Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:39, 17 March 2014

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Otherwise they need to be deleted as Wiki in any case cannot have 404 outdated links.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.

—Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 12 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Description of occupational health psychology

The accurate definition or description of "occupational health psychology" seems to be causing some problems. It would certainly help if we can agree on what it is; it might well help if we can clearly identify where we disagree, and come up with an approach that satisfies all editors. I present some statements for your consideration:

It is appropriate, at least in this article, to abbreviate Occupational health psychology as "OHP"; the abbreviation is simply an abbreviation and in context carries exactly the same meaning as the full term.

Activities may be classified as OHP if they are to do with the psychology of health at work. Such activities may also accurately be described as "industrial psychology", "organizational psychology", or other genres of psychology. Overlap between genres is normal and should cause no difficulty; it might be perfectly reasonable to describe a study as "OHP" in one context and as "industrial psychology" in another.

Genres /subdisciplines of psychology may include activities such as academic research, academic conferences, graduate training programs, undergraduate programs, consulting work, individual work, and probably others. While at least one of these activities is essential for any genre to achieve the status of a subdiscipline, a subdiscipline may be considered to exist if only one or two of these activities are demonstrably described as being within it.

In some jurisdictions the personal descriptor "psychologist" is legally protected. There is an analogy with the term "architect" which is legally protected in the UK at least. Non-architects commonly describe themselves as "architectural consultants", and by general agreement what they do is architecture. Similarly, a non-psychologist may do psychology of any genre, so long as they don't describe themselves personally as a psychologist. This has no bearing on the validity of any subdiscipline of either architecture or psychology. Non-architects may contribute to architecture and non-psychologists may contribute to psychology. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Richardkeatinge for your comments and invitation for all editors to discuss in a civil, courteous, respectful manner. I am just unclear as to why Whatamidoing's post with a reliable source that Occupational Health Psychology is a specialization of Health Psychology. I just wonder why it is being duplicated in this article. I look forward to a civil, calm discusion between editors. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The English Misplaced Pages has articles on thousands of subtopics, such as subspecialties. If there is enough material to support a full article, then we write a full article. There is no rule that says every sub-type of health psychology must be in the main Health psychology article, nor is there a rule that says every sub-type of psychology must be in the main Psychology article. In this case, Occupational health psychology happens to meet the criteria for having an entire, stand-alone article dedicated to the subject, and so we therefore have this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying whatamidoing. I understand the rules on this then. I think that there is an issue where confusion currently lies. That is, many people believe occupational health psychology, as you quoted is a specialization, or OHP is a sub-speciality as you just stated. If it is, then the Everly quote you used in the health psych article, should state occupational health psychology is a specialization. If not, the source needs to be removed from that article. That's my understanding at least. Can you please give your point of view on this. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You write "occupational health psychology, as you quoted is a specialization, or OHP is a sub-speciality" (my italics). I would see both descriptions, and indeed others, as perfectly appropriate. Do you see them as mutually exclusive, so that OHP could be one or the other but could not be both? I really am having trouble understanding what you mean and would be grateful if you would elucidate on that point, and perhaps the others that I have listed above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Richardkeatinge and Whatamidoing, my original query does seem a bit confusing after re-reading it myself. I do agree with both of your logical comments regarding subspecialties and the practice of psychology. My only point was that the Everly source clearly places occupational health psychology as a specialization within health psychology? However psyc12 states below that occupational health psychology is not a specialization/sub speciality, and a completely "distinct field" should this 1986 source be relied on at all, as a key reliable source, in either this article, or the health psychology article?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is some overlap between health psychology and OHP, but they are distinct fields. It would not be correct to say that OHP is just a subarea within health psychology. If you look at the content of textbooks and journals in these fields, there is little overlap.Psyc12 (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of long term edits and reliable sources?

I removed the subsection that notes overlap between OHP and I/O psychology. It is redundant because the opening paragraph already notes the link between I/O and OHP, and the hyperlink will take the reader to the I/O article that provides all the details in greater depth. Psyc12 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed links, added some new ones. Removed second link to occupational stress as an earlier link already existed.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It was right to remove the double brackets around the Effort-Reward Imbalance model because there is no page devoted to it. It would be good if someone were to start a Misplaced Pages entry devoted to Johannes Siegrist's Effort-Reward Imbalance model. Iss246 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just added to the recently edited sentence, to reflect what the 1985 reliable source actually says, so reader is not misled.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We covered this ground already. We should not confuse the reader into thinking OHP is a subdiscipline of health Ψ. Everly also indicated the OHP specialists need public health too. In fact, he did not mention i/o psychology but that was omitted from the sentence I changed. It is enough. The origins of OHP have been established here, we don't need to edit-war about it. We should be satisfied that health Ψ, i/o Ψ, and occupational medicine contributed to the development of OHP. Iss246 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did psyc12 delete richard keatinge's and others editing efforts here please? "This paper has been credited, inaccurately, as the first to use the term.

It is an unimportant minor detail that clogs an already long article. Psyc12 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Richardkeatinge and others added '3 reliable sources' to that important sentence psyc12, explaining a 'major inconsistency' in the literature and origins of 'OHP' Richardkeatinge's edit allowed a NPOV to be presented in the article on that anomaly and was agreed through consensus. You just came in and deleted and 'censored' it for some reason?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 & psyc12, you delete Richardkeatinge's entire sentence 'with 3 reliable sources' attached. It showed a major anomaly in the literature where various authors and texts disagreed entirely as to when and where 'OHP' was invented? Why are you deleting key points est. through consensus instead of allowing NPOV?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this is a minor point that doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article. There is no need to call out 3 groups of authors who made an error. My suggestion if you feel strongly Mrm7171 is to ask some other editors to comment here to see if there's consensus one way or the other. Psyc12 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There already was consensus on that point with numerous editors about 6 months ago and it had 3 reliable sources. The article needs to present NPOV. Misplaced Pages doesn't censor. If it is such a small point, why delete it? Why do you and iss246 care SO much? Why create unnecessary conflict and more 'walls of text' now? Why are you both so personally involved and not neutral on this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's just restore Richardkeatinge's edit and his 3 reliable sources attached please, for the sake of civility?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171, you are the one arguing about this and making accusations. All I did was answer your question. Psyc12 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is Richardkeatinge's edit, developed through consensus 6 months ago, with 3 reliable sources. Will just restore it and let Richardkeatinge look at it later. That sounds fair. Creating a lot of unnecessary text here though over this? Why are you and iss246 so desperately trying to delete that NPOV edit?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a great deal of minutiae any bit of which is true based on multiple sources. That doesn't mean minutiae should clog up an encyclopedia article. I am okay if you ask Richardkeatinge, Bilby, and WhatamIdoing to have a look at this matter. They are experienced Wikipedians who have shown an interest in the OHP article in the past. Iss246 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Best we just put Richardkeatinge's sentence & 3 reliable sources 'back in the article' in the meantime, as those editors have not commented yet. You both have not said why it matters so much? or why you are both so vehemently opposed to its inclusion? It was developed through consensus 6 months ago?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a short sentence but very well written by Richardkeatinge, concisely summarizing the very strange anomaly in the 'OHP and OHP society's literature' and marketing material, as to the origins of 'OHP.' It also presented this anomaly with a NPOV, which is all that matters in this Misplaced Pages article.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to edit war over what is simply an edit developed through consensus and provides a NPOV. Are you both ok with me just putting Richardkeatinge's sentence and the 3 reliable sources you deleted, and give other editors a chance to comment later, or will you just revert it again? Why is it so 'personal' for you both?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please ask for the judgment of all three for the sake of arriving at a harmonious conclusion. The anomaly isn't so strange. Errors of credit happen often enough, even in science, and even in less trivial situations (e.g., the wrong person gets a Nobel and the right person doesn't). Iss246 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit was written by richardkeatinge and involved the consensus of you and psyc12 and all other editors 6 months ago. It is not very civil to just delete it like you both have and creates unnecessary conflict. Restoring it is just the fairest thing to do? Also can you comment below iss246. I would like your thoughts on external links please?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just restored Richardkeatinge's & other's sentence and 3 rel sources attached as it did not seem fair to just blindly delete by psyc12&iss246. If after Richardkeatinge and others decide it is not needed I will go with the consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is true that someone made a mistake in attribution. But it is a minor point. That is why I deleted it. A major encyclopedia-worthy attribution error would be if the Nobel committee awarded the Prize to the wrong scientist or denied the Prize to the right scientist. If we included every minor attribution error made, Misplaced Pages would be overrun with attribution errors. Iss246 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted again iss246, even though we were respectfully waiting for Richardkeatinge's input? The sentence relates to the history of 'OHP' and your 'OHP' society. Richardkeatinge's sentence reflected a clear anomoly in the literature, (written by other members of your OHP society) and should remain in the article. This "error" as you call it, seems why you and psyc12 are so focused on deleting that small detail, and indeed any other information from this article, which may not reflect positively on your 'OHP' society members. But this is an encyclopedic Misplaced Pages article meant to be presenting a NPOV based on what reliable sources say?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I requested that you contact 3 experienced editors, RK, WhatamIdoing, & Bilby, for input regarding your insistence on including a minor attribution error. You didn't. I deleted mention of the minor error. Iss246 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In US slang, you are making a "federal case" out of including a factoid. Iss246 (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This entire article reads like a 'promotional brochure' for your society of 'OHP' members, rather than an encyclopedic article, written with a NPOV and based on what the reliable sources 'actually' say. Richardkeatinge's edit should be restored, and the 3 reliable sources attached to it. Iss246, please consider alternatives to reverting rather than blindly deleting other editor's 'long standing,' well sourced, key sentences. I have found this article to be very helpful in providing guidance with these types of issues. Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessaryMrm7171 (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If that sentence & 3 RS is deleted again, a solution would be to also delete this sentence? "The term "occupational health psychology" appeared in print from 1985." (as both are part of the other)? I would support that approach as well. So, either we include both sentences together, or neither, seems most logical?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links

I added external links that are relevant to OHP. NIOSH, APA through its Public Interest Directorate, and SOHP sponsor a biennial conference devoted to OHP research and practice. EAOHP also sponsors a biennial conference on alternate years. All four organizations play a role in OHP research and practice. Iss246 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add some other external links to this article. Is there any criteria we should be guided by here?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering why these links have been selectively placed in this article and how they relate to OHP and/or the 2 professional societies for OHP? You say iss246, "All four organizations play a role in OHP research and practice." Can you explain their relevance please?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Four organizations. EA-OHP, SOHP, APA or the APA Public Interest Directorate, and NIOSH. I explained these links previously. Iss246 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean by "All four organizations play a role in OHP research and practice." Can you elaborate please?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for accuracy but I have done this already. The justifications are already documented. In fact, I already repeated a justification applicable to the issue you raise here regarding NIOSH and OHP on your talk page on February 26, which for me is yesterday in my time zone. Iss246 (talk)

Are these your comments you are referring to? "First, NIOSH's intramural research program includes OHP research. Second, NIOSH's grant program supports OHP research (I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research). Third, NIOSH is a sponsor along with APA and SOHP of the biennial conference on OHP research. I therefore think it is reasonable to include OHP in the NIOSH entry."?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Or was it some other comments you made? Please just elaborate clearly iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As you say isss246, "I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research" but how is your recent 'placement' of these NIOSH external links into this article, and indeed other related articles justified and presented with a NPOV? I just don't see the relevance of their inclusion in this article at all, I'm sorry, even though you are obviously being paid financially, by this government organisation NIOSH for your 'OHP' research as you say? Can you please declare your outside interests for transparency?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are to be links to outside organizations, APA and NIOSH make sense because of their historical role in developing OHP into a discipline and through their continued activities and support. APA publishes JOHP, NIOSH funds OHP training, and both are co-sponsors of the Work, Stress, and Health Conference along with SOHP. Both websites have sections relevant to OHP. Psyc12 (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry psyc12, you are answering again for iss246. I'm not sure which of you I am talking to? As you are both members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and friends and colleagues outside of Misplaced Pages, makes editing very disruptive. Are you also paid financially by NIOSH and involved with NIOSH's education programs, like iss246 states above, that they are being paid financially for 'OHP' research? Coming from a NPOV and as 'independent editor' I just don't see why you both have placed these particular links to NIOSH in this article and indeed other related articles? Seems very odd?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive about one editor answering another editor's question. Psyc12 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was a little slow in responding. NIOSH and APA were instrumental in the development of OHP worldwide. The first APA/NIOSH conference and later conferences were co-sponsored by the different institutes of health in the Nordic countries. The APA/NIOSH/and-now-SOHP conference draws conferees from around the world. NIOSH continues to support OHP research both in its intramural research program and in its extramural grants program. I don't think I need to explain the links to SOHP and EA-OHP. That is self-evident. APA has a special office devoted to work, stress, and health. I don't want to take up too much space, so I will stop here. Iss246 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you already stated that iss246. Thank you. As you say isss246, "I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research" I just don't see the relevance of their inclusion in this article at all, I'm sorry, even though you are obviously being paid financially, by this government organisation NIOSH for your 'OHP' research as you say? Can you both please declare your outside interests on this talk page for transparency?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, I have been civil with you. You have been uncivil me. Your charge is that I am being paid by NIOSH to put OHP and NIOSH on Misplaced Pages. I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read your comment. Way uncool. Iss246 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are getting off topic, Mrm7171. Why do you think these links are irrelevant? Psyc12 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry psyc12. You are choosing to answer for iss246 again? and with the same POV, rather than as 'independent editors'. There are obvious commercial and financial interests involved here, which are not being fully declared on this talk page, and in all of these interrelated articles, as iss246 clearly states "I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research"?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And no, iss246/psyc12. I have not made any specific accusation. Just posted 'word for word' your comments regarding financial payments from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Please don't fabricate or distort what is clearly outlined above.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I had also said at the beginning of this thread that I would like to add some other external links to this article but you both did not respond. Is there any criteria we should be guided by here regarding external links?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions to current article

I would like to add some other reliable sources and external links to this article from other related disciplines and reliable sources, not just from the sources written by members of the society of 'OHP' or the journal of 'OHP' as this article is 'clogged' with currently. Other fields like occupational medicine, occupational hygiene, health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology among others should also be included. If the 2 'OHP' societies really need to be mentioned in this article for some reason?, then other professional societies from these relevant fields mentioned, should also be included for balance, and to present a NPOV free any editorial bias. Personally I do not see the relevance of including mention of these 2 societies at all, given they have dedicated articles already?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph has internal links to i/o & health Ψ. The i/o and abnormal Wiki entries don't have external links to other disciplines or outside/related organizations. So leave the OHP external links section alone. There is nothing nefarious about external links to SOHP or EA-OHP. The entry on pediatrics contains an external link to the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is useful to external links to relevant organizations. Iss246 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you saying "So leave the OHP external links section alone." iss246 is not helpful. No one owns Misplaced Pages articles iss246? My clear comments above, and the significant need to include other reliable sources to achieve some NPOV in this article, are valid. Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. You have also completely ignored any valid concerns raised over COI.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. Abnormal Ψ has abnormal-Ψ-related external links. I/o Ψ has i/o-related links. OHP should have OHP-related links. Don't make a federal case out of it. Iss246 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "Right"? Does that mean you and psyc12 will you continue to 'block' any much needed additions and NPOV to this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages guidelines say to keep external links to a minimum. This article already has four and certainly doesn't need more. I just deleted the one to the APA Directorate, as two aren't needed to the same organization. Psyc12 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12&iss246, will you both continue to 'block' any much needed additions and NPOV to this article, (not only external links) if I try to add some other reliable sources? Or will you continue to blindly delete mine and other editors, like Richardkeatinge's attempts, to add some NPOV in this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I will attempt to add some other reliable sources then, not just those written by members from your 'OHP' society, and reflect the input to occupational health psychology from a number of other related disciplines, as outlined above, to bring some much needed NPOV to this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, we are discussing external links. We already covered the minor business of someone misattributing the coining of term OHP. It was I who originally wrote in the link to APA's Public Interest Directorate. But I am okay with its having been replaced by APA's Work, Stress, and Health Office b/c that office is a relatively new group within the Public Interest Directorate. Iss246 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to add some other reliable sources, not just those written by members from your 'OHP' society, and reflect the input to occupational health psychology from a number of other related disciplines, as outlined above, to bring some much needed NPOV to this article, not just external links? Please respond directly to that simple request.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be useful firstly then, to start by adding some official external links to these other related disciplines who are also concerned with occupational health psychology not just your professional society. These related disciplines are mentioned above? Is that okay with you both? I don't want to do that and then you delete my work?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you mean linking to societies in these fields that you listed above (occupational medicine, occupational hygiene, health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology), the answer is that these societies are not relevant. Wiki guidelines say to minimize external links. This article has enough now. Psyc12 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So you will both 'block' and again delete the addition of any other external links to equally important professions and related fields and insist only including links to your 'OHP' societies that you are members of?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, recall that I reported above that the link I placed in the OHP site was deleted, and I was okay with the change. It was replaced by a better link. A link more directly related to OHP. Iss246 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of you to direct my question. You answer in tandem. You also both won't answer my straight forward questions and instead create unnecessary 'walls of text.' My point is simply that I wish to add some other external links to equally important professions and related fields rather than only including links to your 'OHP' societies that you are members of. I also wish to make a number of additions to this article based on the broadest range of reliable sources from journals and texts not only articles written by members of your 'OHP' society?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I am responding because you keep directing your question to me. This is the OHP article, so a link to OHP societies is appropriate. On the I/O psychology page, for example, you would expect a link to SIOP and perhaps other I/O societies. You would not expect a link to SOHP in the I/O article because SOHP is not an I/O society, and you would not expect a link to SIOP in the OHP article because SIOP is not an OHP society. Psyc12 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You both keep avoiding my straight forward question which is creating 'walls of unnecessary text'

1. I wish to add a number of other equally important related links to occupational health psychology, rather than only including links to your 'OHP' societies, that you are both members of.

2. I also wish to make a number of additions to this article based on the broadest range of reliable sources from all available journals and texts not only articles written by members of your 'OHP' society?

3. Is that okay?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer the question unless you say what you want to add. And how will you know if the authors are members of OHP societies or not, and what difference would it make? Psyc12 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this Misplaced Pages article, is dedicated only to the broad topic of occupational health psychology which is a multidisciplinary topic. This article in my opinion at least, should not be so heavily influenced by an 'OHP' professional society, and include only carefully selected and screened content. That would be like saying the Cardiology article for example, could 'only' include external links, opinions and content from one or two particular professional medical societies, their journal, and their members. The Society for Occupational Health Psychology and European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology already have separate dedicated articles. Why then are these two 'OHP' societies so 'prominent' in this separate article, when so many other relevant fields, professions and reliable sources also deserve inclusion, to achieve something close to a NPOV?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not really an answer to the question. The main issue is simply, what links do you want to add? Can you nominate some external links related to OHP that you would like to see in the article? - Bilby (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. The other 2 editors have said there is 'no room' and are opposed to the inclusion of 'any' other links. That's my point?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact, iss246 even said "So leave the OHP external links section alone." I feel 'scared off' from even trying now, to be honest?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can propose the links to include, I'm sure that they would be considered fairly. It is just difficult to talk about links in general. - Bilby (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood, but I think it is pretty clear, based on comments like ""So leave the OHP external links section alone!" from iss246, that 'any' proposed changes are not going to be treated fairly. Have stepped back now. Scared off to be honest Bilby. It shouldn't be that way.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's a bit more than 'just the external links' based on the above discussion and other editor's hostile attitude toward 'any' changes or additions it seems.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Bilby is right. Bear in mind that yesterday Mrm7171 indicated that he would like to include external links to several other fields, for example, occupational medicine and occupational hygiene. That is why I objected. The external links he proposed are not directly relevant to OHP. I am not opposed to any change. I am not hostile to any change, as Mrm charges. I am opposed to the specific changes Mrm proposed. Iss246 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, external links are discouraged so they need to be directly relevant, and I can't give an opinion about a particular link unless I know what it is. Psyc12 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think it is pretty clear, based on iss246 and psyc12's comments like ""So leave the OHP external links section alone!", that 'any' proposed changes are not going to be treated fairly.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Entire 'historical overview' section's relevance to this article?

Could someone please explain why the entire 'historical overview' section has been placed in this article relating instead, to the historical overview of the 'OHP' societies. Shouldn't this entire section be placed in those 2 separate Misplaced Pages articles instead? Focus here should be on the general topic of occupational health psychology not the historical overview of privately run, separate 'OHP' societies, with separate articles?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, much of this material in the historical overview section is repeated in those separate articles, where it obviously belongs?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The history section covers the development of the discipline. I didn't look at every psychology entry but I looked at abnormal, biological, ABA, clinical, and i/o psychology. Each contains a section on the discipline's historical development even if bits are covered elsewhere (to give a coherent whole). Each entry provides the context of the development each specific discipline. Three of the five disciplines I reviewed also mention a bit about institutional history. The OHP history section is comparatively brief, well organized, and largely in harmony with the history sections of the other disciplines. Iss246 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, iss246, the entire section relates to the historical overview of your 'OHP' society, not the broad topic and article on occupational health psychology. The two are completely separate. And have separate articles. Can you answer to that specifically please?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. I counted the words. The entire history section comprises 552 words. The final section on the institutional development of OHP comprises 150 words. The section on institutional development divides up its coverage over the 3 OHP societies, the 2 conference series, and the 2 OHP journals. The history section has balance. Iss246 (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but anyway, I think that these 150 words then, should be deleted, or moved to their separate article for starters. They are just not relevant to the broad topic of occupational health psychology. They specifically talk about your 'OHP' society and the conferences and the paid sponsorship deals of your 'OHP' society to be involved. So at best, this section is irrelevant, in this article. It also seems very promotional to me, but anyway?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also this entire sentence "In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) jointly organized the first international Work, Stress, and Health conference in Washington, DC." It's related to your 'OHP' society, maybe? but not this article on the broad topic that's all.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also re-included sentence and the 3 reliable sources, that another editor wrote and was developed through consensus, relating to 1985 and the first discussion of the term occupational health (psychology). Think it reads better now. More factual and specifically relevant to this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I found the 1990 2 page discussion/article and firstly corrected the title. It is Psychology doctoral training in work and health. I then expanded the section to include what it actually says in this document widely used by members of the 'OHP' society when discussing the history of occupational health psychology. The 1990 study in American psychologist actually stated Doctoral training in health psychology and public health. All of this was for some reason missing in this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you corrected the title of the article by Raymond et al.

The brief text pertaining to the institutional development of OHP should stay because it puts the institutional history in one place along with internal links for readers to learn more. The APA/NIOSH meetings are mentioned b/c they were important in bringing OHP researchers from around the world together. Iss246 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed 2 sentences, specifically relating to the affiliations with a professional society in 'OHP' and organizations and multidisciplinary conferences they also may be involved in and affiliated with and are repeated in the separate 'OHP' society articles.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we need to have both reference to the 'OHP' societies within the article and also as external links directly to your website? This article is about the broad subject of occupational health psychology not a couple of privately run 'OHP' societies? An article on chemistry for example, does not emphasize all of the activities and affiliations of the privately run chemistry-related groups and societies around the world?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly believe we should delete these external links in this article at least to these 2 'OHP' society websites. Seem very promotional to me. And irrelevant to this article. External links to the websites are found in their own Misplaced Pages articles too? So can we just delete them?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you feel that links to that APA and NOISH are inappropriate? And why did you choose to remove information about the first OHP conferences? I don't see any valid reason for these, and your edit summaries don't seem to be relevant to the changes. At this stage I think that these edits will have to be reverted, but I may be missing something. - Bilby (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Completely open to discussion on this Bilby. Reason I took them out and explained that edit in detail above, was 1. these specific conferences are not occupational health psychology specific. Compared to a conference organized by the society for 'OHP' conference. They are for a very broad range of disciplines, professions, including work psychologists, occupational medical practitioners, occupational hygienists, and so on. I also think they are very promotional for an encycopedic article and given they are not specifically occupational health psychology conferences should in my opinion, not be in this article. Maybe in the OHP society article, but thats another discussion? What are your reasons you believe they definitely be included?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The history of an emerging discipline has to do with the founding of its conferences, journals, academic associations, and perhaps places where training can be found. All these things are appropriate to this article. Psyc12 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

But aren't you talking about the history of your 'OHP' society psyc12? That's my point. Shouldn't your 'OHP' society history be in that article instead? Am I missing something here. That's what the reliable sources say too?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology and then on the other hand, Society of 'OHP' (that iss246 & psyc12 are active members of), are distinctly different topics and different articles. A similar example would be the broad, general field and article on chemistry compared for instance, to one of the many different private chemistry societies and groups around the world. They are far from being one and the same. The same principles applies here I would assume? Could this point be addressed please.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology, involves many different professions and disciplines, journals, texts, courses, practitioners around the world. The 'OHP' ‘society’ (with its own unique culture and internally governed, by its own set of rules, regulations, ideologies, agendas) is just a privately run society, isn't it? Just like one of the many Chemistry Societies for instances. A single chemistry society does not feature so dominantly in that article? Why do you believe paid sponsorship of these conferences for instance, by your 'OHP' society, should be included in this broad article's external links then?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look, and Barling describes ICOH-WOPS as having a remit that "is largely to promote occupational health psychology" (p29), and lists their first conference in 1998 as part of the development of OHP. I'm not overly concerned about the line stating that EA-OHP and the SOHP started coordinating activities in 2008, so I don't see a problem with leaving that out, but it looks like it is worth returning the two external links you removed and the ICOH-WOPS part of the history. I am happy to change the reference to Barling, if you would rather something secondary, as that seems like a good move. - Bilby (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to additions Bilby and getting this right. I'm just not sure if Barling's reference is the most reliable to use? Other reliable sources contradict Barling's comments that's all. ICOH-WOPS seems to be a generalist organization and conference, not specifically related to 'OHP' at all? Barling appears to be another member and advocate of this 'OHP' society. References written by these 'OHP' society members seem to contradict each other at times? For instance, when occupational health psychology was first coined? Anyway I think Misplaced Pages:Verifiability applies here. Maybe we should include a discussion which presents what each of these various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that contradicts Barling, but I'd be very interested in reading something that does - it might well change things. However, ICOH-WOPS might still be very relevant to OHP, even if it is not exclusively connected to it. - 05:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I just think Misplaced Pages:Verifiability principles can be applied well here, by presenting what all of reliable sources 'actually' say, especially when there are these contradictions in the literature? ICOH-WOPS just is not an occupational health psychology, or 'OHP' society specific, organization. Neither are the ICOH-WOPS conferences? They involve many academic fields, professions and topics. But what do you mean exactly by "ICOH-WOPS might still be very relevant to OHP, even if it is not exclusively connected to it"?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to look at the reliable sources. Which ones contradict Barling? We need to consider that Barling could be mistaken about the purpose of ICOH-WOPS, but I'm not sure what the extent of the concern is. More generally, what I mean is that a conference might be a big deal in the development of OHP, even if the conference was also about other topics. For the OHP article, the main concern is whether or not it was a significant event for OHP, not whether or not it was exclusively about OHP. - Bilby (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the exact Barling source you are looking at please Bilby, that says "ICOH-WOP'S remit is largely to promote occupational health psychology"? It sounds like a subjective opinion by Barling too? Can you provide the reference here please.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Barling, Julian; Griffiths, Amanda. (2002). "A history of occupational health psychology", in Quick, James; Tetrick, Lois (eds) Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. American Psychological Association. p29. - Bilby (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am as puzzled by the deletions. The i/o psychology entry includes references to the British Psychological Society and SIOP because they have been important to that discipline. I don't understand the deletions of the OHP-related societies from the OHP entry. The deletions should be restored. Iss246 (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I too am puzzled by the deletions, and why Barling and Griffiths is not a reliable source, as Barling holds an endowed chair at Queens University http://business.queensu.ca/faculty_and_research/faculty_list/jbarling.php. On p. 31 B&G clearly state that ICOH-WOPS "focus is largely OHP". They then talk about ICGOHP which should be added too. Like Bilby, I don't think it is important to mention that EA-OHP and SOHP coordinate their activities. It is important to trace major historical developments. Psyc12 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Barling's single line on page 29, is not a reliable source as it is his subjective opinion only. Clearly other 'objective' sources contradict his opinions. Is there any other reliable source that connects your 'OHP' societies with ICOH-WOPS? The two are completely separate entities it seems, based on all official accounts from the ICOH-WOPS itself. Nothing specifically to do with either OHP societies? The ICOH-WOPS remit is also certainly not 'OHP'. Why is in the article? It needs t6o be discussed here please?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to view the statement as subjective - it is not expressed as an opinion, but a statement of the purpose of ICOH-WOPS. However, I am very happy to consider that it might be contradicted by other sources. What sources contradict this claim statement? - Bilby (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I just restored, for 'further discussion' my own edit of the 'OHP' society paid sponsorship deal with the work & stress conference. My reasoning is stated earlier I feel that the inclusion of 2 privately run 'OHP' societies placing in this article is irrelevant? Can editors psyc12 & iss246, please explain why these activities by your private 'OHP' society are so dominant in this separate article? It seems very promotional to me, but anyway can you help me why your OHP society events are being included?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Barling is a distinguished expert on OHP. That is why he had served as an editor of JOHP. Re: SOHP, EA-OHP, and ICOH-WOPS. Those are the nonprofit organizations closely identified with OHP. No one questions why the private BPS or SIOP is identified with i/o. Iss246 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You say ICOH-WOPS is closely identified with 'OHP?' That is definitely not what the reliable sources say and that includes your colleague Barling's comment too, (who happens to be another member of your 'OHP' society). But before I provide these other sources, when you say "closely identified with", do you mean closely identified 'with' occupational health psychology as a broad topic like chemistry, or do you mean closely identified 'with' your privately run 'OHP' society?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Julian Barling is not a member of SOHP. Whatever organizations he joined, he is a first-rate scholar. He would not promote biases in his writing. Suggesting that he would is like suggesting that citations from papers written by SIOP or BPS members and that are found in the i/o entry (there are many) are also biased. This witch hunt for biases is wrong. Iss246 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested Barling would promote biases in his writing iss246, as you imply. That is a complete fabrication, and completely untrue.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that both psyc12 and iss246 are strong advocates for, and members of, the 'OHP' societies and the various goals, and agendas and associated conferences and paid sponsorships, being put forward by these private organizations that are being discussed, as facts, in this Misplaced Pages article, I think this article is very relevant here as a guide for all editors.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

You said above iss246, ICOH-WOPS is closely identified with 'OHP?' That is definitely not what the reliable sources say and that includes your colleague Barling's comment too in the 'OHP' handbook. When you said it is "closely identified with", do you mean closely identified 'with' occupational health psychology as a broad topic like chemistry, or do you mean closely identified 'with' your 'OHP' societies? Can you please address this straight forward 'content related' question. I cannot produce the most relevant reliable sources that Bilby is asking of me, that contradict Barling's comments until I know the answer to this?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability obviously applies here. I think we should include a discussion which presents what each of these various sources say, giving each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view with these sections in the article Bilby. We should say: "Barling (2002) believes ICOH-WOPS' "remit is largely occupational health psychology" because that's all he actually said, and he also provided no other sources to support that isolated statement. Is there any other more reliable source that may support his viewpoint Bilby? For balance and weighting, we then just need to say something like, "However these sources x, y and z say this, and this and contradict Barling's comments. We also need to 'limit' Barling's comment to only what he said and be careful not to be implying anything further? I will provide these other reliable source which contradict Barling as soon as someone can clarify what I asked, directly above please.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you just delete all my work iss246? You just made multiple reverts of my careful edits within a 15 minute period? I made these planned additions in line with my comments directly above, relating to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. I left these comments directly above, for other editors to review and discuss before making my minor additions today. I was also careful not to delete any other editor’s work, instead choosing an 'alternative to reverting' in this policy I have personally found to be a useful guide Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary You chose to avoid all discussion and questions I asked above, to clarify your editing? Instead, you just went ahead anyway, and aggressively deleted all my work? You also made no comments justifying your ‘multiple reverts on the talk page either. I find all of this very uncivil iss246. See main deletions here:

Mrm7171 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I streamlined the text. Because ICOH means international, you don't have to repeat that people in ICOH-WOPS come from many different countries. We know that people in OHP come from different disciplines within psychology, and some even come from outside psychology (e.g., epidemiology). You got some of it wrong but I don't fault you. ICOH embraces many other scientific committees some of which more congruent with what you were driving at (e.g., industrial hygiene). But take a look at the latest ICOH-WOPS program, for the Adelaide meeting, that ICOH-WOPS is largely devoted to OHP (or look at a past program). If you are near Adelaide, you can attend, and find out first hand what the remit of ICOH-WOPS is. It is a great meeting. You will like it. I attended the ICOH-WOPS meeting in Québec. Iss246 (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You said above, ICOH-WOPS is closely identified with 'OHP?' That is definitely not what the reliable sources say and that includes your colleague Barling's comment too in the 'OHP' handbook. You just said, "you don't have to repeat that people in ICOH-WOPS come from many different countries. We know that people in OHP come from different disciplines within psychology, and some even come from outside psychology." Also when you said it is "closely identified with", do you mean closely identified 'with' occupational health psychology as a broad topic like chemistry, or do you mean closely identified 'with' your 'OHP' societies? Can you address this straight forward 'content related' question?

Are you really, 'actually' trying to assert that your 'OHP' society, is in some way, or any way, shape or form in fact, is at all 'associated' with this completely and utterly independent organization ICOH-WOPS? All of the reliable sources completely and utterly refute 'any' connection, whatsoever, with your 'OHP' socciety, iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you misinterpreted what I wrote. ICOH-WOPS, SOHP, and EA-OHP are independent organizations. It is, however, true that SOHP and EA-OHP have cooperated with each other (e.g., they coordinate conference schedules because the organizations don't want the conferences take place at about the same time). Independent organizations sometimes cooperate with each other. SOHP cooperates with APA but they are still independent organizations (e.g., they cooperate on organizing the Work, Stress, and Health conferences). Some people in ICOH-WOPS may be members of SOHP. Some members of ICOH-WOPS who are members of EA-OHP (for example, the ICOH-WOPS chair, is a leader in EA-OHP and also published a textbook on OHP). Each organization is closely connected to OHP. It is a fruitless exercise to split hairs about his matter.

Iss246 and psyc12 are you referring to occupational health psychology in this Misplaced Pages article, as a broad topic like chemistry or cardiology, or do you both actually mean your privately run 'OHP' societies? Can you please address this straight forward 'content related' question? Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to verify your new additions. You have added:

"In the year 2000, an informal group, called the International Coordinating Group for Occupational Health Psychology (ICGOHP) was formed by members from the two OHP journals (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress). Employees from the American Psychological Association and certain staff from this independent organization called NIOSH who were also members of the as well the EA-OHP or society of 'OHP'. Their remit was mostly to coordinate promotional activities for the SOHP and EAOHP and coordinate the society run conferences. "

However, there's nothing I can find in the source which identifies the members as also members of EA-OHP, although I don't see why that is relevant in the case of a group designed to coordinate activities. Is there a source for this claim?

You also added in regard to ICOH-WOPS:

"Members of this committee came from a number of different countries and from a range of different professions. Its purpose was to represent and integrate this broad range of disciplines, including occupational medicine, work psychology, occupational hygiene, ergonomics and occupational health psychology, among others. This multidisciplinary and independent organization hosted conferences on psychosocial factors, worker health and work organization."

It isn't as problematic, but I'm not seeing it in the sources I can access that are being used. Am I missing something? Or can we add a source to support that? - Bilby (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi bilby, no problem. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability obviously applies here and providing what independent reliable sources actually say. So I know exactly which reliable sources to provide you here, are you referring to occupational health psychology in this Misplaced Pages article, as a broad topic like chemistry or cardiology or are you referring to psyc12 & iss246's separate 'OHP' community? There is a big difference.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to. You just added some new claims. The claims don't seem to be in the sources being used. Do you have sources for the material you just added? In particular, the claims that "Employees from the American Psychological Association and certain staff from this independent organization called NIOSH who were also members of the as well the EA-OHP or society of 'OHP'", and "Members of this committee came from a number of different countries and from a range of different professions. Its purpose was to represent and integrate this broad range of disciplines, including occupational medicine, work psychology, occupational hygiene, ergonomics and occupational health psychology, among others." - Bilby (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

These were actually the additions iss246 made Bilby, not mine. Iss246 stated these employees, were from his 'OHP' society? This informal group were just employees or staff from these independent organizations, like NIOSH. My point has been this: Is it relevant including reference to this informal group, in this general article, about the topic of occupational health psychology similar to the article on cardiology or chemistry? These articles do not focus on a privately run chemistry society, they focus on the broad topic of chemistry or cardiology only. I think iss246's reference should be in the 'OHP' society articles instead? Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

An example is from your comments above Bilby. "in the case of a group designed to coordinate activities." I think you are talking about iss246's inclusion in this article of his fellow 'OHP' community members, and the activities they coordinate, when in actual fact, this article is only about the broad topic of occupational health psychology, like a broad topic such as chemistry.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll assume that we don't have references for those claims. I'll revert for now, but if there are sources we can use then we can open up discussion again. - Bilby (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry am I missing something here Bilby? Just said that it was Barling's reference that iss246 added. Barling states this informal group were employees of these organizations and members of the 2 'OHP' societies? What else are you looking for?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The other reliable sources come directly from ICOH itself. ICOH-WOPS has nothing to with the 'OHP' community. It is an entirely independent organization. What else do you need Bilby?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Before you revert any of my edits Bilby, could you please discuss here what further sources you are asking for? and what part of my work you plan to delete? Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, I sharpened that edit further. Hope it suffices. I used the persons names. Their employers are obviously irrelevant. The source does not state these members employers in any way endorsed their informal group. The source is Barling. Let me know if you need any other sources. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I was about to put that reference in, as was clearly being discussed here with Bilby? But instead, once again, psyc12&iss246 has already come in and deleted all my work before being able to do so? And again, no discussion on this talk page from psyc12 explaining these deletions? Anyway, I just added some neutrality to a couple of sentences and took away some 'spin' from the way things were worded. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view I added this to the sentence as well,"In 2000 an informal International Coordinating Group for Occupational Health Psychology" Because that is exactly what that source says, just an 'informal group,' and it takes away puffery. I also included the fact that the ICOH-WOPS committee is interdisciplinary. Will add the best independent reliable source for that statement later today, as discussed with Bilby. ICOH-WOPS is also entirely independent from occupational health psychology's organizations, and will also introduce reliable sources later today to support that. It is important not to mislead readers into thinking it is in some way, any way, affiliated with iss246 and psyc12's 'OHP' societies.Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

There was discussion. My comments were pretty much sandwiched in there. I will be brief: Sources are needed for sentence. It may be worthwhile to meet some of the ICOH-WOPS hands at the ICOH-WOPS conference. Iss246 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The section on emergence as a professional discipline needs to be 're-worded.' Just cited the 1990 article psychology doctoral training in work & health. It does not state anywhere that: "occupational health psychology was described as a specific professional discipline" as iss246 wrote? I will change text accordingly unless any objections? Also could someone please provide an independent reliable source justifying such a bold inclusion of ICOH-WOPS in this article placed alongside iss246 and psyc12's 2 'OHP' societies? That organization simply does not recognize OHP as being affiliated with it, in any way? Seems to be a false association and perhaps should be removed from the article?Misplaced Pages:VerifiabilityMrm7171 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I am requesting again please, that an independent reliable source be provided, relating to ICOH-WOPS. Yes, iss246, both your S'OHP' & EA-'OHP' societies are formally associated with each other, as you say. That 'half is true.' However, while certain members of this (entirely separate) organization ICOH, and its scientific committee, may happen to be members of an external society or group, like your 'OHP' society, that does not equate to a connection or affiliation with this international organization ICOH-WOPS. These ICOH-WOPS individual committee members would obviously also hold other memberships like society for industrial & organizational psychology (SIOP) and many other personal memberships on their resume or CV, I'm sure.

These personal memberships, that any of these persons on the ICOH-WOPS, may or may not hold, is completely irrelevant here. ICOH-WOPS is not formally affiliated with these 'OHP' societies, just as it is not affiliated with the many I/O psychology societies around the world. It is a false association for psyc12 & iss246 to place in this article, to create the impression to readers that ICOH-WOPS is part of their 2 'OHP' societies. If no reliable source exists, stating that there is a 'formal connection,' between OHP and ICOH-WOPS, the reference in this article to ICOH-WOPS, needs to be deleted. Will leave this here for a bit longer before doing so. I am more than open to discussing this further with other editors if required.

The above is a little confusing. Can you restate what you mean more straightforwardly? Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather than create more text here, I just made the above comments even clearer. Will leave it a bit longer though to discuss.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically if no reliable source exists, stating that there is a 'formal connection,' between OHP and ICOH-WOPS, the reference in this article to ICOH-WOPS, needs to be deleted.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand you Mrm a little better. I explain the situation among the organizations. ICOH-WOPS, SOHP, and EA-OHP are independent organizations.

It does not matter if there is a formal or informal relationship between EA-OHP and SOHP. SOHP has a relationship with APA. What does the term relationship mean here? It means that sometimes the organizations' leaderships voluntarily make joint plans for the good of organizations and their members. EA-OHP and SOHP coordinate conference schedules to avoid running their respective international conferences in the same year because many people attend both conferences. SOHP, APA, and NIOSH cooperate to jointly plan their conference series with many SOHP members also members of APA (including me); APA's Public Interest Directorate is deeply interested in promoting healthy workplaces; NIOSH researchers conduct OHP research. APA administers a Listserv that SOHP/APA members subscribe to. Just as EA-OHP is not part of SOHP or vice versa, ICOH-WOPS is not part of EA-OHP or SOHP. SOHP is not part of APA. No one claims one organization is part of another.

I also remind you that their common interest is reflected in the fact that some members of SOHP joined EA-OHP and vice versa, and some members of EA-OHP joined ICOH-WOPS and vice versa. And so on. These organizations are nonetheless independent of each other.

Making joint plans does not make one organization part of another. What EA-OHP, SOHP, and ICOH-WOPS have most in common is an interest OHP. Iss246 (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I assume you have no independent reliable source stating that there is any 'formal connection,' at all, between OHP and ICOH-WOPS? In stark contrast there appears to be masses of reliable sources, noting 'formal association/connection/affiliation', between your 2 'OHP' societies, (ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP') and even APA for that matter, but just no independent reliable sources stating the same, with ICOH-WOPS?Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

I am also increasingly concerned with your extremely close connection in the 'real world' with all of this, and the blatant promotion of these organizations and indeed people, you keep talking about? Especially, after again reading, and for my own reference, these 2 articles: Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Misplaced Pages:Advocacy?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a connection between APA and SOHP too. For example, the organizational meeting at which SOHP was founded took place was hosted by APA at APA's headquarters in Washington, DC. But there is nothing nefarious about the connection. In the real world one learned society can have a closer connection to one particular organization than to another.

The EA-OHP conference was announced on the ICOH-WOPS web site. There is nothing wrong with that. Both EA-OHP and ICOH-WOPS are advisors to European efforts on psychosocial risk managagement in organizations. Again, there is nothing wrong with that. At the upcoming EA-OHP meeting, EA-OHP and ICOH-WOPS are jointly conducting a special session devoted to policy developments pertaining to OHP (http://eaohp.conference-services.net/programme.asp?conferenceID=3745). Again, there is nothing wrong.

Organizations that have overlapping goals sometimes cooperate with each other. Organizations that have very different goals have little to cooperate about. Iss246 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246&psyc12, it is obvious that you are both very strongly advocating for and trying to advance and promote your outside interests and connection to your 2 'OHP' societies(ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP'). These 'real world' memberships may be affecting your neutrality and ability to produce reliably sourced editing in this and other closely related encyclopedic articles, that's all I'm saying. This article provides very clear guidance here. Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Have you both had a chance to read it yet. If you have no independent reliable source stating that there is any 'formal connection,' at all, between your 'OHP' societies, and this interdisciplinary organization ICOH-WOPS, I would like to edit it out of this article? Otherwise please produce it here.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I or someone else (Psyc12, WhatamIdoing, Richard Keatinge) have verified that the organizations exist. Several of us have verified that the organizations' goals concern OHP. I verified that the organizations sometimes cooperate but are still separate organizations. SOHP and EA-OHP had a "formal" agreement to run their conferences on alternate years. None of what I have written in this paragraph to summarize what we know about the organizations is advocacy. Mrm7171, you have not explained how that is advocacy. Iss246 (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

One other thing Mrm7171. I would be okay with the word "informal" if you could please quote from the source. It may very well be there, and I missed it. I may no longer have the original article you cite. Please put the quote here on this talk page. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It appears you and psyc12, have ignored and dismissed administrator Atama's accurate assessment of your COI in this article based on your comments above. Other editors on that forum, had, as you know, also noted you strongly advocating for your 'OHP' societies as far back as 2008 not just me. Back on topic, I would like to still work with you both, but constructively, and from a NPOV, on this and other related articles to your 'OHP' societies, but am becoming increasingly concerned that your 'real world' memberships and 'outside interests' may be affecting your neutrality and ability to produce reliably sourced editing that's all I'm saying. I found this article helpful. Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide Have you both had a chance to read it yet, especially the summary points at the beginning? Anyway, Regarding content, is there any independent reliable source stating that there is any 'formal connection,' at all, between your 'OHP' societies, and this completely separate interdisciplinary organization ICOH? Let's discuss here. I'm sure we can make this a great article.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am still not clear what the answers to the questions above.

1. Is CGOHP a formal or informal group? I would be willing to write either "formal" or "informal" based on a source.

2. How is it that the organizations exist, have goals, and sometimes cooperate reflects advocacy? Iss246 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals

To answer your question iss246, Administrator Atama has already made the correct assessment of you & psyc12, both having COI issues in relation to your 'OHP' societies. Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. In relation to content only though, my concern again, is that in the After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals section of this article, you have included ICOH-WOPS as one of the 'OHP' societies. It is not an 'OHP' society. If you want to include it, please provide an independent reliable source stating clearly that ICOH-WOPS is an 'OHP' society. Otherwise it should be deleted, as unsourced.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not what Atama wrote. I also recommend that you read the ICOH-WOPS program or get in touch with the ICOH-WOPS leadership to find out more. As for the "unsourced" claim, it is wrong. The ICOH-WOPS connection to OHP was documented in the chapters Barling and Griffiths wrote for both the 2002 edition and the revised 2011 of the Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. The Handbooks were published by the American Psychological Association. Iss246 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard administrator Atama correctly assessed these COI issues. He stated: "I do agree that there are some legitimate COI concerns here, though. If Iss246 and Psyc12 are members of an organization, I strongly recommend taking care when referencing the organization or writing about the organization in articles."

Also again, I found this article very helpful. Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide Especially the summary. Have you and psyc12 had a chance to read it? I think it would help here in this article relating to your active membership of these 'OHP' societies and these outside interests. However I do not want to use Atama's correct assessment as a 'bludgeon' here. I also don't wish to edit war. So, my concern again, is content only.

The Barling reference you quoted simply does not state that "ICOH-WOPS is an 'OHP' society" You have included ICOH-WOPS falsely in this article's 'header' After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals ICOH-WOPS is not an 'OHP' academic society. I will remove ICOH-WOPS from that section. If you find an independent reliable source that states ICOH-WOPS is one of your 'OHP' societies we can re-include it then. A possible solution, and trying to work with you and psyc12 here, maybe ICOH-WOPS could be placed, in context, and in 'another section' of the article? Does that sound reasonable alternative?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong about "informal." I got hold of the Barling and Griffiths book (it was lost for a while in my home library but I found it today), and saw that the authors used that word "informal" to characterize the International Working group. I added to the article the word "informal" to modify the name of the group. But you are wrong about ICOH-WOPS. I don't hold that it is an academic society like EA-OHP or SOHP. What I hold is that it is the scientific committee of ICOH that is concerned with OHP. Its members and people who attend its triennial conferences conduct OHP research and try to apply OHP ideas to making the lives of working people more healthy. Iss246 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right, ICOH-WOPS is NOT an 'OHP' academic or professional society. And obviously no independent reliable source states that it is, which is all that matters here. I will therefore just take it out of that section in this article's header, under After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals, as per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and to make this article accurate and credible for readers.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

RE:Change to header "after 1990"? What is, "after 1990?" Please discuss on talk how this change makes a better Misplaced Pages article? Can I change it again to improve, if not.Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I need to correct your interpretation of what I wrote. I will spell out what I mean. ICOH-WOPS is not a society like EA-OHP or SOHP. ICOH-WOPS is a scientific committee, the main concern of which is OHP. Iss246 (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In this Misplaced Pages article, about the general subject of occupational health psychology, this odd sentence seems very promotional for members of these 'OHP' societies, only it seems (and quite irrelevant to this general article, otherwise). I mean, talking about all of the different people, by name, and even their employers, they work for "Initial members Julian Barling (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology), Mike Colligan (NIOSH), Tom Cox (Work & Stress), Heather Fox (American Psychological Association, APA)....." . A couple of other Misplaced Pages articles I just looked at, which are very similar to this article, are chemistry or cardiology. These articles don't mention in their content so much information about specific chemistry societies around the world?Thoughts? Can we delete please based, on all those reasons?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems from your comments previously that you opposed including ICOH-WOPS in the section titled "After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals" on the grounds that it is not an academic society or a specialized journal. Thus it seemed to me that the easiest fix was to remove the "academic societies and specialized journals" from the title, thus solving the dilemma.

In regard to the mention of the Mike Colligan, Steve Sauter and the like, I note that the first addition of those names was made by you . I am not sure why you chose to add those names, then complain about their presence. Why did you choose to add them? - Bilby (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, I think I included their names, without also then having to include their employers as well. Seemed half sensible and was a compromise and to be civil after iss246 & psyc12 insisted including this informal 'OHP' group in this general article on occupational health psychology. I don't see why it should be included at all, frankly? Now all the names, of all the 'OHP' members, and all their various employers, are all included? Seems very promotional. I think at least deleting their names and employers seems sensible and leave just a brief mention of this informal group, if needed at all? What do you think Bilby?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Also Bilby, re: ICOH-WOPS. I propose it is written with a Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view if included in this article at all. It is a scientific committee set up by ICOH to examine "Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors" (not OHP) reliable source:http: //www.icohweb.org/site_new/ico_homepage.asp. And for NPOV, it needs to be mentioned that it is multidisciplinary? Many disciplines are concerned with Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors. Not just OHP? For NPOV, this all needs to be included, to balance Barling's opinion and not give readers a false impression.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability should apply here, especially given legitimate COI concerns have already been assessed by administrator Atama Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I think we should include a discussion which presents what each of these various sources say, giving each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view with these sections in the article that relate to the 'OHP' community in the real world. I am however still trying to work with iss246 & psyc12, who are active members of the exact organizations we are writing about, although this article's summary Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide provides clear direction when such COI issues have already been assessed. I hope my minor changes satisfy NPOV in this article while maintaining civility and respect for these other editors, and following Atama's advice to me too.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 already stated that OHP emerged out of the confluence of 3 disciplines, health and i/o Ψ and occupational medicine. That is fine. It did not need the excessive text on what graduate programs contain them. I looked at abnormal Ψ, applied behavior analysis, community Ψ, biological Ψ, etc. They don't begin their first paragraphs with an exegesis on where the graduate programs are. They begin with clear, uncomplicated introductions to the subject matter. Iss246 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems very confusing and subjective iss246 and no reason to blank that whole section too. You accused me of POV. That's nonsense. Again, I ask, have you got any diffs? to support that accusation? Any evidence? Otherwise I take it as another baseless personal attack.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

ICOH-WOPS

The article stated:

One author, Barling (2011), believes that this committee is largely concerned with occupational health psychology related research topics.

Is it possible to have the quote being used for this? The claim made in the article doesn't seem to match what I have in my copy, but there may be a difference. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I previously inserted the quote from Griffiths and Barling. It was deleted and replaced. I will re-edit the sentence with the quote. Iss246 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I'm okay either leaving it out, as you did, or leaving it in as a full quotation. This section on ICOH-WOPS, just needs to be written from a Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. And for NPOV, it needs to be mentioned that ICOH-WOPS is multidisciplinary, certainly not just OHP. We just need to balance Barling's statement with other sources if we do include it. For Misplaced Pages:Verifiability a discussion which presents what each of these various sources say, giving each side its due weight, and maintain a NPOV seems appropriate.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what is going on here? But editor iss246 seems to be aggressively deleting and 'blanking' large established sections of this article and masses of independent, reliable sources and verifiable established text? with absolutely no discussion here on talk to explain their actions? I have stood right back for now, as I won't engage in edit warring. But this seems to be vandalism of the article, and quite 'odd' and erratic editing behavior?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited out minor material such as someone's having made attribution error. It was not clear why the attribution error was important to mention. I edited the 1st paragrah to make it less expressive of POV and more neutral. The paragraph is now less wordy and tendentious. The sentence on ICOH-WOPS included an exact quote from Barling & Griffiths. Iss246 (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I also think the comment about 18 (I counted 17) countries for ICOH-WOPS is not correct. I think that you were counting countries for the scientific committee overseeing the upcoming meeting. I think there are members from many more countries. The list is heavy with people from Australia because the meeting is in Adelaide. Iss246 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, can you explain please your blanking of major sections of this article today, as well as as 'multiple reverts' I have stood back. You accuse me of POV? Can you provide diffs please, as to where you mean? And an explanation of that evidence. Without any evidence, I take your comments re POV? as a personal attack. All of the sections you aggressively blanked today were balanced, reliably sourced, and presented with a Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability all of these sections present what each of these various sources say, giving each side its due weight see here as one example. If no evidence or explanation is provided these sections you blanked will obviously need to be restored.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the scholarship underlying the material you added is weak. 18 countries for ICOH-WOPS is completely wrong. It low-balls the estimate. Pussy-footing around ICOH-WOPS's deep connection to OHP is wrong. Go to the meeting in Adelaide next September and see for yourself. Citing Christie and Barling about the Marx is wrong; Christie and Barling did not cite Marx. Then there is the addition of a sentence about minor misattributions regarding who coined the term OHP. What is the justification as to why this very minor fact is worth mentioning? Why should an encyclopedia reader care if a scholar misattributed the coining of the term OHP to the wrong author? Please be more careful. Iss246 (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems all very confusing iss246? I note your further personal attacks and the fact that you have provided no diffs and no actual evidence at all, to support your accusations of POV, or justify your blanking and multiple reverts within the last 24 hours, which will need to be restored otherwise? Have you any diffs please?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Instead of providing diffs or any actual evidence, so I could possibly see what the heck you are talking about above, you attack me, saying "...my scholarship underlying the material you added is weak" That's just not true. Telling me to personally go to some meeting in Adelaide? What the .... are you talking about? Your 'real world' connection to all of this iss246 concerns me greatly. Increasingly so. Back to content issues. Any diffs or evidence please, otherwise I will obviously need to restore all of these neutral, reliably sourced sections you blanked. Please refrain the personal attacks too iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is in the comparison with other Ψ articles. There should be similarity among Ψ articles. In parag. 1, give a general picture of the subject matter. The opening parag.s in other Ψ articles do not begin with details about graduate programs.

I add that you also have to be more careful about including factual errors. For example, ICOH-WOPS members come from far more than 18 countries. It is closer to 90 countries. ICOH-WOPS is more like the U.N. Iss246 (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your blanking continues. You just blanked this reliably sourced section too? See here: . Again, any evidence please, otherwise need to restore this section too.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I corrected mistakes and streamlined text. For example, I removed 1 or 2 sentences that waste a reader's time with information about how scholars made the minor mistake misattributing the term OHP to someone other than the original coiners of the term. If that information is important, it should go into a book written for specialists. It is too minor a point to belong in the encyclopedia. Iss246 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I provide here, just some objective examples of your 'mass blanking' today iss246. I have stood right back, rather than engage in edit warring with you. You have also provided no diffs or objective evidence whatsoever, to allow some understanding, of why you have decided to 'mass blank and delete' in the last 24 hours See: Mrm7171 (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Antoniou, A.G., & Cooper, C.L. (2011). New Directions in Organisational Psychology and Behavioural Medicine. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
2. Quick, J.C. (1999). Occupational Health Psychology. Historical Roots and future directions. Health Psychology, 18 (1), 82-88.
3. Houdmont, J., Leka, S. & Cox, T. (2007). Education in occupational health psychology in Europe: Where have we been, where are we now and where are we going? In J. Houdmont & S. McIntyre (Eds.), Occupational Health Psychology: European Perspectives on Research.

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