Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:31, 23 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Otherwise they need to be deleted as Wiki in any case cannot have 404 outdated links.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.

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)

NOT appriate to be discussing other articles on this article talk page. Discuss other articles only on those separate article talk pages please as Misplaced Pages requires all editors to do. Bilby would agree, i'm sure, he is pretty aware of how these things work? Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be noted, that 'any' changes to 'any' other Misplaced Pages article 'needs' to be discussed entirely separate to another article. Discussions of other 'article changes' of any kind, and solely based on Misplaced Pages protocol, as Bilby is aware, need to be discussed on that article page only. It is NOT apt to be discussing any other Misplaced Pages articles on this article page. Above there are mention of other articles by psyc 12. That is not how Misplaced Pages works psyc12. These are all entirely separate, articles, as distinct and separate as any other separate article. ThanksMrm7171 (talk) 04:18, 12 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)

Note from section above. Could editors like psyc12, only discuss this separate article, on this separate article talk page. Discussion and any changes to any other separate article, 'need' to be discussed only on that article's own talk pages and a whole new topic. That's just how separate Misplaced Pages articles work. Misplaced Pages's article policy. Bilby and RK are vety aware of that core rule to editing I'm sure. Psyc12 in a discussion above was making reference to other separate articles, like the journal of occupational health psychology??...that is an entirely separate Misplaced Pages article, psyc12, it is NOT apt to be discussed here on this article talk page, please. We need to be careful that we only ever discuss the article we are on. Thank you.

Just added link to occupational stress. Included 5 major published reliable sources all directly supporting that OHP is concerned with occupational stress. 5 is enough. Could include many more, but stopped. Psyc12, this is Misplaced Pages. Reliable sources and NPOV are everything. Although common sense should prevail regarding the number of sources added, deleting sources as you have is not what Misplaced Pages wants. Please don't revert these 5 reliable sources again. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A problem is that some of these sources do not say that OHP is concerned with these topics. I do not object to adding another source or two (more than that is overkill), if it supports the statement, but in this case at least some do not. Mrm7171, if you do not want me to revert your additions, please take more care to be sure the references support the statement you claim they support. Please go through the ones you added and delete those that do not address the issue of areas OHP is concerned with. I know some do not. If you don't want to do that, I will just delete them all, as it is not my job to double-check your referencing. Psyc12 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to double check anything psyc12. I think perhaps you need to 'verify' your assumptions though. Which sources don't support this statement: OHP is concerned with occupational stress? Not OHP's relationship to the other topics you mentioned in that sentence? Mrm7171 (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of discussing here psyc12, because you knew the sources were relevant. These sources were from the journal of occupational health psychology and they were about occupational stress. How else can I explain this to you psyc12. Perhaps you don't understand what occupational stress is? Or how journal research works? If research is specifically about occupational stress and it is found within the journal of occupational health psychology, it therefore shows that OHP is concerned with occupational stress. Can't get clearer, can it psyc12? Instead, as usual, you engage in edit warring and deleted them without discussing on this page first. And other editors ignore it. Will attach this further instance to my list of edit events which is showing a clear pattern of your edit warring. They need to be restored or discussed here please as you removed them 'falsely' and with no cause. I won't engage in edit warring.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Any discussion on falsely deleting these reliable sources and addressing the facts outlined above? If the research is specifically about occupational stress, and it is found within the journal of occupational health psychology, it therefore shows that OHP is concerned with occupational stress? Not sure how else to put that?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that OHP is concerned with stress at work. Indeed I suspect that we could include it without any reference at all, on the basis of consensus. The issue of your two references is therefore rather trivial. The problem is that a reference for any fact needs to say it explicitly, and the two you mention don't seem to, not that I've personally checked. Your reasoning above is original research and has no place on Misplaced Pages. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad everyone has now finally agreed to include the 2 words; occupational stress. And Richardkeatinge, you saying now we could include it without any reference at all". Wow, it would have saved the walls of text created on this page for no reason. That was my point all along but iss246 believed there were so many definitions of stress and occupational stress that we should NOT include the term occupational stress? We would never have even discussed it, let alone pages of debate & discussion, if iss246 had not mentioned the huge differences and still lack of consensus over the definitions! I am okay with the 2 sources used RK.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, that is a distortion of what I wrote. I wrote that in the history of research in this area some researchers viewed the term "stress" as reflecting the stimulus (the stressors); others, the response; and others, the entire circuit of stimulus and response. Because of that history, I thought it prudent to employ less ambiguous terms such as "stressor" and "stress reaction" (or "stress response" or "strain"). I add that the most commonly used term for the effect of stressors on the individual is the term "strain." Iss246 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've given you my opinion only. I haven't checked the sources nor what anyone else thinks, so I'd suggest caution in making any changes. Consensus here first is always a good idea. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Rather than argue, I accepted psyc12s, 're-written version,' even accepted deleting 3 of my perfectly sound reliable sources. My comment was talking about what you said here Richardkeatinge..."Indeed I suspect that we could include it without any reference at all, on the basis of consensus". My point was how ridiculous it was to create 'walls of text' over including something so obvious.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I have been at pains here to ignore all examples of un-collegiate behaviour and less-than-competent approaches to debate, instead trying to understand the nature of the disagreement, to ask constructive questions that may lead to consensus, and to suggest solutions that accord with the sources and are acceptable to all contributors. I strongly recommend this approach to others. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

How many references do we need to support the statement that OHP is concerned with workplace stress?

None? One? Two? Many? Lots? Me, I'd suggest that none is defensible and one or two good texts probably the best bet. Comments?

None needed. The reference at the end of the sentence lists all of the areas in the sentence as OHP areas. To add a specific reference for stress is redundant and unnecessary. Psyc12 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Psyc12, in that it already seems covered in the overall reference. From my reading of the discussion, I don't see that lack of references was ever the issue - it was more about whether or not the use of the term was misleading, and/or if different wording was required. - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite. I hope to achieve consensus by breaking down the issues into simple, relevant questions; most of them are very easy to answer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the above I have again removed extra references which were not required to support the point. Extra references are not desirable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

RK which Misplaced Pages policy are you referring to which gives you authority to revert 2 RSs? There are 3 and even 4 references in other parts of this article? I am going to put those 2 reliable sources back in. Unless you can provide some compelling reason based on Misplaced Pages not to? Why on earth RK, would you be provoking further conflict in this article anyway? Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Misplaced Pages, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Misplaced Pages. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above." Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary I do not see why reverting and 'all of a sudden,' 2 perfectly good reliable sources was necessary, especially given recent problems in this article which led to it being listed for dispute resolution? If you are looking edit warring i won't participate. Sorry, but I will put those reliable sources back in, you have no grounds but to provoke edit warring to have deleted them.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Where in this article might it be useful to clarify the exact meaning of the word "stress"?

I know I've asked this before, but I'd like to get a definitive answer, either that there are specific instances of the word that could profitably be clarified, or that we can all accept its present usage in this article and move on. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through the article, and I think it is ok. It is used only 2 or 3 times, but in a way that is clear. Psyc12 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think RK that this question addresses how large a part of 'OHP' is work stress? Mrm7171 (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to, nor was it intended to start another digression of minimal use to this article or to an encyclopedia. Let's stick to simple practical points for a bit. So far we have Psyc12's opinion that we do not need to further clarify the word "stress" in this article. Any disagreements? (None from me.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am the person least happy with the word "stress," but I have used it in some old edits. I could live with its limited use in the article. Iss246 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I said all along, why are editors creating 'walls of text' over something so ridiculous. Is it again, that the Society for Occupational Health Psychology now does not want to use the word occupational stress in its literature, for some reason?? There was no need for this discussion over the inclusion of something so obvious as occupational stress relating to OHP! There are much more significant issues with this very biased article, which is the property of Misplaced Pages. Can we please move on now?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we can safely declare a consensus here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Note on the importance of professional articles such as medicine or psychology

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Misplaced Pages Initiative

"Because the general public frequently turns to Misplaced Pages when seeking information about psychology, psychological scientists have both a social responsibility and a personal stake in ensuring that the information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written."

This statement above supports what I have tried to ensure in this biased article against a great deal of opposition wanting to use Misplaced Pages to convey a perception that is not necessarily accepted in the international psychology community. This is Misplaced Pages. As members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, like iss246, psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others viewpoints are not truly independent on these important issues.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize to any 'truly' independent editors who have stumbled accross this dispute, but I feel that the "information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written." I feel that this article, the way it is presented is currently biased, does not include major reliable sources from outside a small OHP society. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Misplaced Pages InitiativeMrm7171 (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem particularly relevant. The APS-Misplaced Pages Initiative is a call for professionals in psychology to edit articles on psychology. Thus having people from the two OHP professional societies involve themselves in OHP-related articles is consistent with that initiative. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the important point to remember here Bilby. This is not an article about Game Boy or Junglee (2009 film)! "Because the general public frequently turns to Misplaced Pages when seeking information about psychology, psychological scientists have both a social responsibility and a personal stake in ensuring that the information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written." That needs to be mentioned again. Professional articles in areas like medicine and psychology are important. This statement is therefore very relevant here on this current psychology article.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The point of the APS-Misplaced Pages Initiative is that psychology articles are important, because they are used by the general public to find information about psychology. Therefore it is a call for professionals in the field to edit psychology articles to ensure that they are accurate and up to date. When members from the professional OHP societies contribute to articles related to their specialties, their actions are in keeping with the intent of that initiative.

The issue you are pointing to is maintaining a neutral point of view, which is not the specific focus of the initiative. Any initiative which encourages people from a particular background to edit Misplaced Pages will risk emphasising their perspective, but that needs to be considered against the value of having professionals in the field contribute. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Misplaced Pages Initiative is talking about Bilby is that the general public frequently turns to Misplaced Pages when seeking information about psychology, therefore psychological scientists have both a social responsibility and a personal stake in ensuring that the information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written." Apologies for repeating this simple yet very important point made in that article, which applies equally to 'any' article on Misplaced Pages which discussion psychology and the psychology profession and yes it is also neutral point of view too. And such articles are more important in that way than say, articles on Game Boy or Junglee (2009 film) for example. We can have Misplaced Pages administration look at this issue as well. That might be a good idea for all psychology and medicine articles in the future?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement. However, I agree psychology articles need experts to ensure that they are accurate and up to date. Those experts, it seems to me, should include members of the professional societies with expertise in those fields. On an unrelated issue, please stop trying to personalise these discussions with repeated references to my editing history - it feels like trolling, whatever the intent may have been, and is irrelevant to the issue at hand. - Bilby (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You follow me around to different psychology articles Bilby. I feel like you are trolling me. I only mentioned Game Boy or Junglee (2009 film) as two recent articles you were just editing. Big deal. Didn't even look at the articles or your edits, or comment myself on those unrelated articles. Pretty normal. But you following me around for some reason, on psychology articles, I have edited, is very odd. That could easily be seen as trolling. Also your obsession with protecting the 'OHP society' is odd. Stop personalizing things with me please and focus on content only. I may contact administration about this issue raised in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Misplaced Pages Initiative of medicine and psychology articles and their importance over articles about a shoe for instance or a bikini. Better examples? I will separate this issue of importance of articles from this discussion. I think it is a very good point. Can we move on? Mrm7171 (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as issues raised by other editors of meatpuppetry with those 7 members of the 'OHP society' who were 'invited to join' and all joined up in June, at exactly the same time, to 'support iss246's point of view'', these being: psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others that is a separate matter and NOT an issue for this talk page please Bilby.

Can we just stick to content please on this talk page, and move on with more important matters, than creating walls of text over ridiculous issues like the inclusion of 2 words like occupational stress, in this still very biased article?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that this was my point, then yes, I agree we should move on. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, all that you have written cuts a number of ways. First, your characterization of a call to the societies as an example of "meatpuppetry" suggests that APS is engaged in meatpuppetry too, although I am sure that APS isn't. It is to Misplaced Pages's benefit that experts contribute to the encyclopedia. Second, you listed above many names but only Psyc12 and I have made a substantial number edits. Waving all those names like a bloody shirt means little. Other than Psyc12 and I, the individuals attached to the names you listed made a negligible contribution to the OHP entry if they made any contribution at all. As criticism, it is nowhere. Third, you accuse me of having an agenda. It seems to me it is you Mrm7171 who has an agenda although you dress up the agenda in high fallutin terms such as helping the general public get an accurate view.... Your agenda is to cut down OHP. Finally, no one is following you Mrm around. If one wants to work on the OHP entry and related entries, one crosses your path. Iss246 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, this entire section is inappropriate for this page. In fact I'm not sure that it is appropriate anywhere on Misplaced Pages. If you have any edits to suggest, please suggest them, with references, and with a succinct justification. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifying and addressing bias, one paragraph at a time.

It has been suggested that this article is biased. I would like to invite anyone who thinks so to copy and paste no more than one paragraph to this talk page, to provide also a rewritten version with the bias ameliorated, and, in no more than five lines, without any digressions, reminiscences, or personal comments, to give policy-based reasons why the edit is a good idea. And then to leave the matter until others have commented. I would request that the comments should also be brief, policy-based, and free from digressions, personal comments, etc. Given a clear draft and brief, courteous, relevant comments, we may make progress. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi RK. In answer to your question, where this topic is appropriate, yes the issue of possible Misplaced Pages:Meat puppetry and the 7 members of the 'OHP society' who were all directly solicited by iss246, to come to Misplaced Pages in order to influence the editorial process and all joined up on the 'same day' in June, at exactly the same time, to 'support iss246's point of view, these being: psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others, is not altogether inappropriate for this page, given that some of these editors continue to engage in unprovoked edit warring and who knows when others will 're-appear' to support iss246's point of view. That is why I posted a dispute resolution request. Just so you don't wrongly attack me again RK, for mentioning the term Misplaced Pages:Meat puppetry I did not bring it up, although I did agree with Kww at the time. This is what editor Kww rightly thought.

"I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Misplaced Pages bias, something like that. —Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)"

Given there is new evidence which has now come to light, it should probably go back to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations rather than discussed further on this page?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

1. http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/ohp/journals.htm

• B-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class Disability articles
• WikiProject Disability articles