Talk:Occupational health psychology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Moving forward, again please (2)

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

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

Response to journals listed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OHP Journal Discussion ONLY!!!!

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

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

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

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

Moving forward, again please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Losing the battle to hide the reality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Training of Occupational Health Psychologists section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work stress is the domain of Organizational Psychology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected titles by the UK Government

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

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

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

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

Summary and conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, Iss246, you're right.

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

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

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

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

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

Protected titles by the UK & other Governments v.2

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

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

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

Okay, here's the discussion you requested:

These sources are irrelevant.

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

Notice the difference in these two terms:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wall of text-free zone: Move on

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

Proposed addition based on reliable published sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing poor style and excessive detail

On the other hand, Mrm7171, I am very glad to see you removing un-necessary praise in Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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,[citation needed]....." 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. Wikipedia requires us to use the major published reliable sources only. The article is also using the term psychology. Stop denegrating the intelligence of Wikipedia 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,[citation needed]....." 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,[5] 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,[6] and the extent to which supervisors[7] and co-workers[8] 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,[citation needed]....." ?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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia policy? Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, to support their point of view, should not block any justified edits, that are genuinely working toward a better quality Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. (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 Wikipedia 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.[43] 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.[44] 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.[45] 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).[46][47]

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.

—Preceding undated comment added approximately 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

—Preceding undated comment added approximately 12:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia:Ownership of articlesMrm7171 (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to other neutral Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia in general. Overall, I was very impressed by the tone and the understanding of Wikipedia expressed in the piece.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not newsletter article titled: Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia articles? You cannot use Wikipedia 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)" [1]. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia articles, based on how Wikipedia wants their articles to be, and abide by Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's article all editors need to follow their guidance on how they want their articles to be and to protect the integrity of Wikipedia.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 Wikipedia 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)