associated with an idea. All maths-related organizations are "independent" of mathematics. All psychology organizations are "independent" of psychology.

For an organization to be non-independent, it must be affiliated with or controlled by another person or organization. So, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation are not independent of each other, because they are affiliates. Many academic organizations are affiliated with a university or other academic institution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please paste this quote, here psyc12, saying that ICOH-WOPS is characterized as OHP? ICOH has 2000 members. If 'OHP/SOHP/EAOHP' are one one of those 2000 members (are they?) this article should reference that instead. Maybe we could just word it more clearly and simply then? Simply saying SOHP/EAOHP are one of the 2000 members of ICOH?

Also, ICOH on their website provide details of all of their 2000 members different conferences and seminars. Anyone can place their seminar/conference details on their website. Was it just SOHP/EAOHP helping out, voluntarily organising at conferences? Including all the facts, instead leaving facts out, prevents the impression of Propaganda. Can you please list the wording of that reference at least?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In the subsection on "Professional Organizations and Their Activities" Barling and Griffiths talk about OHP organizations. In paragraph 3, they state "The International Commission on Occupational Health ratified a new Scientific Committee in 1999 on Work Organization and Psychosocial Factors (ICOH-WOPS).....Its focus is largely occupational health psychology." Earlier you cited this source, so I thought you had access to the book. Psyc12 (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for including part of the wording. Could you please paste the remaining words in the quote psyc12, where you have put ......, to at least support the inclusion of such a statement that OHP/SOHP/EAOHP are in any way associated with ICOH?

The international ICOH formed committee on psychosocial factors, are of interest to hundreds, if not all of the current 2000 members in this broad focus, as you may be aware. Is SOHP or EAOHP one of the 2000 members? No-one has answered that simple question. I can find out if you don't know? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why it is relevant if SOHP or EAOHP are members of ICOH, on the grounds that the article does not appear to claim that they are. Am I missing something? Otherwise, the only issue I can see is a claim that ICOH-WOPS is a professional organisation concerned with OHP, and that does seem to be the case. - Bilby (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. I think that question relates to a very long discussion on this talk page. The article currently states, without a reliable independent source, that "ICOH-WOPS concern themself with 'OHP'? That's just not true. ICOH-WOPS does concern itself with 'psychosocial factors and work organization.' Thats true. Its on their website. But where is any published reliable source stating that ICOH-WOPS concerns itself with 'OHP'? If SOHP or EAOHP are one of the 2000 members, at least that's something to report in the article. Otherwise it's a big statement. And the source provided above does not say anything like ICOH-WOPS are concerned with OHP/SOHP/E, especially if they are not even one of the 2000 members, which they probably are. But if not even one of the 2000 members of ICOH, then why is that statement included?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still a bit lost on this. The article makes no claim that SOHP and EAOHP are members of ICOH, so I don't see the question as to whether or not they are members as particularly relevant. The other question is, though - whether or not ICOH-WOP can be described as a professional body involved with OHP. Looking at the ICOH-WOPS website doesn't seem to help, as it isn't much of a site, , although the secretary is described as Associate Professor in Occupational Health Psychology, so while that doesn't solve the problem, it does make it seem possible. However, Psyc12's quote seems to make the connection between the two clear, and I've now read Barling and Griffiths' "A History of Occupational Health Psychology" as well, so I agree with Psyc12's description (the quote there is a bit clearer, as it says of ICOH-WOPS "Its remit is largely to promote occupational health psychology", p29 ). I'd like a better website from ICOH-WOPS so that their remit was coming directly from them, but it seems likely that the description is accurate. - Bilby (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference Bilby. After reading the wording from this old reference it does not provides a reliable source to justify a statement that 'currently' ICOH-WOPS concerns itself with 'OHP'." Their main ICOH website found here, http://www.icohweb.org/site_new/ico_homepage.asp, mentions nothing in its 'search tool' at the top of the home page, when I type in "OHP" or anywhere on its site. The only reference is a conference. But as I say ICOH cater for conferences and seminars for thousands. So that's nothing either. We just need a reliable source stating what it currently states in the article to justify including it. It is not a minor point in the article either. It is too big a call I think, without any reliable reference and nothing listed on the ICOH main site, which seem,s pretty comprehensive website. Have you got an interest/background in occupational health psychology yourself Bilby?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Barling and Griffiths was published in 2010. Is there reason to believe that the ICOH-WOPS has changed its remit in the three years since? - Bilby (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the reference included no date. ICOH_WOPS is devoted to psychosocial factors and work organization, not OHP/SOHP/EAOHP. No reliable source exists, and their website (ie.ICOH itself, mentions nothing of OHP or the 2 societes? The statement indicates an affiliation between OHP and ICOH and no affiliation exists. Not even one of their 2000 members? No reliable source, from ICOH on this? They don't consider OHP or the 2 societies important. They consider psychosocial factors important though. Is there a reliable source anyone?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Barling and Griffiths in a reliable source. I see no reason to question their judgement that OHP is the focus of ICOH-WOPS. They were both on the scientific organizing committee for the 2008 ICOH conference on psychosocial factors at work, so they ought to know http://www.who.int/occupational_health/mediacentre/en/icoh-wops.pdf. This brochure by the way mentions OHP by name. Psyc12 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, an organization can't "affiliate" with an idea. You might as well say that the American Medical Association isn't "affiliated" with medicine. Organizational affiliations are between organizations. They involve written contracts that outline the respective rights and duties of each, such as whether the orgs will issue joint press releases, or consult each other about certain decisions, or pot links to each other's websites. Nobody can "affiliate" with OHP—or with cardiology, or with algebra, or with rocket science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Who coined the 2 terms, 'OHP' & 'Occupational Health Psychology'

This issue ties into the definition of 'OHP' and what 'OHP' is. The acronym 'OHP' was 'invented' by a small group of I/O psychology researchers who started the 2 'OHP' societies. The 2 'OHP' societies are very much interrlated and their 'OHP' agendas.

I interject here because Mrm7171, always looking for ways to denigrate OHP, is wrong. The term "occupational health psychology" was not "invented" by a small group of i/o psychologists as Mrm7171 asserts. Mrm7171 just makes stuff up.

George Everly, Jr. coined the expression "occupational health psychology" in 1986 (Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P. A. Keller & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5 (pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.). He was a clinical psychologist. Robert Feldman used the term "occupational health psychologist" in print in 1985 (Feldman, R. H. L. (1985). Promoting occupational safety and health G.S. Everly, Jr. and R.H.L. Feldman (Eds.). Occupational health promotion: Health behavior in the workplace (pp. 188-207). New York: John Wiley & Sons). Feldman was a social psychologist (Feldman, R.H. (2010). Occupational Health Psychology — Beginnings. Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 19.). Feldman was a social psychologist studying health behaviors at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health but then went on the University of Maryland's Dept. of Health Education.

No, not making anything up iss246. I clearly said the acronym "OHP" was invented by the 'OHP' society members, not occupational health psychology or psychology of occupational health. My point is absolutely correct. 'OHP' was invented by members of SOHP/EAOHP. Many people use the term occupational health psychology. That is the truth. Anyone can verify that.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I caught you Mrm7171 in a lie, and now you are backpedaling.Iss246 (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote from first sentence of this section. The acronym 'OHP' was 'invented' by a small group of I/O psychology researchers who started the 2 'OHP' societies. (sorry to put that in bold) That's what I said. Re-read it please? Are you okay iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

More backpedaling. We all use OHP as a shorthand instead of writing out the much longer term "occupational health psychology." That paltry excuse doesn't cut it. You're a liar. You don't deserve the privilege of "contributing," if that is what you do, to Misplaced Pages. You make stuff up to attack OHP.Iss246 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The acronym is a sideshow. Where do you document who invented the acronym. Where is the research on who invented an acronym. A sideshow. What you are driving at is that OHP was invented by i/o psychologists, as you have written over and over. I know what you were getting at. The whole thrust of what you are doing is to say that OHP is province of i/o psychology.Iss246 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that Mrm7171 be barred from Misplaced Pages because he makes stuff up to suit himself. He does almost no scholarship and shoots from the hip. I just caught him making stuff up about who coined the term "occupational health psychology.Iss246 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please calmly re-read my wording above. I agree that occupational health psychology was coined in 1986, or 1990 as other published sources state, by the way. I am talking about the acronym of 'OHP', invented by members of 'SOHP/EAOHP' iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Baloney, you agree. I caught you Mrm7171 in a lie, and now you are backpedaling. You can't have it every way. You can't lie about stuff and then say you didn't lie. You got caught red-handed. You have no knowledge of who uses what in 1986 or 1990. Just keep backpedaling because your scholarship is weak.Iss246 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. I sure do have knowledge of who uses what in 1986 or 1990, as you just said. And a lot of other facts too. For example, numerous published, reliable sources state that occupational health psychology was first coined by Jonathan Raymond in 1990. I ask you again, are you okay iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finished. I've got two things to say at this juncture. First, Raymond was on the public health faculty at the University of Hawaii. Raymond trained in social psychology (actually cross-cultural social psychology). Mrm7171, you don't mention that. Maybe Mrm7171 you wanted him to be from i/o psychology but it was an inconvenient fact that he didn't come from i/o psychology. If you don't make stuff up, you leave stuff out. Second, Raymond may not have cited Everly because Raymond may not have known about Everly's 1986 book chapter on account of Everly coming from clinical psychology, and publishing his paper in a book that concerned clinical psychology.Iss246 (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

My scholarship is weak is it iss246? Thanks for that and your other barrage of personal abuse. Anyway, you have not responded to who actually coined Occupational Health Psychology? We can then get to who coined 'OHP' after that. Was it Jonathan Raymond in 1990, as many published sources state or 1986 as you state in this article? I can provide a few reliable, published sources sources if you need them? Mrm7171 (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Mrm7171, your scholarship is weak. You cherry-pick bits of information to derail OHP. That is all you have ever done on these pages. You could have looked up Raymond but instead you left readers of this talk page with feeling that maybe he is an i/o psychologist as you seem to think everyone in OHP is. That is entire modus operandi.Iss246 (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Still the personal attacks continues. Embarrassed as well as abusive over your ridiculous error. Clear, point is iss246 that you wrongly stated OHP was coined in 1986 and made such a big deal of it. But many other published sources (I've included 2 solid ones already) says it was coined in 1990?

Point is iss246, you missed all of these major, reliable sources stating this? I am going to include this point that so many other published sources make. The way the article is now worded is ridiculous. A 'real' professor would not have missed such a fundamental matter of scholarship. Truth. Regardless of your semantics. So stop getting yourself so worked up and defensive and angry and abusive and look at the references.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The source I used here for the 1990 date, was by JC Quick (1999), Occupational health psychology: historical roots and future directions. I have seen the 1990 reference used in many other published sources too? So, which should be used iss246? Unanswered question, it seems, after you frantic barrage of abuse toward me. And completely incorrect assertions I might add as to my referencing abilities. I am not a liar either thank you, and will refrain from any abuse back toward you as a fellow editor.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A further published reference where it states 1990 is this one on the EA-OHP website. It is: Houdmont, J., Leka, S. & Cox, T. (2007). Education in occupational health psychology in Europe: Where have we been, where are we now and where are we going? In J. Houdmont & S. McIntyre (Eds.), Occupational Health Psychology: European Perspectives on Research,

Education and Practice (Vol. 2). On page 6 it states the following. I refer any other reader or editor, whatamidoing to this section of the published article. It also covers other aspects. It is very influential article, by very influential people in OHP it seems. I'm sure psyc12 would agree. Anyway here it is. I think it is important to include the full paragraph. So here it is.

The list of high level characteristics provided by Cox et al (2000) appears consistent with the essence of the discipline and, by extension, the curriculum areas in an educational programme, as set out by Raymond, Wood and Patrick (1990) when they coined the term ‘occupational health psychology’ almost twenty years ago. In their seminal paper, Raymond et al (ibid) envisioned a discipline that would “integrate and synthesise insights, frameworks, and knowledge from a diverse number of specialities, principally health psychology, and occupational (public) health, but also preventative medicine, occupational medicine, behavioural medicine, nursing, political science, sociology and business” (p.1159).

Tom Cox has been a great contributor to OHP. I have only the highest respect for him. He was the prime organizer and first president of EAOHP. But he got wrong the name of the first person to use the term "occupational health psychology." The first person to use the term in print was Everly (1986). Feldman (1985), however, should share the credit because he used the term "occupational health psychologist" in his paper and, in a table, used the term "occupational health psychology." This is not to detract from Raymond et al. (1990) whose paper in the American Psychologist added momentum to the development of the discipline of OHP. I observe that Everly, Wood, and Raymond were not i/o psychologists but came from other branches of psychology. I also note that Tom Cox got his doctorate in a field other than i/o psychology. His Ph.D. was in behavioral pharmacology. So much for the province of i/o psychology.Iss246 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

iss246 I properly sourced my references directly above, after you abused the .... out of me, saying a few paragraphs above, things like " You got caught red-handed. You have no knowledge of who uses what in 1986 or 1990. Just keep backpedaling because your scholarship is weak. You're a liar. You don't deserve the privilege of "contributing," if that is what you do, to Misplaced Pages. I recommend that Mrm7171 be barred from Misplaced Pages because he makes stuff up to suit himself. He does almost no scholarship and shoots from the hip. I just caught him making stuff up about who coined the term "occupational health psychology"

I have re-read this and I don't like it. I don't think anyone should be subjected to this direct, personal abuse

here on Misplaced Pages. I have asked you to stop it many times. I have tried to ignore it at first but this now become completely unacceptable. Your facts as a Professor and expert on these topics, that you keep going on about, has been shown to be questionable at best, if any reader looks over this section. This referenced material I just included conflicts with everything you have said in this section. There is obviously 2 accounts widely published as to who 'coined' occupational health psychology. One in 1986, and the other in 1990 as I just showed.

However I am much more concerned now about the personal abuse I was subjected to today and graphically summarized in the above paragraphs. I will not accept being spoken to like that here on Misplaced Pages. Especially when you have now been shown to know so little about what you have pretended to know so much about, saying you are a "professor of this, expert in that," etc etc etc. over and over. But your abusive comments above, make me feel sick iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I confess to being completely mystified by this question. Who even cares which lazy typist was the first person to employ the single most obvious abbreviation for this 28-letter-long name? This sounds about as relevant as this myth that you don't have to pay your taxes if your name is typed in all caps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

ICOH is entirely 'separate' from 2 'OHP' societies

However the prestigious ICOH, is an international organisation and completely separate to 'OHP'/SOHP/EAOHP (all one in the same). The ICOH website address is icohweb.org. Today, ICOH is the world's leading international scientific society in the field of occupational health with a membership of 2,000 professionals from 93 countries. It is completely separate to the 2 OHP societies. Nothing to do with them! I typed in 'OHP' into the search on the ICOH website. It doesn't even register. What the 2 OHP groups have done is try and use Misplaced Pages as a means of creating a false association.

Maybe the 2 OHP societies are one of the 2000 members? Maybe they are not even members? Let alone interrelated in any way. Anyone can list their conference or seminar on the ICOH website. Thousands of conferences are listed by ICOH. But by trying to 'link' the OHP society/club with this prestigious organisation is just plain wrong and deceptive. It is bordering on Propaganda in my opinion. So much of this article is misleading/agenda-driven, in fact. Apologies to other genuine editors reading this article. But please look into these facts yourself. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nota bene Mrm7171. ICOH comprises 35 scientific committees. For example, there are scientific committees on Accident Prevention, Aging and Work, Neurotoxicology and Psychophysiology, Radiation and Work, &c. The newest scientific committee is the Scientific Committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors, the acronym of which is ICOH-WOPS. Members of this committee conduct OHP research. If you did your homework, and didn't make stuff up, you would learn from conference schedules and other sources that much of their work is in OHP.Iss246 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes iss246, ICOH has got a scientific committee on psychosocial factors at work, including occupational stress. So what? I have stated that several times. But psychosocial factors at work is the proper terminology used by many professions interested in these areas of study. What is your point? What has that got to do with "OHP/SOHP/EAOHP'? 'OHP/SOHP/EAOHP' certainly did not invent the terms psychosocial factors at work or occupational stress. That's for sure.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Is SOHP or EAOHP even one of the 2000 members of ICOH as I asked before please? Instead of avoiding this simple question? If so, we can instead just say that, that SOHP/EAOHP are one of the 2000 members of ICOH. But if they are not even one of the 2000 members of ICOH then why is ICOH even mentioned?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, the answer is I don't know. Why is that an important question? This is another distracting question. How am I supposed to know who is a member of two organizations like ICOH and EAOHP. I can't interview every member of the organizations.

The important thing is that one can be a member of EAOHP but not a member of ICOH and still present an OHP-related paper at an ICOH-WOPS meeting. It doesn't matter if someone is a member of one organization or both organizations. In fact, if one has a relevant paper, one can present at a conference sponsored by EAOHP, SOHP,and ICOH-WOPS regardless of what organization one belongs to (or if one belongs to no particular organization).Iss246 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Who cares if ICOH is separate from the other two organizations? ICOH can be an independent org and still do things about occupational health psychology. The American Medical Association, the British Medical Association, and the Canadian Medical Association are all separate organizations, but they are still all interested in medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Can We Please Move Forward

We have consensus (with Mrm7171 the lone dissent) on the definition and including the three societies, so it is time to move on to other matters in the article. The invention of the term OHP is already in the article, and is not a point of disagreement, so further discussion is not needed. Psyc12 (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

psyc12, strange that SOHP/EAOHP is not even one of the 2000 member organizations of ICOH, but you say SOHP/EAOHP is somehow affiliated or ICOH concerns itself with SOHP/EAOHP? I will contact ICOH to see if we can get a reliable source direct from them on this. Or do you have one from them? The one you provided is not reliable.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward, I am going to now include a reference to the 'origins of occupational health psychology.' The current article states OHP coined in 1986 and makes a lot of it. In fact, other reliable sources quote 1990 and make a lot of that. So will change this and include the new reference.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, don't make the change you propose. It is wrong. 1985 (Feldman) and 1986 (Everly) are the earliest references I could find with that reference OHP. Raymond, Wood, and Patrick also deserve credit and are cited in the article.Iss246 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, I agree that it is time to move on as you suggest.

Mrm7171 and Iss246, you might consider a more cautious phrasing, perhaps something along the lines of "the term "occupational health psychology", often abbreviated "OHP", has been used to describe an academic discipline from (date)"(then references to sources that actually specify that OHP is an academic discipline, rather than just using it as a descriptive term). The actual intellectual origins will inevitably go back further, disciplines don't spring up from nothing and the term itself is a fairly straightforward description. More importantly, I strongly recommend drafting any proposed edits here, and obtaining consensus before actually making changes to the article.

I would like to remind all editors about courtesy and collegiality. Should this page come to the attention of admins, they will make decisions based primarily on their assessment of conduct, competence coming next and the actual content normally not considered at all. To elucidate perceived contradictions is perfectly reasonable, but the word "lie" and its derivatives are almost always unhelpful. However irritated we may feel - especially when we feel very irritated - we should press the Save button only on words that are painstakingly courteous and constructive. If we have made a mistake and saved unhelpful comments, it is considered good manners to strike through any offensive remarks with an edit summary retracting them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Richardkeatinge, but this type of abuse is not acceptable. How would you or any editor on Misplaced Pages appreciate this fielth? Imagine someone saying this to you? How would you feel? Seriously, imagine it for a minute?

"iss246 I properly sourced my references directly above, after you abused the .... out of me, saying a few paragraphs above, things like " You got caught red-handed. You have no knowledge of who uses what in 1986 or 1990. Just keep backpedaling because your scholarship is weak. You're a liar. You don't deserve the privilege of "contributing," if that is what you do, to Misplaced Pages. I recommend that Mrm7171 be barred from Misplaced Pages because he makes stuff up to suit himself. He does almost no scholarship and shoots from the hip. I just caught him making stuff up about who coined the term "occupational health psychology"

Should i retaliate with this type of utter ....? Imagine if all editors behaved like this. I have been ignoring this for months. But it has come to a head.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Richardkeatinge that we keep this civil and on point. I try to do that even though Mrm7171 has continually attacked me. He tries to discredit my input with arguments that I am not to be trusted because a) I am a professor, or b) I am lying about being a professor, or c) I am friends with Iss246, or d) I am biased, or e) I am American, or f) I am a member of SOHP, or g) my scholarship is poor, or h) I am biased, or i) I represent some special interest. Psyc12 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

psyc12, the point about you being an American you just made? What the ....? are you talking about? The only point about America I have ever made, is that Misplaced Pages is global. We need to present views from all regions of the word, Europe, Asia Pacific, wherever possible. You cannot have a good encyclopedic international article by only considering one country. That's it. That's all I said about that. Full stop.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Psyc12/iss246 is the SOHP or EAOHP one of the 2000 members of the ICOH organization? That question directly above, remains unanswered?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to explain why anyone should care whether these two orgs have chosen to pay membership fees to the other one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend that anyone who feels themselves attacked should respond, if at all, only with careful and constructive attempts to move the article forward on any substantive points that have been raised. Clear,referenced-based focus on possible edits is required. Abuse is usually best ignored even if repeated and not struck out; it is an embarrassment to its authors and, if it does come to the attention of admins, it is to the authors' great disadvantage. I hope I won't have to make any further remarks on the subject. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

OHP Organizations and Origins

Mrm7171. You made two substantive comments in the earlier section that I want to address. I created a new topic so we can get back on point.

Mrm7171. You say my Barling and Griffiths source on the three OHP organizations is unreliable, but you provide no evidence to support that claim. Julian Barling is one of the leading figures in psychology: here is his CV if anyone wants to verify: http://web.business.queensu.ca/faculty/jbarling/cv.htm. The Handbook of OHP is edited by two giants in this field (Tetrick and Quick) and has chapters by luminaries in the field. Furthermore, whether these associations are affiliated or not is unimportant. The issue is whether they all concern OHP because that is what the article says, and the consensus (except for Mrm7171) seems to be that they are.

Mrm7171, why would you assume that the 1986 origin is incorrect without evidence. It is not convincing that another source gives 1990 as the origin, as that author might just not know about the earlier work. Evidence would be finding the 1986 source and showing that it did not in fact use the term. I just did a search in the PsycInfo database, and here's the entry on the 1986 chapter by Everly. The excerpt below used the term in the title and text--This is verbatim except I eliminated the line breaks to take fewer lines.

"An introduction to occupational health psychology. Everly, George S Jr.. Keller, Peter A ; Ritt, Lawrence G . (1986). Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5. (pp. 331-338). vii, 472 pp. Sarasota, FL, England: Professional Resource Exchange, Inc; England. Year of Publication 1986"

"AB (from the chapter) provide a brief rationale for the development of behavioral technologies for health promotion / examine the current status of occupational health psychology / propose one such intervention model / make some recommendations for the training of occupational health psychologists (from the book) illustrates how consultants can become involved with the enhancement of physically and mentally healthy behaviors in the work place (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)" Psyc12 (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think accuracy is important. Perhaps it is more than good manners, particularly when "contributor" Mrm7171 tries to marginalize a discipline. It is not good manners to try to marginalize a discipline. When Mrm7171 joined Misplaced Pages, his efforts were directed at marginalizing OHP. He tried to reduce it to a province of i/o psychology. He tried to remove OHP from a template. If someone contributed to the founding OHP as a discipline but if the individual wasn't an i/o psychologist (Everly, Feldman, Raymond), he ignored that inconvenient fact.

I add this. Although I could trace the coining of the term "occupational health psychology" to 1985 (Feldman) and 1986 (Everly), I clearly recognize that a number of figures (e.g., Marie Jahoda) and institutions (e.g., the University of Michigan's Institute of Social Research) helped to pave the way. I wrote about those early contributors in the brief section on the historical development of OHP. Please don't think that I am saying that OHP emerged solely from the thoughts of Feldman, Everly, and Raymond.Iss246 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The reality is iss246 that the majority of published sources, state that 1990 was when who coined occupational health psychology was coined and this needs to included in the article. Your opinion about 1986 or whatever, is in contrast to all of the published sources, that you missed? The majority views need to be included in this article. But again you try everything you can to prevent this article complying with Misplaced Pages article policies.

Off you go again iss246, focusing on me, attacking me. A point to note here for all other readers/editors is that iss246 has been in long dispute with many, many editors over this article, since 2008 in fact! I only entered 'his' article in 2013. Any reader can go back into the archives and discover the truth about this article and its very, very long history with iss246 and everyone else that has tried to bring some neutrality and objectivity to it. But iss246 has been there from the start. It is 'his' article and he is very, very protective of it. Mrm7171 (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and objectivity require that one go to the library or use interlibrary loan to read the various papers including the articles by Everly, Feldman, and Raymond et al. rather than to report on cherry-picked articles about other articles. Mrm7171, your purpose is not to be objective or neutral. Reading the words "neutrality" and "objectivity" as they flow from your word processing software is hollow; it is like reading those words in Pravda. This talk of neutrality and objectivity is a masquerade. You already established that you are not objective as you have tried, and continue to try, to reduce OHP to a province of i/o psychology. Of course, you ignored the inconvenient facts that Everly, Feldman, and Raymond were not i/o psychologists but psychologists who came from other disciplines. In fact, Raymond's two co-authors were not i/o psychologists either. Indeed, they come from disciplines outside of psychology. You Mrm7171 chose to ignore all those facts. You already established your intention to marginalize OHP. I am not attacking you. I am underlining the point that your goal is far from neutrality and objectivity.Iss246 (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages.Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

I refuse to engage with you iss246 in personal and derogatory statements. I am surprised that your conduct has not improved, and the personal attacks on me continue, even after RichardKeatinge, another editor, providing sound advice yesterday on editor conduct and personal attacks. From herein I am following Misplaced Pages advice on these matters to the tee.

Iss246 in addition to your 'recurring personal attacks' and derogatory comments toward me, you also just undid a perfectly valid addition I made based on Misplaced Pages policy. This is what Misplaced Pages say: "When reliable sources disagree, (which they do in this case), present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. This addition I made had nothing to do with Raymond's qualification, that you continue to focus on. It has everything to do with giving both sides due weight. The point you are missing, with all due respect, is that 'reliable sources disagree' on this topic of who first coined OHP. Therefore the well constructed brief sentence with 2 major references added is based solely on Misplaced Pages policy on this matter.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion on the origins of occupational health psychology and core Misplaced Pages content principles is continued at the base of this talk page. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, your implication is that it is somehow bad for OHP that SOHP and EAOHP are not members of ICOH-WOPS. Somehow that answer marginalizes the field of OHP. That has been your goal, even in these piddling debates over who coined the term occupational health psychology. Regarding that argument, if it were an i/o psychologist who coined the term "occupational health psychology," that would somehow add force to your efforts to achieve the goal of making OHP seem as if it were a province of i/o (sorry Charlie, even Jonathan Raymond was not an i/o psychologist, let alone Everly or Feldman!).

You had asked me if members of EAOHP or SOHP were also members of ICOH. I don't know. Probably some are and some aren't. You could have inquired if you wanted to know badly enough. Why ask me? I'm not a member of ICOH although I presented an OHP-related paper at an ICOH-WOPS meeting.

I add this about personal attacks. You Mrm7171 have been on a personal attack against my colleagues and me. You have engaged in unceasing efforts to marginalize OHP on the pages of Misplaced Pages. First, you have tried to make it seem as if OHP was a province of i/o. Second, in a coordinate attack you tried to kick OHP off the sidebar. Third, you also made all kinds of distracting attempts at changes that have very little significance (e.g., it was Raymond who coined the term, it was Everly, it was Raymond, it was Everly---although it is clear that you hadn't read Everly; I'm not sure if you read Raymond). Fourth, you initiated a donnybrook over the definition of OHP. It was as if a prestigious organization like Centers for Disease Control and Prevention somehow employed a definition that had been tainted like some foodstuff the CDC identified as the source of an epidemic. We all know that the CDC's definition overlapped substantially with definitions offered by SOHP and EAOHP. It was a needless distraction that, to quote Rick Blaine, didn't "amount to a hill of beans."Iss246 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the recurrent, personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and derogatory, accusations, accusations of bad faith Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith your focus on me as an editor instead of editing. Paranoia about my motives. I have no motives iss246! I have no motives, for the last .......time. Geez. You seem obsessed by I/O psychology and the fact that I/O psychology obviously also covers all of the same topics. Read Spector, P.E (2011). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice, (6th Edition) NJ, US: Wiley. Within this current and definitive text, on Industrial and organizational psychology, Spector includes an 'entire chapter' on occupational health psychology as many other authors also do, within major industrial and organisational textbooks. That is not my opinion It is a very well published fact. Why don't you take your frenetic paranoia out on Paul Spector and the thousands of other I?O psychologists?

I have asked you to stop the unfounded accusations of bad faith and your incessant, and childish and recurrent personal attacks at least 20 times. You haven't. All of these instances are on the record. I have been patient. I have walked away. I have ignored. Which is not easy for any human when being attacked and accused of bad faith and told they are lying, when they are not. You won't stop. You try to draw me in, but I won't. I want only to focus on content and finally bringing somne objectivity to this article. "Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia" Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks I am focused only on content. I do not accuse you of bad faith nor do I as Misplaced Pages defines it personally attack you. Read these sections. That is why I keep posting them here.

As far as you and your 5 year history, since 2008, battling it out with many other editors on Misplaced Pages over this occupational health psychology article. I only entered the scene in 2013! If any doubt exists as to your 5 year history, since 2008 of fighting it out with all of these other editors who also were genuinely, like I am, trying to bring some objectivity and neutrality and impartiality and accuracy to this I must say, still very biased occupational health psychology article a direct quote from you personally can be found here User:Iss246/RfA review Recommend Phase. Your words way back in 2008 iss246, were: "I would like help in my request to have the occupational health psychology entry placed in the psychology sidebar. I am at loggerheads with Ward3001." Mrm7171 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, you have done almost almost nothing on Misplaced Pages except try to marginalize OHP. Sure, I had disagreements with another Wikipedean about OHP. Sharp disagreements. But that Misplaced Pages editor did other things on Misplaced Pages like edit entries that had nothing to do with OHP or even psychology. He contributed to Misplaced Pages at large. You Mrm7171 are different. You do nothing else on Misplaced Pages but flail at OHP like a bone stuck in your craw.

Do not cite Paul Spector to me. Paul Spector is a colleague of mine (I apologize for sounding like Lloyd Bentsen responding to Dan Quayle). He would not sympathize with your attempts to marginalize OHP one bit.Iss246 (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

ICOH

As far as constructive editing goes, firstly, Psyc12/iss246, are either of the 2 'OHP' societies, one of the 2000 members that belong to the ICOH organization? That question directly above, remains unanswered? Sorry to repeat it. Last time I will. Mrm7171 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs)

Mrm7171, I don't know the answer to the above question. It is not my role to find out the answer to the above question. If you are interested in the answer, you can email an officer at ICOH-WOPS, and ask the question of the officer. He or she would know better than either of us.Iss246 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just interesting that your 2 societies are not even 1 of the 2000 members of ICOH. ICOH and many others are interested in 'psychosocial factors and work organization.' They have a committee set up for it. ICOH are clearly not however concerned with 'OHP' and your 2 societies and no reliable source has been presented to support such a statement. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability Associating your 2 societies with ICOH is very misleading, at best.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your writing reminds me of a scene in Casablanca. Rick, Major Strasser, and Captain Renault were sitting at a table at Rick's Café Américain. Captain Renault asked Rick why he came to Casablanca. Rick replied that he came for his health. "I came for the waters," he added. Captain Renault responded, "What waters? We're in the desert." Rick replied, "I was misinformed."

I've been misinformed. I didn't know that societies are members of ICOH-WOPS. I thought professionals (people) were members of ICOH and its scientific committee ICOH-WOPS.

Whatever you Mrm7171 look up, or partially look up, or cherry-pick is for the purpose of marginalizing OHP, the people who conduct OHP research, and OHP practitioners. There has been nothing from you but one potshot after another.Iss246 (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

I'm not even sure what your last barrage of derogatory comments above mean, nor care really? Only that they sure are not polite or civil toward me. You mention somethingabout ICOH membership. We had left that topic. But I include a statement on membership from the ICOH website. It states: "ICOH has both individual and collective members. An organisation, society, industry or enterprise may become a sustaining member of the ICOH. A professional organisation or a scientific society may become an affiliate member." Here is the direct link http://www.icohweb.org/membership.asp.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You just continue the 'put downs' and derogatory comments. Again, I make my point clearly that I refuse to engage with you iss246 in personal and derogatory statements. I easily could, but I am choosing not to and focusing on editing. I realise you have been involved in disputes with many other other editors since 2008 over this article, and based on the archives I have read it seems you have either exhausted or intimidated these other editors away, many of them also psychology backgrounds and actually do know a thing or two about the topics we are discussing as well.

This article iss246 is not yours to 'protect from any other editors trying to bring some neutrality and objectivity to it.' It is still quite a biased article in parts. I will stand firm on these issues, and have them resolved calmly, and in a civil manner and guided by Misplaced Pages policy. I have also very much respected Richard Keatinge's wise words on conduct yesterday. I have asked you countless times. Richard Keatinge tried also. Your derogatory, sarcastic, 'put downs' do not seem to stop. You have been shown the policies. But nothing has worked. You just continue.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

3 'core' content/article policies

These are the 'core' article policies that as editors we must adhere to and is not being adhered to in this article. No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability.

I give an example, with the 'origins of OHP' discussion. This is what Misplaced Pages say: "When reliable sources disagree, (which they do in this case), present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.

There are obviously major published sources that disagree with the published source used in this article. I have listed a couple of those major published sources. But in this article, only the one source is included and seems to represent a minority view only. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and undue weight Misplaced Pages says we need to present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. A concise sentence, with 2 major published sources attched, has now been included in the article, to reflect another 'major view' represented in the literature, on the issue.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Just included a brief well sourced addition to the industrial and organizational psychology topic included in the article. Used an excellent source: Spector, P.E (2011). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice, (6th Edition) NJ, US: Wiley. Within this current and definitive text, on Industrial and organizational psychology, Spector, an icon in the I/O psychology field, includes an 'entire chapter' on occupational health psychology as many other authors also do within major industrial and organisational textbooks. This obviously supports the fact that I/O psychology and I/O psychologists also cover all occupational health psychology topics as is briefly discussed, in this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Another definitive text on the Occupational health psychology topic is In 'New Directions in Organizational Psychology and Behavioural Medicine', where 40 world experts discuss issues relevant to human resource and talent management. The editors present recent research into occupational health psychology with particular emphasis on employment-related physical and psychological health matters. It is written by Alexander-Stamatios G. Antoniou, Cary L. Cooper. Cooper is a world renound expert in occupational stress and an I/O Psychologist (or Occupational Psychologist in the UK)

This is another recent definitive text, where on page 9, it states: "The term “occupational health psychology” was first penned in 1990 by Jonathan Raymond (Raymond, Wood, and Patrick, 1990). (apologies for bolding) That is the third major published source iss246 which clearly states that it was 1990 and Raymond. Why would editors and authors of these major published sources, all get it wrong? They obviously review texts before they are sold. I think a lot of your personal attacks on me (the current ones at least) are because I am picking you up on this point of scholarship and Misplaced Pages core policy.

This is what Misplaced Pages say: "When reliable sources disagree, (which they do in this case), present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. This addition I made had nothing to do with Raymond's qualification, that you continue to focus on. It has everything to do with giving both sides due weight. The point you are missing, with all due respect, is that 'reliable sources disagree' on this topic of who first coined/penned/came up with occupational health psychology. Therefore the well constructed brief sentence, now with '3 major references' is to be added.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

We therefore have RS saying that the term was first used in 1990. We have other RS actually using it in 1985/6. (I assume that everyone is quoting their sources accurately and fairly; my plans don't include checking them.) I suggest that we should produce a brief statement that is correct and does not belabour points that are at best of little significance to the encyclopaedic reader. Possibly, subheadings might help throughout this section. What about:

Emergence as a professional discipline

The term "occupational health psychology" appeared in print from 1985. In 1990, Raymond, Wood, and Patrick described "occupational health psychology" as a specific professional discipline, stating that creating healthy workplaces should be a goal for psychology. This paper has been credited as the first use of the term. In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) jointly organized the first international Work, Stress, and Health conference in Washington, DC. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (signed later, sorry)

You forgot to sign your last 2 posts Richardkeatinge. I think this paragraph you just wrote above as a suggestion, sounds okay, but it can be refined further if that's okay? We just to need to take care of the error and 'oversight.' I'm really surprised all of these other published sources were missed by iss246. They are everywhere!Mrm7171 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that many people incorrectly credit the 1990 source as the origin of the term occupational health psychology is such an esoteric tangent that it doesn't belong in this article. Why would it be necessary to 'call out' these sources for the error? How does this help readers understand the history of OHP? That Everly first used the term in print in 1986 is an event in the history of the field. That someone incorrectly got it wrong in print is not a significant part of history, and it does not belong in the subsection on history. Psyc12 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Two points. First, Psyc12 is right. Scholars everywhere, in every field, get things wrong. Getting things wrong is a common occurrence. Eventually, many (but not all) scholars get it right because a great deal of scholarship is self-correcting. It is good that we got it right about Everly (and Feldman). Second, I already made sure that the paper by Raymond, Wood, and Patrick was recognized in the OHP Misplaced Pages article.Iss246 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, psyc12. No typos. These major published sources didn't all just get the 1990 Raymond et al wrong or it is a misprint that is just silly psyc12. And you know it. Where and who originated Occupational Health Psychology has been an important enough topic to include in every other major published source. It is certainly not Misplaced Pages's place to be publishing what seems now to be the minority view. Even if iss246 has discovered something first Misplaced Pages is not the place to put it. You cannot have such a major view suppressed and readers seeing 1990 and Raymond published elsewhere. You need to read the Misplaced Pages policies covering these types of content anomalies.

I am open to working with you Richardkeatinge on re-working this section and others. In this case, it is the only thing that can and should be done. My view based on what Misplaced Pages says is that we actually replace what iss246 has put in this article with the 1990. I make this point clearly. Both iss246's minority view, of 1986 and every other source, there are more out there too than 3 published sources I provided all say ...."coined" or "penned" the term occupational health psychology first.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not unusual in an emerging discipline to have mistakes repeated across multiple sources - in looking into knowledge management, for example, I found authors attributing the standard definition (justified true belief) to Nonaka - one author made an error, and the error was then repeated. That some authors in OHP have erred in not being aware of an earlier publication doesn't equate to controversy unless there is debate in the field about the original source of the term. Is there any evidence of a debate or dispute, as opposed to a simple error in some sources? In general, it is not Misplaced Pages's role to cover every claim in every source - part of our role as editors is to evaluate the weight to give sources, and at times that means not including them. - Bilby (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bilby, but this is what Misplaced Pages says and this is clear cut. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and undue weight Misplaced Pages says we need to present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. A concise sentence, with 3 major published sources attched, has now been included in the article, to reflect another 'major view' represented in the literature, on the issue. The article that iss246 has quoted would be considered in this case a minority view. Can't have Misplaced Pages readers seeing this in the opening text or article of the majority of published sources with the opposing view. Thats not how Misplaced Pages policy works. Not my opinion either. This is very straight forward. 2 options, re-word the article (no big deal) or delete the 1986 minority view and replace it with the 1990 majority view. No big deal either.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. You are misinterpreting the Wiki guidelines. We are not talking about two historians who attribute the first to different people, for example, some attribute the first I/O PhD to Bruce V. Moore and others to Lilian Gilbreth. In our current case these aren't two sources, one of which says Everly is first and the other saying someone else. This is the case where we have a copy of the first case (Everly), and authors that overlooked him. That is not the same thing as a controversy based on differences of interpretation or opinion. It is a factual mistake that has been repeated, which can be quite common as Bilby noted. Psyc12 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the statement about sources attributing the first OHP mention to 1990 because it is likely to confuse readers. The entry said Everly was first, but then many believe he really wasn't first without any evidence/explanation for why some scholars discount Everly. To mention both views, one would have to show that Cox and the others knew about Everly, and gave a good reason to discount him. Even then, I'm not sure it is important enough. Wiki guidelines also suggest brevity. Psyc12 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12 is entirely correct here. Do we have consensus to insert my text, or suggestions on varying it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is clear cut based on what Misplaced Pages says. Maybe I am missing something in Misplaced Pages guidelines? But we cannot have readers reading this Misplaced Pages article, stating for the 'first time' that occupational health psychology was first coined in 1986, by ... and then people reading in all of these other major publications around the place, that occupational health psychology was coined in 1990 by Raymond? It would undermine the credibility of wikipedia. You say all of these other published sources kept on getting it wrong? and all of these scholars never checked or...? What are you saying psyc12? What am I missing here?

This quote from Misplaced Pages explains a lot. Iss246's is a minority view in the published sources. This is what Misplaced Pages say. "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Misplaced Pages is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Misplaced Pages:AttributionMrm7171 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a case of different viewpoints. It is the case of a mistake in print that has been repeated. There are many in the literature. Opposing viewpoints means that experts disagree in conclusions about some important issue, not that someone made a mistake in print. Psyc12 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what iss246 had in the article and stated yesterday on the talk page. "George Everly, Jr. coined the expression "occupational health psychology" in 1986 (Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P. A. Keller & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5 (pp. 331-338)." How did he 'coin it?' Or was that just iss246's terminology?

So that point iss246 made, in those words, he "coined the term occupational health psychology" is no longer going to be included in the article? Who are you saying made the error? And who perpetuated it then? I cannot find any other published sources saying exactly what iss246 said, using the term "first person to coin..."? but a lot of published sources saying Raymond 1990 "coined" and/or "penned'.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I am not entirely clear on your point here. Iss246 found a 1986 source that used the term 'occupational health psychology'. Later some authors made an error of omission when they credited the 1990 source as first. We do not have to find a published source that says Everly was first. Everly is a published source that exists so it can be verified. Logically, if the Everly chapter used the term in 1986, authors who say the first use was 1990 were mistaken. Psyc12 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, here is a quote from the paper by Everly (1986), "Occupational health psychology is dedicated to the application of psychological theories, principles, and practices to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehability of physical disease and dysfunction" (p. 331).Iss246 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote iss246. Doing a bit more research on this, I think it is pretty clear that all of these major publications and major scholars did not just 'overlook' or miss Everly and his 1986 definition of the field of occupational health psychology, clearly published in Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5. That is just not credible. Academics and authors write and research for a living. So I don't believe that this explicit creation of the term 'occupational health psychology' and not just that, but Everly actually 'defining the field of occupational health psychology,' in 1986 was only discovered by iss246.

By saying psyc12, that all of these other scholars all just kept on copying the same error from someone else's text is just not credible. I have easily found at least 20 main publications all saying Raymond coined the term occupational health psychology. I think it is obvious that they knew about Everly and more importantly, Everly's full definition of the field of Occupational Health Psychology and discounted it, for whatever reason? His definition of Occupational Health Psychology seems pretty encompassing "Occupational health psychology is dedicated to the application of psychological theories, principles, and practices to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehability of physical disease and dysfunction"

This is iss246's quote, "George Everly, Jr. coined the expression "occupational health psychology" in 1986 (Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P. A. Keller & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5 (pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.) I think it is obvious that if iss246 looked at this article published in a major source book, others would have too. That's common sense. No doubt other authors knew of Everly, and his clear definition of occupational health psychology, and discounted it, and him, for some reason? The reason they discounted him is not for Misplaced Pages. However they knew and they discounted it.

'OHP' and the 2 small societies, outside of mainstream international psychology, are mostly made up of well published scholars as iss246 and psyc12 have said (see Society for Occupational Health Psychology. If anyone would have known of Everly and his clear and full 1986 definition of Occupational Health Psychology they would! We need to include all of this in the article in brief, concise language and then move on. I suggest using something like Richardkeatinge's re-working of the paragraph and just an additional sentence or two explaining this difference of opinion between scholars and authors about who actually first discovered and defined the field of occupational health psychology. That is, some believe it was Everly, (published in this source here) others believe it was Raymond (published in these sources here).

Obviously we can't just leave Raymond (1990) out, it is in 'at least 20 major published sources', outside of Misplaced Pages. It will only be a matter of time before another Misplaced Pages reader makes the same point I am, if we don't. Misplaced Pages is not paper. It is a fluid, ever changing digital encyclopedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence out there that anyone knew about Everly and chose to ignore him. Any such conclusion is just speculation, which is inappropriate for a wiki article. As I said earlier, there are lots of examples of errors being propagated from scholar to scholar. It is not unusual for people to miss something, especially finding the first instance of something. It is very hard to be sure when you have the first one. As for leaving Raymond out, there are thousands of OHP papers so you can't include everything. The article needs to be a concise overview of the field for the general public, not a detailed and esoteric treatment of all the minor details. Psyc12 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that they two claims are contradictory - they don't represent different views, so much as a correct and an incorrect claim. In previous situations we've tended to make a call as to which source can be deemed as reliable on the given point, unless either there is no definitive reason for picking one over the other, or it can be shown that they are not mistaken, so much as displaying different perspectives on the same issue. I don't know if either is the case here, although it does seem that this is a very minor concern to be focusing on. - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(just including again my last comments on content, as iss246 deleted it in his last edit for some reason?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a relatively minor point here in Misplaced Pages world Bilby, I agree. But 'OHP' and the 2 OHP societies, are a very small community operating outside of mainstream psychology. To this small group of scholars and academics that are involved with OHP (many very accomplished scholars I should say, and very skilled in scholarship) the origins and history of their small 'OHP' field is immense and a something they are very proud of. They include who coined OHP and the history of OHP in all of their publications almost in sync with each other. It is not possible for scholars so concerned with 'OHP' to have missed Everly.

Anyway as an editor, I respectfully disagree if you are saying not to include Raymond and the wide array of published sources which give him the credit, when clearly Everly's definition was the creator of the field of OHP. Did others not like Everly's definition? Anyway, why they disagree with Everly is beyond this Misplaced Pages article. I believe we need to just make the brief changes that Richardkeatinge suggested, and include Raymond (1990) in over 20 major published sources, and move on to something else please. I'm okay with Richardkeatinge's paragraph, shall we just use that?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It was an accident that I deleted the above words. My adding a few words somewhere above seized up (I'm not sure if there was an edit about the same time I was editing or if something else occurred). In general, I don't like to make deletions on Talk pages even if the talk is hostile to me.Iss246 (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, your sarcastic words reveal your only aim, that of marginalizing OHP: "the origins and history of their small 'OHP' field is immense and a (sic) something they are very proud of." The mockery in your comment is unmistakable as you go on to write, "the origins and history of their small 'OHP' field is immense and a something they are very proud of." Your words reveal that your only concern in Misplaced Pages is to marginalize OHP. You have no other interest in Misplaced Pages.

All the fine talk of "neutrality and objectivity" is baloney. All there is to your aim is your penny-ante animosity toward OHP. Your words above are telling.Iss246 (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

iss246, you deleted my entry that was clearly down the base of the page. You continue to create things in your own mind and then spew them onto these pages in an attempt to bully and intimidate me away from 'your' article. I don't even know what you mean by your false accusations quite frankly. They are a jumbled mess of abuse and false assertions. You are clearly and obviously harassing me and trying to intimidate me, and I have told you repeatedly to stop. However I have warned you for months to stop, and you continue without abating. I will not retaliate and will not engage with you and your abusive conduct, combined now with deleting my entry.

Given that you shoved your abusive comments after my last good faith discussion comments, 'on content,' I will paste them again here as I am waiting for a response, otherwise I found Richardkeatinge's paragraph as a good compromise to the above topic.

Anyway as an editor, I respectfully disagree if you are saying not to include Raymond and the wide array of published sources which give him the credit, when clearly Everly's definition was the creator of the field of OHP. Did others not like Everly's definition? Anyway, why they disagree with Everly is beyond this Misplaced Pages article. I believe we need to just make the brief changes that Richardkeatinge suggested, and include Raymond (1990) in over 20 major published sources, and move on to something else please. I'm okay with Richardkeatinge's paragraph, shall we just use that?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Those changes are fine with me Richardkeatinge. I agree the sections were unnecessarily verbose. That's how easy editing articles should be. I'm looking at this article and the point has been made by other editors that the separate SOHP and EAOHP articles are the place for matters directly relating to those 2 societies. I am wondering why there is so much focus and mention of SOHP & EAOHP, and if there should be any mention of them in the Occupational Health Psychology article? This article should be about occupational health psychology, not the 2 societies? Do you think references to the SOHP & EAOHP could possible go in those articles instead. That would clear up a lot of confusion and makes sense, I think at least?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

2 solutions. 1 Take out any reference to SOHP, EAOHP and just place them in their own articles, or 2 list in this section all of the 100s of organizations, societies, etc related to this broad field of occupational health psychology which would need to be included in this article for impartiality. That again seems simple to me. Cleaner, more objective, impartial article would be to simply remove exclusive references to these 2 societies and put them in their own article space. Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove mention of the societies from the OHP article. If the OHP article does not mention them, how would readers know to go to the articles on the individual societies? Psyc12 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would readers need to know to go to SOHP or EAOHP? If interested in the SOHP they can look it up. The article is about occupational health psychology. Otherwise we need to list all of the other international societies, organizations related to occupational health psychology. There would be hundreds, not just a select few.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)110.143.253.102 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I can think of at least 10 or 15 organizations significant to occupational health psychology straight away. Best idea to leave all out. There is already an article on the 2 societies.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RK. I do not agree with some of your changes. I am fine with shortening the section, but there is no reason to frame this as a controversy over who was first as it is not important. Thus I would merely state that Everly first mentioned OHP, then state Raymond's contribution, and not say that Raymond is often considered first. If you continue to say that, it should be noted that those sources were incorrect, i.e., sources INCORRECTLY credit Raymond. But if the goal is to be brief, this point is not important as it isn't part of the history. Psyc12 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Richardkeatinge's changes are good. Lets move forward instead of debating silly minor points. The paragraph was sitting there for a while. Lets just leave it as is. There are other aspects of the article to discuss.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)110.143.253.102 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Richardkeatinge. I appreciate your efforts, but it is not necessary to include in the entry the text the sentence, "This paper has been credited as the first use of the term" regarding the article by Raymond et al. It only burdens the article with an extraneous detail that doesn't add to the description of OHP.Iss246 (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a minor point. Let's just leave it as is. so we can move forward with this article iss246, finally. There are other aspects of this Misplaced Pages article needing to be discussed. Mrm7171 (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Richardkeatinges well written changes represent all aspects equally. Let's move on. Instead of going over the same points.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This entire discussion has been a minor point. But after all this long discussion, let's at least make the section as clear and concise as possible, and not risk confusing a reader who might get from this that no one knows who was first. Psyc12 (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you delete any part of Richardkeatinge'es changes you will create imbalance again. I could start altering the wording or deleting something too but I won't. Its fine as it is. His paragraph was also sitting there for a long time. Lets just move on please. Mrm7171 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's not absolutely necessary to include the sentence "This paper has been credited as the first use of the term". But it is supported by reliable sources, and it may help to avoid confusion / further spread of the incorrect information. It is, in short, reasonable to include it and its inclusion may allow consensus here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

RK: I see your point. 12:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs)

RK. I can live with your edit.Iss246 (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's about as good as things get on Misplaced Pages. :-) Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward again

We need to get on with other editing on this article psyc12. You have not commented on moving the SOHP & EAOHP to their own article pages? Any reasons why not? Or any reasons why other organizations, societies etc from around the globe concerned with occupational health psychology should not also be included in this article for impartiality. Mrm7171 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I have no idea what you mean by imbalance. There is nothing imbalanced about clear and concise.

I commented on SOHP/EAOHP above in this section. I'll repeat with more emphasis DON'T REMOVE MENTION OF THE THREE MAJOR OHP SOCIETIES FROM THE OHP ARTICLE. These three are the main ones devoted specifically to OHP. Other societies focus primarily on other things, so there is no need to list them in this article. Mrm7171, impartiality doesn't mean you have to cite or list every possible thing that fits into a category/topic. If so, this article would be 1000 pages long. Impartiality means that if an issue is in dispute in the literature, one needs to fairly present all sides. For example, the wiki article on global warming has a section on controversies and explains the issues involved. It does so concisely, and does not go into great detail presenting every possible position. Psyc12 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

They are just 2 societies related to occupational health psychology and with their own article pages. The article is about occupational health psychology. Not 2 societies with their own article pages. Why are they more important than another organisation dealing with psychosocial factors at work? Just like the ICOH committee on psychosocial factors at work? Mrm7171 (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are other organizations and bodies around the globe devoted to psychosocial factors at work. Lots in fact. I don't see you point? My common sense solution is to simply leave all of them out including SOHP & EAOHP?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your solution doesn't make common sense to me. Which other societies do you mean that are devoted to OHP (although perhaps by a different name)? If they really are devoted to OHP, maybe they should be mentioned too. But I can have no opinion about them unless you tell us which societies you mean. Psyc12 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Another thought. If a reader of this article is really interested in learning more about the field, it does him/her a disservice not to mention the major societies where he/she might get more information. It adds very little to the article length, so I see no reason not to mention them. To me the question is not whether or not to delete mention of EAOHP/SOHP, but whether there are other societies we have overlooked. Psyc12 (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Any organization, or society or 'part' or 'division' or 'committee' of a larger organization or society (such as is in the case of the ICOH committee. ICOH-WOPS, there are 18 different committees) and from any country in the world, that is devoted to psychosocial factors. There would be a lot. How big is SOHP? And how do we define the main ones, as you said? The point of directing people to the site is irrelevant, unless we also direct readers to these other sites too, I guess. But where do you draw the line is the question? Psychosocial factors psyc12 are becoming so widespread an issue globally that there is an increasing number of organizations popping up all the time. I cannot see how you would consider SOHP as any more significant in the broad field of psychosocial factors at work? My point is we either need to include a lot more, or just maybe put the 2 societies in their own Misplaced Pages article pages where they belong? The article would be a lot cleaner, it could then just focus on occupational health psychology as it should?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies psyc12, there are actually 35 different committees within the larger ICOH organizational structure. The ICOH-WOPS committee on psychosocial factors and work organization are just one of the 35 different committees.Mrm7171 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

How many of these societies have as their central purpose the academic and professional development of OHP, and how many have developed OHP on a large scale? Societies that have demonstrably done so probably do need (brief) mention as part of the OHP article; their own publications and slight mention in relevant RS may establish their notability as part of the history of OHP.

Separately, how many of these societies are notable according to widespread mention in reliable sources? Indeed, how widely are these three societies mentioned in reliable sources? This does need sorting out. In particular, if they aren't widely mentioned in RS, they probably shouldn't have articles of their own. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RK that SOHP and EAOHP should have a brief mention, and they do have a brief mention. For details about those two societies, the reader can use the internal link to go to those societies' Misplaced Pages pages. In that way the OHP page is does carry unnecessary details such as the qualifications for membership, which rightfully belong on the SOHP and EAOHP pages.

A comment regarding ICOH-WOPS. APA has many divisions, for example, the Society for Clinical Psychology, Developmental Psychology, etc. ICOH has 35 scientific committees which are divided up something like divisions in APA. One of ICOH's scienfific committees, ICOH-WOPS, concerns OHP. There is a Misplaced Pages page devoted to ICOH. The page, however, needs more work because of the lack of description of each of the 35 scientific committees. A candidate to do that work could be someone who has had experience with ICOH (e.g., attended ICOH meetings, belongs to ICOH).Iss246 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RK, the three scientific/professional organizations, SOHP, EAOHP, and ICOH-WOPS are cited in published books including Campbell and Tetrick's (2012) Handbook of occupational health psychology, 2nd ed., American Psychological Association and Leka and Houdmont's (2011) Occupational health psychology, Blackwell.Iss246 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Iss246. These three were chosen because published sources noted them as being important, not because any of us thought these three were most important. So they should remain. Psyc12 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to see this. Reliable sources are the foundation of a good article. To answer the question of what societies etc we should mention, we need to establish that they are mentioned in reliable sources as relevant to the history of OHP. If they are thus established as relevant, we may reasonably refer to their own publications as elements of the history of OHP. Mrm7171, will this approach and Psyc12's references enable you to answer your question about which organizations to include in this article? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope and interests of various organizations

I am glad we are having this discussion and hope to maintain the civility here on these talk pages so we can get through some important issues relating to this article. Okay, so we are looking for other organizations or 'divisions' of larger organizations (as is the case with ICOH-WOPS)... 'as well as' professional societies like SOHP & EAOHP. There is a difference between the two. The ICOH scientific committee on psychosocial factors and work organization is obviously not a society. Its purpose is not to provide professional development of practitioners. Is this point agreed between editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

But is it established by RS as important in the history of OHP? Its title seems to allow the possibility. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Another brief point to clarify between editors please and so it is clear in the Misplaced Pages article. Occupational health psychology, is not the same as the 2 professional societies. ICOH's scientific committee on psychosocial factors is not aligned in any way with SOHP or EAOHP. ICOH's committee is concerned only with the broad area of 'psychosocial factors and work organization.' I have checked this point with the ICOH organization. We need to be careful in this article, which is solely about OHP, that readers don't perceive that there is any alignment between SOHP & EAOHP the societies and ICOH. There is not. That was my concern earlier with the current wording which gives that strong psychological impression. Are editors agreed on this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am genuinely not sure what you mean by this question. What is "alignment" between organizations, and why might it matter to this article? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, it is the Barling & Griffiths chapter that notes the three organizations as being important OHP societies, so including all three is based on a published source by highly respected scholars, rather than our own opinions about which societies to list here. Unless there is some reliable source that says ICOH-WOPS is NOT really an OHP society, I would leave it in. Psyc12 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree we need to be guided here by RS. I also have no doubt that these RS mention ICOH-WOPS in them. I am wondering about the wording anbd how we word this article when mentioning ICOH-WOPS. My point is that the remit of ICOH-WOPS is psychosocial factors and work organization. The current Misplaced Pages article states this: "Three professional organizations concern themselves with OHP:..." There are other organizations from around the world also "concern themselves with psychosocial factors at work." Also could someone please post a quote from a couple of these references? As I say ICOH reports on their site and their formal publications they are concerned with psychosocial factors and work organization only. Obviously then we are considering them one and the same?

I am therefore currently focusing on other organizations around the world, who are mentioned in RS, that are concerned with psychosocial factors at work (not necessarily any mention of OHP)Mrm7171 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not considering psychosocial and OHP as one and the same. Barling and Griffiths listed the three organizations so we are too. In order to consider them the same, we would need a reliable source that says so. Psyc12 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I was busy elsewhere for a couple of days, and I am just amazed at what's happened here during that short time.

We have a reliable source that names three societies as being important in OHP.

We have a Misplaced Pages editor who is, for no discernable reason, desperately trying to make only two of those 'count'.

This is not okay. Mrm7171, the only possible way to counter this assertion is for you to find a published reliable source that directly says that ICOH is not interested in or important to OHP. Notice that "ICOH does this other thing" is not good enough. You need one that directly negates the previous assertion, which requires words like "ICOH is not at all interested in OHP" or "ICOH is completely unimportant to OHP".

If you don't have that, then you need to stop badgering people about this. I am unable to fathom why anyone would consider it terribly important, to the point of posting thousands of words on this subject, whether there are two societies or three societies active in this area, but since you do, let me tell you how to address this: if you really want to get ICOH's name out of the list, then you personally (not Iss246, not Psyc12, not anybody else) must find a reliable source that directly says that ICOH doesn't care about OHP.

And if you personally cannot find any such source, or if you personally don't care enough to spend the hours to find that alleged source (hours that you are currently wasting by filling this page with enormous walls of text), then you need to give up on getting this part of the article changed. By "give up", I mean "learn WP:How to lose on Misplaced Pages" and never bring up this subject again (unless and until you have actually found a reliable source making the necessary claim).

Do you understand what I'm telling you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatamidoing, you need to calm down please, be civil Misplaced Pages:Civility. Don't blame me for 'walls of text' either, and watch your own tone with me please. I have asked you that before. You may be an experienced editor but you need to follow protocol here, like every single other editor on this great international resource called Misplaced Pages. Do you understand what I'm telling you, now? Now, in relation to ICOH-WOPS, let me be very clear on this topic of discussion. If it exactly says in a RS that ICOH-WOPS, is one of the "three professional organizations concern themselves with OHP" then that is it. Full stop. I will seek out the sources myself, for interest sake, thank you. End of discussion on that point! Let's move on, please. There is more work on this article needed.

This occupational health psychology article and the related psychology sidebar issue has a very long history. Way, way before I came on the scene in 2013. I am just the most recent in a long list of editors. So please don't try to convey a 'false' image of me, on this public talk page whatamidoing, just because I have stood firm on some of these much needed edits to this still quite biased Misplaced Pages article. In fact, iss246 has been involved in dispute with many other editors since 2008! There are records detailing iss246's conflict and debate with many other good faith editors, for 5 years Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1. See also User:Iss246/RfA review Recommend Phase, and a comment iss246 made in 2008, "I would like help in my request to have the occupational health psychology entry placed in the psychology sidebar. I am at loggerheads with Ward3001."

I did not wish to focus on editor behavior here, only content, as the records show. But given you have decided to focus on behavior not content, on these public talk pages, I will briefly state my reply and leave it at that. Firstly, records clearly show you are friends with iss246. You may be an experienced editor, and good contributor to Misplaced Pages, but it is clear that you are far from objective here. It has been almost impossible to get any neutrality or impartiality or objectivity to this article. It is like hiking mt Everest to get even the smallest changes or well sourced additions to this article, without you, psyc12 and iss246 working together as a tag team, to block every genuine attempt I have made. That's okay, I will remain civil. We need to move forward with editing, not discussing or focusing on editor behavior please. I suggest you do too, and drop the tone with me. I hope you understand what I am telling you now Whatamidoing? Last point, and then I wish to move on with this article in a civil, courteous manner. I found this section, Cooperation and civility, in Misplaced Pages:Civility to be really useful. May I suggest you read this section and stop focusing on me, personally, and instead focus on editing, so we can obtain a high quality article in this professional area of psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, what I understand from this is that, in response to my inquiry about whether you understood what I was telling you, the answer is "no".

You have already been told that the cited source names these three organizations as being important in the field of OHP. Why don't you accept the other editors' statement that this source does say this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please just move on and stop focusing on behavior rather than content. I've moved on. There is more work to be done on this biased artice, (in my opinion). Additions to article have just been made, so given your experience with editing and instead of focusing on behavior, maybe you could please explain that editors need to discuss RS changes made by another editor, as I have just done, rather than them blindly deleting them, as they have done in the past. Maybe you could explain to your friend this Misplaced Pages protocol, rather than spend any more time over details already discussed and accepted. This would prevent further conflict and unneed words on this talk page if editors are reminded that other editors have a right to add well sourced published additions and they don't have the right to just blindly delete without discussing first on this talk page. Thanks it would be appreciated and good for civility.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward, again please

I have found numerous published sources which identify other organizations, like SOHP, which are very related to occupational health psychology. A couple of them are found within a definitive text, called Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice 6th edition by Paul Spector. Within this definitive I/O psychology text, there is an 'entire section' handbook explaining occupational health psychology, as an I/O specialization. That is Paul Spector's opinion, as he clearly includes occupational health psychology as a specialization within I/O psychology. So that is the RS I am coming from. This text includes a couple of references to other organizations that are involved with occupational health psychology. I plan to include these types of organizations I have sourced from various RS like Spector's, to include in this article. I am working on these well sourced edits now. Moving forward on another important inclusion to this article, I also think we need to add a section on training in OHP. Comments only on 'content' please, so we can move forward with this article. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This book you is ISBN 9781118213964. Do you have a copy in front of you? Have you read the entire chapter on OHP? Or are you only able to see the table of contents in the very limited Google Books preview? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I just added a couple of additions to provide some balance, with other organizations and journals significantly involved with topics in occupational health psychology. There are many others, but this is a start. Reliable source is cited in article. Please discuss on this talk page. Need to just move on here with editing rather than being bogged down with small irrelevant details. 03:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Mrm7171 (talk)

I think that you have made a mistake. You cited a self-published, non-independent, primary source to claim that EAWOP is an OHP organization. According to this page on their website, they are interested in "W/O psychology". OHP isn't even mentioned there. Their mission statement is this:

The Association has the mission to support the development and application of Work and Organizational Psychology in Europe, as well as the stimulation of cooperation between scientists and practitioners working in Europe in the field of Work and Organizational Psychology and the performance of everything that is connected with the above or can be conducive to it.

There's nothing in there about OHP. I think we can reasonably conclude that this is not an OHP organization, even if the occasional OHP person is a member or the occasional conference session is about OHP. According to Google, the quoted phrase "Occupational health psychology" is mentioned just 16 times on the entire website. "Work and organizational psychology" gets more than six hundred ghits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatamidoing, you could have just placed a further 'citation needed' in that section like i just did for the completely unsourced statement currently in the OHP article, "Two important OHP journals are the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (JOHP) and Work & Stress (W & S). The former is associated with SOHP and the latter, with EA-OHP.". Just another clear example of bias and inviting an edit war and preventing me from adding anything to thgis current Misplaced Pages article as an independent editor. Why did you not delete the statement that is unsourced, if not biased? And you just also 'blindly' deleted my use of the EAWOP-work hub reference without any discussion. You just wrote this. "You cited a self-published, non-independent, primary source to claim that EAWOP is an OHP organization "

Okay, so self-published material is not allowed? What is the story with the 20 or so self-published PDF 'newsletter' references primary sources strewn throughout the reference section of this article? I will not undo your edits, and engage with you. OHP is an acronym by the way. The article we are talking about here is occupational health psychology. There is no trademark on the term. OHP simply refers to any area of study that is discussed in the opening parapgraph of the article. The fact is that subjects in occupational health psychology are mostly attached (ie.>75% of them) to postgraduate degrees in I/O psychology. Seeing you mentioned Paul Spector's book, here is a link to the university of south florida's 'I/O psychology program and a couple of other relevant links for your reading on how occupational health psychology is currently a specialization within industrial and organizational psychology. http://psychology.usf.edu/grad/io/oh/ http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/47856FA9-BA8D-4610-94C1-46D4DF46B05A/0/OccupationalHealthPsychology.pdf http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/

Perhaps you could have been a little more civil and courteous toward me given the exact same reasons you blindly deleted my additions, you neglected the same which are currently in the article. However as i said earlier, you are not by any means objective from this long discussion. You have been involved from the beginning when I joined the discussion in 2013. And as i said iss246 has been in conflict with many editors since 2008, long before I entered the scene.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

I note that you are a very experienced Misplaced Pages editor. You are involved as a Community liaison. That is admirable. However I do not believe that gives you the right to act in a bullying way, backing up iss246, at every stop, on changing 'anything' this currently biased article (in my opinion) and disallow me an opportunity to add any additions and acting like 'gatekeepers'. But I was hoping that we all could have come to a more civil outcome on this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim that you made simply was not present on the source you were citing. My first assumption was that I was looking at the wrong page, because the URL in your citation wasn't formatted quite correctly. But on further review of the website, I determined that the information you added was factually wrong. It's easy to make a mistake. When you know that it's actually an error, then the correct response is to remove the error. Allowing known errors to persist is not good for the article. No amount of tagging or waiting around is going to change the facts and make that particular mistake turn into a true statement. I removed it because it was demonstrably wrong, not because you made the change. If I had made the same mistake, then I hope that you would have removed my honest error, too. Checking up on each other to catch honest mistakes is how Misplaced Pages works.

If I were going to place tags on that error, they would have been {{failed verification}} and {{dubious}}, but I thought that would needlessly embarrass you without leading to any possible improvement, because the only possible way to improve particular problem that was to remove the erroneous claim. There was already a citation there, and {{citation needed}} tags are not normally added if any inline citation is present.

Self-published sources are permitted in limited circumstances. We avoid using self-published primary sources to contradict non-self-published secondary sources. However, the merits of the source are actually unimportant here, because the website does not actually say that EAWOP is an OHP org. If the source had actually said what you claimed, then I would have left it alone.

Once again, if you want to add a claim that says "____ organization is an OHP organization", then you may not support your claim with a website that repeatedly and directly says that ____ organization is an I/O or W/O organization.

Finally, you may also find it useful to review the difference between civility and friendliness. There is a significant difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatamidoing, I think you were reading the wrong website or the wrong section of the website. Your reasons for deleting my sourced inclusion, needs to be reviewed. Or at least given me the chance as I have done with other editors to put in the correct reference. It is obvious that either you or I got it wrong. But I think you went to the wrong section of the website. Also I think you are mistaking the use of OHP. OHP is actually the definition of occupational health psychology. Have you viewed the internet addresses i included? http://psychology.usf.edu/grad/io/oh/ http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/47856FA9-BA8D-4610-94C1-46D4DF46B05A/0/OccupationalHealthPsychology.pdf http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/ They are for the specialization in occupational health psychology 'within' the idustrial/organizational psychology degree. Just one example. OHP and occupational health psychology are just descriptors. Also I note you ignored the obvious citation needed here, without quickly deleting that completely unsourced couple of sentences? But as I say, you are in cohorts with iss246 and far from objective on this, otherwise you would delete this straight away as well. "Two important OHP journals are the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (JOHP) and Work & Stress (W & S). The former is associated with SOHP and the latter, with EA-OHP."?? Should this be deleted based on Misplaced Pages policy?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify your concern, are you saying that those are not important OHP journals? Or that they are not associated with the respective organisations? - Bilby (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying the claim they are important is unsourced, yet remain in article. Yet my journals added, similar to any other information I've attempted to add was quickly deleted. The journals I added contain many occupational health psychology related articles. They too deserve a place, as being important to occupational health psychology, which is simply the definition covering the topics in this first paragraph. And given that at least 75% of occupational health psychology subjects are attached as specializations within I/O psychology my inclusion was as valid as the 2 journals currently included.Here again are some websites for readers to view. It is not my opinion that OHP is a specialization within I/O psychology. It is people like Paul Spector's. http://psychology.usf.edu/grad/io/oh/ http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/47856FA9-BA8D-4610-94C1-46D4DF46B05A/0/OccupationalHealthPsychology.pdf http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/ Mrm7171 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have a source on hand for the claim that they are associated with the two organisations, but they are raised as important in Barling & Griffiths, p28, so I've added that as a reference. - Bilby (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. That's why i left them in without blindly deleting them. Civility. In my opinion at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Any criteria for other journals important to topics covered in the descriptor occupational health psychology. They surely don't need occupational health psychology in the journal title. That's not how journals work? Any comments whatamidoing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually a good idea may be to refer to what an expert may consider important international journals relating to topics covered in the definition of the descritor occupational health psychology. He lists these very well recognized journals as being important. This what he says on his public website. "Other I/O Journals that publish OHP Research" Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Readers can look at his site for themselves. It is http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/Mrm7171 (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Took the liberty of adding them to the article. I mean if Paul Spector says so, they must be. He runs the occupational health psychology specialization within the broad I/O Psychology graduate program. He should know. As iss246 has always told me, listen to the experts and Paul Spector is an expert!http://psychology.usf.edu/grad/io/oh/ http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/47856FA9-BA8D-4610-94C1-46D4DF46B05A/0/OccupationalHealthPsychology.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RS are indeed important. We also need editorial judgement, and we need editorial consensus on how many journals to mention in the article in general and in the lede in particular. I suggest that the two journals we now mention are those with a particularly strong claim as they focus on this specific area, and I suggest further that we would need an editorial consensus to include anything more. I have taken the liberty (prompted by edit conflict) of removing the additional journals, which as you say publish relevant work, but do not have a sole focus on this area. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RS now added RK. This is based on expert opinion of Paul Spector he runs one of the few OHP specializations in the world. He is in a world expert in I/O psychoilogy and OHP and is widely published internationally. There are 100s of journals. These 4 are very important and need mention in this article. They are much more recognizede than the other 2. They contain many articles relating to OHP topics. Paul Spectors opinion as an expert. RS now included. Discuss here first this is a solid entry!Mrm7171 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Justr looking at this again. My addition is well balanced within this article has a solid RS attached from a world expert in OHP and is from the Uni of Florida public website. If this was deleted now there would be no justification. This article needed in this section, and still needs in other sections some balanace. It reads like a promotional brochure fopr the 2 OHP societies. That is not acceptable under Misplaced Pages policy. This is Misplaced Pages, not a brochure site! Occupational health psychology is NOT just about the 2 OHP societies! The majority (ie>75%) of university training in the OHP domain is attached to I?O graduate programs. Fact. Discuss hyere please. This is a good solid addition to this biased (in my opinion) article. Discuss first before contemplating deletion. Geez.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Note to other concerned editors please. This article is obviously very controversial at present. It is critical that editors attempt to discuss changes to the body of the article and any deletions with other long involved independent editors. This article may need to be opened for review by Misplaced Pages. I am obviously included in this request, meaninjg I certainly don't plan to add or delete anything further from the body of this article as it currently stands. Please discuss RK and others your thoughts on this. As I say this article may very well be needed to be reviewed by Misplaced Pages.l It is a controversial topic. OHP is not accepted by the mainstream international psychology profession. The use of the terms psychology and psychologist throughout this article may need to be reviewed also, given they are 'protected/regulated' in many OECD countries. If this was an article discussing Medical Specialzations it would be of the same importance. Please discuss here on this talk page. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a 2013 independent link discussing the journal work and stress. http://www.psypress.com/journals/details/0267-8373/. Journals do not need to have the title occupational health psychology in them as work and stress does not also. That is obviously, as others would be aware, not how international journals operate. You will note on this website link that it states: "Work & Stress is an international, multidisciplinary quarterly presenting peer-reviewed papers concerned with the psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational and environmental health, and stress and safety management. It is published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The journal publishes empirical reports, scholarly reviews, case notes, research notes and theoretical papers. It is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all concerned with the interplay of work, health and organisations." It does not state this journal only contains OHP research! This journal was also only purchased by the EAOHP in the year 2000? (I think). For at least the first decade of its existence it was not affiliated in any way with the 'OHP' society. It is used heavily in publications, mostly written by members of the 2 OHP societies as a tool for their societies promotion. That is a factual statement. One would only need to look at the references which all include references to SOHP & EAOHP, and their authors, included throughout this Misplaced Pages article used as multiple RS's on that point. However again, the point needed to be remembered in this occupational health psychology article, is that it is not the SOHP article or EAOHP article. Nor is it the shortened acronym 'OHP' article, it is the occupational health psychology and occupational health psychologist article.

Rather than repeat my comments immediately above, I will wait for other editors to comment on this diff. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, as someone outside of OHP, I don't see a lot of value in listing journals that have been known to publish the occasional OHP-related paper, any more than I'd expect to see a list of such journals in the article my own field. Major dedicated journals which are important to the field make sense, but less significant journals, or non-dedicated journals, would need good evidence to show their significance to the field. Simply being listed as good journals which publish OHP papers may not be enough.

However, if we do include non-dedicated journals, I don't feel that they should be in the lead. That may be the sort of thing worth a mention in the body, but not the core summary of the article. - Bilby (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby. The New England Journal of Medicine publishes articles about cancer, but it's not a journal about cancer. If you're going to list any academic journals, the list should only include the most influential ones dedicated to the specific field, not any journal that publishes an article about this subject on occasion.

The current junk about who owns the trademarks, though, is inappropriately unencyclopedic and needs to be removed. The promotional stuff about getting the journal for free if you're a member is also inappropriate and needs to be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, you say that you are independent from any member of the 2 'OHP' societies, yet you have a very specific text available. You are also an academic on your user page. I guess I need to give you the benefit of the doubt that an academic colleague or friend of yours is not involved with the 'OHP movement in some way, even if you are not. You are very interested in this topic, if you are completely unrelated to the field we are discussing? I am concerned that any member of OHP society is operating from 'one voice' here on this 'OHP' society promotion article it seems. I didn't care about your edit, why do you care so much about this I am wondering?~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, let's talk about that, Mrm7171. You personally have edited this talk page 341 (three hundred forty-one) times so far—much more than any other editor, ever. Bilby has edited this talk page 12 (twelve) times. Just why are you so interested in this subject, Mrm7171? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Losing the battle to hide the reality?

The vast majority (ie>75%) of occupational health psychology, as an applied university subject, is attached to current I/O psychology graduate programs. Personal opinions aside, in numerous published, reliable sources it clearly states that occupational health psychology is a specialization within industrial/organizational/work/occupational psychology, which is all one and same profession and discipline around the globe. The occupational health psychology article on the fantastic Misplaced Pages url needs to read less like a brochure site for the 2 'OHP' societies and more like the serious specialization it actually is. Not my opinion. Fact based on multiple reliable sources. Including other reliable sources that reflect these points is critical for this article to be more well rounded, neutral, reflective of opinion within the larger international psychology community and among psychologists around the world. The topics covered under the occupational health psychology descriptor are very important topics. They mainly relate to the epidemic of occupational stress and overlap significantly with psych hazard identification and both physical and psychological health. These areas of study, and the broader field of occupational health psychology are NOT the property of the 2 'OHP' societies. However much they would like the public and various well meaning government departments and safety and health organizations to think they are., A growing number of I/O psychology graduate programs, around the world, are now integrating occupational health into their formal degrees. And rightly so. And there are literally hundreds of excellent I/O, Work, Occupational and Organizational Psychology programs around the world interested in these occupational health topics, much to the ire of certain OHP society members who are losing the battle to hide the reality of all of what I am saying. This may explain the ferocity I and other editors have been exposed to from iss246 since 2008. I only entered this discussion in 2013. However I do know what I am talking about, but obviously none of us on Misplaced Pages can prove that. All editors are equal. There are no experts on Misplaced Pages. So all of this is based on reliable published sources outside of Misplaced Pages, and I should say, also reliable sources that are mostly NOT written by current members of the 2 'OHP' societies, however accomplished they are as scholars.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I have the Spector textbook in front of me. There is a chapter "Occupational Health Psychology". It defines OHP as "This emerging subfield of psychology (and other disciplines such as medicine and public health) is concerned with psychological factors that contribute to occupational health and well-being." (p. 270) I don't see where he is saying OHP is just part of I/O. As for the OHP societies, he notes on p. 8 that there are several socieities that I/O psychologists belong to. SOHP he says is an organization "relevant to I/O psychology" He is hardly saying it is an I/O organization. He also lists Academy of Management as an association where most members are NOT psychologists. Psyc12 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, your reasoning is false. The mere fact that a subfield emerged from another field does not mean that they are the same, or that the subfield is really part of the original any longer. I doubt that you would say that a diabetes specialist, a heart specialist, an HIV specialist, and a cancer specialist are really all part of the same specialty—even though all four originally emerged from the same broad field.

The same is true here: OHP is emerging as its own subfield. It is no longer appropriate to treat it as being identical to I/O or to cite sources that directly say "I/O" and act like the sources were talking about OHP instead. It doesn't matter what the university programs are called. The diploma is not the definition of the subfield. Cardiologists get exactly the same diplomas as oncologists, endocrinologists and HIV specialists, but that doesn't mean that cardiologists don't exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense in so many ways whatamidoing? I'm sorry, but your logic is simply wrong. That is not how medical specialties work either. Regardless, medicine and psychology are also very different professions as far as specializations. An 'occupational health psychology practitioner' is not necessarily a psychologist either. An 'OHP practitioner' could be a Nurse or an Economist or an Engineer, with not one single day of formal training in psychology? Mrm7171 (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that all of the medical specialties I named originally emerged from the field of internal medicine, just like OHP is emerging from another field, I think my logic is exactly right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward, again please (2)

Okay bilby, I'm fine with your edit, of my edit, taking the word "important" out of the sentence. No problem. I think my edit today, simply mentioning a few other major international journals, is a good, neutral and much needed inclusion. Even though I am sure they are 'important.' It is just not worth discussing further. Everyone has now looked at this well sourced change and Bilby at least, has gone to the original source I cited, and apart from omitting the word important has not changed it any further. I am concerned, I guess that there are at least 2 editors, both friends, both members of SOHP, who are acting as one voice here on this article page. These are psyc12 and iss246. They have both admitted all of this. I am wondering why Bilby also has access to very specialized references on OHP that he could draw on immediately. I also wonder why Bilby would oppose using the word important or indeed including this added sentence at all. But as I say, I am willing to move forward. I think there is more on this article which in bulk was written by iss246 in 2008. What is happening here is going through this public Misplaced Pages article with a fine tooth comb and just bringing in some neutrality, objectivity and impartiality. It shouldn't be so hard to do. But iss246 and any supporters he has managed to recruit toward his cause are digging in every step of the way and attacking me. Much more experienced Wikipedians than I am. I have to say. But I am slowly learning and will stand firm on these issues. However long it takes.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Given how many times you have demanded that other people comment on the content instead of on contributors, I believe that you need to go back through this page and strikeout the several dozen comments you have made recently about other contributors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to journals listed

I am on the Spector webpage that lists the journals. He breaks them into four categories (I'll quote from the source): "Occupational Health & Safety, Occupational Health Psychology, Ergonomics, and Other I/O Journals that Publish OHP Research". He lists only JOHP and Work & Stress as OHP journals. The others are "excellent sources for research on employee safety & health, accident prevention, and OHP". As another editor noted Barling & Griffiths also noted that JOHP & Work and Stress are the two OHP journals p 30, 2 paragraphs from bottom. If the goal is to be concise, then I would just list journals that are specifically OHP. This website and/or other sources could be cited so the interested reader could find these other outlets without cluttering this article. Psyc12 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, Spector has listed these on his 'OHP' journal links page. The journals now listed are exactly as they read in the article, ie. 'other' related journals. Why does it matter? This public Misplaced Pages article is not a brochure site for OHP. What is the issue. It brings some impartiality. Why not just accept this addition and move on.

I have another point to add here as this article has slowly unraveled. Every major reference in 'OHP' that has been wriiten and included as a reference here on this article and you keep bringing up is written by a full member of either SOHP or EAOHP. Without fail. You are a member of SOHP. Iss246 is a member of OHP. Barling is a fellow of EAOHP. I am not sure how Misplaced Pages views their encyclopedia to be used for a promotional tool and this constant use of the same references all from members of one of the 2 OHP societies is not currently representative of the wide variation of published material out there?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. The major figures in a field will almost certainly be members of the major societies of that field, but so what? I don't know why being a member would make Barling's (or others') scholarship suspect, or how that makes his work a promotional tool for these societies. He has no financial or other conflict of interest with these societies that would make us question his scholarship. Psyc12 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to avoid creating another wall of text, so I will keep this brief. After writing a sentence about JOHP and W & S in what was once 4th paragraph, I had originally indicated in the Misplaced Pages article other journals that OHP'rs consult and publish in. This was a paragraph devoted to serials. My purpose was to show some of the cross-disciplinary concerns of OHP'rs. RK suggested that the list of journals that OHP'rs consult be trimmed. I acquiesced. Now it looks returning almost to where the Misplaced Pages article was a week or so ago.

Although I liked the original 4th paragraph, for the sake of "moving on" I think we should follow the lead of the Paul Spector web site. He is a highly respected OHP researcher. Let's leave JOHP and W & S. And that is the extent of the journals to be listed. Can we have some consensus?Iss246 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to avoid the creation of a wall of text too iss246. The difference now is that instead of literally 10 lines with no RS included now there is one concise sentence with a very solid expert RS? This is why there has been a wall of text created because a silly point like this has been opposed at every step on the hike! It would be nice if we can just get somewhere here.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12 you mention a goal of being concise. I am sorry, but this article, in some other other parts at least, is anything but concise. It cites 15 self-published newslette PDF from the yes, 'OHP' society as RS's. Which in of itself is not against Misplaced Pages rules, I have been told, but again, is completely consistent with my belief that this occupational health psychology article, reads like a brochure site for the 2 'OHP' societies. Again, 'OHP' is not occupational health psychology. Now it is becoming clearer as top why you were so oppositional to me discussing what the heck an 'OHP' practitioner is and just getting some definition of that. Most other articles define the training of the professional or at least are not vehemently opposed to the suggestion to do so? Also I refer back to earlier point.

On this independent website http://www.psypress.com/journals/details/0267-8373/. Journals do not need to have the title occupational health psychology in them as work and stress does not also. That is obviously, as others would be aware, not how international journals operate. You will note on this website link that it states: "Work & Stress is an international, multidisciplinary quarterly presenting peer-reviewed papers concerned with the psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational and environmental health, and stress and safety management. iss246 has included work and stress in the occupational health psychology article. It includes a broad range of articles, just as these other articles do? Why don't you just go with this psyc12, if my theory that your society is using Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes is not correct. Why not list some other important journals. It is one single sentence?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, rather than just using Spector as a reference, would that link or a similar one make a good external link for the article? While I'm not convinced that we need to list non-dedicated journals that publish OHP articles, it might be valuable to link to a respected page that lists recommended journals. - Bilby (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There are only two OHP journals, and that is why they are listed here, not because anyone is trying to promote these two societies. The source you provided clearly shows that. The goal with Wiki is to be concise. RK suggested leaving out the long list of other journals, and I agree. The compromise is to provide a link to the longer list. Above Iss246 agrees too, even though it was his/her list that RK deleted. Psyc12 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea Bilby. There can just be a link to an external list so the article doesn't have to be cluttered. That way the reader has easy access to the information without having to wade through a long list. Psyc12 (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Bilby and Psyc12.Iss246 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is one line. There is no clutter. You would need a reliable source for each of the journals. The way it is now is fine. As I said in detail, >75% of subjects in occupational health psychology are attached to I/O psychology. They are specializations within I/O psychology. Therefore I/O psychology deserves a part in this Misplaced Pages article. As mentioned in the link above these areas: psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational and environmental health, and stress and safety management are very much the domain of Work and Organizational psychology, particularly in Europe. All of these areas of Org Psych are not under the control of the 2 OHP societies although that is precisely what you as members of the OHP society are trying to do here and use Misplaced Pages as a promotional tool, and propaganda techniques to do so. This is why it angers you as members of the 2 OHP societies that more and more unis around the globe are integrating subjects in occupational health and work stress into their org psych masters and doctoral programs. More and more Org psychs are offering services to organisational clients in these areas too. But back to this article, it is occ health psych not the SOHP or EAOHP article. You just all desperately want to keep a single line away from it because it includes Spector's reference and Paul Spector himself. That is why you are so desperate to avoid any inclusion here of one single line and clinging to the 'nonsense argument' that it clutters this article. Nonsense. If you were genuine here and being impartial and representative as I am as an independent editor you would have just let this one. single. line. be included! You also would not insist desperately to inclue only the 2 'OHP' journals in this article. Very consistent with how the 2 societies are trying to use Misplaced Pages as a propaganda tool. Many others have tried to do that Misplaced Pages and have been caught out.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree: that website is far better suited for the ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's changes with website as external link looks good to me. Psyc12 (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's change to an external link was a good change.Iss246 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I thank WhatamIdoing for all her recent edits. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Reason why walls of text have been created on this article & psychology sidebar article since 2008

We could have moved on quickly if you were genuine here. Instead this is precisely why 'walls of text' have been created. I have gone with flow quickly and easily when Richardkeatinge entered his paragraph. But again, you as members of 'OHP' and 'OHPs' now very public agenda opposed a ridiculously minor change. Just as this again creating a wall of text. It was also walls of text in the archives since 2008 when iss246 battled it out with many other editors. Walls of text were created then too and I was not involved but iss246 has been there from the beginning! Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 Simple.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I will keep my response brief. I am also a member of the American Psychological Association. Does that disqualify me when I contribute to another psychology-related topic or to an APA-related topic? Apparently, as Mrm7171 would have it, I must be disqualified from contributing to SOHP- or OHP-related entries. This claim that someone can't make edits on Misplaced Pages because he or she is a member of a learned society that is concerned with the subject matter amounts to a highly selective minor league McCarthyism. Very minor league. I would call it tee-ball McCarthyism.

On the other side of the coin, are the only editors we are going to have on Misplaced Pages people who are unfamiliar with a topic? Should members of the American Mathematical Society not be allowed to make edits on math- or AMS-related sites. Or are physicians who are members of the American Medical Association not be allowed to contribute to medicine- or AMA-related topics? Mrm7171's case does not make sense? And who is going to police this tee-ball McCarthyism? The whole idea is nonsense.Iss246 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that health specialists are too involved or too biased to contribute information about their field is silly. Being a subject-matter expert is never a bar to contributing to Misplaced Pages. It is explicitly called out as acceptable behavior in the WP:COI guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wahatamidoing, I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. But never mind. Members of SOHP would understand, I'm sure.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OHP Journal Discussion ONLY!!!!

Based on the earlier discussion, I changed the sentence that listed the non-OHP journals to just say OHP-related research can be found in many other journals, and I left the cite to Spector's website as a resource for anyone wanting to see what those are. Bilby I don't know if this was the format you were suggesting. Psyc12 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's still a bit too much for a lede that's already overlong, but if it allows us to achieve consensus, let's accept it. Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RK, I can live this change too.Iss246 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It was one single line.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Training of Occupational Health Psychologists section

I think it is important to introduce a training section into this article, given the fact that the vast majority (>75%) of any subjects in occupational health psychology are attached to graduate programs in I/O psychology. Also more and more of the hundreds of I/O psychology masters and doctoral programs around the world, are introducing subjects in occupational health and wellbeing, occupational safety and occupational stress etc. This trend within I/O psychology is completely separate and unrelated to EAOHP or SOHP. Mrm7171 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I once created a section on graduate training but another editor (or other editors) removed that section. I don't remember why; however, I think in the end it was okay to do so. Perhaps it was because other psychology entries did not cover graduate training. This morning, I briefly looked two other psychology sites, abnormal and cognitive, to observe whether they mention training. They did not.Iss246 (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now we are talking about something substantial rather than creating walls of text over abstract topics and one line entries. We have an opportunity to start afresh and construct a very informative section in this article for readers to identify how an occupational health psychologist and how other occupational health psychology practitioners are fully trained in the occupational health psychology discipline. We do not need to outline OHP researchers. We have covered that. We are talking here about the training for actual 'practitioners.' Those that are out there conducting fee based consulting work as professional psychologists in organizations and all that goes with that. This is very different than academic research.

iss246 you just mentioned abnormal and cognitive psychology? Neither are areas of applied psychology. You don't train to become an abnormal psychologist. We have three very good Misplaced Pages article models to work from, and it makes sense to follow their lead. These articles are health psychology industrial and organizational psychology and educational psychology. Each are solid, regulated (in many ways and by multiple regulators) professions within psychology. It is going to take editors to forget the past and work on this project collaboratively. If what everyone has been telling me is true, and if occupational health psychology is truly an independent field, now standing on its own two feet, the 'mark' of that is how this new discipline (now 23 years old), trains its independent 'practitioners', both professional psychologists and others, ready for action in the real world. There is a lot to it, as any professional, experienced I/O psychologist, for instance who consults for a living would tell you.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I only mentioned those two fields because they were the first two I saw. I had little time today.Iss246 (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither the Industrial and organizational psychology section on training nor the Educational psychology's section are viable as models, although of the two the educational psychology version is the better. Health psychology seems to be the most viable out of the three if consensus is that that training section is warranted here. - Bilby (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look at these again Bilby. I agree with the Health Psychology, there has obviously been a lot of editorial work done there, it is relevant to OHP and we could follow their headings almost to the letter. Maybe also integrating some of the more applicable aspects of the educational psychology article also? Other editors thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As Iss246 noted, the OHP article used to have a section on training that looked a lot like the one in health psychology, with links to schools that offered training. It was deleted by editors who felt it had no place--if I recall, it was too much like marketing for these various schools and/or the profession. I'll be curious to see other opinions, especially by more wiki-savvy editors than me. Psyc12 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A brief comment. The last section, now removed, was just the OHP course list, around for about 15 years as far as I can see. These other Misplaced Pages articles discuss a full range of topics under separate headings, consistent with the solid professions they are. What I have proposed is something similar, maybe a hybrid approach using all 3 models, mainly the health and educational psych articles as Bilby suggested, detailing core competencies, training etc., not just "the OHP list." It is a challenge but I think moving away from the tired model of listing the various universities offering 'some' type of training in 'OHP' with nothing more of value to readers would be worthwhile in this article? Mrm7171 (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The section in health psychology does not seem to me like a good model, with a huge list of schools and so on. The relevant bits might be the history (as presented in secondary sources) of what the requirements are to be an OHP, and who does the licensing. (To my limited understanding there are no such formal requirements in this specific field, and no formal licensing, nor would these be required in order to establish OHP as a separate academic discipline.) Just in case anyone was thinking of a long disquisition mostly from primary sources designed to show that most OHP training is done as part of i/o courses, it would save a lot of time to abandon the idea now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the only part of Health psychology that I thought could be useful was the section "Training in Health Psychology" - the rest, especially the long list of institutions, wouldn't be of any value. Otherwise I generally agree with Richard Keatinge's comments regarding possible content. - Bilby (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

RK, you are correct about formal requirements. Currently OHP training at the PhD level is done as a specialization within another kind of psychology program, some I/O and some other types of psychology. At the MA level there are very few programs (EAOHP lists 2 or 3). Is it worth a section to say this? Psyc12 (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It would seem very reasonable to me, if a suitable secondary source could be produced. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To the extent that the purpose here is to highlight Mrm7171's ongoing theme that OHP is practically the same thing as I/O, I oppose this idea. Until we have a published reliable source that claims that it's important that most current OHP people have diplomas from I/O, then I don't want to see anything about that anywhere in the article, and I don't support the creation of a section on training that will get abused as a WP:COATRACK for the personal POV of one editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In thinking more about it, I'm not sure that this section belongs here because there are no widely accepted standards, so what would we say other than OHPers need training in OHP? The listing of universities that offer the training isn't appropriate, so what else would there be to say? The article on Psychologist already talks about training, and this article links there. Psyc12 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing and Psyc12. I do not want to include a section that is constructed for the purpose advancing the theme that OHP is a province of i/o psychology, and nothing more than that.Iss246 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it was a genuine, good faith proposal to identify what is the formal training of 'OHP' practitioners, as other articles have done, rather than create walls of text over one line entries and abstract topics of discussion.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Many Misplaced Pages contributors including myself object to the creation of walls of text. I find something more objectionable in the present context. I would object more if you were to continue to advance the theme that OHP is a province of i/o psychology. Iss246 (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, topics covered in the lede of this article, such as work stress and other psychosocial factors and occupational health and wellbeing, are very much the province of work psychology and occupational psychology, particularly in Europe. So, yes I am saying these areas of research and practice are domains of Work Psychology. Absolutely. I think that needs to be included in this article. It is in thousands of published sources. Again, nothing to do with my opinion. My other point is that to be an 'OHP practitioner' whatever the heck that is, or a member of the SOHP, you 'could' be a Nurse, Sociologist, Economist, Industrial Engineer, whatever, without one, single day of formal psychology training. That is why I proposed a training section and still do for the sake of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So, no, 'OHP' & 'SOHP' are not provinces of the international Work Psychology profession, the areas of research and practice covered in this article are. Psychology is psychology. A psychologist is a psychologist. Why would you think that a Nurse (who calls him or herself an 'OHP practitioner'? is the same as a fully trained Work or Occupational Psychologist, which is also a 'protected title' in the UK? I don't see your point?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the few courses that do exist, and are 'organized through the 2 'OHP' societies' are basically the same as they were 15 years ago and some have even disappeared. Whereas subjects in occupational health, wellbeing and safety are booming in graduate work psychology programs around the world and these areas are becoming the preferred specializations of more and more work psychologists right around the globe. So, again, I don't see your point or your objection?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

MRM7171. You are completely wrong that the training in OHP at universities is organized through the OHP societies, and the training has remained the same over time. I challenge you to provide more than your own opinion and provide reliable sources that show how SOHP and EAOHP have organized training, and how the training has remained the same. Don't just claim you have all these sources. Provide the sources. Psyc12 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter even if the claim were true. Medical school curriculum is "organized by" medical associations. Law school curriculum is "organized by" bar associations (with significant consequences: in some places, if you don't attend a law school that is approved by the bar association, then you are not permitted to become a lawyer). The interest of professional societies in the training of future colleagues doesn't really change the nature or identity of the profession. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Work stress is the domain of Organizational Psychology

An important point is that the international psychology community (run by governments, psychology boards and major universities in every country), recognizes the broad category of work stress to be the domain of Organizational Psychology. Always was. They still do. That is not my opinion. It is a fact within the international psychology community. Work stress was studied by Organizational psychologists and Organizational psychology researchers, well before the 2 'OHP' societies, (which are NOT part of mainstream international psychology) were ever invented.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

For all I know you may be right. This sort of domain is not exclusive, of course. To put it another way, if you want to imply that OHP doesn't really exist as an academic domain you will need to produce RS saying exactly that. Pointing out that other flavors of psychology also have an interest in the subject area of OHP is not a discourse suitable for an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that is the point Richardkeatinge. The topics of work stress and work organization can, and are, studied by other professions. This article is also not the SOHP or EAOHP articles, nor are occupational health psychology topics in this Misplaced Pages article, (eg work stress), the domain of OHP society members (some with no formal psychology training at all), especially given they admit they are operating outside of mainstream psychology. However given this is the occupational health psychology article, and these 2 societies also uses the word psychology and psychologist it is very important that Misplaced Pages is not used as a propaganda tool to push the agenda of a couple of 'OHP' societies.

If this article did not use these 'protected/regulated' words in many OECD countries, and it was occupational health 'behavior' instead, like organizational behavior or (OB), I wouldn't be typing these words right now. But given we are talking about psychology, just like medicine that within the international psychology profession and community, these topics are, without any doubt, the domain of work psychology and work psychologists, not the 2 'OHP' societies. Both psyc12 and iss246 obviously know this as well. Unfortunately I have been prevented from making the necessary (reliable source) changes needed to this biased article.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I am returning this to where I originally put my response to Mrm7171's statement above about what I know well (someone moved it). I know no such thing. The topic of work stress is not just the domain of I/O-work psychology, and within I/O is has been an unimportant topic. That is not just my opinion. In the 500+ page Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2007) edited by Laura Koppes, I could find (index) just one mention of stress in John Campbell's closing chapter. There is a chapter by Peter Warr that discusses the development of I/O in the UK, but I don't see a specific mention of stress. He talks about some strains (boredom, fatigue), but largely in the context of things that impede performance and lead to labor unrest. Zickar and Gibby's chapter talks about 4 themes of the I/O field, but they concern productivity and efficiency, not health or well-being. That is why the OHP field developed--because the I/O field was not very interested. On the other hand, in their "Stress a Brief History" (2004) Cooper and Dewe credit the origins of the study of work stress to social psychologists (Institute for Social Research at University of Michigan), and they link it to OHP, not I/O, They write "The history of stress is also a history of occupational health psychology", p. 107.

Mrm7171. From what I have seen, all you have been prevented from doing is making changes that are inaccurate (e.g., claiming a source said something it did not), or multiple editors concluded was appropriate or necessary. Psyc12 (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of 'off topic' discussion and personal attacks on me. Don't try and censor that. Misplaced Pages is being used for the 2 'OHP' societies propoganda. Don't censor just my text here on the article talk page! As I said, I have been prevented from placing any RS additions to this biased article. That is my final point, but anyone in the international psychology community outside of these 2 societies would completely concur. Mrm7171 (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a change that you are proposing here? The article doesn't seem to make any claims about the exclusivity of work stress and OHP, so I don't see what the change is that you are after. - Bilby (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, there is a strong consensus that your ideas on this subject are not useful to an encyclopedia. At least five editors have told you so repeatedly, and only two of them seem to have any connection with the OHP societies. Misplaced Pages is not the place to develop such ideas. Not even on talk pages. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page management

It seems that the volume of text here has become unmanageable, with a large part of the problem being off-topic discussion related to criticism of the field without having associated suggestions for the article, along with outright personal attacks. To try to keep things manageable I think it best if we collapse off-topic discussions and try to keep things focused directly on actionable suggestions for article content. - Bilby (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. How about from now on we create new topic sections that are limited only to the content of the article and the topic at hand. If someone wants to post something else, they should put it somewhere else. And we should limit the length of comments. Usually a few lines is sufficient. Psyc12 (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If I produce quality, multiple RS's citing occupational stress was always the domain of organizational psych, for decades, that is on topic. Not having a basic section in this article outlining the training and accreditation, as I suggested in good faith, or even mentioning other major international journals, that also publish for decades related articles to the exclusion of including 2 "OHP' societies and then NOT even allowing me to place a brief, high quality RS or two or three, describing what exactly an 'OHP' practitioner is? is not consistent with Misplaced Pages core principles. I just want make this a better article for Misplaced Pages and consistent with how they want 'their' encyclopedia articles to be.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how the connection between I/O and occupational stress has much to do with a section on training, so it is off-topic, as are personal attacks on the integrity of other editors in claiming their goal is to somehow subvert Misplaced Pages. The discussion of whether or not to include a section on training was on-topic, but we discussed that in great detail over the past week, and all but Mrm7171 concluded it was not needed. So we need to move on to other issues in the article. Psyc12 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I was originally supportive of including materials on training. I created such a section, and elaborated it over time. Then another Misplaced Pages editor deleted the section--I'm being telegraphic in describing the events but I want to be brief. I lived with the deletion. Now Mrm7171 would like to include a section on training, but with a twist. The twist is that he would like to create a training section that marginalizes OHP (he claims it is subdomain of i/o psychology), which is consistent with much of his writing on this page and some of his edits of Misplaced Pages pages. As a result, I disfavor including a section on training because given the backdrop it will amount to an unwarranted attack on OHP. Iss246 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

On topic, the importance of a training section is that an OHP practitioner is not defined, yet used in many publications. Tom Cox, Organizational psychologist, creator in 1987 of the journal Work & Stress and the EA-OHP, says this. "Many who are obviously working in occupational health psychology are not psychologists by training or qualification. This is an important observation especially for countries such as the UK where the title of psychologist is now registered in law. Much of the interest of non psychologists is focused on the management of psychological, social and organisational issues in occupational health and in safety. It may be sensible to recognise this welcome extension of our discipline by using and working under a new broader title: Occupational Health: Psychology & Management. This title is now used in this blog as is deemed appropriate." see http://proftcox.com/.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is important that this article includes the RSs, such as this one, talking about the real issues of what the heck and 'OHP practitioner' actually is? Especially true as Tom Cox who invented the Work & Stress Journal and EA-OHP, mentions the issue of protected titles and this article and many published sources using these restricted terms and titles in many OECD countries. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of viewMrm7171 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a bias against Organizational Psychology and Organizational Psychologists in this article. Tom Cox, the founder of the EAOHP and founder of the journal Work & stress prefers to say this in his opening sentence. ......"I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." Reliable source.http://proftcox.com/ W

Why are iss246 and psyc12 so biased against Organizational psychology and Organizational Psychologists? That is the question. I just want to make this a good article for Misplaced Pages based on how they want their articles to be.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue of regulated titles and use of the term psychologist being protected by many OECD governments, as even Tom Cox comments on above, are issues that need to be addressed in this international Misplaced Pages article. I apologize to any other editors, however preventing this article from accurately representing what is going on in published reliable sources outside of Misplaced Pages, and outside of the 'OHP' society publications, is not consistent with wikipedia principles.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask if anyone, apart from Mrm7171, feels that this article should discuss the "issue of regulated titles and use of the term psychologist"? If you do think so, please feel free to supply multiple RS describing this particular issue in this specific context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171's discussion of regulated titles adds excess to the OHP encyclopedia entry. It detracts reader attention from the content of OHP. The regulation of titles is best discussed in entry on psychologists, an entry in which the discussion of the regulation of the term psychologist has already been developed.Iss246 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that this article should include content about legal regulations that are not specific to OHP. If there were laws saying that you may not call yourself an occupational health psychologist, then I'd feel differently, but the "you may not call yourself a psychologist if you aren't one" belongs in the article about Psychologists in general, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To summarize the discussion of term psychologist. In the U.S. the term psychologist is regulated by the states. In many states, including New York and New Jersey, there is "generic licensing." That means a person with a doctorate in any branch of psychology can apply for a license (there are exam and internship requirements). The license enables the individual to call himself or herself a psychologist. The upshot is that someone the background can, in the U.S., call himself or herself a psychologist, an occupational health psychologist, industrial/organizational psychologist, etc. I think that information is best placed in the psychologist entry because it applies to U.S. psychologists. I am not versed in how the term is used elsewhere but country-by-country licensing requirements can be accommodated in the psychologist entry. Such information belongs on the psychologist page and not on the OHP page.Iss246 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything iss246. And I am presenting what Tom Cox even says, in this reliable source presented above. Again, not my opinion. If this was Medicine and an article on Misplaced Pages was presenting a group like SOHP, using the term medicine or 'medical practitioners' similar to 'Occupational Health Psychology Practitioners,' many without a day of formal training in psychology, as Tom Cox clearly states, I do not believe it would be acceptable to Medical Doctors or the international Medical community. http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/

I am just asking what the heck is an 'Occupational Health Psychology Practitioners' minimum training. The job title 'Occupational health psychology practitioner' is strewn throughout the 'OHP' society's own literature. Tom Cox has confirmed that there is no minimum training and because of this and the laws now in place in the UK and many other OECD countries, he suggests to other OHP society members that the name needs to be changed. This RS and a brief point about what a "occupational health psychology practitioner's training are being hidden by iss246 and psyc12. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view Mrm7171 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, Mrm7171. You deleted the content from your talk page.Iss246 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No iss246, I am not talking about Psychologist I am talking about 'Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner.' Again, I quote the founder of EAOHP. Tom Cox says this. "Many who are obviously working in occupational health psychology are not psychologists by training or qualification. This is an important observation especially for countries such as the UK where the title of psychologist is now registered in law. Much of the interest of non psychologists is focused on the management of psychological, social and organisational issues in occupational health and in safety. It may be sensible to recognise this welcome extension of our discipline by using and working under a new broader title: Occupational Health: Psychology & Management.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

RK. I don't think we need a discussion of training, titles, who is a practitioner, etc. in this article. I don't see where Tom Cox's comment has much to do with this article. He is not saying anything about requirements to be an OH psychologist or practitioner. He is only saying that some of the things OH psychologists do are also done by people in other fields.

Can we just move on to more important matters. Psyc12 (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

RK. For a moment we can change out of the subject of OHP, and take up a different topic. Let's take research on suicide. The topic has been researched by psychiatrists, epidemiologists, psychologists, and sociologists. Researchers from different backgrounds bring different views of the subject but also conduct research that overlaps, at least somewhat. That kind overlap in science is common enough that we should not get too enmeshed in a discussion that people with different training sometimes conduct similar research, which is the case in OHP research. Similarly practitioners with different backgrounds have different views but also engage in practices that sometimes overlap, for example, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. Many psychiatrists, although they have prescription privileges, engage in psychotherapy like clinical psychologists. Many clinical psychologists have gained prescription privileges, which psychiatrists have long had. Both psychiatrists and psychologists have conducted psychoanalysis. That there is overlap in what some professionals do is not controversial. As Psyc12 wrote, we should move on to more important matters.Iss246 (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Naturally psyc12/iss246 both 'OHP' society members say that to again deflect and confuse this very important point I am making, and have now cited a very reliable source in Tom Cox, talking about this issue of government regulated job titles and him suggesting society members to use a different title. If a Misplaced Pages article discussed the use of the term medicine in a job title, or an 'occupational health medical practitioner' for instance, and many of those people using the job title had not one single day of formal training in medicine, and were not part of the mainstream medical community it would be unacceptable to governments, the community, Medical Boards and to Misplaced Pages. The 2 'OHP' societies operate outside of mainstream psychology. As a compromise here perhaps we could include a brief accreditation section. Maybe just a few lines at least clarifying these issues over job title? Why not? Genuine areas of mainstream psychology like Educational Psychology, Industrial and organizational psychology and health psychology all have some discussion on training and accreditation. So does the Medicine article. Why are you so opposed iss246/psyc12? And if any other editors are opposed to this logic please at least outline your reasons after reading these entries?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 wrote that "The 2 'OHP' societies operate outside of mainstream psychology." This is wrong. The most recent issue of the APA Monitor, an APA publication, covers OHP and SOHP. APA played an important role in the publication of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and the creation of SOHP. The APA Public Interest Directorate works hand and hand with SOHP. SOHP and EAOHP recognize that individuals who are not psychologists, for example medical doctors and nurses, can play role in OHP and offer them membership. Which is reasonable because OHP researchers are concerned with the impact of psychosocial factors on physical illness like heart disease. Robert Karasek has been involved in research on decision latitude at work and psychological workload on cardiovascular disease. Stan Kasl conducted pioneering research on unemployment and blood pressure. Naturally it makes sense for organizations like SOHP and EAOHP to be inclusive. Mrm7171, it is time to stop the sniping.Iss246 (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

At least in the U.S., there is no accreditation for I/O (or OHP) psychologists. Each program is free to cover whatever the faculty deem appropriate. Psyc12 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Again (iss246/psyc12) deflecting the point with false, 'off topic' information, without any reliable sources. We could easily have written 3 or 4 sentences by now in this article, explaining what a "Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner" is. That term is strewn through the 2 OHP society's literature they disseminate and have been widely used in this article, constantly referring to the job title Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner. If Federal Governments around the world, and people like Tom Cox, http://proftcox.com/ who started the EAOHP, have reported in reliable publications outside of Misplaced Pages these serious issues, this article just needs to include some reference to these reliable sources and issues.Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

Since the meaning of "Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner" is just the plain English meaning (i.e., anyone who practices OHP), then I don't believe that our readers would actually benefit from a tautological statement that "Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner means anyone who practices occupational health psychology". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected titles by the UK Government

In the UK, Australia and other countries, an Occupational Psychologist or Organizational Psychologist are protected titles. Courses in Organizational psychology are accredited in many OECD countries. This site link explains the laws the British government have put in place to protect these titles. http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ And this is what the British government say about it. "Misuse of titles. A person commits an offence if they use a protected title if they are not registered with us*. It is also an offence to intend to deceive by implying that you are a member of one of the professions that we regulate." Serious stuff. If a Misplaced Pages article discussed the use of the term medicine in a job title, or an 'occupational health medical practitioner' for instance, and many of those people using the job title had not one single day of formal training in medicine, and were not part of the mainstream medical community it would be unacceptable to governments, the community, Medical Boards and to Misplaced Pages.

Similarly the job title Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner needs to be addressed based on numerous published sources outside of wikipedia. These are important and relevant issues to this article. There are many reliable sources that can be used including Tom Cox http://proftcox.com/ http://proftcox.com/occupational-health-psychology/. As a compromise here, perhaps we could include a brief training & accreditation section. Maybe just a few lines at least, clarifying these issues over job title? Genuine areas of mainstream psychology like Educational Psychology, Industrial and organizational psychology and health psychology all have some discussion on training and accreditation. So does the Medicine article. Why are you so opposed (iss246/psyc12)? And if any other editors are opposed to this logic please at least outline your reasons?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained why I am against it. Look in the history of this talk page and you will find it, and more than once. Psyc12 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(Psyc12/iss246), as 'OHP' society members and close friends, outside of Misplaced Pages, your baseless objection is noted. However I am going to include a brief section in this article, based on the discussions and reliable published sources quoted directly above. There are many others. It will clearly, succinctly report published sources relating to what an 'occupational Health psychology practitioner' is. If a Misplaced Pages article discussed the use of the term medicine in a job title, or an 'occupational health medical practitioner' for instance, and many of those people using the job title had not one single day of formal training in medicine, and were not part of the mainstream medical community it would be unacceptable to governments, the community, Medical Boards and to Misplaced Pages. If any other editors object, please outline your reasons based on reliable sources.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary and conclusion

I summarize where we are regarding a section on training and draw a conclusion.

1. WhatamIdoing wrote that she does not support the creation of a section on training, especially given the likelihood it will be abused (WP:COATRACK) and used as a Trojan Horse for the canard that OHP is the same thing as I/O.

2. Iss246 pointed out that individuals involved in the emergence of OHP, Feldman, Everly, Raymond, Wood, and Johnson were not i/o psychologists but came from other disciplines within psychology (e.g., social psychology).

3. Iss246 observed the Mrm7171 frequently takes steps to marginalize OHP with distracting claims such as i/o psychologists coined the abbreviation for the field.

4. Psyc12 pointed out that Mrm7171 is wrong in claiming OHP training is organized through SOHP and EAOHP. Training is organized by university professors.

5. Bilby pointed out that neither the educational psychology entry nor the i/o entry have a section on training.

Fundamental error iss246. See educational psychology section 9.1 and industrial and organizational psychology section 6 articles. Both have sections on Training iss246?? False again.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

6. Iss246 wrote that he originally developed a section on training that was eventually deleted by another editor. He acquiesced to the deletion.

7. RichardKeatinge pointed out that health psychology has a section on training but it is an unwieldy model. Incorrect. That was Bilby. Additional errors made by Mrm7171 that cast doubt on his purpose for having a section on training.

A. Bilby and Psyc12 pointed out errors in Mrm7171's understanding of ICOH-WOPS, an ICOH scientific committee with an agenda that is highly relevant to OHP.

What has ICOH-WOPS got to do with fresh, reliable sources and discussion on training. False and irrelevant again iss246.

B. Bilby and WhatamIdoing corrected Mrm7171's misunderstanding; they indicated that non-dedicated journals can publish an article on OHP. That doesn't make OHP a subdomain of another discipline more closely connected to the journal.

Again, completely false iss246. Here is what i 'actually said', above, "I think that is the point Richardkeatinge. The topics of work stress and work organization can, and are, studied by other professions. This article is also not the SOHP or EAOHP articles, nor are occupational health psychology topics in this Misplaced Pages article, (eg work stress), the domain of OHP society members (some with no formal psychology training at all)"Mrm7171 (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

C. Psyc12 caught Mrm7171 mis-citing Paul Spector's textbook (note Psyc12's comment on i/o and the Academy of Management).

No, misquoting, again completely false. I said it had a section on occ health issues within Spectors book on Industrial and organizational psychology. Thats what I said. Distortion again iss246. What would that section be included in Spectors book on I/O psychology by the way?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

D. Psyc12 pointed out inaccuracies in Mrm7171's claims regarding what Paul Spector wrote about OHP (e.g., correcting Mrm7171's misinterpretation of the Spector web site on what journals are devoted to OHP research and what journals publish other research but occasionally publish OHP research) and what Peter Warr wrote that has implications for OHP (e.g., about how much the subject of stress dominates i/o psychology).

I conclude that we not proceed with a section on training. Iss246 (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense iss246, no discussion has been made on these issues below, based on reliable, published sources. Please also refrain from your false accusations of bad faith and discuss only content using reliable sources.Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of viewMrm7171 (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There are also fundamental errors in the inaccurate, false and biased so called summary of mostly irrelevant misinformation you have included. You have also completely misquoted other editors? Keep focused please on cointent only and the new reliable, published sources under discussion. And for the last time stop your false, desperate accusations of bad faith!Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Iss246, you're right.

Mrm7171, I have indeed "discussed" the impossibility of using sources that do not contain the alleged material to support your determined effort to include this apparently unverifiable information. It won't wash. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatamidoing. You just blindly agreed with your friend iss246's now proven false summary when you did not even bother to look at his completely false statements. Please re-read his false statements and my 'actual quotes beneath,' proving them to be false. This is further support from your lack of understanding on this topic and lack of independence and neutrality as an editor, with all due respect. It would be like me jumping in to help out a friend, when he asked, to blindly support their false reasoning in a discussion or their point of view. I would not do that. There are not many truly independent points of view in this article discussion page. Can you just provide reliable sources if you provide input, as I have provided rather than blindly giving your support to statements have now been proven to be false.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Several times I have pointed out that Mrm7171 miscited sources, as Iss246 noted above. In no case has Mrm7171 shown where I was wrong by noting the page/line where the source said what he/she claimed rather than what I claimed.

Mrm7171. Would you please stick to the points at hand and stop personally attacking WhatamIdoing's integrity. Psyc12 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

psyc12 reliable sources please and on content only. Stop personalizing. We are talking about laws in the UK which prevent persons with no training whatsoever in psychology from using the title 'occupational health psychology practitioner'. As Tom Cox, Organizational Psychologist and founder of journal work & stress and the EA-OHP states. Not my opinion. Can you base your comments only on reliable sources too please. thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected titles by the UK & other Governments v.2

None of these issues including the recent reliable source published by Tom Cox, http://proftcox.com/occupational-health-psychology/have been discussed by other editors you mention. They are 'fresh' new reliable sources. These issues of protected title that Tom Cox and the UK Federal Government points out here http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ have not been discussed. In the UK, Australia and other countries, an Occupational Psychologist or Organizational Psychologist are protected titles. This site link explains the laws the British government have put in place to protect these titles. http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ And this is what the British government say about it. "Misuse of titles. A person commits an offence if they use a protected title if they are not registered with us*. It is also an offence to intend to deceive by implying that you are a member of one of the professions that we regulate."

Similarly the job title Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner needs to be addressed based on numerous published sources outside of wikipedia. These are important and relevant issues to this article which have not been discussed. There are many reliable sources that can be used including Tom Cox http://proftcox.com/ http://proftcox.com/occupational-health-psychology/. As a compromise here, perhaps we could include a brief training & accreditation section. Maybe just a few lines at least, clarifying these issues, given 'new' reliable published sources have now been introduced, regarding job title and its relevancy to this article.

I am going to include a 'brief' section in this article, based only on the discussions and reliable published sources quoted directly above. There are many others. It will clearly, succinctly report published sources relating to what an 'occupational Health psychology practitioner' is. If a Misplaced Pages article discussed the use of the term medicine in a job title, or an 'occupational health medical practitioner' for instance, and many of those people using the job title had not one single day of formal training in medicine, and were not part of the mainstream medical community it would be unacceptable to governments, the community, Medical Boards and to Misplaced Pages. If any other editors (apart from (iss246/psyc12) who are close friends outside of Misplaced Pages) object, please outline your reasons based on reliable sources.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here's the discussion you requested:

These sources are irrelevant.

If you want to talk about whether or not "Occupational health psychology practitioner" is a regulated title, then you must provide sources that discuss whether or not "Occupational health psychology practitioner" is a regulated title. It is not good enough to provide sources that discuss whether some other title is regulated.

Notice the difference in these two terms:

• Occupational psychologist (the title discussed in your source)
• Occupational health psychology practitioner (the title that would be relevant for this article)

Sources about the two-word title are not acceptable when you want to talk about the four-word title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely false logic whatamidoing. That is not what the reliable sources are saying.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatamidoing, with respect, you are a friend of iss246 on Misplaced Pages since 2009. He recruited you into this discussion again recently, on your talk page.Misplaced Pages:Canvassing Rather than get into that right now, instead can we focus on content only please. Two days ago I cited a major reliable source and asked any 'independent' editors their neutral point of view, based on reliable sources if possible. Noone has done that. I am genuinely attempting to make this a better Misplaced Pages article, in good faith, based on how Misplaced Pages wants their articles to be. Don't accuse me of wanting to include a brief section on training and these important related matters, in published reliable sources, when I am the only one producing all of these major published reliable sources, outside of Misplaced Pages. These issues are real, NOT my opinion. I am NOT acting in bad faith. I am an independent editor with a neutral point of view.

I propose a succinct 3 or 4 line inclusion in this article simply detailing, training for the 3 distinct job titles mentioned in this article, including occupational health psychology practitioner. A recent reliable source states: "Many who are obviously working in occupational health psychology are not psychologists by training or qualification. This is an important observation especially for countries such as the UK where the title of psychologist is now registered in law. Much of the interest of non psychologists is focused on the management of psychological, social and organisational issues in occupational health and in safety. It may be sensible to recognise this welcome extension of our discipline by using and working under a new broader title: Occupational Health: Psychology & Management." http://proftcox.com/occupational-health-psychology/

Here is what the UK government reliable source says. "Misuse of titles. A person commits an offence if they use a protected title if they are not registered with us*. It is also an offence to intend to deceive by implying that you are a member of one of the professions that we regulate. http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ So if the UK government says this in a reliable source we just need to include it in this Misplaced Pages article. It is a big issue outside of Misplaced Pages. Saying you are an "Occupational Health psychology practitioner" when you 'may' have no formal training whatsoever in psychology in the UK, is an issue that needs to be included briefly in this 'global' Misplaced Pages article.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that Tom Cox, the Organizational psychologist that invented/founded EAOHP & the work & stress journal was obviously concerned about in the other reliable source quoted.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are reading far too much into Thomas Cox's blog post. It seems to be a simple suggestion to expand the scope of the discipline "OHP" by renaming it in order to explicitly incorporate non-psychology based work. Cox doesn't seem to be saying that the title "psychologist" is being misused. - Bilby (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No, he didn't, he said this, and 'he' made an issue of it, not me Bilby. The reliable, Tom Cox source said this. ""Many who are obviously working in occupational health psychology are not psychologists by training or qualification. This is an important observation especially for countries such as the UK where the title of psychologist is now registered in law. end of quote. His words were important consideration given strict laws in place in the UK, where he is based.

The law he is talking about is the UK government. The UK government say this: "It is also an offence to intend to deceive by implying that you are a member of one of the professions that we regulate. http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ So if the UK government says this in a reliable source we just need to include it in this Misplaced Pages article. The title used in this article is "occupational health psychology practitioner" The UK government reliable source could easily apply here. Misplaced Pages is global. Any comments on topic, based on these reliable sources and solid reasons why you do or do not not think they should be included in the global wiki article based on reliable sources?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read that. It was an interesting aside. However, it feels like a stretch to then relate that to the need to discuss accreditation in the article. Mind you, I'm not entirely sure what the change is that you are after. Could you put forward some proposed text here? It is difficult to evaluate your proposed change without knowing what the text is to be. - Bilby (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really a stretch at all. Most articles on professions, including medicine outline the state of affairs including legislation in different countries. Eg. in the UK this is how it is. In the USA this is how it is. In Belgium this is how it is...and so on. Agreed? I can show examples. If the UK government may consider the use of the title "occupational health psychology practitioner" being used by persons with no training in psychology, obviously needs to be included? Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

All interesting, but what specific text do you wish to add to the article? I've tried to work it out form what you have written above, but I can't quite see what you wish to add. - Bilby (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Can do. But need consensus. Building consensus here based on reliable sources. These are very reliable sources. These are very relevant issues. If consensus is there, a brief section outlining the 3 titles used in this article, and all of the other literature produced by members of the 2 OHP societies. These 3 titles are: 'Occupational health psychologist,' 'occupational health psychology practitioner' and occupational health psychology researcher. The researcher is not relevant. It is the practitioner that is obviously is the target here. Then just a brief mention of the reliable sources that do exist. But I think a 'combined section' on training and accreditation would suffice based on reliable sources. Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So am I right in assuming you just want to say "People working in the OHP discipline can be referred to as practitioners, psychologists or researchers, depending on their qualifications"? - Bilby (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, great minds think alike) Or something like: "In some jurisdictions, the title "psychologist" is legally restricted to persons on a register of professional psychologists. Other titles and job descriptions have been suggested for people working in OHP who are not entitled to call themselves psychologists." Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to include the reliable sources, saying that "to work as an 'occupational health psychology practitioner' in some countries like the USA, you do not need to hold any qualifications in psychology and many occupational health psychology practitioners do not hold any psychology training as Tom Cox pointed out. Whereas in other countries like the UK there are restrictions on title or anything that may give the impression one holds that title. There are numerous reliable sources also which discuss training, can't see why we can't include those RS also. We need some type of section in this article to detail what is said in these significant RS outside of Misplaced Pages. Hope that makes sense/Mrm7171 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

But those aren't issues specific to OHP - they're just issues about the use of the term "psychologist". Naturally, in some countries (and it should be all) you can't pass yourself off as a psychologist without also having formal accreditation. So yes, there may be a case for something along the lines of what Richard Keatinge suggests, which seems like a good way of wording the issue, but I can't see much value in extending it beyond that.

Training seems like a separate issue. - Bilby (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Bilby; we don't need to discuss the lack of legal protection of a variety of alternative titles. Nor, to repeat what has already been said to Mrm7171 many times, do we need to discuss anything about his perceptions of the deficiencies of OHP training. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not a matter of there being a 'Lack' of legal protection of a variety of alternative titles" RK. Nor are we discussing training! We are discussing only reliable sources and what they say, not what we as editors say. Our opinions mean nothing! In the UK, you cannot pass yourself off as an 'Occupational health psychology practitioner (OHP practitioner), either, Bilby, as you currently can in the USA. That is, the clear point from the reliable source is that in many OECD countries it is not just the explicit Psychologist title that is regulated. It is actually 'any' title that gives the impression to the public. Very different and much more expansive and encompassing. That is what the RS clearly states. We need to stick closely to RS only. It states it as an offence to intend to deceive by implying that you are a member of one of the professions that we regulate. You could easily extend that to the use of the title 'occupational health psychology practitioner. So to add to what Richardkeatinge suggested we need to also state what the major RS I have now cited states. So something like this, and in a neutral tone, just reporting the RS as plain and simple as it is:

"Many persons using the title 'occupational health psychology practitioners (OHP practitioners), are not psychologists by training or qualification." In fact, many non psychologists using the title occupational health psychology practitioner' do not hold any formal qualifications in psychology. http://proftcox.com/occupational-health-psychology/ In the USA and other countries there are currently no restrictions on the use of the word psychology in a job title. However in countries like the UK, there is now laws in place, which restrict the use of titles, which includes any titles (like OHP practitioner) which give the impression that..."

If this article does not explicitly mention what the RS states in regard to the second part of the RS I have cited, that is, any titles giving the impression.... like "OHP practitioner', it simply does not take into account what the major RS's cited state, including Tom Cox's. The UK and other countries laws are very clear in stating that anyone who uses a title such as an 'Occupational Health Psychology practitioner is unlawful if they are not psychologists. We need to include this major RS. And we need to draw a distinction between countries. I am okay how it is worded and on request have suggested the wording above, but these two major points contained in RS, need to be included in the article to reflect what is published outside of Misplaced Pages and around the globe.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I now just add this full paragraph based solely on the major RS cited, into the article and we move on? Is there any aspect of the 2 RS's I have cited that is unclear? Aren't we meant to keep ourselves detached from articles, neutral. This article is not a brochure article. It is what it is. Plain, simple 'straight up' reporting of what the major RSs outside of Misplaced Pages have already published? Mrm7171 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

With respect, can other editors please provide actual reasons, as to their position on this, as I have attempted to do, preferably quoting Misplaced Pages protocol/guidelines and RSs.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To say that the specific title "OHP practitioner" is unlawful would I suspect depend on case law, and it is not contained in the sources you cite. What about: "In some jurisdictions, only persons on a register of professional psychologists are entitled to state or imply that they are psychologists. Other titles and job descriptions have been suggested for people working in OHP who are not entitled to call themselves psychologists." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "OHP practitioner is unlawful RK." I said the title "occupational health psychology practitioner" could be applied when interpreting this reliable source if the person using that title has no training in psychology. Word for word the UK law states, "Misuse of titles. A person commits an offence if they use a protected title if they are not registered with us*. It is also an offence to intend to deceive by implying that you are a member of one of the professions that we regulate. An example of this is if someone states that they provide chiropody services when they are not on our register."http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ So, my interpretation on this, is that persons without any psychology training as Tom Cox admits there are many in OHP), and they use the title 'occupational health psychology practitioner, and therefore provide 'occupational health psychology services', this is where the UK law applies? How can we integrate that into the article in addition to your paragraph above then?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As you appear to be relying on an interpretation, the answer would be that we can't add it. We could only add the claim that a non-psychologist describing themselves as an occupational health psychology practitioner could be a problem if we have a source that make that direct connection. Otherwise we're stuck with original research and interpretation, which are outside of our scope. - Bilby (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Plain word for word UK law states ""Misuse of titles. A person commits an offence if they use a protected title if they are not registered with us*. It is also an offence to intend to deceive by implying that you are a member of one of the professions that we regulate. An example of this is if someone states that they provide chiropody services when they are not on our register."http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/. Tom Cox states word for word that ""Many who are obviously working in occupational health psychology are not psychologists by training or qualification. This is an important observation especially for countries such as the UK where the title of psychologist is now registered in law. http://proftcox.com/occupational-health-psychology/. These are the two RS. The article currently states this: "Occupational health psychologists and other OHP researchers and practitioners are concerned with a variety of workplace factors that can be risk factors for injury, disease, and distress". No interpretation needed Bilby. These are major reliable sources word for word and major issues. They need to be included in the article. This was RK's suggestion so far. RK wrote this. ""In some jurisdictions, only persons on a register of professional psychologists are entitled to state or imply that they are psychologists. Other titles and job descriptions have been suggested for people working in OHP who are not entitled to call themselves psychologists." Shall I just add the extra points to RK's paragraph?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you currently have a source that says "the use of the term 'occupational health psychology' is currently regulated under UK law"? Not a blog post which says that there is the possibility of issues, or a personal interpretation of UK law as it might apply to this field, but a source which makes the clear statement? - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Tom Cox states: ""Many who are obviously working in occupational health psychology are not psychologists by training or qualification. This is the UK Law. It is also an offence to intend to deceive by implying that you are a member of one of the professions that we regulate. An example of this is if someone states that they provide chiropody services when they are not on our register."http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/. Blog post from Tom Cox, expert source. He founded the EAOHP. He founded the journal work & stress cited in this article. His blog post and the UK government law are both reliable sources. I am going to be 'bold' here and add the additional couple of lines to RK's suggested additional paragraph.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no, then. - Bilby (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby that Mrm7171 is reading too much into Tom Cox's statement, which is just suggesting we should expand OHP to OHP and Management, perhaps not surprising since he moved to a business school. If the field accepts his suggestion and changes the name to OHPM, then the article would change to reflect it, but until then why would it be important to note that one person wants to rename the field?

"OHP practitioner" is merely a descriptive term by authors to refer to people who consult in OHP areas, such as industrial hygienists (who call themselves hygienists), occupational health nurses (who call themselves nurses), occupational health physicians (who call themselves physicians). OHP practitioner is not a term that individuals use in presenting themselves to the public, and in my experience very few nonpsychologists have even heard of it. Thus this entire discussion is a straw man, arguing that no one should be doing what no one is actually doing. Psyc12 (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything i have said are based on RS. Where are any RS for your claims psyc12. Fact. This article states OHP practioners. Other reliable sources use the term occupational health psychology practitioners. Misplaced Pages only relies on reliable sources. Mrm7171 (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wall of text-free zone: Move on

There is obviously no consensus about adding something on OHP training, licensing, accreditation, and titles. Walls and walls of text have argued for it, but several editors continue to disagree. It is time to move on. This section is devoted to what the next thing should be. Please be brief here--no walls of text. Psyc12 (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition based on reliable published sources

This is the proposed additions based entirely on reliable published sources. It is mostly RK’s additional paragraph combined with my other direct quotes from reliable published sources only. If editors disagree please provide your reasons, also based only on reliable published sources, not just subjective opinions psyc12.

In many OECD countries, only persons on a register of professional psychologists are entitled to state or imply that they are psychologists. Other titles and job descriptions have been suggested for people offering occupational health psychology services who are not entitled to call themselves psychologists. “Many who are obviously working in occupational health psychology are not psychologists by training or qualification. This is an important observation especially for countries such as the UK where the title of psychologist is now registered in law.” http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ http://proftcox.com/occupational-health-psychology/Mrm7171 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Even with all the synthesis removed, it wouldn't be important enough to this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RK. Not only not important enough, but off topic (has little to do with OHP per se) and redundant with the Psychologist article. Psyc12 (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, based only on reliable published sources why do you say not important to this article. Not subjective opinion. Mrm7171 (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We just need to stick to Misplaced Pages protocol. Nothing else. Any reasons for opposing this very solid inclusion? based entirely on reliable published sources, nothing else? Mrm7171 (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This was your paragraph proposed Richardkeatinge. " "In some jurisdictions, only persons on a register of professional psychologists are entitled to state or imply that they are psychologists. Other titles and job descriptions have been suggested for people working in OHP who are not entitled to call themselves psychologists." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)? What reliable sources and reasons have changed your mind?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If a Misplaced Pages article discussed the use of the term medicine in a job title, or an 'occupational health medical practitioner' for instance, and many of those people using the job title had not one single day of formal training in medicine, and were not part of the mainstream medical community, it would be unacceptable to governments, the community, Medical Boards and to Misplaced Pages. Let alone the Law in the UK.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously there is no contrary reliable sources anyone has presented, at all, to base any objection at all, to this well sourced addition I have propsed. No one has discussed only blindly deleted. I will just put the paragraph back into the article.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a consensus that the comment, while it may be reliably sourced, is not of sufficient importance to the subject to warrant space in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing poor style and excessive detail

On the other hand, Mrm7171, I am very glad to see you removing un-necessary praise in Misplaced Pages's voice for quoted studies. If sources are of poor-quality, we shouldn't use them in the first place. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And, as a general comment, this article seems to be overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it. For example, I'd be happy to mention that OHP has used both qualitative and quantitative research methods, with a hatnote, but the two present sections on the subjects seem overblown. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Mrm7171 made some apt edits. I tip my hat to him. I'm not absolutely sure with regard to my thinking about the research methods section but on balance my thinking is that the section is helpful to readers because the section, which includes internal links, gives a reasonable idea of the tools OHP researchers employ when investigating the relation of psychosocial workplace factors to disease. Iss246 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. However, to my eye, the section is not really what I'd find most useful in an encyclopedia, and were I to take to wikilawyering (perish the thought), I might think that it relies rather too much on primary sources. Will you indulge me, if I try a bold edit, by leaving it for a few days to get other opinions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what wikilawyering is.

I reflected a little more on the section and thought the section is helpful because it briefly outlines what research methods OHP researchers use in order to study the link between working conditions and disease. The section does this without getting overly technical. Investigators don't just pull conclusions out of the air. They have to use research methods to draw conclusions. I think some readers would like to know that. The internal links to other wiki sites are important. It is those other sites that do the explaining of the methods if the reader is inclined to visit them.

And if a reader is not curious about the research methods OHP investigators use, the reader can skip the section. But omitting the section denies the reader the choice of finding out about or not finding out about the research methods OHP investigators use.Iss246 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Richardkeatinge. The article as it stands is far too bloated and in many parts, sources used and sections included, are irrelevant. The 'origins' section as an example uses largely irrelevant studies to the OHP. Misplaced Pages:No original research I would fully support some bold editing RK. Simply because it is much needed. I also am concerned that sources used are 'selective' rather than the best sources to use. Some of the major research studies have been entirely excluded for some reason?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. It would be helpful if you can be more specific about what it is that should be deleted or which studies are irrelevant versus excluded, and which sources are not best. Thanks for alerting us about the Origins section. Although the Barling and Griffiths chapter from the Handbook of OHP is now cited, it is not clear that they are the ones who concluded that Marx, Hawthorne, etc. are important early origins of the field (I just double checked to be sure). I made this fix.

I see two potential issues with the research methods section. First, it needs to state the purpose of doing OHP research to give the reader some context. I added that and cited two sources that discuss the purposes. Second, missing in the discussion of many methods are sources saying these methods are used specifically in OHP. Rather the sources are generic, thus there is redundancy with other articles that talk about these methods. If a method is to be mentioned, I would give OHP-specific sources. The 2013 Research Methods in OHP book would be a good resource for this section, with chapters on quasi-experimental designs, event sampling, surveying, qualitative methods, multilevel models, and longitudinal methods. Psyc12 (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Need to get RK's opinion before adding even more text. undid these additions. the point under current discussion is that the article is too overloaded as it currently is. it also does not represent and excludes some of the 'major,' empirical studies in related areas for some reason, instead using references in this article from a very restricted set of published sources?

Mrm7171. You do not own this article and you do not get to decide on your own what changes can be made. I am sick and tired of you acting like no one can make any changes that you don't like. I did not undo the changes you made a few days ago, and I did not undo many of your other changes, so you should give me the same courtesy of waiting to see what other editors think. If other editors feel my changes are not appropriate, I will undo them myself, but until that occurs, please leave the change alone so others can see it, and give them an opportunity to comment. Psyc12 (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, no individual editors own 'any' article. That is the point. It is the property of Misplaced Pages. There are protocols and practices that we all must follow. You have on numerous occasions just gone ahead and made direct edits, and significant additions to this article, without gaining consensus first, especially while a topic was still under discussion? You just did it again. RK's point is that this article is overloaded. I agree. The article also fails to include some other reliable journal and other sources and major empirical studies, for some reason? Until we can work out what to do about these issues, don't go ahead and add further irrelevant text. RK started this discussion so wait until he responds please.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. To say I have made significant additions is incorrect. I have made almost no additions to this article in 4 months because you have done everything you could to prevent it. The opening sentence is one of the few things I've accomplished, and you undid it 5 times. We don't need weeks of repetitive argument and mountains of text on the talk page to address RK's suggestions. And we don't need your constant sniping at Iss246, sometimes vailed as attacks on the article that mostly he/she wrote. For example, you now twice said major sources were not included in the article, but you fail to say what they are. Assuming you are correct, how are we to fix this problem if you keep it a secret?

As for my edits, one was to add a few words to clarify a problem you rightly noted, i.e., that there was no basis for listing the events in the Origins section. Good catch. The other was to fix in part the issue RK raised about the methods section. I went no farther than adding a sentence, and then explaining the change here to see what other editors thought. But if we have to wait until everyone agrees before adding even a word, nothing will ever get done. Psyc12 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I restored my changes so other editors can see them. There is nothing controversial in what I did. The points made are not in dispute, so there is no harm in leaving them there for now. Also keep in mind that my change to the Origins section had nothing to do with RK's point, which was about the methods section. So there is absolutely no justification for you undoing it. From what I see, you are removing them only because I made them, which is what you have been doing to me for the past 4 months. Psyc12 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, I have asked you numerous times, to stop the accusations of bad faith and personal attacks please and focus only on content. The discussion of overload in the research section is under discussion and was started by RK. You just added even more text to these sections, without any consensus. Just added occupational sociology and economics as per society of OHP, website definition of OHP. OHP has so many different professions involved, which do you leave out?? Which more important, sociology or nursing? economics or engineering? So the current ones, with the additional comment 'and others' provides a solution to the huge array of professionals involved in 'OHP'Mrm7171 (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Taken from a reliable source. The sentence 'discriminated against' other professionals involved. There are still many, many more it seems, but the 2 more I added were direct from the SOHP website. Discuss first. Also citation needed for this statement..." You just deleted this much needed reliable source for such a statement to be included. If no source needs to be removed. Mrm7171 (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't want an edit war, (iss246/psyc12), talk here please. Instead of undoing my well grounded addition, with an explanation on this page. Source quoted is reliable. It the SOHP. Could have added 10 more professionals, but the 2 added were on the SOHP website. Cannot 'discriminate' between professionals by only including a few. It is very solid inclusion. Also please add citation as soon as possible. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I too don't want an edit war. But your reasoning about discriminatory effects does not hold. The term "discriminatory" concerns people, not disciplines. I don't think a discipline suffered a harm. People suffer harms from discriminatory actions. Your edit should be reverted. It is a time- and effort-waster.18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

iss246 the 2 word addition, from 2 days ago now, is well sourced and well grounded, in fact it is drawn directly from the SOHP website. It is more representative of the large array of individuals within various professions that make up 'OHP' and is much less 'discriminatory' and less biased toward individuals who are in the professions that were initially 'left out', or 'isolated' from the sentence before. That is why Misplaced Pages only uses reliable sources in these instances. I also need to delete the following sentence from the article soon: "These issues require an interdisciplinary approach,....." if a reliable source quoting these 'exact words,' is not provided for such a bold statement.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

included word 'psychosocial' factors. Was this left out in error? Psychosocial factors is what 'OHP' involves?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Four things. First, I doubt most readers will know what psychosocial factors means, so this is likely to just confuse. Second, OHP is not just psychosocial factors. It deals with other factors as well, such as the physical environment. Third, this paragraph is getting unnecessarily long and complex for a general audience. Fourth, did the source use the term psychosocial in this context? Psyc12 (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The answer to my point four is no. Tetrick and Quick do not limit the purpose to psychosocial factors. "The purpose of OHP is to develop, maintain, and promote the health of employees directly and the health of their families". Later on "The primary focus of OHP is the prevention of illness or injury by creating safe and healthy working environments" (p. 4). So this sentence now mischaracterizes the source, so the word 'psychosocial' needs to go. Psyc12 (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Psychosocial factors (psyc12/iss246) are those factors that affect a person psychologically or socially." This would include exposure to excessive noise or heat (from the physical environment) for example, which in turn contributes to negative health consequences for workers. This is very basic and can be found in all major contemporary reliable published sources. For example, ICOH-WOPS.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(Psyc12/iss246)Most of the major published reliable sources, even ICOH-WOPS (working committee on psychosocial factors) use the term psychosocial factors when talking about occupational health psychology topics. In fact, ICOH-WOPS sole remit is psychosocial factors and work organization. Misplaced Pages requires us to use the major published reliable sources only. The article is also using the term psychology. Stop denegrating the intelligence of Misplaced Pages readers saying they won't understand a term. Psychosocial factors is the term used in the major published reliable sources. Using the word factors is misleading and is not based on the major published RSs. I've also taken a bit of verbiage out of a sentence. Much more is needed. Also (psyc12/iss246) the sentence requiring a citation is not addressed and needs to be deleted otherwise. You have avoided that. So I take it that there is no major reliable sources which use these exact words? "These issues require an interdisciplinary approach,....." Mrm7171 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Richardkeatinge also made the point that the article was very overloaded. I agree. That issue still needs to be rectified. No other editors have commented yet on Richardkeating's point. Richardkeatinge wrote: "this article seems to be overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it. For example, I'd be happy to mention that OHP has used both qualitative and quantitative research methods, with a hatnote, but the two present sections on the subjects seem overblown."Mrm7171 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. The fact that people in the field use the term psychosocial is irrelevant to the first paragraph as it is written, because it attributes it to Tetrick and Quick who did not say it, i.e, you miscited the source. The point you make two paragraphs above is totally irrelevant and should be ignored because you provide no references, only a vague claim to have sources that are not provided. Psyc12 (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to include all of the major published sources (iss246/psyc12). I can include these RS. And psychosocial factors (psyc12/iss246) are those factors that affect a person psychologically or socially." This would include exposure to excessive noise or heat (from the physical environment) for example, which in turn contributes to negative health consequences for workers. This is very basic and can be found in all major contemporary reliable published sources. For example, ICOH-WOPS.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also (psyc12/iss246) this has been the sentence that has always been in the article. Written by you. It reads:" Examples of psychosocial factors in the workplace linked to negative health outcomes include decision latitude and psychological workload, the balance between a worker's efforts and the rewards (e.g., pay, recognition, status, prospects for a promotion, etc.) received for his or her work, and the extent to which supervisors and co-workers are supportive." So....even for consistency alone, in this article the same term should be used!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

An interjection. It was written by me, Iss246, not Psyc12. Although Psyc12 and I share many views, we don't hold perfectly identical views. Is that clear Mrm7171? I am not hostile to using the term "psychosocial factors"; after all I put the term in place. I can be persuaded by rational argument regarding whether to maintain the term or to elect different phrasing. I am not dogmatic about the phrasing. I hope that you are less dogmatic given your initial hostility toward OHP suggested and that your dogmatism regarding pigeon-holing OHP as a subdiscipline of i/o psychology has waned. Iss246 (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, for the last time, will you please stop the organizational psychology subfield stuff. Thousands of organizational psychologists around the world would probably hold strong opinions on that topic regarding OHP being a subdiscipline or specialization of Organizational psychology? My only point is that here seems to be very strong evidence that it actually is a specialization within Organizational psychology. Personally, I never mention it anymore. So please, with all due respect stop going on and on about OHP not being a specialization of Organizational psychology! Maybe it is? But we are talking about the current article. Please stop the bad faith accusations. I do wonder though why it is that you personally iss246, have so much anger and aggression toward Organizational psychologists all around the world? But no need to answer that. I just want to focus on content only please. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, the "thousands of organizational psychologists" who believe this or that is just your unsubstantiated assertion. It is fine with me that you will not mention it again. Iss246 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Iss246. Most psychologists who practice in occupational health psychology are organizational psychologists or are trained in organizational psychology. Just an objective fact. I don't care. It is not my opinion. Please drop the focus on this subdomain issue of yours. For the very last time. Please drop it. I have no idea why you dislike the organizational psychology profession so vehemently, but please lets just focus on content and proposed changes and let the facts on this other irrelevant issue speak for themselves. Thank youMrm7171 (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I do need to delete the sentence it seems now that you just 'made up' instead of using RS. It has required a citation for 2 days now? "These issues require an interdisciplinary approach,....." ?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Not made up. Similar statements exist in a variety of sources. See WP:Wikilawyering. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, its a big statement to include in the opening paragraph though, but if you are sure? That's not what other Reliable Sources state though, but anyway? The other major published reliable sources need to be represented here too then? Don't they? But I sure won't argue or engage in edit warring with you and thank you for adding some type of reliable source with that wording. It is appreciated.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Stigmatella could you please comment on something another 'independent' editor wrote and I agreed with and tell me if his view is wikilawyering too? A few days ago Richardkeatinge made an excellent point point that the article was very 'overloaded.' Richardkeatinge wrote: "this article seems to be overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it. For example, I'd be happy to mention that OHP has used both qualitative and quantitative research methods, with a hatnote, but the two present sections on the subjects seem overblown."Mrm7171 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, the excess verbiage has come about as a side effect of all the not-quite-edit-warring that has been going on. I've seen it happen before in other articles, and I've had personal experience with the phenomenon in Sagnac effect. In that article, a trivial point that I made sparked vehement debate taking place over multiple article and user talk pages, and ultimately resulted in my single sentence ballooning into a 1500 character paragraph and an animated illustration. Under ordinary circumstances, I'd have avoided writing so much about this trivial point because of WP:Undue, but my opponent in this debate was pretty (ahem!) stubborn. So long as you guys are unable to cooperatively reach consensus in writing this article, the same thing is going to happen. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I recently compared the current version with the version of 12 May 2013, and from my point of view, I can't say that the 400-some-odd bitter internecine edits over this period have resulted in any net improvement in the article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, yes I looked the talk page for the Sagnac effect article. Certainly you were involved in a very long dispute. I don't think this article is the same thing though, nor are these matters only minor details. Also the issue with this article or a similar Wiki article like Medicine is that it is very important that professional topics concerning psychologist specializations and psychology and medicine specializations are accurate, and based on all of the reliable, current, major, published sources available, not just a small subset of sources. Both psychologists and medicine are heavily regulated by international governments and professional Boards. It is important that these types of articles are maintained and if they are written only by single editors like this current article has been written that other members of these professions ensure accuracy, objectivity and are not reporting on Misplaced Pages beliefs that are NOT widely held by the international professions themselves.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing poor style and excessive detail version 2

Thank you for your comments. This article as far as I can tell was written by one single editor in 2008/09. I only became involved this year and although some good edits have been achieved by myself and other independent editors it has been an arduous task. I am afraid (psyc12/iss246) are working as a 'tag team' on this as they are close friends and members of the same SOHP society outside of Misplaced Pages, and are resisting any much needed reduction in the overloaded, overblown sections as Richardkeatinge has quite rightly pointed out. My understanding is that editors who 'protect' an article as 'their own property' are against Misplaced Pages policy? Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles Would you object to these sections being streamlined? I am working toward building a civil consensus here with genuinely 'independent' and interested editors. I believe that Richardkeatinge's points regarding the 'overloaded' research sections in particular are valid, and even though this article was almost entirely written by one editor, iss246, that editor or other 'canvassed' editors from the same outside community, or non independent friends on Misplaced Pages, to support their point of view, should not block any justified edits, that are genuinely working toward a better quality Misplaced Pages article.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is about occupational health psychology, which is just a field of study and is mostly attached to Masters and Doctoral programs in Organizational psychology (>75%) around the world. Researchers and psychologists in various areas of the psychology profession also practice occupational health psychology as professional psychologists and interest in this area of psychology is increasing. Obviously, if over 75% of 'occupational health psychology type subjects' are attached as 'specializations' and units within organizational psychology graduate programs, obviously organizational psychologists specialize within occupational health psychology. There has also been no further comments on the proposed editing and much needed changes. I would like to reduce some overload from the article and the over reliance on primary sources, both of which are based on Ricardkeatinge's comments. I totally agreed with him. So I will go ahead with some edits along these lines. I also would like to see some Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view in all sections of this article, which I believe is quite biased and selective in the types of journal research used as reliable sources.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We've been over this many times, and you don't seem to have consensus for changes along these lines. Even if the field is largely taught within existing disciplines, this does not necessarily mean that it is a subset - there are many new fields, recognised as such, that were (and continue to be) taught within existing frameworks at Universities. This neither validates them nor invalidates them as fields or disciplines in their own right. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. Thanks for your comments but they don't relate to the content changes proposed by Richardkeatinge and myself? I don't want to debate what are already facts and not my opinion. To be honest I really don't care about the fact that, most psychologists who practice in occupational health psychology are organizational psychologists or are trained in organizational psychology. If more than 75% of occupational health psychology type subjects are taught within organizational psychology programs, obviously most psychologists who specialize in occupational health psychology are organizational psychologistsMrm7171 (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you propose specific edits? - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward please

Sure. They are based on Richardkeatinge's proposed changes and comments and I totally agree. But so this topic of 'sub domains' is never dredged up again by iss246/psyc12 or anyone else, and used to deflect from much needed editing, are my comments stating the facts directly above, accepted as fact, please? If anyone disagrees with this objective fact:

Most psychologists who practice in occupational health psychology are organizational psychologists or are trained in organizational psychology. If more than 75% of occupational health psychology type subjects are taught within organizational psychology programs, obviously most psychologists who specialize in occupational health psychology are organizational psychologists.

please just briefly discuss why, and hopefully we can then all move forward with much needed editing? Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you will still need to explain what changes you propose to make based on this claim. Otherwise it looks like general discussion of the topic, and as such will need to be closed. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a claim Bilby and not my opinion. Just a brief, definitive, factual statement, before moving on to edits, given the large amount of time discussing it in the past. Obviously no other editors including psyc12/iss246 disagree with these clear facts outlined in bold print above?

Proposed changes regarding bloat and overload in the article and overuse of primary sources, all initiated by RK have also been outlined already?

Richardkeatinge's comments that the article is "overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it" and research sections are "overblown and rely too heavily on primary sources," I agree. I have posted these proposed changes for discussion for days now? What do you think Bilby? Trying to build consensus here and listen to and respect other editors well based opinions on RK's proposals for change to the article? If no further actual discussion is held, I will simply move forward with these much needed changes.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to summarise the changes you wish to make as dot points? I understand that you wish to remove bloat, but the question really comes down to how that will be managed. Which statements do you intend to remove, or how do you wish to rewrite them? - Bilby (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So Bilby you are also not opposed to some streamlining of the article as richardkeatinge has suggested? Just trying to build consensus here. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What I need to see are specific proposed changes that we can evaluate, not general statements of intent. It would be really helpful if you could propose specific changes. - Bilby (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Who is "we" please, when you say "so we can evaluate?" Also the changes are what RK suggested, working toward fixing up areas that are currently "overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it" and research sections are "overblown and rely too heavily on primary sources? Are you okay with doing that? If yes, Bilby, we have consensus to move forward with these changes. So..?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

By "we", I mean "all of us involved in trying to improve this article". And again, it is nice to say "I think this section is wrong, so I'm going to fix it". That's great. But I can't say if I personally think the changes that are going to be made are good or bad unless those specific changes are proposed. So far I haven't seen much in the way of specific proposed changes, so I'm not sure how any editor can make a statement one way or the other about them. Can you write your changes down as dot points? Is that a viable way forward? - Bilby (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I guess what i was asking is do you agree Bilby with the points RK made, regarding overloaded/overblown sections relating to the amount of research and research methods etc based on what Misplaced Pages require in their articles? Appears also to be at the cost of any other additions to the article. Iss246/psyc12 have said that they don't agree that these problems exists. I agree that these are problems with the article.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Research methods

I have boldly rewritten this section for a style which I find much more suited to an encyclopedia (as opposed to a student essay or introduction for first-years). Mostly, I have abbreviated the descriptions, taking advantage of hypertext to allow readers of this encyclopedia to click through to more specialised articles where possible. I will be grateful for comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK this way. The only thing I think it needs is more OHP-related references for the various methods, as there are sources on some of them that are OHP-specific, as I noted above. Psyc12 (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a big improvement RK. I also think that other sections could do with a similar streamline, bringing the rest of the article into the same encyclopedic format. Can I make a comment psyc12. And this goes out to other editors for opinions please. If you start adding to the sections RK has just skillfully edited, we may be back where we started. I don't support such a move. I also ask psyc12 what you mean by OHP specific? The topics in OHP are broad including the big one; work stress. I think we need to keep neutrality in mind and represent a variety of major published reliable sources that are directly relevant to OHP type areas. I would strongly oppose only selecting from the same small set of journals and texts as reliable sources, when there are so many more major RS on these areas. Opinions please?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, I think you did a good job in the research methods section in the editing down the number of words. I note a small number of inaccuracies occurred in the quantitative methods section. I corrected them.Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, I have not thought through how to handle this, but let me present the matter. I understand the need for brevity. By referencing the list of psychological research methods we get brevity but there is the potential for some confusing of the reader. For example, OHP researchers do not conduct twin studies, which is referenced in the list. And OHP researchers conduct case-control studies, which is not referenced in the list. RK, how do you want to handle this balancing of brevity with accuracy? Iss246 (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A note to Bilby. It is not clear that there has been a census of OHP researchers. I am an OHP researcher but not an i/o psychologist (I trained in another branch of Ψ as well as in epidemiology). I have a number of psychologist colleagues from NIOSH who are devoted to OHP. None is an i/o psychologist. I know that some OHP researchers are i/o psychologists. But I have no knowledge of the fraction of OHP researchers who come from i/o psychology.Iss246 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again iss246, you are rehashing this ridiculous issue over organizational psychology instead of just focusing on content so everyone can move on from this article and focus on other articles. You are also constantly pointing out your claimed expertise. Others like myself and RK also may have some expertise. Anyway this article is simply about occupational health psychology and the related topics such as work stress and other psychosocial factors and the effect they have on occupational safety and health. Nothing else. The research and other sections were and still in other sections very overloaded.

Mrm7171. Don't call me "ridiculous." I didn't call you ridiculous when you estimated that 75% of OHP'rs are from i/o. I simply pointed out to Bilby that the fraction is unknown. Iss246 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

iss246, directly above, I said "this ridiculous issue over org psych." NOT you are ridiculous. I have NEVER personalized like that. Don't 'fabricate' please when what I said is clearly stated, in black and white. All I said earlier was this. And for the last time as it is irrelevant to me. And it is not my opinion. It is just the objective facts. Most psychologists who practice in occupational health psychology are organizational psychologists or are trained in organizational psychology. If more than 75% of occupational health psychology type subjects are taught within organizational psychology programs, obviously most psychologists who specialize in occupational health psychology are organizational psychologists. Also in black and white. Not my opinion. Also and probably more relevant here. Many of the major and well recognized international researchers in work stress as far back as the 1960s, like Cary cooper, Paul Spector, Arnold Bakker, Tom Cox and many, many more pioneers in the occupational/work stress field, all have their Doctorates in Organizational Psychology. As far back as the mid 1960s and early 70s, well before 'OHP' was invented, they published major research in journals like the Journal of Occupational Psychology, now the journal of Occupational & Organizational Psych (JOOP). These studies, for some reason, have not yet been included and are highly relevant to this article. These are just the facts.

Bilby. The late Stan Kasl, who made a tremendous contribution to OHP, came from social psychology. Steve Sauter comes from experimental psychology. Joe Hurrell, experimental psychology. Larry Murphy, experimental psychology. Mark Taussig and Rudy Fenwick are from sociology. Ted Scharf is a research psychologist who trained in social ecology. Even Tom Cox did not get his Ph.D. in i/o psychology (for record, his vita on LinkedIn indicates behavioural pharmacology). I will stop here. There is no census that we know of that can tell us what fraction of OHP'rs come from i/o psychology. Statistical procedures such as hot deck imputation methods won't help us to figure this out. I want to be clear: the assertion that 75% of OHP'rs are from i/o psychology is a guess. I am inclined not to guess. I am also inclined to stop here. Iss246 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Again stop fabricating please iss246. In black and white I said, and it is a fact. 75% of occupational health psychology type subjects are taught within organizational psychology programs. Also the researchers mentioned like Tom Cox (Organizational Psychologist), Cary Cooper (Organizational Psychologist), Arnold Bakker (I/O), Paul Spector (I/O), Lois Terick (I/O), Peter Chen (I/O) etc etc are some of the leading researchers in work stress and many were the pioneers of the 'occupational stress field' and leading figures in OHP research. However, again, this type of discussion is not meant for this article discussion page iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not fabricating. When I like Mrm7171's edits, I say so. In fact, I liked the edit Mrm did a few minutes ago, the one in which he wrote "occupational health psychology is concerned...." It was a solid edit. On the other hand, when, on this talk page, Mrm presented a guess as a fact, I pointed that out on this page. I explained below why there is so much cross-over, that is why individuals start out having been trained in one discipline but land up conducting research in another discipline. I also note that Tom Cox, having been trained in behavioural pharmacology (as per his vita on LinkedIn), is an example of the cross-over Stan Kasl described. Iss246 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, the reason why there is so much cross-over among researchers trained in different disciplines was noted by Stan Kasl back in a seminal book chapter he published in 1978. This reason may even apply to why Tom Cox crossed over from behavioural pharmacology to organizational psychology to OHP. It certainly applies to me, trained in developmental psychology, when I became involved in research in psychiatry. What Kasl described was this. The research methods that Ph.D. social scientists are trained to understand, apply widely across the social science disciplines and beyond. Those methods don't just apply to the discipline in which the individual was trained. In my view, Kasl's thought applies also to the statistical procedures we were are trained to apply. Because of that foundation, many researchers cross boundaries. Often enough researchers resemble the figures in stories of ancient Greek mariners who hear the call of the sirens. Unlike the mariners, the researchers don't founder on the rocks. These Ph.D.s pursue new lines of research that are afield from the discipline in which they trained. Iss246 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to discuss these facts further, I am more than happy talking about them on my own personal talk page. However they are NOT issues that we should be including on this article talk page. So please can we just focus on the good progress we are now making.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I discussed just above. Iss246 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

iss246. The internationally renound researchers i outlined above, are primarily renound for their research in Occupational/Work Stress, and work stress is a very large component of occupational health psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Richardkeatinge said that his changes are "much more suited to an encyclopedia (as opposed to a student essay or introduction for first-years)." I agree. I think RK's bold changes are a good start, someone needed to 'bite the bullet,' and I am glad we are now getting somewhere with this article instead of wasting time over nonsense issues. Often articles written by only one editor require other editors to make some changes. Because one editor writes an article, does not mean the original owns the article. That's all. Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articlesMrm7171 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge. I appreciate your edits. I am trying to get the CVD section right. You can help here. The study by Fredikson et al. establishes the relation of psychological stressors to cortisol execretion via adrenomedullary arousal. It is an important "in-between" study in the bridge to establishing the relation of workplace psychological stressors to adrenomedullary arousal and then increases in BP.Iss246 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Have made a few minor changes improving the flow of the second paragraph, without losing the integrity of the scientific research studies discussed.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I thank Richardkeatinge for making his bold changes yesterday and allowing other editors to continue along this line. I think that RK's edits were much needed and this article is now becoming much more encyclopedic. The contributions of numerous editors makes Misplaced Pages what it is. In my opinion. So thanks RK.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday all editors were able to work in consensus and achieve some good edits to the article through compromise. Today, psyc12 you came in and made a disruptive and fundamental change to the opening definition, after not contributing constructively to the article in any way yesterday. Obviously your actions are designed to provoke an edit war. I do not want an edit war, psyc12 and you clearly do not wish to add anything constructive to this article in unison with all other editors. If you want to make such a fundamental change, to the opening definition, after good work has been achieved yesterday, without your involvement, discuss it here please.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I had hoped we would not need to resort to formal dispute resolution and use the resources of Misplaced Pages. (Psyc12/iss246) what 'other factors' are you talking about?

I just added the word psychological to that sentence psyc12, as a compromiise and civility. I also want to keep working productively on the article as all editors did yesterday.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Need for including NIOSH & other Occ Safety & Health Organizations?

Tentatively deleted brief section on NIOSH interventions. These interventions could equally be applied to articles in occ safety & health, health psychology and other articles. They are not OHP specific. Should perhaps be in a separate article on NIOSH itself, which is an 'independent' US gov funded organization. Please discuss.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC) We need to discuss this section please iss246. I do not see relevancy? It is a US independent govt organisation, not specific to OHP? Discuss please, perhaps we can can come to a compromise in wording?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am here to discuss.Iss246 (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A group of researchers at NIOSH, a unit of the CDC, conducts OHP-related research and publishes OHP-related articles. NIOSH co-sponsors with APA and SOHP the biennial Work, Stress, and Health conference. NIOSH researchers have been on the editorial board of JOHP. The current editor of JOHP is an old NIOSH hand.Iss246 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I limit the writing to something of what NIOSH has done in the area of OHP. The organization has a played an important role in OHP.Iss246 (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I compromised but deleted the term worldwide b/c the studies cited were in the U.S. Iss246 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this section on 'any' independent govt run occ safety & health org should be included? Other opinions?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a British organization (governmental or non-) or a Swedish organization, etc. that conducts OHP-related research, a couple of important examples of that research could be mentioned. Some Wikipedians in Europe or elsewhere who could document those contributions should add to this section. Iss246 (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea to involve other editors viewpoints? I am not convinced we need this section at all?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Fundamental changes to opening paragraph & definition of occupational health psychology

Today psyc12 without any discussion with any other editors cut a chunk out of the opening paragraph. This appears completely inflammatory, and disruptive, given the long history of 'editor discussion' and recent consensus reached over this opening paragraph with numerous editors. I have tried once again to compromomise and will add a couple of reliable sources today to the sentence. I do not wish to edit war with (psyc12/iss246) on this article and have put in a lot of work recently with the help of Richardkeatinge to make this article more encyclopedic. The edit history shows my edits and the work I have done. Please discuss on this page (iss246/psyc12) before making any more fundamental changes. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just refined the sentence. I have tried to bring some consistency to this article where there were already multiple mentions of psychosocial factors throughout. An example is in the second sentence. "Examples of psychosocial factors in the workplace linked to negative health outcomes include decision latitude and psychological workload.." The literature and even ICOH-WOPS, the working committee on work organization and psychosocial factors uses this terminology exclusively? What do other editors think?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Development after 1990

Requesting to delete this irrelevant section below, purely discussing the OHP societies and other organizations rather than the research in the field of occupational health psychology which this article specifically covers. This entire section clearly belongs in the separate Misplaced Pages articles for the OHP societies, not in a general article on occupational health psychology topics. Please discuss reasons why this section should stay in the article? I think there has been an error misplacing it within the occupational health psychology article.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In 1996, the International Commission on Occupational Health created its scientific committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors (ICOH-WOPS). In 1998, ICOH-WOPS organized its first international conference in Copenhagen. The second conference was held in Okayama, Japan in 2005, after which ICOH-WOPS adopted a two- to three-year cycle for its conference schedule. In 1999, the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP) was established. The EA-OHP initiated its own series of international conferences on the psychological aspects of work and health. In 2005, the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP) was founded in the United States. Work & Stress became associated with the EA-OHP. The JOHP became associated with the SOHP although it is still published by APA. In 2008, SOHP became a full partner with APA and NIOSH in organizing the, by then, biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences. Also in 2008, the EA-OHP and the SOHP began to coordinate activities (e.g., conference schedules).

No, I think that this is an important and useful section. The development of professional organisations devoted to a new field or discipline is an important part of the process, as are early conferences and dedicated journals. It is a worthwhile part of the discussion of the development of the field, and adds a lot to the reader about the history. I wouldn't want to see a lot more than a single paragraph, but it seems ok at the moment. - Bilby (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will add some other organizations and conferences to this section. Otherwise this article is even more biased than it already is. It smacks of propaganda for the 2 'OHP' societies. Occupational health psychology is studied mostly by students in Organizational psychology graduate programs.

Work & stress journal is multidisciplinary not dedicated to OHP

nothing in the article claims the Work & stress is dedicated to OHP. Please see my response and how this discussion is very much ON TOPICMrm7171 (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The journal work & stress is NOT a dedicated journal to OHP. That is a fact. The most reliable source is always the actual publisher. Just because a writer or two, who are members of an OHP society writes that it is in a book, does not mean it is. Continuing on with that propaganda is not what Misplaced Pages want in their encyclopedia. The actual publisher is always the most reliable source. There are a lot of 'un'reliable sources around. You can get away with a lot in a book or newsletter. But This is Misplaced Pages, the online encyclopedia. The Journal of OHP is the only dedicated journal. The journal work & stress is as much dedicated to Work & Organizational Psychologists as it to OHP. We need to report what the most reliable sources say. The actual publisher states. See: this.http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=twst20

"Work & Stress is an international, multidisciplinary quarterly presenting peer-reviewed papers concerned with the psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational and environmental health, and stress and safety management. It is published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The journal publishes empirical reports, scholarly reviews, case notes, research notes and theoretical papers. It is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all concerned with the interplay of work, health and organisations."Mrm7171 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My point is if it is NOT dedicated to OHP. And the publisher, the most reliable source, clearly says it is NOT. Why is this journal included in the section about journals and not other similar journals, which cover OHP type topics and are multidiciplinary, just like work & stress is?> Leave this discussion for all to see Bilby. It is ON TOPIC.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Where in the article does it currently state that Work & Stress is not a multidisciplinary journal, or is dedicated to OHP? If it doesn't state this, and you are not proposing to make it state this, then it is off topic and needs to be closed. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry bilby. You say we mention/duplicate EAOHP & SOHP twice, for no good reason, but then not mention any other major reliable sources which publish OHP related research similar to work & stress. And we can only mention a 'minor' published reliable source because it is the journal 'associated' with the OHP society?? Come on, if this article is not biased and Misplaced Pages being used as a propaganda tool for the 2 OHP societies I don't know what is?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We need to add some more 'related' journals to OHP. Some of the 'major, published reliable sources.' Work & stress is not a major journal publishing OHP type research it is just affiliated with the EAOHP. Another example of bias and propaganda in this article in my opinion. Other major journals are not included is my point. Also how many times do we need to duplicate SOHP & EAOHP, when they have their own articles already? What would a completely neutral, independent administrator think if we were to get some of these matters resolved through dispute resolution? This section on the discussion talk page is completely relevant and on topic and open for discussion. I am going to add some major published reliable sources, not just those affiliated with an OHP society. the area of occupational health psychology is what this article is about, NOT the 2 OHP societies! Most students studying OHP today are studying graduate degrees in Organizational psychology Bilbv. Other Organizational psychology journals need to be included.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously how many times does this encyclopedia article specifically, solely about a general area of psychology, like occupational health psychology need to have mention the 2 OHP societies. And to the exclusion of any other related organizations etc to the broad area of occupational health psychology??> Especially given most people studying OHP are in graduate Organizational psychology programs. What is this? This is propaganda for the 2 OHP societies! The article is biased and this discussion is very much on topic and ongoing until these issues of bias are resolved. I think too much about Misplaced Pages not to. Mrm7171 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You are more then welcome to add significant organizational psychology journals into the organizational psychology article. You are also welcome to add significant journals closely connected to OHP - such as those dedicated to OHP, or those associated with major OHP societies - to this article. I can't see any value in adding every journal known to have published an OHP-related paper to this article, but then we've discussed that issue already, and you previously supported the removal of the long list of OHP journals" from the article.

In regard to "how many times does this encyclopedia article specifically ... need to have mention the 2 OHP societies". The answer is currently twice. Once in the lead, and once in the development section. That doesn't seem undue. - Bilby (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry bilby. You say we mention/duplicate EAOHP & SOHP twice, for no good reason, but then not mention any other major reliable sources which publish OHP related research similar to work & stress?? And we can only mention a 'minor' published reliable source because it is the journal 'associated' with the OHP society?? Come on, if this article is not biased and Misplaced Pages being used as a propaganda tool for the 2 OHP societies I don't know what is?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you say "only those associated with major OHP societies" what have the 2 societies got to with this article? Bias. Propaganda. This article about occupational health psychology, mostly studied by students in Organizational psychology graduate degrees, cannot and should NOT read as a propaganda tool for a couple of unrelated 'OHP' societies which have their own Wiki articles!Mrm7171 (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, occupational health psychology is part of Organizational psychology. Whether the 2 OHP societies believe it is or not. Occupational health psychology is a area of psychology. Whethere it is a specialization within organizational psychology, is defined by many factors, including the graduate programs students study. That is why most students studying OHP type subjects are in Organizational psych grad programs. I don't see your point. See this reference for a start. Christie, A. & Barling, J. (2011). A Short History of Occupational Health Psychology: A Biographical Approach. In C. Cooper & A. Antoniou (Eds.), New directions in Organizational Psychology and behavioural medicine, (pp. 7-24). Washington, DC: Gower Publishing.

Misplaced Pages being used as a propaganda and promotional tool for the 2 'OHP' societies

There is a clear, distinct element of propaganda and promotion within this article for the benefit of 2 OHP societies. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a promotional or propaganda tool by a couple of OHP societies. It fails to include mention of Organizational Psychology and its major influence on topics like work stress. The tag team I have been up against will not allow the truth to be told in that the vast majority of students studying OHP are Organizational Psychology students, who will receive graduate degrees in Organizational psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As an independent editor with a strong academic background in these areas including graduate degrees and many years of experience, I know what I am saying. My multiple attempts for basic inclusion of any relevant edits, backed by major published reliable sources is constantly being prevented through ongoing ownership behavior from classic Multiple-editor ownership Misplaced Pages says this: "The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process. Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articlesMrm7171 (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to other neutral Misplaced Pages editors for making this so explicit. However this article is about serious professional matters in psychology and for psychologists internationally. OHP related topics like work stress are specializations within organizational psychology and this is an accepted fact within the international psychology community. OHP related subjects are studied internationally in accredited graduate degrees in organizational psychology through the USA & Canada, Europe, Asia Pacific and increasingly so.

Obviously the only solution as is suggested is formal dispute resolution.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Which journals are OHP journals?

Bilby. Several sources list JOHP and W&S as OHP journals. For exacmple, I checked Christie and Barling's 2011 chapter now cited in the article, and here's what they say about OHP and its journals.

"A traditional academic perspective would examine, for example, citations to various articles or authors, or note that this field now has a formal name (occupational health psychology), its own acronym (OHP), and two flagship journals."

Later they note JOHP and Work and Stress are the two OHP journals.

"As such, Work and Stress holds the distinction of being the first specific journal in the area."

"Some ten years following the appearance of Work and Stress, the JOHP was first published by the American Psychological Association."

Finally, I cannot find anywhere where they claim OHP is just part of I/O or organizational psychology. Throughout they talk about it as its own field, as in the quote above. Psyc12 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as occupational health psychology being a specialization within Organizational psychology a good first indicator is that the vast majority of OHP related subjects are taught within, and as, specializations in graduate Organizational Psychology programs. There is not one single Doctoral Degree in OHP. http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/WhatIsIo.html

http://psychology.usf.edu/grad/io/oh/ http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/47856FA9-BA8D-4610-94C1-46D4DF46B05A/0/OccupationalHealthPsychology.pdf

Psyc12, the actual publisher Taylor of the journal work & stress says it is not just OHP. It publishes OHP related articles. Have you viewed their site? The sources you provide are not reliable on this point as the primary source is very definitive. Can we compromise in some way here through discussion?

Psyc12, once again you simply delete my well sourced edit. With no further discussion on this talk page. Your way or no way! The journal work & stress is not an OHP journal. It publishes related . Did you even go to the actual publisher's website? Here http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=twst20#.UlFi-dIwqKg

They say this: "© 2013 Thomson Reuters, 2012 Journals Citation Reports ® Work & Stress is an international, multidisciplinary quarterly presenting peer-reviewed papers concerned with the psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational and environmental health, and stress and safety management. It is published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The journal publishes empirical reports, scholarly reviews, case notes, research notes and theoretical papers. It is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all concerned with the interplay of work, health and organisations.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the journal publishes OHP related articles. However it is not a dedicated OHP journal. As I say, this is another example of you simply deleting my well sourced edit, with no discussion and no openness to a civil compromise or resolution through discussion.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't engage in an edit war psyc12. These reliable sources speak for themselves. Please at least view these sources via the links I have provided above. They include links to the publisher's own site for work & stress and just one of the graduate degrees at Uni of Florida where OHP is taught as a specialization within the Organizational psych program. I regret that you could never simply discuss on this talk page for us to come to a resolution. Instead you just delete my well sourced edits without discussion first.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Work and Stress website says it is concerned with "Occupational Health, Stress, and Safety Management", which defines what OHP is. Furthermore, many sources say that it is, including from the journal itself. Here is a sample.

1. An editorial in the journal itself by Tom Cox, founder and editor of the journal. The title itself says it all. The opening sentence:

"Work & Stress is the longest established journal in the fast developing discipline that is occupational health psychology." (p. 1).

Cox, T., & Tisserand, M. (2006). Work & Stress come of age: Twenty years of occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 20(1) 1-5.

2. Christie and Barling chapter cited in the article:

"A traditional academic perspective would examine, for example, citations to various articles or authors, or note that this field now has a formal name (occupational health psychology), its own acronym (OHP), and two flagship journals." (First page)

"As such, Work and Stress holds the distinction of being the first specific journal in the area." (Section on Tom Cox)

3. Barling & Griffiths, (2011), A history of occupational health psychology. In Quick and Campbell, Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. 2nd ed. APA.

4. Sinclair, Wang & Tetrick (2013). Research Methods in Occupational Health Psychology. Routledge, Preface

5. Spector's website section on OHP journals, currently cited in the article. Psyc12 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What the RELIABLE sources say

As far as occupational health psychology being a specialization within Organizational psychology a good first indicator is that the vast majority of OHP related subjects are taught within, and as, specializations in graduate Organizational Psychology programs. There is not one single Doctoral Degree in OHP. See http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/WhatIsIo.html http://psychology.usf.edu/grad/io/oh/ http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/47856FA9-BA8D-4610-94C1-46D4DF46B05A/0/OccupationalHealthPsychology.pdf

Psyc12/iss246, you did not comment on these obvious examples of programs explicitly supporting the fact that occupational health psychology is a specialization within Organizational psychology. Work stress is a specialization in Organizational Psychology. These articles, written by iss246, are using Misplaced Pages to pedal propaganda that the formal international psychology community already know. I am simply pointing it out. I am also trying to bring some neutrality, reliability and objectivity to this article.

psyc12, the unreliable sources/books you are using here, are written exclusively by members of the 2 'OHP' societies. They duplicate material. It is unreliable. Work & stress is not an exclusive 'OHP' journal. That is propaganda. Plain and simple propaganda. I don't say that lightly. It is unreliable. They are books. It is fabricated. In this instance we need to seek out what the publishers say. If they were indeed OHP journals I would not have a problem. The publishers would also state that. They don't!

Here are 4 more links to official publications: 1/ http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=15422&tip=sid 2/ http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0267-8373_Work_and_Stress 3/ http://www.psypress.com/journals/details/0267-8373/ 4/ http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=twst20#.UlHt2dIwqKg

Also readers can view the 'OHP' society newsletter here which shows how Misplaced Pages was first used as a 'promotional tool.' The newsletter is used as reliable sources throughout this article. See the references section. Of particular relevance is the newsletter article titled: Misplaced Pages, Me, and OHP pages 8-9 Newsletter of the Society of Occupational Health Psychology http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/NewsletterDownloads/SOHPNewsletterV7October2009.pdf Mrm7171 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is an extract from 2009, from iss246 pedaling this false line about the journal work & stress. "Work and stress", however, is an equivalent in the research literature to OHP. It is a topic that provokes great interest. Note that the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology publishes a journal entitled Work & Stress. Because I am a research psychologist with an interest in the field, I could report on the equivalence of work and stress and OHP.Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Here Iss246 even says the journal is 'published' by the EA-OHP. That is a complete fabrication. See Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

None of those sources say that there are no doctoral degrees in OHP. Even if they did, this would not be particularly relevant in regards to new and/or emerging fields, many of which are initially (or even continuously) taught as specialisations within existing programs. In regard to the newsletter article, it is an excellent piece talking positively about experiences editing Misplaced Pages and encouraging others to do the same. At no point does it request assistance in this article, although it does recommend that people engage in Misplaced Pages in general. Overall, I was very impressed by the tone and the understanding of Misplaced Pages expressed in the piece.

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not newsletter article titled: Misplaced Pages, Me, and OHP pages 8-9 Newsletter of the Society of Occupational Health Psychology http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/NewsletterDownloads/SOHPNewsletterV7October2009.pdfMrm7171 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As you would be aware, Work & Stress is published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Accordingly, while I would prefer to qualify the claim that it publishes the journal by noting that it does so in association, this is by no means a "complete fabrication". - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bilby fabrication is fabrication. It is a lie. It is false. What other words can I use here. Perhaps we should plaster lies throughout all Misplaced Pages articles? You cannot use Misplaced Pages to pedal propaganda. The EA-OHP do not publish the journal. The journal is also not an OHP journal.

Here are 4 more links to official publications: 1/ http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=15422&tip=sid 2/ http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0267-8373_Work_and_Stress 3/ http://www.psypress.com/journals/details/0267-8373/ 4/ http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=twst20#.UlHt2dIwqKg

As far as occupational health psychology being a specialization within Organizational psychology a good first indicator is that the vast majority of OHP related subjects are taught within, and as, specializations in graduate Organizational Psychology programs. There is not one single Doctoral Degree in OHP. See http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/WhatIsIo.html http://psychology.usf.edu/grad/io/oh/ http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/47856FA9-BA8D-4610-94C1-46D4DF46B05A/0/OccupationalHealthPsychology.pdfMrm7171 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

On the webpage of the journal at Taylor & Francis, which you have linked to many times, it states: "Published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EAOHP)" . I would prefer to use the phrase "publishes in association with" than "publishes" in regard to EA-OHP's role. But that does not mean that the claim that EA-OHP publishes the journal is a complete fabrication.

And again, the sources you link to do not say that there is "not one single Doctoral Degree in OHP". However, I do not believe it is particularly telling if the statement is true for a new and emerging field. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

These links clearly show how occupational health psychology is a specialization within the I/O psychology graduate degree. That's my point. See http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/WhatIsIo.html http://psychology.usf.edu/grad/io/oh/ http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/47856FA9-BA8D-4610-94C1-46D4DF46B05A/0/OccupationalHealthPsychology.pdf

Mrm7171, over a considerable period and with a large amount of text you have failed to persuade any other editor that your hobbyhorses are of any use to Misplaced Pages. You have repeatedly been advised to abandon them and edit in areas where they do not apply. I can only reinforce that advice. Specifically, nobody else seems to think that OHP is limited to being a subdomain of any other speciality within psychology. On the references presented, it is at least reasonable to summarize its status as an emerging discipline. While members of the OHP societies may well see promotion of that status as important, this does not trump the fact that, thanks in large measure to the activities of those societies, there are multiple and entirely reliable sources which show that OHP can reasonably be described as an identifiably-separate emerging discipline. The nature and limits of this discipline are best outlined by describing what it actually does, including its overlaps with other disciplines, rather than by trying to claim it for some other speciality on the basis of original research.

Describing a possible mild oversimplification as a "fabrication" and a "lie" is unhelpful.

It is bad manners to "out" the real identities of anonymous editors, even though the editor in question could reasonably be said to have outed himself. In any case I welcome him in his real-world persona. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please mind the finger pointing RK. I have had enough of this eternal focus on editor's behavior rather than content. This includes relentless personal attacks, and accusations of bad faith. I have not outed anyone. Okay. Iss246 has been in conflict with editors over this controversial occupational health psychology topic since 2008! I only entered the scene in 2013. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

One more point on this topic. If I am further falsely accused, attacked, bad mouthed, slandered by any editors I will produce the hard evidence that I have collated of every single incident which has occurred, particularly from iss246, and there is plenty of it. I say one more time, I am editing in good faith. I only wish to focus on content, not editor behavior or personalized commentary. I am here to improve Misplaced Pages articles, based on how Misplaced Pages wants their articles to be, and abide by Misplaced Pages rules and protocol. That is all.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving on again, with content only, please

Occupational or Work stress, which is the 'core' of OHP, is taught in almost every graduate Organizational, Occupational and I/O psych degree in the world. Fact. Increasingly occupational health and safety is too. There are several thousand accredited graduate degrees in organizational psychology, occupational psychology & I/O psychology. Students will always choose to study those courses. Even Cary Cooper, Arnold Bakker, Tom Cox and a lot more I can think of, all proudly (and wisely I may add) choose to keep their professional titles as Organizational Psychologists, but specialize in work stress. Students always will, and should, choose 'accredited' (by psychology boards & governments) organizational or occupational psychology grad programs, similar to medicine RK. They then choose to specialize in 'OHP type subjects' like work stress, already offered in literally hundreds of 'accredited' grad degrees all around the world and completely and utterly separate to the 2 'OHP' societies. End of story.

For me, quite frankly, as I have said countless times. I, just, don't care! I really, truly don't. It is not my opinion. So can we leave it right there. Please. This relentless accusation that I am attacking OHP is a joke. I am editing in good faith. I also am sick to death of focusing on editors behavior instead of content! This is Misplaced Pages. That is why I have initiated dispute resolution. So we can focus ONLY on content. Nothing else.

So what I have had sitting on the talk page, are the 2 questions below. That is what my dispute resolution is over and being able to edit without accusations of bad faith and personal attack.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward please with 2 points

Iss246 saying it is "published by the EA-OHP" is a lie. Simple. He said this: Note that the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology publishes a journal entitled Work & Stress. Because I am a research psychologist with an interest in the field, I could report on the equivalence of work and stress and OHP. Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) see Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

Here are 3 more links to official publications: 1/ http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=15422&tip=sid http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0267-8373_Work_and_Stress http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=twst20#.UlHt2dIwqKg.

So we are at an impasse. On one hand we have 3 publisher statements directly above saying it is a journal which publishes OHP related research, similar to a lot of international journals. The publishers clearly do not say it is an 'OHP journal.' Far from it. On the other hand, 'OHP society members books' state it is an 'OHP' journal. How to resolve? I suggest either: deleting the section entirely, or instead writing this: "There is one OHP specific journal (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology as well as several journals that publish articles on OHP research, such as Work & Stress, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology .?

I do not wish to go around in circles with this article. I think we should delete this section entirely? However as a compromise, I will go ahead and just include the re-worked version written above, based on the actual publisher's statement about the journal, as the most reliable source?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what your rewritten version is, but I have boldly introduced mine. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It was directly above RK. I thought it was well written, but anyway? It 'correctly' for an encyclopedia, included 'some type' of reference to 'other' major journals separate to the 2 associated with the OHP societies? It also had a reliable source?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A further point is in paragraph 2. The opening sentence says this: "Occupational health psychologists and other OHP researchers and practitioners are concerned with a variety of psychosocial and physical risk factors for ..." Throughout the article it talks of 'psychosocial risk factors' only. In all of the reliable sources, only psychosocial risk factors are referred to. 'Physical risk factors' should be removed from the article. Mrm7171 (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have a reference for the study of physical risk factors within OHP. Could anyone provide an example? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

RK. Not sure what you want. An example in the article or here on the talk page? If in the article, where? Psyc12 (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some reliable sources please psyc12, which clearly use the word physical risk factors when defining occupational health psychology? I understand this is a technical point psyc12, but I understand the technical points we are talking about here pretty well, whereas others who are less familiar with this area of psychology, may or may not. So, please provide some reliable sources?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, the reference you just provided and without discussing on this talk page, again, does not support physical risk factors. All published RS on OHP only mention psychosocial. I understand why they do too. That is what occupational health psychology is. Work stress is a psychosocial risk factor for example. Can you please either provide some RS stating occupational health Psychology is concerned with 'physical risk factors.' It does not make sense. Physical risk factors? Are you talking environmental risk factors? Please discuss on this talk page and on content only please.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I added a reference on physical risk factors, i.e., conditions that result in accidents. Psyc12 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That does not make sense psyc12? The reference you provided does not state occ health psych is concerned with physical factors either? This is not a benign or spurious point, although most editors not familiar with the important intricacies here, relating to the 'core' definition, may consider it to be. No published source regarding occ health psych state this. The rest of the article only mentions psychosocial risk factors? I have left the 'word' physical in the article to discuss. What are examples of physical factors are you talking about psyc12?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, I'd be interested to see an example of a study of physical risk factors in relation to psychological outcomes at work, or of psychological factors in relation to physical outcomes. It would support the comment that OHP is concerned with physical risk factors. You have added: <ref>Smith, J. J., & Carayon, P. (2011). Controlling occupational safety and health hazards. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.) ''Handbook of occupational health psychology, 2nd ed.'' (pp. 75-93). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.</ref>; I don't have easy access to it. Could you provide a brief quotation from it that makes the point? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The reference provided does not say that from my reading? Am I missing it psyc12? Can you please show where it exactly states occupational health Psychology is concerned with 'physical' risk factors. All other reliable sources talk of psychosocial risk factors mainly work stress and their effects on physical and/or psychological injury/illness. Could you be mixing up physical injury with physical risk factors psyc12? Nonetheless it would need to be a very strong reliable source to override every, single, other reliable source that exists. I am going to delete it in the meantime. I left the question open for days and discussed it on these tall pages as we are required to do.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, I only have access at the moment to the 2003 edition. However, it appears that the whole chapter is focused on physical injuries and their risk factors. It starts by discussing the economics and number of physical workplace injuries. Then it describes the chapter's aim as:

"This chapter will examine the causes of occupational injuries and illnesses and ways to reduce worker risk. It will provide direction for establishing effective detection and control methods. Additional resources are provided throughout the chapter for more detailed information about the subjects covered."

From there, it has a general discussion of the "interdisciplinary nature of occupational safety and health", looking at various organisations and their roles, before listing the aspects of the environment that lead to workplace injuries, including a person's attributes (intelligence, strength, etc), aspects of machinery and tools, and task factors, among others. In task factors, the author states:

"Psychological task content considerations, such as satisfaction with job tasks, the amount of control over the work process, participation in decision making, the ability to use knowledge and skills, the amount of esteem associated with the job, and the ability to identify with the end products of the task activity can influence employee attention and motivation. They also can cause job stress. Job stress can affect employee ability to attend to, recognize, and respond to hazards, as well as the motivation needed to be concerned with personal health and safety considerations." p41.

There's a lot there, and the chapter covers a lot of ground so that physiological issues are only a subset of what it covers. I can email you a pdf of the chapter if that would help. - Bilby (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems ample, thanks. What is the chapter title? I just wonder if the title, added to the reference, would make the matter clearer to a casual reader? And I'd guess that the chapter does give examples of work on physical risk factors in relation to psychological outcomes at work, or on psychological factors in relation to physical outcomes. Perhaps an example of each might allow consensus on a solution to this particular impasse? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That does not explain a thing. A lot of words, and absolutely no RS for support of that statement to be included. You are both mixing up physical risk factors with physical illnesses/injuries I think? Where does any RS state "OHP is concerned with "physical risk factors"? And why would you be going to such lengths I wonder to support such a nonsense? This is one of those clear points that Misplaced Pages rules on reliable sources will need to resolve. You have that text on hand too Bilby. I can't see anywhere it supports the statement in this article. It also does not make sense? And every other major published RS only discusses psychosocial risk factors.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RK. The title is Controlling Occupational Safety and Health Hazards. The entire OHP area of accidents/safety is concerned with exposure to the physical environment, i.e., things that cause physical injury. There is a subsection of the Smith and Carayon chapter called The Work Environment. Here's a few excerpts:

"In the work environment, employees are exposed to materials, chemicals, and physical agents that can cause harm or injury..." p. 78.

"Environmental conditions may also hamper the ability of employees to use their senses (e.g., poor lighting, excessive noise, overpowering smells) and thus reduce employees' abilities to respond or react to hazardous situations. The environment should be compatible with worker sensory capabilities, perceptual-motor skills, energy expenditure and endurance limits, and the motivational desire to do tasks in the proper and safe way." p. 79. Psyc12 (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source stating that occupational health psychology is concerned with physical risk factors. I understand this stuff pretty well and what you just read out does not provide that reliable source which is needed to support such a statement. 1/ ICOH-WOPS even is concerned with psychosocial risk factors and work organization. 2/ The whole rest of this article talks about only psychosocial risk factors. 3/ Every major reliable source in the world talks about psychosocial risk factors. If this is not evidence of my battle against ownership behavior to be judged by an independent administrator who cares more about Misplaced Pages protocol than you guys obviously do, I don't know what is. Mrm7171 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to delete this nonsense reference to OHP being concerned with physical risk factors. It is not supported by reliable sources. This is Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia. No amount of mumbo jumbo irrelevant wording provided above suffices for clear solid reliable sources. None of what has been read out here provides strong reliable sources. I know this science pretty well. If an administrator sees that you all revert that correct deletion, I hope at least they may agree that it is Misplaced Pages's article all editors need to follow their guidance on how they want their articles to be and to protect the integrity of Misplaced Pages.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps, but there is also Leather, Zarola & Santos (2010) "The Physical Workspace: An OHP Perspective" in Leka & Houdmont Occupational Health Psychology', which looks specifically at physical workplace factors and the impact they have on occupational health within an OHP framework. - Bilby (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source stating that OHP is concerned with physical risk factors as part of the actual definition which is the section it is in. Every other reliable source defines occ health psych as psychosocial factors. The very next sentence in this article then goes on and talks only of psychosocial factors. I am attempting to get this psychology article up to standard and editing in good faith. I have been, against my own judgement, giving other editors benefit of any bad faith editing doubt, and playing by the Misplaced Pages rules and respecting them.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, I wasn't offering it as a reliable source defining OHP. Richard Keatinge asked for an example of physical risk factors being studied in relation of psychological outcomes at work within OHP research, and that seemed to be of some use there. If not, that's cool. It was worth reading either way. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Journals

The sentence "Other journals, such as Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, and the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, also publish articles on OHP research" appears at the end of the 3rd paragraph. We had earlier arrived at a consensus to delete mention of journals except two journals dedicated to OHP research. I think the sentence should be deleted in view of the prior deletion of journal mentions. Iss246 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I've done it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree too, and I recall the consensus. Psyc12 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am increasingly concerned that this encyclopedic article which is 'only' about the topic of occupational health psychology, (not the 2 OHP societies), is again being biased toward focus only on the 2 OHP societies and published sources by members of the 2 OHP societies. And the journals associated with them? It is not including reference to the significant contributions of Organizational psychology and organizational psychologists? Focusing on content only, this bias should not be occurring. It has nothing to do with whether OHP is a specialization either. It is making this Misplaced Pages article, very biased, and not adhering to core Misplaced Pages principles. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

I know I may be personally attacked for saying so, and accused of everything under the sun, for pointing out what Misplaced Pages wants from its own articles, but it needs to be said. Again. That has been my point all along. Organizational psychology has had a major impact on OHP, particularly work stress, and if it is relevant to include it should not be immediately deleted. That is not how Misplaced Pages wants important professional articles in psychology or medicine to be for readers?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if that influence has come from the many researchers in OHP with their 'core' credentials in I/O psychology. Their training and know how, now being applied to OHP, had to come from somewhere.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that many of these issues under discussion, are foreign to many readers without a background in work psychology. I appreciate that. Similar to articles on complex mathematical algorithms, I'm sure, and most readers not having a clue, including myself. Personally, I would not edit articles I know nothing about. However these are important matters in psychology, primarily work psychology and I feel competent enough to edit. I also respect Misplaced Pages enough to care. Misplaced Pages is the most important encyclopedia today. Maintaining the integrity of its content is critical. Protocols Misplaced Pages have developed over many years must guide all editors, in my opinion. I apologize to any other editors or readers for my persistence in getting this controversial psychology article 'right,' and how Misplaced Pages wants its articles to be.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, I made this slight change to the sentence (to reflect that other journals, not just the 2 'OHP-Society' associated journals, please see my comments directly above relating to lack of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view in this article): There are two journals, among others, that focus closely on research related to occupational health psychology topics Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress. I asked you to please discuss my addition. I asked you to discuss on this talk page please. I asked you to wait to see what other editors like Richardkeatinge thought. You didn't. I know this is a controversial article and views are polarized, but you also were aware that there is a current 'content dispute resolution' process, in waiting. I refuse to participate in an edit war with you or your close friend outside of Misplaced Pages, iss246, and your fellow 'OHP Society' member, who 'enlisted' you and a whole bunch of other 'OHP society' members to join up at Misplaced Pages, at the beginning of June this year. My slight change today was made in good faith. Rather than reverting my edits repeatedly, why could you have not discussed the change on this page? I politely asked you to do so? I would have been open to discussion if it was concerning content only.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You reverted my attempt to add something close to NPOV to that sentence and this article, on 4 separate occasions today psyc12.

23:40, 7 October 2013 (diff | hist) psyc12 01:26, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) psyc12 02:56, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) psyc12 02:48, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) psyc12

I am not sure if an administrator considers this to be a breach of the The three-revert rule. I have refrained from reporting it. Perhaps if a more experienced editor who is truly 'independent' and objective on this article, could advise on how this would be viewed by an independent administrator?

I also left a brief courtesy note on your talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I already explained my edits on the talk page and in the history comments. Your interpretation (actually misinterpretation as I explained above) of the Work & Stress website is using a primary source, which is discouraged by Misplaced Pages. Above I provided 5 secondary sources, including the Work & Stress editor and founder, Tom Cox, that clearly state that Work & Stress is an OHP journal. Yet you persist in trying to present Work & Stress as something else without any support by other editors, and you keep changing Richard Keatinge's words, which I have restored. You asked for dispute resolution, so accept what Richard Keatinge has done. Psyc12 (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12 you knowingly reverted my good faith changes based on the publisher as a reliable source. Previously we had not discussed the actual publisher as a reliable source. Also the sentence had already been rewritten yesterday by you and I. Changes were then made to it. You did not discuss on this page. I was waiting to see if Richardkeatinge would comment on your breach of the The three-revert rule as he also would be aware of the line being crossed as you were well aware when you crossed it without a second thought for Misplaced Pages protocol that all editors need to comply with.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll just quote from policy: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know. I stopped. I didn't engage in edit warring. Misplaced Pages has rules. We all must follow them RK, it is patently clear that you are not independent here. I think I have ample evidence that I am operating against a 'tag team' and classic ownership behavior. I follow Misplaced Pages rules. I understand why they have these rules. Psyc12 fully understood the rules too. He ignored them. And you are showing contempt for all that Misplaced Pages stands for also by supporting that contempt for Misplaced Pages. This is not our own personal website here!

There is clearly no independence in editing here either. The physical risk factors discussion above, with no RS stating OHP is concerned with physical risk factors yet 50 saying OHP is concerned with psychosocial hazards is a clear example of this. I am willing to have my own conduct examined also by an administrator. And over an extended period. I guess everyone's conduct will be examined. And I hope Misplaced Pages rules are used to judge everyone's conduct, including my own.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

12 hours later, RK, no reverse has been made by psyc12. I made this pretty explicit. I did not go 'running off' to an administrator to report psyc12 for it. Still haven't. This sequence of events is clear. It shows psyc12's complete contempt for core rules like 3RR violation. We all need to follow them. I'm not an administrator. It's up to Misplaced Pages to decide if psyc12 is blocked, not me. They may or may not decide to. But hey, at least the sequence of events is clear for them to make that decision. It is not the first time psyc12 or his close friend outside of Misplaced Pages, iss246, has done it either.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view??

I have attempted to bring some NPOV to this section in the third paragraph, we have been discussing. Journals such as Organizational Behavior, founded by Cary Cooper, as well as major international journals like the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology which similar to the work & stress journal covers many occupational health related topics including work stress, coping, occupational health, bullying etc and should be represented in this article.

The 2 smaller journals that are 'associated' with the 2 'OHP societies' should not be the only journals mentioned in this article on occupational health psychology just because they are 'associated' with the 2 'OHP societies'. That is not NPOV in my opinion. I realize I run the risk of editors like psyc12 & iss246, both members of this "OHP society" and close friends outside of Misplaced Pages, attacking me again, and 'muddying the waters' on this issue, simply because I am trying to bring in some NPOV, but that is why I have opened a formal dispute resolution process.

Occupational health psychology the topic of this article, does NOT equate to the '2 OHP societies.' Occupational health psychology is a valid area of study within psychology. It does not belong to the 2 'OHP societies' and only a restricted set of published sources used. The publisher of work & stress even states their journal is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all those concerned with the interplay of work, health, and organizations.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be beginning to grasp the nature of your concerns. I am not a professional psychologist and I am looking to this article to provide an encyclopedic overview of current OHP, a newly-defined subdiscipline. Since the societies have done so much to define OHP in the first place I would not be surprised to see references to them or to work published by them. I don't see a need to define every overlap with other subdisciplines either in journals used, in training, or in subject matter; I would simply expect that such overlaps exist and might be alluded to if relevant. I wouldn't ever have expected OHP work to be published in just two journals though it strikes me as reasonable to mention two journals that do focus on OHP. I wouldn't want to see a list of other journals in the article, I don't think it's even important enough for a specific external link, though in a reference, as we now have it, it may be useful. In short, to the extent that I understand your concerns, I don't find them particularly useful to an encyclopedic article.

In Misplaced Pages terms these issues are not mainly a matter of NPOV, but of good writing skills, appropriate weight, and editorial judgement expressed through consensus. I hope for your contributions in these forms. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ RK, although I understand your points made. My aim in this article is to present the major published reliable sources and in this case major contributors to the field of occupational health psychology topics. Take the clinical psychology article for example. The main published reliable sources, journals and books are mentioned throughout. If only 2 journals associated with 2 Clin psych societies were mentioned to the exclusion of all others it would be a very biased psychology article. I'm positive medicine is the same. In this psychology article the sentence says: "There are two journals that focus closely on OHP research Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress" Full stop. That is just not true, there are several other major reliable sources which also focus closely on occupational health psychology topics. My view is that a few of them should also be mentioned in that section. I thought the way I re-wrote it was pretty diplomatic. I hope that makes more sense RK? I would be interested in your comments?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Is OHP limited to psychosocial factors?

I don't recall any definitions of OHP that limit it to psychosocial factors. Here's two examples of definitions from reliable sources.

Spector's I/O textbook chapter on OHP. I capitalized physical to more easily see.

"OHP…is concerned with psychological factors that contribute to occupational health and well-being. It deals with psychological reactions to PHYSICAL and nonphysical work conditions, as well as behavior that has implications for health. Included in this chapter will be discussion of PHYSICAL conditions that affect health, occupational stress, occupational accidents, and the interplay between work and family, and burnout."

Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up physical injury with physical hazards and with physical factors, but anyway, I reckon we have a pretty solid sentence now. As you say, other factors, so they are now included. There is no direct reference to physical risk factors though? What page were you looking at psyc12? Mrm7171 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Included occ stress in there too. With no less that 4 VERY solid references from Tetrick, Barling etc all quoting occupational stress. as involved with OHp. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Second chapter objective, Student should be able to "List the major PHYSICAL work conditions that affect employee health."

Handbook of OHP, Tetrick and Quick opening chapter. Note they do not limit it to the psychosocial environment, and by mentioning safety and injury, they imply the physical environment.

“The primary focus of OHP is the prevention of illness or injury by creating safe and healthy working environments”

Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with that psyc12. Consensus on that one too.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just added 'illnesses' too in addition to occ stress, as you correctly quoted above psyc12.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Spector, P. E. (2012). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice 6e, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Tetrick, L. E., & Quick, J. C. (2011). Overview of occupational health psychology: Public health in occupational settings. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.) Occupational Health Psychology 2e. (pp. 3-20). Washington, DC: APA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What do we do abouit the other references in the text? If Spector says that in his text what do we use?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The terms "stress" & "occupational stress"

Mrm7171, I am discussing the term here. It is okay to use the word "stress" in ordinary conversation or informal writing. I use it myself informally. In the research literature the term is problematic. Its problematic nature was identified a while ago by people such as Kasl, Dohrenwend, Frese, Zapf. Some researchers have used term to represent stressful conditions (e.g., a work environment in which supervisors are needlessly critical of employees). Other researchers have used it as a reaction to stressful conditions (e.g., psychological distress felt after being criticized by an angry customer). Still other researchers have used it to represent the environmental-stressor-to-psychological-distress transaction. There are probably more ways the term has been used but it is getting late here in New York. I think it is better to omit the word from the OHP entry because of the ambiguity of the word in research. We want to keep ambiguity to a minimum in the OHP entry, and be true to OHP research. That is why I would like to omit it. Let me hear from you Mrm. Iss246 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry iss246, totally disagreee, with all due respect. Your comments are too philosophicalk for this encyclopedic article. We just need to rely on RSs obviously. I have added 4 very solid reliable sources. They all clearly state work/occupational stress. I actually stopped with 4 only. I found a few more, but it would have become ridiculous to have 10! Anyway lets just leave occupational stress in there. I may add work/occupational stress if you like. So no, don't go deleting occupational stress with 4 major reliable sources. Obviously. Thinking about it it would not hurt to add a few more> Mrm7171 (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Added a few more. I think you are mixing up 'stress' with work/job/occupational stress. I think there are now 8 or so very solid, reliable sources. I understand your philosophocal discussion above, but when >8 very solid reliable sources why argue? I sure don't want an edit war or any conflict over such an incredibly solid edit? Why are you against It?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you arguing over a bag of beans iss246? I get the feeling any edit, I personally make is no good with you. Is it? Shows how hard I have had to work just to add anything to this article. You oppose everything just because you started the article. That does not mean you own it. For no good reason you want to delete my edit because I wrote? Your close friend outside of Misplaced Pages psyc12,k may also oppose it because I inluded it? Time will tell.= Here is an edit with 8 solid, reliable sources attached and backing it up. I think Misplaced Pages would want it included. There would be no reason to delete as you say? I don't see your logic.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. For the purpose of clarification Mrm, what does the term "stress" mean as far as scientific research is concerned? This is not a trick question. It has been used in at least 3 ways, and maybe more ways. Definitions are important in science. I would like the sentence to be clear to the reader. Iss246 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I think your are mixing up the term "stress" with the term "stressor," which is understandable. The term "stressor" is okay with me, but not the term "stress" because of the definitional ambiguities I mentioned above. Mind you, I am not splitting hairs. I am trying be consistent with how the terms are used by researchers.

I am familiar with most of the citations right after the term "occupational stress." I think you may have over-interpreted the papers you cited, which is common enough, hence the stressor-stress mix. I will ask Paul Landsbergis, whose publication is one of the most recent ones in the array of publications you cited, what he thinks of this discussion of the term "stress." Iss246 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you are holding a "bag of beans" iss246. No, I know what a stressor is too, but thanks for patronizing me further and conveying an impression you are 'all knowing' above everyone else. I know what I am talking about here on these issues and for the record. I may not be as experienced as you are iss246, using Misplaced Pages to write articles about your 2 'OHP societies', but my 30 plus years of experience and graduate degrees in this related area (despite your disgusting slanderous, falsified, baseless rant about my qualifications you have posted on your talk page) which I am going to report to Misplaced Pages, when up until recently I as you know had NEVER mentioned my qualifications on Misplaced Pages. My experience and qualifications have allowed me the 'understanding' to know the difference between these related psychological concepts including what a stressor, occupational/work/job stress, psychosocial risk factors, psychosocial hazards ...etc all mean.

No, we are talking about occupational/work/job stress pure and simple. I will now add another 5 major, published, reliable sources as references all again supporting the relationship between OHP & work stress. We don't need to refer to your friend, outside of Misplaced Pages, you sure have already introduced a whole bag of your friends from your OHP society to support your views back in June this year. That included psyc12, your close friend and fellow OHP society member PSYC12.

This issue over occupational stress, clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt shows the most obscene and classic example of ownership behavior defined here by Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles You and your friend psyc12 and others have prevented me from adding anything to this article without creating this type of nonsense and walls and walls of unneeded text on this discussion page. I have edited in good faith. You have done this since 2008 over occupational health psychology and related topics. I only entered the scene in 2013. Interested readers, could refer to the walls of text created between you and a lot of other editors between 2008 & 2011, and make their own minds up. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1Mrm7171 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue I am raising is far from a bag of beans or a bowl of soup or a bottle of beer. As early as 1978, Kasl, in a classic book chapter, wrestled with the issue of how to conceptualize what is going on in the workplace. He showed how early stress researchers confounded the IV and DV because of conceptual misspecification. Frese also wrestled with this issue. I looked at the Landsbergis et al. chapter that you cited. The Landsbergis team linked work stressors (e.g., the combination of high psychological workload combined with low control, effort-reward imbalance, long work hours) to CVD. They were very clear in specifying the IVs and the DVs, and as far as I can tell at 11:30 PM they did not use the term "stress." They used the term "stressor" and specified the stressors. You can call me names if you want. I am pretty much right on this matter. Iss246 (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm, you cited Paul and Moser. I read the Paul and Moser article not long ago. It is about the impact of unemployment on psychological disorders/distress. They use the term "stress" but they clearly indicate that they are referring to the independent variable (e.g., the accumulation of stress factors as part of the grinding impact of unemployment). Mostly they use the term distress, which refers to the dependent variable. My objection to using the term "stress" in the OHP entry is that it is not perfectly clear what the term refers to, IV, DV, or IV-DV relation. That had been a problem that Kasl addressed in 1978 and in later papers. Iss246 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

iss246 I even took out the reference to Paul Landsbergis, yet another person you 'apparently' know outside of Misplaced Pages. Should I take out Moser as well? They are one of hundreds of good references, (and could argue that point with you, but this is NOT the place for that and would create even more walls of text), so instead I just took it out, and included a couple more in its place. I also did this so not to bias the article. I would hate to have you contact Paul Landsbergis outside of Misplaced Pages like you did back in June and try and enlist him also, like you enlisted psyc12 and the bunch of other 'OHP society' members and friends of yours outside of Misplaced Pages, who all 'joined up' at Wiki at the same time, to throw weight behind your cause. So yeah, I decided to take out the Paul Landsbergis reference, just in case tomorrow Paul Landsbergis or even Moser, now you know him too, waere also here on this talk page, supporting your cause too!(part joke to 'lighten things up here,' but hey I wouldn't put it past you iss246) Mrm7171 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

When I was a researcher in molecular biology twenty-some odd years ago, I knew dozens of people in my specialized field on a first-name basis, had met hundreds of other molecular biologists at meetings, and corresponded with many more. Using the reference of somebody that one happens to know does not constitute conflict of interest, and your striking out the reference to Landsbergis was unwarranted. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again stigmatella, thanks for 'dropping back in' all of a sudden? Thought you would have had your 'hands full' with the Talk:Needle exchange programme battle you have been involved in. Wow, reading through the 'walls of angry (to say the least)text' on that page makes our discussions here, look a walk in the park. Anyway, thank you for that comment. I added a better reference, two more in fact to the occupational stress entry. Nothing to do with conflict of interest. Good luck with your arbitration case, looks like the only way forward for you guys.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Since I don't claim to be familiar with the field, I mostly lurk. However, certain patterns of behavior do not require knowledge of the field to comment on. You feel that you are unfairly being confronted by a tag team of colluding editors, and that justifies certain forms of response that an outsider like myself wouldn't appreciate. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Stigmatella can you not comment on behavior on this page please. And on content only. And mind your personal abuse, like you dish out to other editors I have noticed today. I realize you like really like arguing, based on what I have read on Talk:Needle exchange programme but this is just a discussion on content please. Please see my comments on that page also. I did not make much comment before but seriously I know your 'type' on Misplaced Pages. You just want hostility and as you say lurk and drop back in. You were here before, and have no real interest in this topic. Other editors have asked you for arbitration and you have refused. However this is off topic now, my apologies. I will take my comments over to that page. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained to you, I accepted arbitration re Needle Exchange Programme. You MISREAD my comment on its talk page, and didn't follow through to the mediation page which clearly indicates that I accepted arbitration. My written acceptance on the arbitration page trumps any misinterpretation on your part. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is NOT the correct talk page for discussion of Needle Exchange Programme. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said THIS directly above. "However this is off topic now, my apologies. I will take my comments over to that page." Comments are now on THAT page Stigmatella. I am quite interested in that article actually and the arbitration case. But please lets take it to that article. It is NOT appropriate here, as I already said. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

On a more serious note, and keeping things simple, which with psychological concepts is best to do, wherever possible, and as far as occupational stress goes, (not the term stress by the way), which is even more elusive, definitions abound. There is so much confusion within the psychology and other literature relating to the definition of Stress that it is impossible to pin down. I have indulged your comments over definition here iss246 long enough, but please just drop this now. Its inclusion is so ...... solid now that it might as well be a rock. Misplaced Pages and this discussion page is NOT the place for us to be solving the eternal dilemma in the field, and for decades now, over the definition of stress! Or do you actually believe that YOUR definition iss246, is the only one now? Please drop it. I do wonder though, in all seriousness, given you wrote this article originally, why the heck you have not included any reference in this article to work stress and OHP. That is a rhetorical question. Please can we move on.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The debate over the word occupational stress & OHP continues despite 9 reliable sources

For the purpose of writing this article, we may need to differentiate the vernacular "stress" into the potential causes / external stressors / input variables etc. on the one hand, and the psychological response / output variables on the other. Such a differentiation (expressed in varying terms) is widely-used and may well make this article better. If you think so, please suggest one or more specific edits. What form of words is being proposed for use where? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

RK, What type of stress are you talking about? Physical stress or psychological stress? This is an occupational article. We need to remember that. If we were to define occupational stress, ie stress as an outcome in this instance as the 8 or 9 reliable sources provided already talk about, we would need to write a literature review. There is simply no consensus in the world currently on what occupational stress actually is? Further, reliable sources in the area of OHP do not talk about stress. They talk about occupational stress, occurring in the workplace, not the death of a loved one or moving house.Mrm7171 (talk)

Okay, so lets create more 'walls of text' instead of moving on here. Lets take on the concept of stress that is not related to this article. Occupational or work stress is what OHP is all about. Discussions on defining 'occupational stress' should be reserved for the article on occupational stress and a discussion on biological stress should be reserved for the article on Stress (biology) or stress management for the stress management article.

Perhaps I could simply repeat my question: for the purpose of writing this article, we may need to differentiate the vernacular "stress" into the potential causes / external stressors / input variables etc. on the one hand, and the psychological response / output variables on the other. Such a differentiation (expressed in varying terms) is widely-used and may well make this article better. If you think so, please suggest one or more specific edits. What form of words is being proposed for use where? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

RK. The problem here is not the mention of stress, but rather how it is used in this sentence. The way it is used, it sounds as if stress is an outcome, but in the research literature this is not how the word stress is typically used, so it is imprecise and potentially confusing. Perhaps a way to fix this is to replace "occupational stress" with "stress response". This retains the idea of stress, which is quite relevant, but makes it clear that it refers to an outcome. As an aside, the article on occupational stress needs some work as the definition is rather vague. Psyc12 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Psyc12 has a solution to the problem of readers getting confused because the vernacular language they use every day contrasts with the terms researchers use. The term "stress response" works for me. Iss246 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense (psyc12/iss246). Refer exactly to those 8 or 9 current published reliable sources on the article page. Occupational stress in this case is referring to an 'outcome', as you know, that is I am stressed out at work. This group or team is stressed out at work, etc Talk simply please psyc12 and refer only to what those 8 or 9 major published reliable sources say. It does not matter what words we want to use as editors or "what works for you" iss246 as you just said. It ONLY matters what is in reliable sources, as you very well know psyc12. Also I have not 'as yet' reported your conduct regarding the 4 reverts you made on the same day? Have you read my entry on my talk page? I understand that an administrator may or may not block you, but you clearly breached that line. Please stick to Misplaced Pages rules here, particularly things like basing our editing on reliable sources and NOT crossing the 4 reverts in a day line. Those 8 or 9 reliable sources could easily be 20 within an hour if I wanted. If you introduced different wording it would need to trump those pretty major reliable sources and it would need to use the words "stress response" psyc12. And reliable sources do not use that wording. Produce the reliable sources saying so.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The matter is not nonsense. The matter concerns the problem that researchers have used the term stress in a least three different ways (as the IV, DV, and the IV-DV relation) up until investigators like Kasl and Frese started to improve on the conceptualization. Researchers are more apt to describe stressors and distress; those are clearer terms. Paul and Moser, whom Mrm cited, ensure that on the very few occasions in their meta-analysis paper on unemployment and psychological disorder when they used the term "stress", they clearly indicated what they meant (they clearly indicated that they were referring to the independent variable). At the same time, the vernacular that readers use has not changed much. I want to be clear that I am not against using the word "stress." I simply want the OHP entry to be clear for the reading public. I think Psyc12 had a good term "stress response." I would be equally happy to use the term "stress reaction." "Stress response" or "stress reaction" indicates that we are referring to the DV. The term "stressor" indicates that we are referring to the IV. Iss246 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked how two of the sources that MRM7171 provided treat the term stress, and they DO NOT treat it as an outcome.

Beehr & Glazer, talk about stressors and strains, which is consistent with most contemporary usage.:

"Beehr and McGrath wrote that stressors are stress-producing environmental circumstances or stress-producing events and conditions (SPECs). In other words, events and conditions in the environment, whether the environment entails physical or psychosocial stimuli, create a motivation to react. If stressors or SPECs are not readily coped with, negative reactions ensue, and these reactions are referred to as strains." (p. 8).

de Lange, Taris, et al. use the term stress reactions:

"Karasek's (1979) demand-control (DC) model has been a leading work stress model in occupational health psychology since the 1980s. According to the model, a psychological work environment can be characterized by a combination of job demands and job control. Especially the combination of high job demands and low job control (high-strain jobs) is assumed to result in psychological stress reactions, such as high blood pressure and low job satisfaction.", p. 282. Psyc12 (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked the chapter by Landsbergis et al. Mrm cited. They don't use the term "stress" either. We should strive for greater clarity. Iss246 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that in some areas of this article, the word "stress" would suffice, while in others we would need to use clearer language. "Stressor" and either "strain" or "stress reaction" seem to be widely used by specialists and readily comprehensible to encyclopedic readers. Would they be suitable, where the article requires such differentiation? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes RK, I believe the terms you mentioned would be more understandable to the readers. Iss246 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree RK. Those terms would be suitable. Psyc12 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Where might their use make the article better? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

iss246, you just mentioned above, ""Karasek's (1979) demand-control (DC) model has been a leading work stress model in occupational health psychology since the 1980s." Nonsense. OHP was only invented in 1990. see this reliable source, the apa http://www.apa.org/research/action/control.aspx Findings "Industrial psychologists discovered that how much latitude employees have at work - their control over job-related decisions - affects their health, their morale and their ability to handle their workload....

Can we continue this at the base of the page please RK so another editor or administrator can get to it if needed. Your discussion here is hidden away, that's all. Thank youMrm7171 (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We may be on the edge of a breakthrough here, actually sticking to a useful point and thus using the talk page for its intended purpose of improving the article. I'll just repeat the question: where in the article might it be useful to clarify the term "stress" by changing to "stressor" (a cause) or to either "strain" or "stress reaction" (the result)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

RK. In the second paragraph, occupational stress should be changed to stress reaction for better clarity. Either that, or the sentence should be completely rewritten to list the areas of research, something like, "OHP is concerned with occupational stress, accidents and injuries, the interface or work and family, " This might be better as the sentence is getting muddled with too many variable names and citations. Psyc12 (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Better clarity might be a very good idea. Can you suggest a replacement sentence here, so that we can try to achieve consensus? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

RK and Psyc12. I am off to teach a class. RK's comment was on top of the list of comments I read. I saw Psyc12's comment sandwiched amidst the many comments made by Mrm. RK's and Psyc12's comments make sense to me. Can one of you make the change in nomenclature in the OHP article? I am with you. Thanks. I have to run. Iss246 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you already clarified your opinion iss246 in 2008-2011. You said OHP was equivalent to work stress?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Let's keep this simple.

"Occupational health psychology is concerned with a number of topics, such as accidents and safety, burnout, musculoskeletal disorders, occupational stress, work schedules such as shiftwork, workplace violence, and work-family issues" Source is Spector I/O textbook. This isn't everything, but it hits major topics. More could be added from another source, but the rest of the paragraph gives more specific examples so maybe it isn't necessary. Psyc12 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't really make sense scientifically. But also Iss246 was saying OHP is the equivalent of work stress? Do you agree psyc12? What is the point of mentioning anything else? Seriously? If OHP is work stress as your friend, scholar and OHP society fellow member sai this, we should listen to him on this topic? Mrm7171 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Iss246 said that "occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress. That is the primary subject matter. And iss246 also said this psyc12. "I could report on the equivalence of work and stress and OHP" .Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 I 'kind of' agree with iss246. What do you think psyc12? Is OHP equivalent to work stress like iss246 states? There sure is no consensus based on my opinions about that sentence and iss246 statements about the equivalence of work stress and OHP? Mrm7171 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an attempt at a "gotcha" that does not work.

For the record, I did not write that "OHP is the equivalent of work stress." OHP is concerned with work stress, it is not equivalent to work stress. Moreover, that concern with work stress does not mean it is unconcerned with, say, accident risk, the relation of effort-reward imbalance to psychological distress, work-home carryover, etc. Iss246 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all iss246. Please STOP the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. You have used that trick with other editors to win your battles it seems since 2008!! Lay off the false accusations with me. For the last time. And focus on content only!Mrm7171 (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you were discussing exactly the same topic with other editors and these are just direct quotes, word for word by you. I quote another section: "In response to DoctorW, occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress." .Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC) See it for yourself iss246. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1Mrm7171 (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you tried to convince all of these other editors for all those years OHP was the same as work stress, why now are you getting all technical? We are discussing the same thing you discussed with all of those other editors between 2008 and 2011.Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1Mrm7171 (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

One more note on this attempt at a "gotcha." If my memory serves me, I think I was writing that the journal Work & Stress is an OHP journal. That is also a topic that was discussed on this page recently. Now that Mrm has talked about me. I am not going to talk about him. I've got an early flight to Texas tomorrow. See y'all soon. Iss246 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about you iss246. We are discussing your opinions. And we are discussing the definition of the word stress as you insisted. I wanted to move on rather than create these walls of text. But you (see above) wanted to get all technical about the word stress. So we all are discussing it. And your comments are clear. "occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress." Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't print here what DoctorW said about you in 2011 after all those years? Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 Because I won't comment on your behavior, only content. Nor will I slander you like you have with me on your talk page, despite my 30 years plus experience with these topics and graduate degress in the area. And a genuine interest in these topics Have you removed that slanderous, false, filth you had posted on your talk page yet iss246? Mrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Early references

Hi Bilby, fair enough removing a couple of references pre-dating occ health psych. Similar to my point mentioned directly ababove. I'm fine with your edit, it makes sense.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, should all the references prior to 1990? be removed? I think you had a good point. If they pre-date 1990? then obviously ththey were not part of OHP either? Thoughts please?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I will start deleting those too Bilby. You made a great point. If sources used here pre-date 1990, they were obviously part of other areas of psychology, medicine etc. They cannot therefore validly belong to an article strictly discussing OHP as this one does. I'll get to work.c (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the sections titled origins of OHP pre-1990, also needs to be deleted. Prior to 1990, research conducted into work stress and similar topics was obviously not OHP. I will get to work on that too. Thanks Bilby. It will really clear this article up, I would love to move on to some other Misplaced Pages projects I have started on. It made no sense to me why articles prior to 1990 were being used or the research 'claimed' by OHP! That defies logic. If OHP began in 1990, all research prior, was from other areas of psychology and related disciplines. Simple. Can't argue with your logic there Bilby.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

References specifically for the current definition of OHP should definitely originate from its formal definition or later, so Bilby's removals were indeed useful. On the other hand, if they are supporting the relevant point that academic publication in the modern field of OHP occurred before some start date, they should probably stay. (The field was defined at some point, but work in the area was done before then.) Such references would be particularly though not exclusively relevant to the history and origins of OHP. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense. 1990 was the start date of OHP. You can't be using references in an OHP article that were conducted by organizational psychologists and then claiming for the field of OHP. Research and science doesn't work that way. What would use in those articles? I'm going to start removing them. Again, this is common sense another principle of Misplaced Pages. Are you that biased RK/ Really? I actually thought you wanted to benefit Misplaced Pages. I'm going to start these edits in good faith. Any other reasoning please add before I do. But your last comments do not make sense.

Timeline of work stress & OHP related topics prior to 1990 the start date of OHP

Here is the logic and common sense and fairness again for the record, so it is clear for 'independent' editors concerned about the quality of wikipedia articles rather than editor's self interests.

1. Before 1990 no OHP existed.
2. Research into OHP related topics like work stress first conducted in the 1960s by Organizational psychs, and others
3. They were published in journals like organizational behavior & Journal of Occupational psychology
4. Many, not all, of those research studies were conducted by Organizational Psychs, like Cary Cooper, Tom Cox, and many others
5. These Organizational psychs were trained in Organizational psychology. They conducted the research prior to 1990. It belongs in the industrial & Organizational psychology and other articles, NOT the OHP article. OHP did not exist!

Then OHP comes along in 1990, and tries to 'claim' these studies conducted by Organizational psychologists and others conducted prior to 1990 as part of OHP today?? COME ON!! Pleeaassse! Give me and Misplaced Pages, who's site we are all on here, a break. Sorry but this takes the cake. This has to go to arbitration. I do not believe Misplaced Pages want their articles to be biased like this. It is not a private website.

I'm going to delete those references obviously.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can other editors please address these clear, logical points made directly above if you object. This is Misplaced Pages. Sorry to keep repeating that.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, please don't add references to support your claim that OHP is concerned with occupational stress if they don't mention OHP or don't mention stress . I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but it was inappropriate. - Bilby (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair points Bilby. I won't.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, please obtain consensus before removing historical references, or the history section. The name OHP may have been coined at some point but work in that area was done before, indeed that's why the modern definition of OHP was introduced, mentioned in the 1980s at least and from 1990 as a separate discipline. It was an existing area of work that had developed to the point where it needed a name. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, RK its name was organizational psychology. And the work was done by Organizational psychologists. Please address the timeline above. You keep avoiding that. Would you appreciate articles like Bowhunting or List of Roman emperors to be biased. How is the history section in this article anything to do with OHP RK? Direct question? I am going to make some bold edits. No one has addressed these questions or disputed withe evidence or reasoning, the timeline above. Mrm7171 (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We have a definition of OHP, and we also have studies from decades before that fall within that definition of OHP. They were in fact the foundation of the discipline and are obviously relevant to its history and origins. The ancient Romans didn't use the term "civil engineering" or indeed any other English phrase, but I find over 300,000 Google hits for "Roman civil engineering". As I mentioned above, please obtain consensus here before making changes. You might possibly find it useful to put them in your personal sandbox and mention them here, with a diff so that we can easily find them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, RK. Thanks for discussing this. I will consider all of these points. This is a pretty confusing article. After Bilby made the pre-1990 point which seems pretty logical to me more thought on this is required. However the points I just posted, regarding reliable sources and occupational stress. They are not confusing. Please read my section there as carefully as I have just done with yours here. It is based on 'core' Misplaced Pages principles. I stopped at the number of references provided, only because it was getting ridiculous. But if need be, I can provide a heck of a lot more.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

RK makes an important point. The analogy to "Roman civil engineering" is apt. It is important to mention the individuals whose work helped to lead up to the emergence of OHP. History is important. Iss246 (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving on please, version 5

Moving on please. I would like to introduce a training section into this psychology article. I realise this has already been discussed. However hoping now some issues have been clarified, mainly the obsolete and irrelevant issue of whether occupational health psychology is a specialization of organizational psychology or not, we could do so? I think it would be worthwhile, and personally have no point to prove by doing so. Clinical psychology, health psychology, industrial & organizational psychology, educational psychology among other similar articles have got this section. Even the 2 OHP societies have education for practitioners as a major agenda. So...?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

TRAINING SECTION PROPOSAL FOR THE ARTICLE?

No-one has bothered to comment on a constructive addition to this article.

OHP GRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAMMES Europe

• University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
• University of Leiden (English), Netherlands
• West University of Timisoara (English), Romania

North America

• Bowling Green State University
• Clemson University
• Colorado State University
• Kansas State University
• Portland State University
• Tulane University
• University of California at Los Angeles
• University of Connecticut
• University of Houston
• University of Minnesota
• University of South Florida
• University of Texas at Austin

Although none of these are Doctoral programs in OHP. I checked each of them, surely we could do better than just listing these courses? The EA-OHP says that "The growth of occupational health psychology depends, in large part, on the availability of relevant, high quality education and training. http://www.eaohp.org/education-and-training.html That is why I think it is important to have a section on training in OHP?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In relation to my neutral statement that no Doctoral programs in OHP, existed still after 20 years, I was challenged on that point, for some reason by Bilby and iss246/psyc12 and was confused as to why?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I also wondered why iss246 said this in Sepember 2008 to a whole bunch of other editors, and way before my time in 2013, to support his claim that OHP should be in the psychology template sidebar? That was the only reason I even looked up the courses Bilby. But anyway, this is what iss246 said as a major support for his claim to include OHP in the applied psych sidebar. Iss246 you said this:

“I counted OHP doctoral programs at these institutions (although the list may not be exhaustive): Bowling Green State University, Clemson University, Colorado State University, Kansas State University, Portland State University, Tulane University, UCLA, the University of Connecticut, the University of Houston, the University of Minnesota, the University of South Florida, the University of Texas, and University of Nottingham in the UK." Iss246 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

Did you not know that none of these courses were actually a doctorate in OHP iss246 when you used the amount of 'non existent' Doctoral Programs in OHP, as a cornerstone to support your argument to include OHP in the applied psychology sidebar and against the consensus at the time with a bunch of other good faith editors who took your word for it? Honest question.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this why no editors have commented on this valid proposal to include a proper section in the article on training. If the SOHP & EA-OHP both consider training as a critical part of advancing OHP why are we not including a training section? Mrm7171 (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What references can be used to support the single 'occupational stress' entry?

There are at least 5 of those references still there that use occupational, job or work stress. That is solid. That is what Misplaced Pages want. Reliable sources. I will add a few more when I get a chance. Occupational, job or work stress is what has been used for decades by a 'who's, who" in the research world concerning occupational stress. I know it is an older reference now, around the time OHP was 'invented' but a really good chapter by Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). (pp. 571-650). It explains the work of Organizational psychologists and earlier work in occupational stress. Would that be okay to use as a reference? If psyc12/iss246 bans it that is okay. I included it mainly for RK and others to see that I/O or Org psychs actually were the pioneers of this field of occupational/work stress. And not my opinion.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Kahn was a social psychologist, so this cite is not a good one to show that I/O psychologists did early OHP work. Anyone interested in the history of occupational stress might check out Cary Cooper and Phil Dewe's Stress A Brief History. They trace occupational stress to the 1950s at the Institute for Social Research at University of Michigan, and note the early work by Katz and Kahn on role stressors that dominated the field for a long time. All of this was social psychology not I/O.

I will stipulate that I/Os have made a large impact on OHP. That is not in dispute. What I don't understand is how this is relevant to this article, which is on OHP not I/O. The I/O article would be the place to discuss the role of I/O in the study of stress.Psyc12 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so Bilby has said nothing before 1990? Why was that again please Bilby? You deleted any reference prior to 1990? I have just included Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). (pp. 571-650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Is that reference okay? I will put in a bunch of very reliable sources talking about job/work/occupational stress from the journal work & stress, even, and from the journal of occupational health psychology. But we are going to have a lot!

The reality is that occupational stress is the term that all of the major international researchers way back to the 1960's have used. It is the mainstay. Why iss246 doesn't know that I'm not sure. Maybe psyc12 would be more aware of that? Anyway occupational stress is the term used to describe occupational stress, in the vast majority of reliable sources. I will cite maybe another 5 or 10. Any further thoughts before I do?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The point I am making is more than terminological. The point is about conceptualization. What is "occupational stress"? Think about it. Is it the independent variable, for example, an imbalance between the high effort a worker puts into his or her job and the small rewards received for the job? Is it the dependent variable, for example, how distressed the worker feels after receiving paltry recognition and low pay for a job well done? Is it the entire circuit from the work in a job in which the effort far outweighs the rewards and the psychological distress the worker feels as a result of that working condition? In the past, the terms "stress" and "occupational stress" could mean any of those three things and perhaps more. I recognize that the terms "stress" and "occupational stress" have been used for a long time; I'm not unaware of that. But the terms have so much surplus meaning that they can mean many things. I am addressing the conceptualization of the terms. This is not something I invented in order to argue on Misplaced Pages. The problematic conceptualization was illuminated by researchers such as Stanislav Kasl and Michael Frese. I prefer a clearer conceptualization. That's all. For example, that we use the term stressor to represent the IV. And that we use one of a number of potential terms, "strain," "stress response," "stress reaction," distress, and &c. to represent the DV in the worker who was exposed to the stressor. Many researchers in the OHP community use the term "strain." Iss246 (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you check the references of that chapter psyc12, you will find a lot of researchers prior to 1992, way back. Many, not all I/O psychs. What I mean by I/O psychologists is that their Doctorate was in I/O psychology. Tetrick who wrote the OHP handbook I think by memory has a Doctorate in I/O psychology? Don't quote me. As far the 1960s i am using published journal research. I think it was the organizational journal personnel psychology? I will check, in the early 1960s that published some seminal work? Maybe you remember it?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, just checked Dr. Tetrick, received her doctorate in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1983. Director of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Program in 2003. Dr. Tetrick is the Editor of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. She co-edited the Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, I understand your points over definition. Believe me. I understand what an independent and dependent variable is too. I took out the study you mentioned. I replaced it with 2 more for greater clarity. This is Misplaced Pages. This is a minor point. It is the inclusion of occupational stress based on what major reliable sources use and have used for decades that matters here. As you would be aware occupational stress is also referred to as an outcome. Society understands occupational stress as an outcome too. In the reliable sources, they talk of occupational stress as an outcome. Which of the current sources on the article page right now do not? I will include more specifically indicating occupational stress referring to outcome. For that sentence that is all that is needed. And 10 major, rock solid, reliable, published sources (after today), all stating that will support my inclusion of the two words in the spot those 2 words, occupational stress currently sit.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that there may be some confusion here. I didn't delete any references because they were pre-1990. I deleted three pre-1985 references because the term "occupational health psychology" was not used prior to 1985, and those references were being used to support the claim that "OHP is concerned with occupational stress". Accordingly, they could not be used to support that claim, because they could not have mentioned OHP, and I confirmed this by checking the articles. - Bilby (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Bilby. That's what I had thought.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bilby for your efforts on the OHP page. Iss246 (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

iss246, you stated this earlier: ""Karasek's (1979) demand-control (DC) model has been a leading work stress model in occupational health psychology since the 1980s." Nonsense. OHP was only invented in 1990! It was not a OHP model. see this reliable source, the apa http://www.apa.org/research/action/control.aspx I quote from the APA site: Findings "Industrial psychologists discovered that how much latitude employees have at work - their control over job-related decisions - affects their health, their morale and their ability to handle their workload. Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham reported, in 1976, that control (in terms of job-provided autonomy) enhanced motivation and growth - in blue collar, white collar and professional positions." Such references used in this article prior to 1990 should be deleted. They belong in the organizational psychology and other articles.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, you will only make a further excuse or explanation how OHP, invented in 1990, somehow owns all of this industrial psychology research conducted prior to and post 1990 belongs to OHP??Mrm7171 (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Work of any date may (if it's useful to do so) be described as OHP if it falls within the modern definition of OHP. It does not matter who did it or what they called it at the time, and ownership is not a relevant concept. For the purposes of this article we should include some such work, at least as part of the history of OHP. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So? Mrm7171 (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How many journals should we mention and on what grounds?

why then Richardkeatinge are you and iss246/psyc12 only 'allowing' the 2 OHP society journals to be included in this Misplaced Pages article? Should we not include other major international journals? That is, other major, reliable published sources like Misplaced Pages want, particularly in articles relating to medicine and psychology? I would like this Misplaced Pages article to benefit from us relying only on what the reliable sources say.

hat is why I persist here. I have high regard for Misplaced Pages, and I feel that this article is very biased and a small 'band' of editors are taking 'ownership' of the article. So RK can we include some major reliable sources alongside the 2 smaller journals just because they are 'associated' with the 2 OHP societies? Surely we could work them into this article as well somehow? That is what Misplaced Pages want. Why are you and (psyc12/iss246)so against including major reliable sources outside of the 2 OHP societies and not giving industrial psychology credit for the contribution it has and continues to make to OHP?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a list of every journal that's ever published OHP. We don't, in fact, necessarily need to mention any journals at all though consensus seems to be that we should mention a couple that are reliably described as "flagship" journals for the speciality. We also refer to a list of journals that may welcome OHP work, and that seems quite enough for an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just edited the third paragraph in good faith, and with a solid reliable source, and based on what I said directly above: It is a compromise. It does not affect the integrity of the third paragraph in any way. However it recognizes other journals outside of the 2 smaller 'OHP societies' journals. It now reads:

"There are two journals that focus closely on OHP research (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress). as well as several journals that publish articles on OHP topics, such as Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology ."Mrm7171 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to administrator: This is an attempt to add some neutrality to Misplaced Pages's article. It will no doubt be undone by a member of the 'tag team', and the major psychological journals mentioned above, again 'censored' by editors acting as a 'tag team' and edit warring. I am waiting for help here by an independent editor to assist with enforcing some type of order and adherence to Misplaced Pages protocol.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The current paragraph reads well Rickardkeatinge. As you know there has been major problems on this article. Emotions are running high. Psyc 12 breached the 3 revert rule the other day with 5 reverts within a 24 hour period. You did nothing. You are not independent by any means and have no rule interest in this article. I should have requested dispute resolution long ago. I will be reporting psyc12s breach of Misplaced Pages revert rules as well as iss246's from a couple of weeks ago. The addition I just made was a compromise. It was not the same sentence as a few days ago. I maintained the integrity of the paragraph and just added those other major sources. Richardkeatinge you just blindly reverted the change without any discussion here. No doubt when the fellow tag team members come in they will revert again.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

RK. The only reason to mention JOHP and W&S is to establish that OHP is an emerging discipline that is mature enough to have its own journals, as well as societies and conferences. However, the third paragraph is redundant with the section on history since 1990 which mentions these journals and societies, so the entire 3rd paragraph could be deleted to reduce redundancy. Maybe this information fits better under history anyway.

It also seems to me that we have consensus to change stress to stress reactions to make things clearer. This is a reasonable compromise that retains the idea of stress, which is a large part of OHP, while avoiding potential confusion about what the word stress means.

Finally, thank you for your efforts on the article. Your insights coming from a different discipline are very helpful. Psyc12 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm doing my imperfect best, and trying to remain within my limits. I agree with your suggestion of removing the entire 3rd paragraph of the lead. To the encyclopedic reader, I think it's un-necessary detail where it is. The societies, and the flagship journals at least, do need to be mentioned - they are fundamental to the claims of OHP to be an identifiable discipline - but not, I think, in the lead. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We are all imperfect RK, that's not the point! I agree, getting rid of the 3rd paragraph. I suggested that earlier remember, but the 'tag team' rejected it. SOHP & EAOHP mentioned way too much anyway. However will find a new place in the article to place those other related journals and the inthe other references in that paragrah NOT currently mentioned elsewhere. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of viewMrm7171 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just removed the third paragraph of the lead. I had previously wikilinked the relevant societies and journals in the main body (Development after 1990: academic societies and specialized journals). Mrm7171, your changes will require consensus; I look forward to your arguments on this page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the change. Now one detail. JOHP is not published in association with SOHP. It is an APA journal, and APA has given SOHP a group rate so all SOHP members receive a subscription paid for by dues. SOHP has no formal role in the journal itself. Neither the journal nor SOHP website claims an affiliation. By contrast W&S on their website says it is published in association with EA-OHP. I'll revise accordingly. Psyc12 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The history of the topic of occupational stress & OHP on Misplaced Pages

Yes, that is what that we are talking about Bilby. OHP is concerned with occupational/work stress. Given that earlier iss246 was talking about the importance of history, I was just looking back over the history of the OHP topic on Misplaced Pages since 2008. I found this discussion, 2008 onwards. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 RfC: Should Occupational health psychology be included in Template:Psychology sidebar. Very relevant to this discussion on the use of the term occupational/work stress and OHP.

Here is what you said iss246, about work stress to support your argument for including it against consensus, in the psychology sidebar. "I conducted a search of PsycInfo. On one line I entered "occupational health psychology". Then I entered "or" to concatenate OHP with what I inserted on the second line, the terms, "job", "and", and "stress". A great deal of OHP centers around job stress or work stress........As it stands, I got 9706 hits. That number of hits, together with the presence of doctoral programs...Iss246 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to DoctorW, occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress. That is the primary subject matter. In fact, one of the prominent OHP journals is called Work & Stress. I conducted a Google search under the terms work stress, and got 19,400,000 hits. I had 2,090,000 hits when I searched sports psychology. I don't think that that the number of hits should be the only criterion for a division of psychology making its way into the sidebar…”.Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC) and then iss246 you said this in march 2009, continuing on your fight to have occupational health psych put in the applied psych sidebar against consensus.

“I could report on the equivalence of work and stress and OHP”.Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

It appears that you were not so concerned back then iss246 about IV & DV variables iss246? and terminology?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be mainly about the applied psychology sidebar and as such is inappropriate here. To the limited extent that it has any relevance to this article, it is duplicated elsewhere on the talk page. I have collapsed the section so that it's not quite so much in the way. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I undid the collapse as I totally disagree. This is part of the history of the occupational/work stress dialogue directly related to occupational health psychology. You trying to censor it, is further group article ownership.

Iss246 or other editors, any reply to my points directly above and based on Misplaced Pages core principles of using reliable sources?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to administrator: I have now been forced to include 11 reliable sources for this 2 word inclusion of "occupational stress". That is ridiculous. And still, psyc12/iss246, close friends outside of Misplaced Pages and psyc12 enlisted by iss246 in June of this year, with a large number of other OHP society members that all joined up on Misplaced Pages at the same time add weight to iss246's side of a discussion. Recently RK, with interest in other articles completely off the topic of this article has become involved in this 'tag team' preventing any change to the article whatsoever. This 2 word addition and my minor addition to the third paragraph based on excellent sources has created 'walls of text'. I guess like any 'ownership behavior' on Misplaced Pages, an editor like myself either battles against this tag team or leaves the article as the leader. iss246 has told me to do on numerous occasions in no uncertain terms. He has fought it out with other editors over this topic of occupational health psychology based purely on the interests of an outside society he and psyc12 belong to. Unlike richardkeatinge I do have an interest and knowledge of this topic. I respect Misplaced Pages greatly and believe that this biased article must be corrected and more reliable sources added. I just wish it could have been done in a civil manner, and that is why I stupidly, in hindsight, left a dispute resolution request so long. I also did not wish to waste the limited resources of Misplaced Pages on a dispute that I had hoped could have been worked out in a civil manner. However that is clearly not what has occurred. Mrm7171 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Already a member of the 'tag team', Bilby, backing up the leader iss246, has deleted without any discussion on this talk page 2 of my 11 reliable sources. This is all over a 2 word edit. A 2 word edit. If this is not the most classic example of ownership behavior in the history of wikipedia I'll be a monkey's uncle. All over a 2 word addition. Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles Multiple-editor ownership: The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I just undid my own revert. The 2 reliable sources Bilby just deleted without any discussion on this talk page, Reliable Sources by Cary Cooper, one of the world's leaders in occupational health psychology research and occupational stress, can remain deleted by Bilby. I won't engage in edit warring.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have added two sources which didn't mention OHP, as support for the claim that OHP is concerned with stress - a claim which, in itself, is not in dispute. (The dispute is now about how to present this, in regard to the best wording, not a lack of sources). However, I may well have missed something - can you provide a quote from either Kompier, Cooper, & Geurts (2000). "A multiple case study approach to work stress prevention in Europe" or Cooper & Cartwright (1994). "Healthy mind, healthy organisation: A proactive approach to occupational stress" where OHP is raised? The only reference I could find in Kompier, Cooper, & Geurts was a reference to a paper in the Journal of OHP, and I couldn't find any mention of OHP in Cooper & Cartwright. - Bilby (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Everly 1986 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Feldman, R. H. L. (1985). Promoting occupational safety and health. Everly and R.H.L. Feldman (Eds.). Occupational health promotion: Health behavior in the workplace (pp. 188-207). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
3. Raymond, J., Wood, D., & Patrick, W. (1990). Psychology training in work and health. American Psychologist, 45, 1159-1161.
4. Quick, J.C. (1999). Occupational Health Psychology. Historical Roots and future directions. Health Psychology, 18 (1), 82-88.
5. Houdmont, J., Leka, S. & Cox, T. (2007). Education in occupational health psychology in Europe: Where have we been, where are we now and where are we going? In J. Houdmont & S. McIntyre (Eds.), Occupational Health Psychology: European Perspectives on Research.
6. Antoniou, A.G., & Cooper, C.L. (2011). New Directions in Organisational Psychology and Behavioural Medicine. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
7. http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/ohp/journals.htm