Talk:Occupational health psychology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

If

If you are knowledgeable, please make a contribution to the occupational health psychology entry. Iss246 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Wikipedia is not a collection of links or an opportunity for advertising your favorite organizations, academic journals, or graduate school programs. I have therefore deleted all of this non-encyclopedic information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The information deleted helps define the subject matter. We should not vandalize Wiki entries under the rubric of combating spam. There is plenty of real spam to combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.65.232 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How does the list of "other periodicals" that OHP practitioners like to read, and the (incomplete) list of places to study OHP contribute to the encyclopedic nature of the article? Do you really think that the general reader will be unable to understand what OHP is, without a partial list of universities that offer advanced degrees on the topic?

Also, please note that these sorts of lists are expressly rejected by Wikipedia's guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

External links again

Iss246,

Here's the relevant rule:

"External links should not normally be used in the body of an article."

When I look at the second and third paragraph of the article, I see a whole lot of external links used in the body of the article. I assume that you also see a whole lot of external links used in the body of the article. Having any external links like these in the body of the article is not appropriate by Wikipedia's style and content guidelines.

Therefore, this needs to be fixed. You have repeatedly objected to my efforts to improve the situation. How do you propose to make this article comply with the necessary guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the rules, and I am aware that you mean well by getting in touch with me. The rules don't cover every situation. The situation here is that of an emerging discipline within the broader landscape of psychology. The idea I am trying to stress is that in a nascent discipline, the journals, particularly given their cross-disciplinary character, and the organizations help the reader understand the outlines of the discipline. With a more mature discipline within psychology (e.g., social psychology), there would be little need to stress the journals and the organization. In the case of OHP, the organizations have been part of the historical development of the discipline.Iss246 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that OHP is still an emerging discipline, but why do we specifically need external links to the journals' websites in the introduction of this article? Isn't a list of the names of the journals sufficient for your stated purpose? Why aren't we linking to the Wikipedia articles for these journals? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The journals underline the interdisciplinary character of OHP. The organizations are the only two in the world, to my knowledge, devoted to OHP. The organizations played an important role in the development of OHP. In fact, OHP's history is tightly intertwined with the two organizations. This is not the case with other disciplines within psychology such as social psychology. Iss246 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my question. You appear to be insisting on this version:

OHP researchers and practitioners also consult a variety of other periodicals including, but not limited to, Social Science and Medicine, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, the American Journal of Public Health...

instead of this:

OHP researchers and practitioners also consult a variety of other periodicals including, but not limited to, Social Science & Medicine, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, the American Journal of Public Health...

Do you see the difference? Both versions list the journal names. However, only one version violates Wikipedia's rules about external links in the middle of articles.

My question for you is whether the journal's websites are actually necessary for the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are now working together. I largely took care of the paragraph with the journals. I will, over the next few weeks, create Wikipedia entries for the journals that are currently in red. I will also create Wikipedia entries for the organizations over the next few weeks. I'm very busy at work.

I encountered one difficulty, namely, the journal named Occupational Medicine has the same name as the Wikipedia entry for that subdiscipline of medicine. You are a very sharp-eyed Wikipedia editor. I would appreciate it if you would start the Wikipedia entry for Occupational Medicine (the journal). Then add a link in the third paragraph of the Occupational Health Psychology entry to the new entry Occupational Medicine (the journal).Iss246 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I set up a redlink for you in the article. You might find some of the templates listed here useful when creating articles. I suggest that you consider taking American Journal of Public Health as your model for the new stubs. Oh, and if you know the standard abbreviations (e.g., Am J Pub Health), then please feel free to set up redirects for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going to make the changes over the month including developing journal stubs.Iss246 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I would like you to review the stub for Occupational Medicine (journal). It is the first time I started a journal stub.Iss246 (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine, except that there are no references. If you have any (even if it's just the 'about us' page at the journal's website), then please add them. I have added a ref section that will automatically list any <ref>inline references</ref>. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The page devoted to the American Journal of Public Health also lacks a reference section. I will add one. I added one reference to the new Occupational Medicine (journal). The reference needs editing.

I just wanted to say thanks for your work in creating those stubs. I know it takes time and can be fairly tedious. Also, we need to do the same things to the inappropriate links in the second paragraph as we did to the third. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I created stubs for all the journals cited and the two organizations that play an important role in OHP.Iss246 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance

Subspecialties of psychology will never be high-importance for WPMED; in fact, it's possible that this article isn't even within the diseases-and-their-treatments scope of WPMED at all, but should instead belong solely to WP:PSY. Please read the project's assessment guidelines for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the entry altogether from the WPMED given WhatamIdoing's suggestion that the entry isn't within the diseases-and-their-treatments scope.Iss246 (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Workplace incivility and violence

The following sentence really annoys me: "Although one work-related homicide is too many, ..." It sounds like the type of rhetorical crap spewed forth from the depths of the OHS propaganda machine... get rid of it! It has no place in an encyclopedic article.... unless you wanted to rename the article "list of annoying OHS phrases that sound good, but mean nothing" HдLϋcń8 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Work and mental disorder

Nothing about personality disorders, Aspergers, psychopathy, bipolar disorder etc. --Penbat (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no research suggesting that working conditions play a causal role in the development of personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, or bipolar disorder. Autism spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder have substantial genetic loadings. I am not that up on the research on personality disorders. The research cited on schizophrenia and working conditions does not contradict the hypothesis that there is a genetic loading for schizophrenia--the Link-Dohrenwend-Skodal study is consistent with the diathesis-stress model. Penbat, if you can find research linking working conditions to personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, or bipolar disorders, you should include that research in the OHP entry. But I recommend being careful to only cite research that employs high-quality methods and avoid more speculative papers or articles in the popular press. There is research linking work to more common disorders such as depression and alcoholism.Iss246 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

External links, one more time

Over two years ago there was discussion here of the Wikipedia rule that "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article", and it seemed to me the understanding was that such external links should be removed. But they are still there under "Doctoral programs in OHP". I think sufficient time has passed. Before I begin unlinking, however, I would like to see if anyone who has worked on the article might want to undertake the task? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted all the external links that were in the text of the entry. External links are where they should be, at the end of the entry in one section devoted to external links, which is appropriate. Where possible, external links were associated with the references, which is also appropriate because it helps readers find sources. The key is to remove external links from the text, and they have been removed (allowing for one or two stray links--I think I got to the strays too). The external links for doctoral programs take the reader to a detailed description of the programs. Many readers are college students, making those links, which are also at the end of the article, invaluable to them when they are exploring opportunities for a graduate education. Iss246 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. But there are external links in the text of the article. The section "Doctoral programs in OHP" is part of the text of the article. External links belong in the "External links" section, not the text of the article, per WP:ELPOINTS. Even if you feel they should stay where they are or that they are useful where they are, you need a consensus here to make such an exception. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest moving "Doctoral programs in OHP" to a subsection of "External links". That would solve the problem without having to remove the links. Cresix (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

DONEIss246 (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

URLs

A number of URLs changed. I updated the URLs one by one as I identified the changes.Iss246 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ISS246 gone against clear consensus

ISS246, I am much more concerned about you blatantly going against consensus in the applied psychology section of the psychology sidebar from 2009 until the present.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This was despite at least 6 other editors over many years, it now seems, strongly disagreeing with you and presenting sound evidence and logic behind their well based and accurtate opinions. You ISS246 instead went straight ahead anyway and blatantly against clear consensus not to. Your re-entry in the OHP psychology sidebar, was made against all other editors (I refer any other readers to the Talk Page for Psychology and the Psychology Sidebar) Please post your answer to that.

Wikipedia is not about people going against the consensus? Show please, with all due respect ISS246, where others agreed you shoul include occupational health psychology, into to the psychology sidebar?

Please ISS246, instead of undoing mine and other editor's valid and unique additions, please discuss first... offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically. Please could you explain why the Psychology Sidebar should have an OHP entry in the Applied Psychology section? based solely on the clear, long term consensus of all other editors? If there is clear consensus, the entry should not be in there. You have been arguing with them for 4 years. They all believed OHP should not be in the sidebar. These are the facts.

I am patiently asking why you iss246 won't respond to this issue and what you did and the actions you took violating Wikipidea consensus. I am asking you again please, why the Wikipideia project and community should not delete the entry you have 'jammed in' for want of a better word, to the Psychology Sidebar and entry and the sidebar and entry under Applied Psychology?

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged please, to view the history over 4 years between ISS246 and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly as mentioned, on the psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else.

This critical issue of deciding on the possible deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles. Hi Iss246. Can you answer to this important issue only please? Any other issues aside please, while we look at facts and the facts on the WQikipideia project rules and guiding principles please.

I am patiently asking why you won't respond to this issue and what you did and the actions you took violating Wikipidea consensus.

I am asking you again please, why the Wikipideia project and community should not delete the entry you have 'jammed in' for want of a better word, to the Psychology Sidebar and entry and the sidebar and entry under Applied Psychology?

It is very clear that all other editors for a long time, 4 years in fact, well before I became a member, clearly and strongly objected to you placing ocuupational health psychology on this psychology page under applied psychology? You went against all others and the overwhelming consensus. You are now avoidin g what you did. Clearly the entry needs to be deleted from the important psychology and applied psychology sidebar.

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged, please, to view the history over 4 years between you and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly on the Psychology and Applied Psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else. You just went ahead and forcefully added it in anyway.

Then when it was deleted by other editors, between 2009 and until today (rightly so, if against all of their wishes), you undid the deletion and so it goes on....and seems to have gone on for years and years, this pattern.

This critical issue of deciding on the deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that I do not wish to personally engage in edit war with you ISS246 or any other editor, but I am open for discussion and logic and fairness on this important issue. Please stop also your personal attacks toward me iss246, and focus on the issue of possible and deletion of the occupational health psychology entry from the Psychology sidebar and Applied Psychology section within it based on clear consensus within the community.

As a side note, all I can ask, is that you stop undoing my edits and participate here please. That's up to you obviously. This is not a private website but instead is a community project and has no room for personal agendas, Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm717, good that you came to the right place to discuss the changes you like to make. It is best not to make edits to the article anymore, before you reach a consensus with the other contributors here. Again, I reverted your most recent addition (probably made before you saw this), and gave you a final warning.

All, please, don't forget to use proper indenting of your messages here, as is explained in wp:talk page formatting. Happy discussing and editing and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to Mrm7171

I have responded to your queries with answers about the programs at Portland State, Colorado State, the U of Houston. I showed that OHP is a subject that emerged out of the confluence of other disciplines the way i/o psychology and health psychology have done previously. But that wasn't enough for you.

You called me on my background. I responded. You have yet to respond to my query about your background.

You said that I treated OHP as a private web site. I admit that I made most of the contributions contributions up until now. Others have contributed. An editor contributed a section on the relation of work to the personality disorders. The contributor had an interesting point because much of the OHP research has concentrated on psychiatric disorders such as depression, and not the personality disorders. Personality disorders could affect job functioning including behavior at work that could affect the health and well-being of coworkers.

Also bear in mind that I made the most contributions to the SIOP entry too. Does that mean I own it? I don't think so. I made the largest number of contributions to the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. Does that mean I own it? I don't think so. Ditto Health Psychology (journal). Ditto the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Does that mean I own it? I don't think so. I don't need to go on.

To paraphrase the words of Wayne Morse when he was attacked by a political rival, I respond that we've talked about me. Now lets' talk about you. You came onto Wikipedia like an ingenue, asking fellow Wikipedians to forgive your artlessness. But you knew exactly what you were doing. You came on strong with a campaign against OHP. You had one goal: to knock down OHP. You haven't done anything else on Wikipedia. You haven't contributed to any other encyclopedia entry except to detract from OHP. You haven't started a new entry. When I asked for help with the SIOP entry, you the big defender of i/o psychology, did nothing. You made some kind of "defensive" comment about SIOP (to bat around a word you like to use). You wrote on the i/o talk page in response to my request for help on the SIOP entry, "However there are other large groups around the world representing I/O psych, not just SIOP. So any future article would need to involve them as well I guess. In my opinion at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)" Why don't you write about those large groups, and give them encyclopedia entries? But doing that would remove you from your campaign against OHP.Iss246 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

OHP, the brand, versus occupational health psychology, the domain: not the same thing

A point which needs to be discussed on this page, is that there is a big difference between what seems in this article, to be referring to as 'OHP' (as it has been coined) groups/societies' which like any society, has rules, regulations, membership dues, an executive etc. etc. and then, in complete contrast... the general, broad areas of occupational health psychology and occupational stress. This valid point of distinction, should not be confused, and no-one should try and confuse it, and readers should be clearly aware of the big difference here. This article, for some reason has confused the two and seemingly has treated OHP as being the same as the broad domain of occupational health psychology?

That is, 1/... 'OHP' has been 'coined/branded by a group of individuals and has a couple of societies you keep quoting, these being "the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP) & the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP), and have meetings etc etc...(which is fine) and 2/... there is the growing area of occupational health psychology itself and occupational stress, both of which no-one owns. They are broad areas, or domains, just like occupational health or occupational safety are broad areas or domains. Please add comments to this, if any editors disagree and let's discuss it.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly think this Wikipedia article titled occupational health psychology, definitely needs to reflect this important difference between the two and NOT treat 'OHP' as an invented brand, synonymously with occupational health psychology, as it appears the couple of OHP groups do not own the field of psychology as it relates to occupational health or occupational stress. Open discussion as changes/edits need to be made to reflect this plain fact.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For 3 days now, i having been asking for a dialogue, so someone doesn't just delete my entry once i do it. If needed I will then show these actions i have taken to discuss it with anyone who wishes to and reach a possible consensus.

So I will place it firstly in the contents page and then within the occ health article itself, explaining this significant and important relationship I/O psych has woth occupational health and occupational stress, and an invite similar to "For more detail on I/O psychology, see the section I/O psychology so that readers can clearly identify it and be re-directed accordingly. I will do this today as it seems there are no reasonable objections. If there are please read my full section here oin the talk page and respond the number of points and logical reasoning i have put forward.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Mrm7171's branding comment of 4 June 2013

Mrm7171 brought up branding. I wrote this on the Talk page for i/o psychology too. However, before I turn to that subject I want to say that I reject Mrm7171's accusation that I am hostile toward i/o psychology. My work on starting the SIOP encyclopedia entry speaks for itself. Let's turn to the accusation of branding. One could interpret the activities of the individuals involved in incorporating SIOP as being engaged in branding. In 1997, Milton Hakel, a leader in i/o psychology, wrote that "Incorporation as The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology was proposed to provide Division 14 with an independent and secure base, to sharpen our public identity, to increase member identification with our organization" My guess that in Mrm7171's language that would be branding. Any time one wants to put a pejorative slant on the activities of others one does not like, one reduce those activities branding.

Talk about branding is baloney. Just as the work of of i/o psychologists to form SIOP has been worthwhile, the work involved in the development of OHP and the work involved in creating OHP-related institutions (e.g., ICOH-WOPS, EA-OHP, SOHP) represent the hard work of many people who conduct research, teach, form organizations, organize conferences, and so on. That Mrm7171 reduces all of that to branding, as if they are marketing a new color lipstick, is a disservice.Iss246 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of courses

The following is currently on the article page and is totally misleading to readers. Please discuss iss246 who listed them. The facts follow,.....

Doctoral programs in I/O Psychology, Health Psychology, Applied Psychology, and other subfields (with units in Occupational Health Psychology)The truth is, that all of these Doctoral programs are in the I/O psychology field/discipline/faculty......There are only units/subjects/offered 'within' these I/O or Work psychology programs. No argument about this. It is a fact. Graduates of these programs will receive qualifications in I/O psychology or another qualification, eg. applied psychology at a couple of universities other editors have mentioned on this talk page.

Further, the above section currently listed on the article, mentions health psychology, applied psychology and other subfields ... There are no current health, applied or other subfield Doctoral degress only in the broad overtarching discipline of I/O psychology. There are literally hundreds of I/O postgraduate and undergrauate programs around the world.

importantly, and testament to the lack of recognition as a distinct field of applied psychology occupational health psych holds in the world of psychology, there are no Doctoral programs in occupational health psychology anywhere, in the world.

Just to back up what I'm talking about, the listing of these details on www and Wikipedia, as if they are accepted facts within the entire worldwide psychology profession, or giving the impression they currently exist, when they clearly don't, could be viewed by others as misleading, at best, to wikipedia readers, by making clearly inaccurate, misleading statements about new psychology disciplines which does not currently exist within the international psychology community, universities and governments. Would be the same in any profession I'm sure.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about the word psychology and the psychology profession in the term OHP, iss246, I have to say. This has been overlooked i think in discussions to date.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be current and accurate. That's all i'm wanting here, and have been trying to get some consenbsus on before making any edits.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I also ask fellow editors permission before doing so, to delete any reference on Wikipedia which states OHP has its own Doctoral programs.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Occupational health psych should not be included in the Psychology sidebar for this reason alone, even separate to 5 years worth of other editors trying to make Iss246 understand that is a 'group consensus' over at least a 5 year period of open discussions, and from a wide range of viewpoints and knowledge.

The list at end of the current wikipideia article page, will take you through to websites for the various programs involving subjects in occupational health psychology (most of them from I/O psychology) Links are provided to view objectively.

If iss246, or indeed anyone wishes to add to this discussion, to make it more accurate, or whatever, I fully invite and encourage them to do this, please. I totally welcome objective facts seeking, fellow Wikipedians. This section desperately needs an overhaul. Please view and discuss further with me on this page.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with iss246 - several of the OHP graduate programs are linked with I/O programs, but indeed provide training to Psychologists across subdisciplines of Psychology. For instance, the Bowling Green program also trains clinical Psychology graduate students, and engineering students take classes and participate in the programs at other institutions. OHP is not a sub-domain of I/O, but an interdisciplinary field closely with strong ties to Psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannainnaija (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Colorado State University

I looked up CSU's program ( http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Psychology/iapr/ohp.shtml ) because I recently visited CSU and spent time with OHP graduate students at that institution. Some come from i/o as Mrm7171 indicates. Some come from applied social psychology. There may be an affiliation with another department but I don't remember. The faculty is diverse, coming from psychology, epidemiology, ergonomics, human development, environmental health sciences, and departments like construction (CSU graduate students are involved in safety and accident-prevention research). All the CSU OHP students are affiliated with NIOSH's Mountain States Education and Research Center (ERC).Iss246 (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks iss246 Yes, there is one tertiary institution in the world, which offers units or subjects in their overall doctorate program other than just I/O Doctorate and Masters Degrees. It is indeed at Colorado USA.

However amazingly, on the Wikipideia article pages, including the Society for Occupational Health Psychology article page on Wikipedia you are possibly deceiving readers that programs exist, when they very obviously do not. If there was intentional deception to try and exaggerate the actual truth, then a case for bad faith, genuine bad faith may be made here?

ISS246,.... Can we delete now, or at least edit heavily, this section in both Wikipideia articles to bring the truth to bear here please ISS246? Mrm7171 (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Bowling Green State University Clemson University ; also see pages 5–6 of volume 8 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology Colorado State University ; also see pages 5–6 of volume 4 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology Kansas State University ; also see pages 5–6 of volume 9 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. this program is bgeing disconiuned even and should be deleted from the article immediately. Taken from their website.."We apologize, but this certificate is no longer available for new students." Portland State University; also see pages 8–10 of volume 5 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology University of Connecticut ; also see pages 8–10 of volume 6 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology University of Houston ; also see pages 10–11 of volume 7 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology University of South Florida; also see page 5 of volume 3 of the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology University of Texas at Austin

Several courses and links have been deleted. They were returning 404 errors, ie. no page existed. Also one course removed as it no longer existed as a program of study. There is also a need to list any other programs with the actual title that students would receive at the end of studyin g eg. Doctoral Psych (I/O) this would help readers and students make some sense of these external course links.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(Approximate date stamp to make archiving work) 04:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Request please for editor responsible for external links on this page to justify

Can the editor who placed the external links in this article please justify their inclusion on this article page as per wikipedia policy. My personal view is that they are contrary to Wikipedia policy. Please discuss. Thank you. Wikipedia:External linksMrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes by Mrm7171

Mrm7171 views OHP narrowly, as a specific province of I/O psychology. While some I/O psychologists have been concerned with health, other concerns have dominated I/O, including with personnel recruitment, organizational culture, job analysis, leadership, motivation in the workplace, organizational development, personnel selection, performance appraisal, psychometrics, employee compensation, training and the evaluation of training, counterproductive workplace behavior,job satisfaction, and job commitment. One can see this at the I/O psychology site. That some I/O psychologist have become interested in health is because of the emergence of occupational health psychology. Of course OHP stood not just on the shoulders of I/O psychology but also on the shoulders of health psychology and occupational medicine.

In paragraph 1, the debt of OHP to these other disciplines is acknowledged. Mrm7171 keeps inserting changes, some minor, and others more major, with the intention of making OHP a narrow province of I/O. That could be Mrm7171's point of view. I have kept inviting him to go to his talk page (I inlcuded a link to his talk page in the event he doesn't know about talk pages, to discuss the changes. He ignores my requests. I was hoping some other Wikepedians would intervene to impress on Mrm7171 that he should talk about changes he proposes.Iss246 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the original edits to OHC by Mrm7171 are not productive. Lots of material was deliberately deleted without any comment, and material that was added does not seem to care much about encyclopaedic standards beginning with the first sentence. As to a dialogue, it does not seem to look like Mrm7171 is willing to comment on his/her talk page or the article's talk page (except for the all-caps edit comments). As Iss246 seems to have background knowledge in the area, it should be a good idea for him/her, particularly regarding the points that Mrm7171 advocates in his/her edit comments, to produce sources which are suitable to support the respective claims. However, even if OHP should be considered a subfield of I/O Psy, the mere removal of whole sections on OHP does not make much sense. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment by 㓟. I/O psychology emerged out of social psychology and psychometrics. We don't look at I/O psychology as a subfield of those two fields. Health psychology emerged out of clinical psychology. We don't view health psychology as a subfield of clinical psychology. Occupational health psychology emerged out of the confluence of I/O and health psychology and occupational health. OHP is not a subfield of any of those three. It has its own journals and professional organizations. APA publishes an OHP journal.

I just returned from the biennial Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles. In response to the contentions made by Mrm7171, I asked a small number of individuals in the conference who had trained in I/O psychology if they thought OHP was a subfield of OHP. They all responded negatively. They pointed out that I/O psychology has concentrated its attention on such topics as job analyses, personnel recruitment, organizational culture, and so on. I/O-related research on health has been far less common. As a result, some I/O psychologists have begun to identify with OHP.

The individuals involved in OHP come from diverse disciplines including I/O psychology. Some OHP researchers come from health psychology. Some OHP researchers come from occupational health and occupational medicine. Others come from nursing. The leading figures in OHP who come from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) trained in experimental psychology. I have a doctorate in developmental psychology and a post-doc in epidemiology (I first had a research interest in children and adolescents, then a research interest in schools, and then a research interest in the teachers and what bad school conditions can do to their health). I state this to underline the fact that individuals in OHP come from diverse backgrounds, and have coalesced around the OHP and identify with OHP.

I prefer to have some dialogue with Mrm7171 about OHP rather than have him/her make many changes without consultation.Iss246 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I invite you to a dialogue. In the spirit of cooperation, I am not going to change the edit you made on May 23, 2013, at 22:49, for now. OHP is not a subdiscipline of I/O psychology. You want to say that it is. It isn't. Let's talk about why you think it is and what your sources are. It is true researchers from I/O psychology have done OHP research as have researchers from health psychology, occupational medicine and nursing, and epidemiology.Iss246 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for an opportunity to express a very important and long term issue quite separate from whgat are talking about and focusing on above and other places on Wikipedia. Please let's just agree to disagree on the subfield issue for a while. It is simply not so important and you have either misunderstood or misrepresented any opinion I may have, and focused on that topic rather thasn the real issue for Wikipideia that has been avoided for a long while.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

In my view, Mrm7171 should clearly reference and motivate the changes he or she tries to operate in this article. It is unacceptable to operate such changes with no justification, given their highly dubious content. Thus produced, his or her modifications mostly appear as obstruction attempts towards the important work that is accomplished here. Occupational Health Psychology is a scientific discipline; some methodological rigor would be more than welcome when writing about it. To me, Mrm7171's modus operandi does not favor a fruitful progress of this article and should be rectified. Incidentally, it is also quite disrespectful for those who are working hard on this article. tbtol — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.bittersweet.taste.of.life (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What User:The.bittersweet.taste.of.life underlines is a strength of OHP, namely, its cross-disciplinary character. The graduate programs Mrm7171 describes represent a strength, but not for the narrow, traditionally minded. Graduate students from a number of different disciplines, i/o Ψ, community Ψ, applied social Ψ, public health find their way into OHP graduate courses. That demonstrates an aspect of the cross-disciplinary strength of OHP, not the weakness that Mrm7171 argues for. That individuals from different fields across psychology and medicine engage in OHP-related research represents a vigor that should be applauded, and not derided.Iss246 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Iss246 comments

Again, rather than attack me personally iss246, let's work on how to make this article better. Also forget the issues of branding through please iss246. I was talking about tyhe term 'OHP' being branded. We should refer to the psychology of occupational health or occupational health psychology as exactly that. Similar to job design or recruitment or occupational health or oh&s or ...However it is irrelevant here and against the principles of Wikipedia by going on about it. It was just a point.

If you wish to work on developing a page for the SIOP, which is the US society for I/O psych thats fine. However the point i made elsewhere was SIOP is only one of the international, albeit the largest, society group representing the fioeld of work psychology. There are other groups in other countries also. But if you do start an article for SIOP do it for the right reasons. Your comments about starting a SIOP page as 'proof you are not anti I/O psychology are questionable.'Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Also please don't personally accuse me of focussing only on the I/O psychology and occupational health psych articles. I am tiring of you personally attacking me. I am taking time from my own working/personal life to improve Wikipedia and doing it in good faith! I have stated this before and refrained from any attacks on you.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have only recently joined the Wikipedia community. I think it is great. And while it took a bit of time to learn the rules, I believe i am now adding value to the community, in areas I have a fair degree of experience. I would not edit others work in articles/areas I personally know nothing about.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is, no-one, no society, no profession, owns the psychology of occupational health, or occupational stress. Further it is not a separate field to the broad area of work psychgology. It is just a 'domain' of the psychology profession/discipline, involved in the workplace, just as job design, performance management etc etc are. I have no idea why anyone would say it was separate to work psychology? That goes against logic and does the psychology profession an injusticeMrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact is, you cannot research or just as importantly apply, interventions properly, without a knowledge also of other aspects of work psychology. They are all interrelated. That is, the psychological health of workers relates strongly to stress which relates to job design, which relates to recruitment and so on....

My point has simply been, the field of psychology most suited to these workplace issues and the health and wellbeing of humans at work is work psychology. That does not say other interested researchers cannot contribute to the field of occupational health psychology. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

However iss246, and on a practical note please, and how we can work together here as i am trying to do, to make these articles better for the community, you continue to avoid a number of clear points i have continued to raise. Please respond as sooin as possible to these points as I am going to attempt to make some much needed edits and trust when i do you don't just delete them. The fact is, to date, you have simply not shown why I should otherwise.

I also think if edits are to be made to 'any' specific Wikipedia article, they should be done by editors with experience and knowledge of the article they are editing? You have openly admitted your background is in educational/child psychology and epidemiology? Please correct me if wrong. I am not saying you cannot edit. I am encouraging it. But please don't think you can avoid a proper discussion here with me on the valid points raised, and then go ahead and delete any article edits/additions I do make in the near future.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So moving foward, and keeping things impersonal please, the clear areas I have raised with you in the proper manner, that is through open discussion and consensus are again as follows:

1/ You have not shown where consensus was gained, regarding your inclusion of occupational health psychology in the applied psychology sidebar, between 2008 and the present. My detailed reading of previous editors discussions with you shows consensus against putting occ health psychology in the applied psych sidebar.

2/ You have not addressed the fact that, apart from one program in applied psychology, all other doctorate and masters programs, listed at the bottom of this occupational health psych article, are in fact, subjects/units in the I/O doctorate and masters programs where students receive a qualification in I/O psychology. The article needs to reflect this by giving the title of each program from each univeristy/institution listed.

3/ There needs to be a link in this occ health psych article back to the I/O psychology article discussing the significant relationship between I/O psychology and occupational health. They are very much related.

Let's just work together here iss246 and any other editors, to make these articles more accurate, current and of real value to readers who may not have the knowledge of work psychology and in this article the psychological aspects of occupational health.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just so any other readers/editors/administrators can see this is not just my comments, i have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting from the psychology sidebar, another editors summation of the 4 year consensus against occupational health psychology not being placed in the applied psychology sidebar. I encourage anyone else to read the full set of editor' discussions with iss246 over a 4 year period. The fact is, all other editors, ie. the consensus, strongly disagreed with Iss246 including it. He just went ahead and did it anyway!

This was DoctorW's final comments, word for word in 2011.....before it seems he also gave up!Mrm7171 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)"

Date to make archiving work: 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Mrm7171

1. I am not attacking you but I found the comment about branding insulting. All my colleagues' work in creating organizations, journals, conferences, etc. boil down to Madison Ave.

2. I already pointed out that the Colorado State University program in OHP is cross-disciplinary and is not housed in the i/o department. I also point out that the OHP program at Portland State University is open to students in i/o, social, and developmental psychology. The i/o program at the University of House IS housed in the i/o program, which you probably cheers you; however, students from public health, engineering, and other disciplines also take courses in it. How do I know? I gave a talk there and know faculty at UH.

My suggestion here is that I include the current, accurate title of these qualifications for each of the universities/institutions as of today, so they are current. I have noted some references to the year 2001, that's all. I quote from another related article society for occupational health psychology..."By 2001, there were OHP graduate programs at 11 US universities. By including this 12 year old statement, it is very misleading to readers, without reference to the current set of courses and what those courses/title of those courses actually are today.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

3. Why question my work on SIOP? At least I work on something other than OHP. I did not want to work on that entry but I felt obligated because the link to it on the i/o page was in red, which means there was no entry. It is a lot of work to create an entry. It means locating publications, reading them, writing, re-writing, re-re-writing, and re-re-re-re-writing (that's the way I write).

I was wondering why you mentioned your work on the article. It had no relevance to our edits. That's all. Wikipedia editing is voluntary and should be enjoyable. So if you think it is too much work, don't do it. But please don't be sarcastic/attacking of me by saying and assuming directly above.."At least I work on something other than OHP." I also am working on I/O psychology entry. But isn't that my business?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also working on occupational health psychology article, not the terms OHP, which I don't recognise.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

4. I admitted my background. I don't think I never indicated that my background was in "child psychology." The term is anachronistic. I believe that I used the term "developmental psychology." But since you have been studying my background, you may know it better than I do. What's your background? You've made me curious, since you know mine.

5. OHP has significant relationships with i/o and health psychology and medicine and epidemiology. I don't think you are concentrating on i/o psychology. I think you are training your guns on OHP. It is as if you are on a campaign to take OHP down.

6. In 1954, Case, Hosker, Mcdonald, and Pearson published a retrospective cohort study in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine in which they showed that workers in the English dye industry were at greater risk for developing bladder cancer than workers in other sectors or the English population in general. Just because they conducted a study based on workplace exposures does not make the study i/o psychology. But what if they had used as their outcome DSM-IV or -V major depression or one of the anxiety disorders? Would research on the exposure to chemical dyes and mental disorder make the study an i/o study? No. What if their exposure variable were job insecurity or unemployment experience?

7. Or what about Kuper and Marmot's 2003 study on the impact of the combination of low decision latitude and high job demands (called job strain) and coronary heart disease? Is that i/o psychology? I don't think so. I think it lends itself more to OHP. Of course segments of the i/o literature would be relevant. But so would segments of the health psychology literature and the epidemiology literature. OHP has multiple roots. It is not right to say that one root dominates it.Iss246 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So moving foward, and keeping things impersonal please, the clear areas I have raised with you in the proper manner, that is through open discussion and consensus are again as follows:

Response to iss246

Iss246, once again, you have almost completely avoided my topics clearly marked for discussion. I am concerned that you refuse to discuss editing and just want an argument? You are becoming sarcastic, in my opinion, and presuming things or 'hidden meanings,' when honestly, none exist, and when I am trying to avoid doing the same.

But, i do want to make some changes/edits to the areas outlined. I don't want to be deleted afterwards, when you have refused to discuss them.

Wikipedia is not your personal website, nor is it mine, or anyone else's personal website, where they have much more control/freedom over content. It is an international community resource. And a very good one, i believe.

Apologies for referring to developmental psych as "educational/child psych." That was my recollection, without trying to find where you told me that? However given you brought it up, developmental psychology is very much related to educational psychology, thus my reference to educational/child psych. That's all! Apart from that, I don't care to be honest. Believe me, I'm not that interested in your training. So no offence intended. Let's move on please, with all due respect.

I stated before, no-one 'owns' occupational health psych or the psychological aspects of occupational/work health. It is just a domain. An area of work psychology, like performance management, job design, occupational stress etc etc. I make the point again. You cannot effectively consider occupational health psychology, without considering the full holistic picture, which includes many areas of work psychology. I do believe work psychologists are obviously in a gooid position in that regard.

I am concerned though by your comments iss246, and you avoiding edit discussions by instead making comments like.. For example, " All my colleagues work in creating organizations, journals, conferences, etc. boil down to Madison Ave." Your colleagues? The psychology of occupational health is part of work and the psychology of the workplace. It is not just for you iss246 and/or 'your' colleagues. And the Wikipedia article is as much mine, as it is yours, or any other editor in the community. You need to understand that. And you need to understand that if I or any other editor wishes to make changes, you need to let them, or discuss why in detail you oppose the changes.

I have no idea why you are so defensive of the occupational health psychology? Why you do not discuss editing? Why you believe you have authority over shared, community articles? Why your experience in developmental psych, as you say, is more relevant than my extensive experience and training in work psychology? I only ever comment on areas I know about. Both in life, and now Wikipedia.

Anyway, these questions are much less important than the actual editing discussion we need to have, before i go ahead and make some much needed changes and additions to the articles. I thought my last detailed post could not have made my intentions any clearer, so i again will paste this last part of my detailed section in full. My genuine apologies to other readers for repetion. Mrm7171 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So moving foward, and keeping things impersonal please, the clear areas I have raised with you in the proper manner, that is through open discussion and consensus are again as follows:

1/ You have not shown where consensus was gained, regarding your inclusion of occupational health psychology in the applied psychology sidebar, between 2008 and the present. My detailed reading of previous editors discussions with you shows consensus against putting occ health psychology in the applied psych sidebar.

2/ You have not addressed the fact that, apart from one program in applied psychology, all other doctorate and masters programs, listed at the bottom of this occupational health psych article, are in fact, subjects/units in the I/O doctorate and masters programs where students receive a qualification in I/O psychology. The article needs to reflect this by giving the title of each program from each univeristy/institution listed.

3/ There needs to be a link in this occ health psych article back to the I/O psychology article discussing the significant relationship between I/O psychology and occupational health. They are very much related.

Let's just work together here iss246 and any other editors, to make these articles more accurate, current and of real value to readers who may not have the knowledge of work psychology and in this article the psychological aspects of occupational health.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to ISS246

Iss246, again...can we keep focused on articles here please and focused on editing and improving these articles. Also, I'm not an academic or your political rival. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia. Instead of encouraging new editors (albeit those with a different point of view) you attack me. You are classically deflecting here iss246. I just want to focus on edits and making these I/O psychology and occupational health psychology articles accurate, current, free from any political dogma and of real benefit to readers. There is still a lot of work to be done on these articles instead of jumping to other articles 'ad hoc.' That's my point of view at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All editors are equal. We all need to work 'together' as equals, regardless of how much time one editor decides voluntarily to have contributed to articles. And respect each other's opinions and suggestions and additions. And if we disagree not to just delete them.

And we don't need to tell other editors what articles they should be working on? That's not right either. Or judge, or put down other editor's valid contributions. I think editors also should, if, they want to that is, work on articles in which they have a degree of knbowledge and at 'their own pace.' And above all, work within the guideliness of Wikipedia and the community spirit of consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep referring to 'OHP?' What is OHP? Is OHP different to the psychology of occupational health? What exactly is this 'OHP' you keep referring to? I just pasted your above statement iss246, you said..."I showed that OHP is a subject that emerged out of the confluence of other disciplines the way i/o psychology and health psychology have done previously." With all due respect, this does not make much sense? Very confusing? What are you trying to do to the discipline and profession iss246? Please discuss.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I do though, recognise the important domains/areas of the psychology of occupational health and occupational stress. Again, these are just domains/areas, not disciplines. Not disciplines within psychology that is. And that is what we are discussing here. And they are valid areas to study and then to also 'apply' research findings in the workplace. Let's discuss this, if you disagree, I am genuinely interested in discussion here, not personal attacks, nor discussing me, or you, iss246, or anyone other individual editor on Wikipedia, for that matter.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's Focus on editing please

So, and moving foward, and keeping things impersonal please, the clear areas I have raised with you in the proper manner, that is through open discussion and consensus are again as follows:

I only am going to ask this one more time before i attempt to make much needed edits, some deletions and comments. There is no point discuusing anything further because you only 'deflect' away from these editing issues. With all due respect, and I don't mean to sound in any way offensive but I do not want to discuss your background, or you, or me, or any other editors personal world. You have decided to keep mentioning your academic background, what universities you have taught at, your colleagues, your societies, etc. etc... honestly, who cares...I'm sorry this is Wikipedia.

It is not your personal website either iss246. I have made this point before. Readers are not concerned about your's or mine, or anyone else's personal world. Don't ask me again. I never asked you. Just because you have put a lot of your own opinions on various articles, does not mean any other editors have less control, or influence, or opinion, or power to add/delete/edit any articles as you do.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We are all equals on the Wiki community, which makes it such a great resource . Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So please for the last time lets focus on my precise, objective, valid clear points of difference made below.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

1/ You have not shown where consensus was gained, regarding your inclusion of occupational health psychology in the applied psychology sidebar, between 2008 and the present. My detailed reading of previous editors discussions with you shows consensus against putting occ health psychology in the applied psych sidebar.

• • Just so any other readers/editors/administrators can see this is not just my comments, i have taken the liberty of again cutting and pasting from the psychology sidebar, another editor's summation of the 4 year consensus against occupational health psychology not being placed in the applied psychology sidebar.

I again encourage anyone else to read the full set of editor' discussions with iss246 over a 4 year period. The fact is, all other editors, ie. the consensus, strongly agreed NOT to include it. But iss246 just went ahead and did it anyway! The following was DoctorW's final comments, word for word in 2011.....before it seems he also gave up!Mrm7171 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DoctorW's comments in 2011.... "Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)"

Date to make archiving work: 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Mrm7171

Yes. DoctorW and I had a debate about OHP. But OHP is there in the sidebar. Mrm7171 you are on a mission to take down OHP no matter what.

Approximate date to make archiving work: 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Objective history of iss246 and many other editors discussions on the psychology talk page since 2008

No iss246, I am not a mission to 'take down' OHP, no matter what, for the last time!

Occupational stress and occupational health (either physical or psychological health), belong to no one profession, or group or society. Occupational health is a very valid, important domain to study. So is the psychology and physiology of occupational health. So is occupational stress, which relates so significantly to occupational health (both physical and psychological health that is). I am NOT trying to destroy that.

So WHAT the heck are you accusing me of? What exactly am I trying to take down? A society or group of people trying to take the global domain of work stress or occupational health, away from everyone else, and call it their own? Is that it? and downplay the obvious relevance of I/O psychogy to these areas/domains?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And you are becoming far too personal toward me as a Wikipedia editor iss246. Continuing to focus on me, and about me personally concerns me. Please stop doing that. I am just again, like others have tried since 2008 to do, 'stand up for the consensus' on a few basic issues for the sake of objectivity and not re-inventing the wheel nor creating duplication or confusion for psychology. As many others in the Wikipedia community since 2008, have also discussed strongly with, I do not think that occupational health psychology should be in the applied psychology sidebar. It is just my opinion though. One of many it seems, each editor since 2008 having their own objections.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For the last time, all I am saying is that I/O or Work psychology, and I/O or Work Psychologists have always been heavily involved in research and the application of work stress to improve both personal wellbeing and organizational effectiveness. Period. It appears from some postings that the society of OHP? invented work stress? or takes credit for the area?

And the study of occupational stress in my opinion, cannot be properly studied or applied for real benefit, without a holistic understanding and consideration of all domains that fall under the I/O banner, eg..recruitment, performance management, job design, training and development etc etc. These topics/areas/domains are what I/O psychology is all about. By having a holistic, thorough understanding of these domains and their interrelatedness, truly effective organizational and individual interventions in the workplace can then be applied to improve both the organization AND the life, health, safety and wellbeing of the individual worker.

Surely anyone reading this can understand my point, if they look at the facts? Instead of attempting to distort my words.

However you have worn me out at present, Iss246, as it appears you have done with others over the years, through your personal attacks, assumptions, setting me up for early falls, trying to get me barred because I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia properly, through your knowledge of Wikipedia, and accusing me of bad faith. All the while i have attempted at least, to refrain from attacking you and trying to focus on the facts and act in good faith. I am just trying to provide the Wikipedia community with the objective facts in the area of I/O psychology, and its relationship to the areas of occupational stress and occupational health.

Anyway, after this comment you posted above, I have simply copied and pasted a large part of the history of editors disagreeing with iss246 over including Occ health psychology in the applied psychology sidebar. Readers cvan read through the debates iss246 has had with over the years and then make their own minds up. I am just one editor who has entered this ongoing debate/discussion with iss246 that has been ongoing since 2008!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The history of iss246 and the numerous editors who opposed him, follows:.....

This section was simply a cut and paste of iss246's discussions with many other editors, for the reference of readers. It was just vandalized, and taken down. Wikipedia is an objective, community resource, not a political tool to be used. I have decidedd against reverting this simply cut and paste of 5 years of editors discussions. I strongly refer any readers to the Psychology talk pages, including the full archive. There is masses of argument and discission over the issue of occupational health psych being included as a dist/. It was just deleted and censored. I am now seeking formal dispute resolution and some light to be shone on these pages. There seems to b e no other option. Consensus, accuracy, currency needs to be adhered to on these matters and their associated articles.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss user behaviour. Please use user talk pages for that
Note - content added with this edit was removed, since the talk page had become entirely disrupted. See page history. This is not the place to discuss this. Please use user talk pages to discuss user behaviour. - DVdm (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what i could find. There may be further history in other archives. Readers should consider whether there is enough consensus, based on Wikipedia's guiding principles and policies and come to a resolution on this matter themselves. I strongly recommend any readers now refer to the psychology talk pages, under the OHP and occupational health psychology threads.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution being sought now.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Any evidence on why it belongs that I present you ignore.

What are your criteria for being on the sidebar? My criteria are (a) the existence of a growing body of research [there is a ever-growing body of research in specialty journals dedicated to OHP and to nonspecialty journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology and the American Journal of Public Health); (b) the presence of journals dedicated to the subject (the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress); (c) the presence of organizations devoted to the subject matter (ICOH-WOPS, EA-OHP, SOHP); (d) recognition by a major psychology governing body (the APA, particularly the public interest directorate); (e) international conferences devoted to the subject matter (EA-OHP conference series, the Work, Stress, and Health sponsored by APA-NIOSH-SOHP, and the ICOH-WOPS conference).

I have criteria to help me decide what belongs on the sidebar. You by your silence on the matter shows you have no criteria other than old debates. Your silence on the matter of your expertise shows that have little expertise, and that you are doing no more than running a campaign against OHP. To underline that your are running a campaign, you do nothing else on Wikipedia than harp on OHP. You don't create new entries. You don't help build existing entries (e.g., like the recently started SIOP entry). You give a mealy mouthed response as to why you don't build in the SIOP entry. You have nothing else to do but serve that one master who tells you take down OHP.Iss246 (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All this stuff about the sidebar needs to be discussed at Template talk:Psychology sidebar, not here.

Also, it would be really helpful (for archiving purposes) if you all didn't create an entire new section for each comment. You can use ===Level 3 headers=== to create subsections.

Finally, if you want to have a chance at making progress, then I suggest that one of you pick one specific, concrete, and ideally small point to discuss, rather than trying to carry on multipoint discussions simultaneously. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Mrm7171

Mrm7171 is the Napoleon of Wikipedia. S/he is on a campaign against OHP. Given the above, the campaign looks Napoleonic in scale. S/he does not do one other thing on Wikipedia except campaign against OHP. S/he won't lift a finger to help with the editing of the recently started SIOP entry although s/he is a purported supporter of i/o psychology. S/he won't start an entry devoted to other i/o organizations. I guess s/he is waiting for others to do the work. How can this eager beaver contribute to another subject on Wikipedia? S/he is too busy working to detract from OHP.

Reply: No, iss246, I just 'copied and pasted' from archive, your own 'Napoleonic efforts' over many years against all editors and consensus way before my joining this year as an editor. There were pages and pages of these at times very strong arguments between you and other editors backwards and forwards. Anyway these truths and efforts of editors gone by, are now tucked away out of site, in the archive section. I pulled them out because they are still very relevant to the unfinished discussion. You just kept putting occ health psych 'back in there' every time another editor tried deleting it. Good trick. You just wore them out I guess! Not a reason to include occ health psych though.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My view is that we have so much work to do and discuss on the occupational health article first and we need to include reference to the archivced discussions. They are still open ended! First things first, and if a job's worth doing its worth doing right. I do have plans to help other editors work on several articles in the near future, just so you know iss246. Also will continue learning how Wikipedia works properly, and how to use the various tools in the process. So, basically get off my back with the personal stuff, trying to 'deflect' the real questions you need to face here, as some people do, when they've got something to hide? In this case, hidden in the archives!Mrm7171 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am in the process of replying to these points you've made below. Same points you made with all other editors since 2008. Hope we can keep focused now please, instead of getting things personal anymore iss246. Agreed?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do I think OHP is a discipline that has emerged within psychology. Here is a list of criteria for judging whether a discipline has emerged. I know I am repeating myself but I go into slightly more detail on the criteria.

1. There is a growing body of research.

2. There are journals dedicated to the subject.

3. There are organizations dedicated to the subject.

4. The subject is recognized by an important governing body in psychology.

5. There are conferences devoted to the subject.

I review the criteria one at a time in more detail than previously.

1. There is a growing body of research. The research covers such areas as the impact of workplace psychosocial factors on coronary heart disease, blood pressure, ulcers, etc. The research also examines the impact of these factors on mental disorders such as depression and on high levels of psychological distress in the absence of depression and the impact of violence exposure and psychological aggression in the workplace. The OHP examines the relation of workplace psychosocial factors to accidents. Other topics include work-to-home carryover of deleterious effects. Other research topics include the influence of person factors such as depression, personality disorders, etc. on workplace conditions. I will stop here.

2. The Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress are dedicated to OHP. However, other journals such as the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, Psychosomatic Medicine, and the American Journal of Public Health also publish OHP research to name just a few.

3. Three professional organizations are closely linked to OHP. There are the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP), the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP), and the International Commission on Occupational Health's scientific committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors (ICOH-WOPS).

4. The American Psychological Association recognizes OHP. The APA together with NIOSH have jointly sponsored an international conference series devoted to OHP research and practice. The APA's Public Interest Directorate plays a major role in OHP. APA publishes the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.

5. The APA and NIOSH, and now with SOHP, run one of the major international conference series devoted to OHP. The EA-OHP also runs a major international conference series devoted to OHP. Finally, ICOH-WOPS runs a major international conference series devoted to OHP.

OHP has emerged as a field of research and study.Iss246 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Trained in OHP

I believe the content of this article needs to be maintained fully. OHP is not a subdivision of IO Psychology. Having been trained in an OHP program I can assure the community that I received training that was distinctly different than if I had received a masters/PhD in IO Psychology. I took classes in psychology (i.e., social, IO), ergonomics, epidemiology, and industrial hygiene. As a member of the education research center, I got the opportunity to work on a number of applied research projects with individuals in occupational medicine, health physics, ergonomics, industrial hygiene, and environmental and occupational health. I work for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and have collaborated with anthropologists and other psychologists. I lead a OHP newsletter focused on safety and health research projects in my region. My experience is unique from what I would have received attending an IO program.

OHP is a relatively new field in Psychology. It has grown in the last couple of decades, but compared to other areas of psychology, OHP is still in its infancy. As an OHP trainee, much of my research has focused on the health, safety, and well-being of individuals in the workforce and community. OHP is rooted in a multidisciplinary approach to solving real-world problems. I think it is necessary as an OHP psychologist to understand various perspectives to improve the quality of peoples' lives. As an OHP trainee, I believe I would have the knowledge and skills to address a number of issues which may compromise the safety and health of individuals in the work environment. I have no agenda.

Sometimes I think that researchers devote too much of their time in a world of semantics. Occupational Health Psychology exists and I am a product of this area of psychology. There may be more IO psychologists than OHP psychologists - but that may simply be a product of the newness of this field. For example, in the world of work, more employers may recognize "IO psychologist" rather than "OHP psychologist". Perhaps it may be beneficial for you to speak with other self-identified OHP researchers before assuming that something that OHP is merely a subdivision of IO. That being said, I can assure you that I am an OHP psychologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OHP Trainee (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(Approximate date to make archiving work) 20:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything said by the OHP psychologist here. I am a faculty member in a U.S. I/O program that provides OHP training, and I am one of the faculty members who provides it. When I was in grad school in an I/O doctoral program, I got no OHP-related training, and to the contrary topics in occupational health/safety were considered outside of the I/O domain. When I got interested in OHP topics after graduation, I had to look outside of I/O to find the research. Because today there are a growing number of people trained in I/O who are interested in OHP topics, we see OHP research in I/O journals and conferences, but much of it is in journals/conferences outside of I/O. I bet if you count them up, you would find more papers outside than inside I/O journals. OHP is very interdisciplinary, and if you look at where it came from and who is in it, OHP is in the academic fields of business administration (I think there might be more people with backgrounds in management--OB and HR--than psychology in OHP), medicine, nursing, public health, and other disciplines, beyond I/O. Psyc12 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Your statement above, "Because today there are a growing number of people trained in I/O who are interested in OHP topics, we see OHP research in I/O journals and conferences, but much of it is in journals/conferences outside of I/O. I bet if you count them up, you would find more papers outside than inside I/O journals." This is pretty confusing psyc12.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I will rephrase Mrm7171. Although there is some OHP research published in I/O journals, most of it probably is not, but here's a little evidence from two occupational stress researchers, myself and Cary Cooper who is perhaps the most prolific occupational stress researcher around. I'm an I/O psychologist, so I try to publish in I/O journals as much as I can. I just went through my CV. Only 29% of the papers I've done on occupational stress was in an I/O journal, and that's being generous in considering Journal of Organizational Behavior (JOB) as an I/O (rather than a business) journal. I checked Cary Cooper using PsycInfo 2002-2013. Only 10% of his papers are in an I/O journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to psyc12

Thanks psyc12...But I need to pick you up here on a few points as you have already further validated my points, it seems. Firstly, you are correct when you said, and I quote from you, ".....Cary Cooper who is perhaps the most prolific occupational stress researcher around."

Yes, Professor Cary Cooper is indeed one of the worl's leading researchers and experts on occupational stress, organizational stress management psychosocial risk, and the psychology of occupational health. In the UK, Professor Cary Cooper is an Occupational Psychologist, which is a protected title in the UK. An Occupational Psychologist in the UK is exactly the same as an I/O Psychologist in the USA or an IWO Psychologist in Europe. Professor Cooper is a also Professor in the Organizational psychology and Health Dept at Lancaster University Management School.

Obviously I/O psychologists publish in other relevant empirical (inter)national journals, not just journals with the words Organizational psychology, Occupational psychology or Work psychology (and combinations) in their titles. Also, occupational stress is only one area of I/O psychology. But it is a large area in journal research conducted by authors with qualifications, training and experience in I/O psychology. I/O Psychology, is very broad and covers many areas/domains within the broadest definition of the psychology or work and all and everything that entails. Other editors have made this point too, continually.

Another point that had constantly been made on this talk page by iss246, and some recent others, eg psyc12, is that the vast majority of psychologists dealing with occupational/work stress, organizational stress management strategies, performance management, psychosocial risks, occupational health and wellbeing, personality, psychometrics, motivation etc etc have qualifications, training and experience in the I/O or Work psychology areas. That makes common sense too, simply because they are all areas that fall within the broad discipline.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if occupational/work stress, organizational stress management, psychosocial risk, occupational health and wellbeing have always been a part of I/O, (not the biggest area, but a significant and growing area) why try and re-invent the wheel? The international psychology profession already has a discipline which clearly covers the area of occupational stress and occupational health and wellbeing as well as organizational performance etc etc. It is called I/O or Occupational or Organizational or IWO or Work Psychology. But they are all decriptors of the same broad, overarching, discipline of the psychology of Work and everything that involves.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

These health areas have not always been part of I/O, and they are still a very small part. I think if you polled I/O psychologists, you might find that there is not consensus that all of these topics are part of the field. If you trace the history you will see that they grew out of other disciplines. Also keep in mind that there are many people in this field who are not I/O psychologists, and many are not even psychologists. I would not say that the "vast majority" of people doing work on stress and OHP are I/Os. In the U.S. many of them are in business schools and they are not psychologists. Psyc12 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Development of the SIOP entry and creating an encyclopedia entry for the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology

Mrm7171, we should stop arguing about OHP and turn the page to other aspects of Wikipedia. I think it is important that the SIOP entry be further developed. I think SIOP is one of the most important professional organizations in i/o. If you think it would be helpful to readers to start an entry for another i/o-related organization, which you already alluded to, that would be a productive way to proceed. The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology is not represented on Wikipedia. For some reason I think you Mrm7171 are from Australia (I'm probably wrong), but there is the APS's College of Organisational Psychologists, which I also don't think is represented because the word "college" may throw some readers off track.Iss246 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

First things first, and if a job's worth doing its worth doing right. I do have plans to help other editors work on several articles in the near future, just so you know iss246. Also will continue learning how Wikipedia works properly, and how to use the various tools in the processMrm7171 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I applaud your effort Mrm7171.Iss246 (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Let the experts speak

Quick (1999), who is a fellow of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, showed that OHP involves the confluence of health psychology, clinical psychology, public health, and preventive medicine. Interestingly, he did not mention i/o psychology, although he mentioned it in a later piece he co-authored (see below). Kasl and Jones (2003) underlined the contribution of epidemiology to OHP. Kasl, among other accomplishments, conducted important research on the impact of unemployment on blood pressure. Tetrick and Quick (2011) wrote that OHP reaches "across multiple disciplines within and beyond psychology." Tetrick and Quick went on to write that "such psychology specialties as human factors, industrial and organizational psychology, social psychology, health psychology, and clinical psychology inform occupational health psychology" (p. 5). Barling and Griffiths (2011), in their history of occupational health psychology, gave some role to i/o psychology but not a dominant role in the development of OHP. Barling and Griffiths included a role of a psychiatrist like E.L. Trist, who conducted a pioneering study of the impact of changes in the mining industry on British miners, and a sociologist like Robert Karasek, whose demand-control model remains very influential in OHP circles.

These experts underlined the view that OHP is NOT a subdiscipline of i/o psychology, Mrm7171's unsourced claim to the contrary. Like other newly emerging cross-disciplinary fields (e.g, sustainability), OHP is a field of the future precisely because it cuts across disciplinary boundaries, thus enhancing researchers' ability to pursue of the goal of improved worker health.Iss246 (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to clearly define 'OHP'. Please be as specific as possible.

Could you break it down into 'areas/domains' of study, if possible?

...for example, occupational stress, job design, performance, motivation, training and development, home-work interface etc etc.. have always been significant area/domains of study and application in I/O or work psychology.

Is 'OHP' separate from the psychological or psychosocial aspects of occupational health or health and safety?

I have asked these straightforward questions before, so we can move forward with this discussion, but it went unanswered?

So again, what is it exactly, that OHP does, and studies, that is unique within the applied psychology profession, not medicine or nursing etc etc... but within the international psychology profession? That is, the letter 'P' in the coined term OHP?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tetrick and Quick (2011) wrote that "the purpose of occupational health psychology is to develop, maintain, and promote the health of employees directly and the health of their families. Occupational health psychology is important because of the associated burden of suffering from morbidity and mortality, both from an economic perspective and from a humanitarian perspective. The primary focus of occupational health psychology is the prevention of illness and injury by creating safe and health working environments" (pp. 4-5). Both Tetrick and Quick are fellows of SIOP. Both writers have contributed to OHP. Both are members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. Both have emphasized the cross-disciplinary basis for OHP as indicated in the book chapter I cited and as reinforced by the other researchers I cited in the above paragraph. Nobody denies that i/o has played a role in the emergence of OHP. But disciplines in and outside of psychology have also played more important roles. I remind you of the comment of Psyc12, an i/o psychologist, who reported above that while trained in i/o, "occupational health/safety were considered outside of the I/O domain." That i/o psychologists have become interested in the health of workers is a tribute to the influence of OHP researchers.

A few clear, straightforward questions

(Not trying to trip you up, far from it, so again iss246, please keep your personal accusations of bad faith to yourself, as I do).

Please answer under each question for clarity. I feel I need to make them even clearer, as you selectively avoid answering them.

Occupational/work stress has always been a huge part of I/O or work psychology. Agreed?

I for one do not agree. I have been in the I/O field a long time, and it has only been fairly recently that OHP topics seem more acceptable. I have encountered a lot of reviewer resistance to OHP-topics in journal submissions and elsewhere. They argue that the topic is not appropriate for an I/O journal as it is not an I/O topic. Some such comments have been pretty recent--within last 10 years. Psyc12 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be viewing I/O psychology very narrowly? Wikipedia is an 'international' encyclopedia.

Industrial/Work/Organizational (IWO) Psychology is an international discipline.

Therefore Occupational psychology is synonymous with Organizational or Work psychology. They are just words/descriptors, all describing the same broad, international field/profession, which examines human psychology and its relationship to the world of 'work,' in every possible way. I look forward to your comments?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What topics are you trying to get published in Journals of Organizational or Occupational Psychology? Please elaborate. What topics are you talking about please, as this does not sound right? Also what journals?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the major American I/O journals. Journal of Applied Psychology is one where reviewers felt a paper I submitted on stress/health was irrelevant. If you look in this journal, papers on OHP topics are fairly recent. For example, you don't find a lot on accidents/injuries prior to 1990. Things are a bit different in Europe, depending on the country. If you look at the history of the field in the US vs. UK, you find that American I/O focused initially on productivity whereas UK I/O focused a lot of attention on employee health/well-being. So over the years you find British journals to be a lot more friendly to OHP topics than American journals. Psyc12 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

International journals are exactly that. International. Full stop.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That is, regardless of where researchers 'call home,' they all aspire to publish in the same international journals. Anyone who opens a recognised international journal will find researchers from all parts of the globe.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in my opinion, your statements are very misleading to readers, and frankly, very misinformed. I look forward to a reply from iss246 on these points too?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What influence does the area of occupational/work stress have on OHP or the relationship to it?

Stress is a large part of the OHP domain, as much of the research concerns some aspect of stress, often tied to something else, like stress and accidents, stress and MSDs, stress and performance, stress and work/family. Psyc12 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Occupational stress, organizational stress management, psychosocial risk, are all covered by professionally licensed Organizational psychologists around the world. Your earlier example of Professor Cary Cooper, a professor of Organizational Psychology and an Organizational or Occupational psychologist, registered with the Uk Regulators confirms my point. Please see again my comments above.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be careful here about generalizing from the UK to the rest of the world. Things vary a lot across countries. In the U.S. in most states I/O psychologists are not licensed, and where they are, I do not believe OHP topics are specifically noted. Psyc12 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Given you speak so much about 'OHP' being 'interdisciplinary,' ie. as you say, for everyone/open to anyone

Does 'OHP' want to see itself to be part of the formal, separate, international, 'psychology board regulated' psychology profession? (This means licensing and regulation and restrictions on the title psychologist etc etc.. by governments and boards and approved universities?)Mrm7171 (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you even asking a Wikipedia editor these things? It doesn't matter what Iss246 believes about this. Go look it up in a WP:Reliable source. Wikipedia is built on sources, not on speculation by individuals about what a field might include or how a field might want to be regulated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, your suggestion earlier on this page and I qoute, was ... "I suggest that one of you pick one specific, concrete, and ideally small point to discuss, rather than trying to carry on multipoint discussions simultaneously. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2013(UTC).

I agree. This discussion has become very confusing, and we really need to get to the bottom of things here, for the sake of the amount of discussion already taken place since 2008, and the benefit of Wikipedia. We need to focus on some basics here, as you said WhatamIdoing.

Where my personal confusion has come from, is the continual assertion from iss246 and others, that 'OHP' is a bit of everything, a hybrid and not part of the formal, international psychology discipline/profession? This principle obviously applies equally to other distinct disciplines/professions like Medicine.

So I asked for clarification of this critical question? That is, is 'OHP', part of the formal international psychology discipline/profession? For some reason iss246, has not answered this?

So, could iss246, and any other editors, eg recently joined editors, OHP Trainee, Psyc12, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, Jannainnaija all provide some comments here, given they hold such strong connections to 'OHP' and clarify this stil, unanswered question?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I respond to the "bit of everything" comment by Mrm7171. OHP is an applied field. Applied fields rely on more basic fields in order to move forward. For example, i/o psychology is an applied field. I/o psychologists study motivation but motivation is an element of personality psychology. I/o psychologists are interested in training. Educational psychologists conduct a good deal of research on training, not just students in lower grades but of adult learners as well. I have a colleague in educational psychology, a fellow of Division 15 of APA, who has done work with the U.S. Navy to help design training programs for enlisted men and women. Measurement is a substantial part of i/o psychology. Cognitive tests and personality inventories are used in selection and promotion. Psychometric psychology plays an important role in measurement. Cognitive psychology provides the theoretical basis for mental tests. Personality psychology provides the theoretical basis for personality tests. That i/o is an applied field that builds upon more basic disciplines does not cancel out i/o psychology. That OHP is an applied field that builds on more basic disciplines does not cancel out OHP. I think it is time to stop carping about OHP.Iss246 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 , have you tried to find out what any published, reliable sources say about this question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Major change made while discussion ongoing

Don't try to make a sweeping statement and fundamental change in the first line of this article! I have undone it.There is no consensus and this topic is still very much under discussion and up for possible 'dispute resolution.' I replied in brief on my talk page with the paragraph pasted again below. But i could literally 'fill a page' with reasons why OHP is not a new subdomain of the international psychology profession.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Respond please to other comments in the article talk page left yesterday. This discussion is very much ongoingMrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is not one single Doctoral program anywhere in the world, in "OHP'? Despite SOHP providing significant money, to make that happen and over 15 years of trying now. NIOSH is separate to the couple of societies in 'OHP.' Any Grad programs that do still exist, are at least 90% I/O degrees with units/subjects only in OHP. These subjects/courses have also decreased since 2000, not increased? Occupational stress has always been a significant area of research and application for Work psychologists. See Cary Cooper's 1976, journal article in Journal of Occupational/Organizational psychology. Cary Cooper is a licensed Occupational Psychologist in the Uk. I could, and very well may, fill a page with this stuff, I'm sorry I don't agree, and this is Wikipedia, international, not an indivcidual's own personal website. Truths must prevail.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

7171 I was unaware that there was any debate on the definition of OHP as being concerned with employee health, safety, and well-being. The issue of OHP being a subarea of I/O or separate is a different issue. I would encourage you to go to the website of the European OHP society, and look at the 2013 newsletter, and then look at the backgrounds of the OHPers there. You will see a nice interview with Zwetsloot whose background is chemistry and social science, Van Laar who is in applied psychology, and Kelly who is a neuropsychologist. None of them are I/O.

If OHP is just part of I/O, then we should find all the OHP programs to be embedded in I/O programs, but that is not the case. I just took a quick look at a few in the U.S. University of Minnesota. Their OHP program director is Jo Ida Hansen who is in their counseling program. She is not I/O. The define OHP as "an emerging field within the discipline of psychology." They do not define it as part of I/O. None of the I/O faculty are interested in OHP. Don't take my word for it. Go to their website and check it out. Their OHP page: http://www.psych.umn.edu/research/areas/counseling/ohp.html Their I/O page http://www.psych.umn.edu/research/areas/industrial/Psyc12 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Check out Colorado State U. Their director, Lorann Stallones is an occupational epidemiologist. Also note that they do not associate their program with I/O, but say any student in any of their 5 graduate programs can be part of OHP. The faculty they list by name are not I/O psychologists. Rosecrance is an ergonomist and Henry is in prevention and statistics. Check is out for yourself: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Psychology/iapr/ohp.shtml. Go to the I/O program page and they don't even mention OHP: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Psychology/io/. Here's the handbook for their Applied Social and Health Psychology Program http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Psychology/aps/Applied.pdf. You will see in the second paragraph that they mention OHP as a concentration in that program.

Now lets look at University of Texas Austin: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/DeptArea/Clinical/OccupationalHealth/. They say OHP is "The field of Occupational health psychology (OHP) is an emerging specialty area within psychology." Their directors are Holahan in Clinical Psychology and Pennebaker in Social Psychology. It looks like the program is open to all department doctoral students. They do not have I/O at UTA, so it can't be associated with I/O.

One more: East Carolina University: http://www.ecu.edu/psyc/OHP-About.cfm. It is a concentration within their Health Psychology program. Here's what they say about the field "Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) involves the interdisciplinary partnerships of psychological and occupational health science professionals seeking to improve..... it exists at the intersection of behavioral science and occupational health disciplines, OHP is inclusive of knowledge and methods from psychology, public/occupational health, organizational studies, human factors, and allied fields (such as occupational sociology, industrial engineering, economics, and others)." I don't see I/O specifically mentioned, and they have an I/O program.

The idea that OHP is just a subset of I/O is just not correct. And that is not just my opinion, but can be seen in the websites of psychology programs, OHP societies, and OHP writings.

I just undid your last revision. That is the second warning. Please do not make any changes untilo we can get some resolution to this ongoing dispute. This article is still clearly under intense discussion. I would like to make many changes to the article, believe me, but have refrained, because thast is how Wikipedia works, I have learnt.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just went to the SOHP website, that iss246 so often quotes wherever he can. The entire executive team, it seems, who are driving this reinvention of the domains of occupational stress and in charge of this small group, all without fail, hold a Doctoroate in I/O psychology.

You also quoted works of Cary Cooper. He is an I/O or Occupational or Orghanizational Psychologist. Doctorate in I/O Psychology. He is a licensed Occupational/Organizational Psychologist with the UK Health Regulators. See Cary Cooper's 1976, journal article in Journal of Occupational/Organizational psychology This was well before the acronym 'OHP' was coined. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

SOHP Leadership 2012-2013 Executive Committee President Vicki Magley, University of Connecticut President-Elect I/O Doctorate Mo Wang, University of Florida Past President Janet Barnes-Farrell, University of Connecticut Secretary-Treasurer I/O Doctorate Christopher Cunningham, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga Members at Large Konstantin Cigularov, Old Dominion University I/O Doctorate Russell Matthews, Bowling Green State University I/O Doctorate

You are trying to 'reinvent the wheel.' More to the point, it appears that a small group of I/O psychologists around the world are trying to reinvent the wheel, and take the broad areas of Occupational /work stress away from the thousands and thousands of other Work psychologists around the world, and call it their own?

Many new graduates and students and psychologists already with training in Industrial/Work?organizational(IWO) Psychology around the globe, are becoming increasingly interested in Occupational health and safety, and its relationship to occupational stress. If we are talking psychology and psychologists (not medicine or nursing etc?), occupational stress clearly falls within the Work Psychology domain. We are talking about psychology here, not other disciplines.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The psychology profession does not need duplication. It is not helpful to the international psychology profession to be trying to do so, or muddy the waters.

In 'OHP' P stands for psychology. The global psychology profession already has a discipline which studies Work psychology. It is called Work psychology. It has university training programs in almost every country on the planet.

Occupational/Work stress clearly remains the domain of Work psychology, within the psychology discipline at least. Yes, other areas like medicine etc study occupational stress as well. But within the psychology profession/discipline it remains, and always has been, the clear domain of Work Psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The psychology of ccupational health, and the areas of occupational stress were already invented, researched, applied by Work psychologists. This is a fact. They have always been domnains within IWO Psychology. They have been part of Work Psychology for decades. Just because you quote a few I/O psychs who are not 'interested in the area' does not negate these clear, objective facts. Many Work psychologists are interested and have worked in the field for decades. Professor Cary Cooper is a good example.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that the leadership of SOHP is mainly I/Os doesn't make the field a part of I/O. Often a group of individuals in one field get interested in something and then breaks off to start a new field or subfield. We were all at one time experimental psychologists, but over time the various subareas evolved in just that way. Besides, look at the founding members and charter members of SOHP. They are not all I/O psychologists. Psyc12 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Mrm7171's reversal of Psyc12's minor change. The original text connects to what Everly originally published in 1986. But the field evolved. What Psyc12 wrote accurately augments the original writing.Iss246 (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171's decision that OHP is part of I/O based on his analysis of the current people's doctorates is a plain violation of WP:No original research. We cannot base an article on this.

Again: has anyone actually looked for sources that address this question? Surely there's some editorial piece in a psych journal that talks about the relationship between the two things. Here's what one source says:

"There are numerous descriptors for subject specialties that concern the application of psychology in the workplace: industrial and organizational psychology, work and organizational psychology, work and health psychology, vocational psychology, and occupational psychology to name but a few. Each of these specialties has a distinct perspective…and exists as a formalized entity supported, to varying degrees, by representative bodies, academic and practitioner journals, international conferences, and professional training pathways. To this collection there is a new entrant that since the early 1990s has attracted interest, but about which little has been written for the student embarking upon study of the specialty: occupational health psychology."[1]

This tends to indicate that OHP is not a sub-part of I/O (or any of the others listed), but a separate, co-equal specialty in its own right.

This is what needs to be done. You need to stop talking about people's personal experiences or what their academic degrees say. You need to go look it up and report back what you find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If OHP is a subspecialty within I/O, then I/O textbook authors should be defining it as such. I looked up OHP in several I/O texts I have at hand that mention it, and not one defines it as part of I/O. 1. Landy-Conte ""These concerns led to the development of the field of OHP which involves the application of psychology to improving ....." They later talk about OH psychologists--not I/O psychologists. 2. Schultz & Schultz "The problem of workplace stress has led to a new field of study---OHP" They go on to talk a bit about the field's development outside of I/O. 3. Riggio "We will look at two important areas that intersect with I/O psychology--Human Factors and OHP. Although these disciplines have a shared origin with I/O Psychology, they have developed into distinct fields". 4. Spector "This emerging subfield of psychology (and other disciplines, such as medicine and public health) is concerned with ....". 5. Jex & Britt's Organizational Psychology text "One of the most significant developments in the study of occupational stress and health has been the emergence of the field of OHP.

Just a brief reply to this. 'OHP' is not listed in Work Psychology textbooks, because 'OHP' is a 'coined' acronym. If you look up occupational/work stress and its relationship to health, performance, and every other variable, you will have more luck.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So we can see that I/O textbook authors, those who are OHP researchers (Jex-Britt, Spector) and those who are not (the rest) all define OHP as something other than part of I/O. Psyc12 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we list the current titles of the programs on the article page for readers?

As can clearly be seen in the shrinking list of courses that do cover subjects in 'OHP,' at the bottom of the occupational health psychology article page, they are mainly, ie. at least 80% of them, already WITHIN, part of, the I/O Doctoral programs that exist. These are facts. Anything else is fiction.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

They are simply subjects as part of the I/O Degree and Applied Psych. Can editors comment on this fact please. If OHP is not part of I/O psych why are they part of the programs?

I would like to simply list the actual courses, that is, their titles/the degree, that will be conferred, on the OHP article page, for Wikipedia readers to clearly see. This would also allow Wikipedia readers to stay on Wikipedia instead of being redirected to other websites. A point I'm sure whatamidoing agrees is consistent with wiki protocol? It would also be accurate and current for readers. We could delete the external links to Newsletters, and instead plainly list the title of the Degree/Program? Makes a lot of sense? Why not?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Would this be okay with editors? If not why not? Why hide the course titles? you have detailed links for society newsletters? I propose for readers it would be better to detail the actual courses/degrees? Then we can see the truth. Without hiding the objective facts. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If no response to this logical improvement to the article, I will go ahead with this practical improvement to the article page.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC) That is, and as a fact, these OHP units are already within current I/O Doctorate programs. How then, is OHP not part of I/O or work psychology if OHP are subjects mostly within the I/O programs and I/O divisions/departments?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I just looked at the websites of all of these programs, and only 4 are exclusively associated with I/O (Bowling Green, Portland State, U Conn, U South Fl). Some cut across areas within psychology (Clemson, Colorado State, Kansas, Houston) and two are outside of I/O (East Carolina, Minn). The fact that OHP might be taught in an I/O program doesn't make the topic exclusively part of I/O. Every I/O student gets courses in statistics. That doesn't mean the study of statistics is exclusively part of the I/O field. We all get training in basic psychology. That doesn't now mean that the basic areas are exclusively part of I/O. I have given you a lot of evidence that I/O is more than just a specialization within I/O. It is not just my opinion, but can be easily seen where experts like textbook writers, define it.Psyc12 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

: Just asking this same question again re: my proposal to include in the current article page, clear, current courses etc? See above and below? Could iss246 answer on this too if wanted to have a say/offer any objections?. Especially given, iss246 wrote these course links etc originally. Mrm7171 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

We need to stop confusing readers and make this occupational health psychology article clearer, current and accurate. Surely if the few Degrees/Programs which have agreed to include subjects/units in OHP as 'part' of their programae are clearly listed, readers can then make up their own minds. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising billboard for private groups newsletters. No one has objected to removing outdated links or links to external sites for group newsletters should be on wikipedia? What do you think WhatamIdoing? You had this discussion over external links with iss246, but you archived it recently?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's make the article better, clearer, current for readers. So I am going to replace the links to old newsletters, which currerntly serve no purpose to the wiki article or wikipedia community? and use the space to put in current clear course titles. Further I propose replacing active links (some even going to 404 page errors) These links need to be replaced with standard text. For example, Clemson and Colorado, both currently go to 404 errors (ie. no page exists)? This section needs to be cleaned up for the better.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Another important proposal for fellow editors, before i get to work on it is this. I have noticed there are many, perhaps hundreds of official Masters and Doctoral programs in I/O or Work Psychology, which provide formal subjects and units in Occupational Health and Wellbeing and Occupational/Work Stress. These are at major universities around the world, ie. at major universities in Asia Pacific, Canada, Europe, US, South America, Africa, Russia, Middle East etc. But, they don't call these units 'OHP' though. They call these areas of study by their proper, objective names. The article we are discussing here is 'Occupational health psychology, or the psychology of occupational health, so this proposal is valid, in my opinion. Readers would benefit greatly. They could choose to study where they want all around the world.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So what do editors think? Would iss246 and others perhaps want to help on this? WhatamIdoing, your sourcing and editing skills, you have picked me up on several times as a new, still learning, Wikipedia editor I am, would be invaluable on this part of the article. Please let me know.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Clear evidence from Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology - Volume 2

I provide the following for all readers/editors/administrators to review please.

This evidence is especially strong and clear, given 3 points, 1. discussion is on topics such as occupational stress, 2. psyc12 has mentioned professor Cary Cooper as one of the world's leading experts and 3. whatamIdoing's suggestions to include textbook evidence.

So, respectfully, I provide the following from the:

Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology - Volume 2: Organizational Psychology Neil Anderson & Deniz S. Ones & Handan Kepir Sinangil & Chockalingam Viswesvaran Chapter 6: Occupational Stress: Toward a More Integrated FrameworkPeter M. HartCary L. Cooper

Further, the prestigious Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, celebrating it's 85th birthday, lists over '650 international journal articles' directly investigating occupational stress and its relationship to many variables, such as health, performance work-home interface etc etc, since it began in 1928.

Readers can now clearly see that the psychology of occupational health and occupational/work stress has always existed and clearly has been within the Occupational/Organizational psychology domain for decades, and well before the letters 'OHP' were coined by any society or small group. The truth must prevail here for Wikipedia readers and the international IWO psychology profession/disciplineMrm7171 (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 I get the feeling that we are talking past one another. If your point is that many if not most topics within OHP are often studied and taught by I/O psychologists, then we agree. If your point is that OHP is entirely part of I/O and there is no significant OHP outside of I/O, which is the impression you are giving, then we disagree, and I am not hearing anything from you that convinces me otherwise. As I have already shown experts who write textbooks on I/O do not characterize it as a subarea of I/O, and OHP training is not the exclusive realm of I/O. I feel that you are not addressing my points on this at all, but you just keep saying that because Cary Cooper studies stress and has a chapter on stress in a Handbook of I/O, OHP only exists with work psychology. Most if not all I/O textbooks cover some OHP topics. They also cover basic research methodology, but that doesn't mean research methodology is solely a subarea of I/O. These examples don't support that OHP is only within I/O. They just show that I/O psychologists sometimes study OHP topics, which is not the same thing.

As for the study of stress having always existed in I/O, you might find the book Stress A Brief History by Philip Dewe and Cary Cooper interesting. They trace the history of research on stress in general and occupational stress in particular. They note that the study of occupational stress seems to have begun around 1948 at the Institute for Social Research at University of Michigan, which is not an I/O institute. But things didn't really get rolling until Katz and Kahn's 1964 The Social Psychology of Organizations introduced the ideas of role stressors: Ambiguity, conflict, and overload. Katz and Kahn, by the way, were social psychologists at the University of Michigan. So this topic really came more out of social than I/O psychology. I got involved in this field in the early 80s, and most of the people I was citing from the US had business, not I/O backgrounds, and from Europe had medical and public health backgrounds. So the history of occupational stress is not exclusively within the I/O-work psychology field, and much of the major foundation was outside of I/O. We have made our contributions, but we don't own the topic. And for other OHP topics like accidents/injuries and MSDs the contribution of I/O has been pretty small and very recent. Psyc12 (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

People, I am following this from the sideline, so to speak, but I find it rather hard without proper indentation. So I have taken the liberty to indent Psyc12's last message with colons (":"). Could you please take a little minute to have a look at Wikipedia:THREAD#Indentation, to find out how to use proper indentation in your talk page messages? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, dvdm, i tried to indent, as you see, but it didn't work? Mrm7171 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed it by removing the quotes around the colons. Have another look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:THREAD#Indentation to see how it's done. Also, note that you don't have to add your signature after each paragraph. One at the bottom is sufficient. Hope you don't mind my removal of a few of the extra sigs? Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Psyc12 on the contribution of social psychology and the Institute for Social Research at UMich. I an earlier post I showed that psychiatry also contributed to the development of OHP.Iss246 (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi fellow editors. Firstly, I think the fact that since 1928, the Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology has published over 650 research articles from the leading 'international' researchers, in topics covering occupational stress and its relationship to health, performance and many other variables, speaks for itself.

Obviously, ...the psychology of occupational health, the study of occupational/work stress etc etc was clearly within the realm of Organizational/Occupational or in other words, Work Psychology, (and still very much is, with student and professional Work Psychologist's interest growing every day) well before the term 'OHP' was coined by a small group of individuals? My question is why then, would 'OHP' be needed if there is already hundreds, if not thousands, of excellent Masters and Doctoral programs in Work Psychology around the world, at leading universities, with units and subjects covering occupational stress, occupational health and wellbeing etc? It seems perhaps, with all due respect, that a couple of editors are in denial of these clear facts.

Anyway, on that note, we do need to address this Wikipedia article on the Psychology of Occupational Health, and how we can make it clearer, more accurate and current for readers. This is especially true for new and/or current psychology students around the world interested in occupational stress, and its relationship to occupational health, and all of the other areas of study involved in the broad international field of IWO or Work Psychology. There is a need to know what programs there are in the Psychology profession field which cover Work Psychology in all of its forms?

I have respectfully asked other editors for comment/discussion, but for some reason my practical suggestions regarding 'outdated links,' inappropriate links to group newsletters? etc and the improvement of the sections on current courses has been ignored? I think the section on trraining could be improved greatly. I'm happy to work with other editors on making this a separate section in the article? If no discussion is made on these topics covered clearly in the sections above, the article badly needs to be improved in the ways I have suggested.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I haved made this point several times in earlier discussions, but again i need to make it clear. Psychology is an international discipline and profession. Occupational stress and its relationship to health and performance and many other variables is already covered within the psychology profession under Work Psychology. Degrees in Work psychology already cover subjects in occupational/work stress, hundreds of them around the world. 'OHP' as it has been coined, seems? to be outside of the formal psychology profession/discipline. The psychology of occupational health and occupational/work stress are simply 'areas of study' within psychology, just like job design, etc....

Sure, other disciplines, like Medicine, also study occupational stress, but within the formal Psychology profession/field/discipline, occupational/work stress has been, and still is, under the umbrella of Work Psychology at major universities in all parts of the globe. If 'OHP' practitioners want to operate outside of that, fine, but don't try to tell readers 'OHP' is regulated within the formal international Psychology discipline/profession. And then on the other hand, say 'OHP' is also part of nursing, sociology, etc etc.? It just doesn't make sense.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. Please explain how you determined that 650 articles in JOOP were on topics concerning stress and/or health? I just did a PsycInfo search of the journal. There were 1204 articles published in all--464 when it was Journal of Occupational Psychology, and 464 since changing the name in 1992 to JOOP. I searched using keywords "stress" or "health". There were 161, not 650.

Clear evidence from Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology (JOOP) 1928-2013

The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP) page is at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8325. Simply type it in to your browser. On that page, type the single word stress into the search tool. I just did it again, and there are over 630 articles relating to stress in the workplace.

I will provide just a few examples from the first page only, of the total results, (out of 630 results, since 1928), of the titles/types of research, completed and published over the decades in Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology. This is very important, as it gives some sources and perspective here, on this topic under discussion and cuts through the clutter and confusion.

Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill healthVolume 49, Issue 1, March 1976, Pages: 11–28, CARY L. COOPER and JUDI MARSHALL

Occupational stress, life stress and mental health among dentistsVolume 66, Issue 2, June 1993, Pages: 153–162, M. Robin DiMatteo, Daniel A. Shugars and Ron D. Hays

International business travels and the work-family interface: A longitudinal studyVolume 81, Issue 3, September 2008, Pages: 459–480, Mina Westman, Dalia Etzion and Etty Gattenio

The role of early family experiences in the perception of organizational stress: Fusing clinical and organizational perspectivesVolume 65, Issue 1, March 1992, Pages: 61–75, Jenny Firth-Cozens

Sources of acute stress and their appraisals and reappraisals among Australian police as a function of previous experienceVolume 70, Issue 4, December 1997, Pages: 337–356, Mark H. Anshel, Michelle Robertson and Peter Caputi

Health of entrepreneurs versus employees in a national representative sampleVolume 83, Issue 3, September 2010, Pages: 717–738, Ute Stephan and Ulrike Roesler

The stress chain: A longitudinal confirmatory study of teacher stress, coping and social support Volume 58, Issue 1, March 1985, Pages: 1–13, STEN-OLOF BRENNER, DAG SÖRBOM and EVA WALLIUS

Specific determinants of burnout among male and female general practitioners: A cross-lagged panel analysisVolume 81, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages: 249–276, Inge Houkes, Yvonne H. W. M. Winants and Mascha Twellaar

Financial problems and psychological distress: Investigating reciprocal effects among business ownersVolume 83, Issue 2, June 2010, Pages: 513–530, Marjan J. Gorgievski, Arnold B. Bakker, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Hennie B. van der Veen and Carin W. M. Giesen

The reason I am making this clear point now, and presenting the facts is that psyc12/iss246 has kept saying there was a need to invent 'OHP' outside of the international psychology field (where non-psychologists are involved). That is fine, but it is NOT part of the recognised psychology profession. I have made that point countless times.

Within the international psychology discipline, the topics of occupational stress and the psychology of occupational health are already, clearly covered, under the broad, overarching, international field/discipline/profession of Occupational/Organizational psychology. Please refer to a tiny sample of the 630 articles published in the Journal of Occupational & Organizational psychology I have included above.

So again, for the last time, if other researchers etc, 'outside' of psychology have wanted to create a new group who also studies similar areas, ie. a 'group/society' like 'OHP' where nurses, sociologists, anyone really, it seems, based on iss246 statements previously, etc are part of it, without having to study formal Doctoral or Masters Degrees in Psychology in IWO psychology, that is fine. But please don't tell readers or me, that the group, 'OHP' as it has been coined, is part of the international psychology discipline, or even more ridiculous (i'm sorry), is a separate field of applied psychology! It is clearly not.

mrm7171. The method you used to count the number of article on stress is flawed. It is picking up papers that have nothing to do with stress. I just repeated your search and found articles dealing with topics far removed from stress or health. I assume it is picking up any article that contains the word "stress", such as "managers who want to increase productivity should stress .....". I just repeated your search, but I used advanced search and entered Journal of Occupational Psychology, which picks up JOP and JOOP (for some reason it doesn't work in reverse) in the Publication Title field, and entered 'stress' as a keyword in the Abstract field. I got 128 hits. About 20% or so are book reviews, so the number of papers is closer to 100.

If you want to limit the discussion to only psychology, it makes little difference. There are plenty of psychologists of many types outside of I/O/work who study OHP topics. Psyc12 (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Falsely listing occupational health in the applied psychology bar issue (revisited)

Occupational stress and its relationship to many variables including health, safety, wellbeing, motivation, performance etc etc are, already, clearly, covered by Industrial/Work/Organizational (IWO) Psychology, ie. when considering these areas of study, within the international psychology field as has now been clearly shown. In fact I cannot make this point more clearly without listing the hundreds of research studies on this page which is obviously impossible.

So why then is occupational health psychology still listed by iss246, (against 5 years of consensus against listing it, in the applied psychology bar?

This was the topic of contention here psyc12. You have come in late. Please refer back to the crux of this issue. All of this discussion is providing evcidence further support that the psychology of occupational health, is not a separate field of applied psychology and as editors from 2008 until today have agreed, it should not be listed in the applied psychology bar.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Also please don't try to convey the point that within the psychology discipline, 'OHP' is synonymous with the psychology of occupational health, or occupational health psychology. They are subjects/areas of study, within the psychology field. The psychology of occupational health or the study of occupational/work stress are not separate disciplines within psychology. On a practical note, the article needs to reflect this distinction.

They are however, very important areas of study within the Work Psychology field and increasinly the hundreds of formal Masters and Doctoral programs in Industrial/Work/Organizational IWO Psychology, around the globe, are increasingly casting focus on these areas, as part of the formal high quality IWO Graduate Degrees that already exist.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

But that aside, I don't follow your logic. You are saying that because JOOP publishes stuff on stress and health, OHP is only the domain of I/O-work psychology? No one has said that I/O (I'll use the American term) psychologists have not studied OHP topics, just that OHP isn't entirely subsumed by I/O. If only I/O psychologists studied these topics, I might agree with you that there's no need to define a new field, but that is not the case. The reason for the development of OHP as a subdiscipline is because there are other kinds of psychologists and nonpsychologists who study these things and feel connected.

Please refer to new discussion now added directly above. thanksMrm7171 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Now here's one more voice to the debate--University of Leiden in the Netherlands. Check out their Psychology Department website where they list psychology specializations: http://en.mastersinleiden.nl/programmes/psychology/en/introduction. Note that OHP is listed independently of Social/Organizational and all the other areas of psychology (e.g., clinical, cognitive, health). They give OHP equal status with all the other established areas. Psyc12 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Are We Ready To Move On?

I am new to Wiki and joined this discussion in the middle a week ago, so forgive me if my suggestion isn't protocol. I just went through the OHP-Talk and if I am reading this correctly, this whole issue started when one editor removed/changed the description of OHP to be a subarea under I/O, and another editor objected. It seems that editor mrm7171 argues that OHP is just part of I/O/work psychology, but I don't see him/her getting any support for that position. On the contrary, several other editors, including myself, argue it is a separate area in its own right. Several editors have provided as evidence definitions from several expert sources, and have shown that OHP training is not just in I/O. Given the lack of support for the position that OHP is part of I/O/Work beyond one editor, can we just put this issue to rest and all focus on improving the page? 7171 has suggested correcting dead links to OHP programs. It seems that doing that would be a better use of people's time than continuing to argue whether OHP is part of I/O/work or separate. In other words, can I call the question? Psyc12 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the courses/training section of the article page, I am glad we can finally 'revamp' it completely bringing accuracy, currency and knowledge to readers. This is a positive step forward at least and I'm glad we now have full consensus on this. Lets work together to make the training section much improved. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As an outsider to the subject, I do think that this should be put to rest, leaving the article in its current state, unless a solid, agreed upon, unambiguous, reliable source can be produced to backup the proposed change(s). Any discussion beyond that would be de-facto moot. Bringing forward sources and making an analysis of their content to produce some kind of count to defend a proposed change to the article would be an example of wp:original research or wp:synthesis and against policy.

By all means, move on, beacuse surely there's more important work to be done here... - DVdm (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dvdm (and thank you for your indent advice) hope ive done it right, but it is definitely not time to move on, especially now we are making some ground here. These are critical issues to the profession of psychology internationally. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should be accurate, current and objective.

There is still now the issue of why occupational health psych is in the applied psychology bar, against 5 years of consensus? All of the preceding discussion here on this talk page, (and indeed in 5 years of archived talk pages with iss246) from different editors to me, provides weight to the 'overwhelming consensus since 2008' against iss246, going against this consensus and including occupational health psych anyway. So yes, let's move forward, but towards resolutions, certainly not just dropping these important and unresolved issues relating to Wikipedia articles, before they have been fully resolved.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The sidebar is a totally different issue from the development of the OHP article, and that discussion should not distract attention from this article. The sidebar includes the major subdivisions of psychology, and a number of quite minor areas. If the level of specificity has minor areas like evolutionary and religion on the sidebar, then OHP belongs too. If OHP is removed because it is not sufficiently developed or independent of other areas of psychology, then I would remove about a third of what's here so there is consistency in specificity. Psyc12 (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

New to this whole discussion. Have been reading these posts for a while now and am really thinking what on earth!! OHP can do, wants to do and most importantly is qualified to do that fully trained professional occupational/organizational psychologists cannot do? What is it that makes OHP practitioners different? Who are OHP practitioners, so to speak as far as training goes? Any minimum training required? Any training at all actually needed? It appears OHP supporters, unlike organizational psychologists seem very confused about who they are? Also if OHP is done by non psychologists, why use the word psychology? An example would be organisational behaviour (OB). It is not part of psychology, anyone can be a OB practitioner, anyone! It is very clear anyone can be a OHP practitioner too. anyone. Maybe with no qualifications? Is there minimum qualifications? OB studies behaviour, but doesnt use the term psychology? Has OHP group of people considered using that approach seeing they are not related to the mainstream international psychology area and absolutely anyone any age even? can be a OHP practitioner, whatever that is? Do OHP people work with organizations? Can someone with no university training like my nephew aged 17, be a OHP practitioner? Would you mind him calling himself a OHP practitioner? Is it like coaching where you dont need to be trained in anything to be a life coach? You could be a tiler who was injured at work and decides to be a OHP practitioner or a life coach? Sorry no offense but how could organizations take a OHP practitioner, with no minimum training in anything seriously? Glad you all are trying so hard to separate your selves from properly trained occupational/organizational psychologists. Seems you are trying to tell people you do what they do, but you are not necesaarily organizational psychologists and anyone can be a OHP practitioner with no training in any thing in particular at all. Any thing goes!! I think occupational/organizational psychologists who obviously study occupational stress, after reading all the different points of view on this page, would want to clearly be separate to OHP practitioners. Occupational/Organizational psychologists who specialise in occupational health and occupational stress would still be the experts though. Especially if the alternative is a possibly unqualified OHP person looking for an easy career change without having to re-train in any thing? Just another point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psych999 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I should say also that if any one can be a OHP practitioner it should be made clear in this article. It may be a good career change for people looking and don't want to have to study anything new. Im not sure if this is the reason the people on this page are trying to say they are not properly trained occupational/organisational psychologists but are still the folk who can deal with occupational stress and the like? That would make sense. Anyway it would be interesting to get some answers to these questions I put online before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.148.216 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:1.178.148.216 wrote that OHP is a field for people who don't want to learn anything new. Such a statement is far from the truth. The statement denigrates the people who conduct OHP research.Iss246 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You sure did say that. I paraphrased. Now I quote, "It may be a good career change for people looking and don't want to have to study anything new." You added the "necessarily" below but the addition matters not. The remarks are nonetheless toxic.Iss246 (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking Psych999. If you are asking if one can legally do OHP work without any credentials at all, in some places that answer is yes, but the answer is yes for I/O/work psychology too. Where I live you do not need a license or certification to do I/O work, so anyone can legally sell such services to a company. If you are asking what people should know to be adequately prepared, that is a different question. To properly do OHP work requires more than the typical I/O/work psychology background. In my I/O doctoral program, all students get one week on OHP in a basic organizational psychology survey course. That is not sufficient if they want to consult with companies on health/safety issues. In comparison, a student who specializes in OHP takes at least 6 additional classes, which in terms of class time is 90 times as much, plus other training experiences. On top of that they do hundreds of hours of training outside of class. If your question is whether the average I/O/work psychologist with no OHP background could legally do OHP work, the answer is probably yes. If the question is SHOULD they do this work, the answer is probably no. Psyc12 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, all, I am new to using this Wiki's talk page. Had a chance to read through most of the exchanges and discussions regarding the identity of OHP. I fully support that OHP is a stand-alone interdisciplinary field,instead of a sub-field of I/O or work psychology. Based on my OHP-focused training, research and experiences,I can say for sure that it is NOT true that anyone can practice OHP (nor is true for I/O psychology work, BTW). OHP is such an inter-disciplinary (or rather trans-disciplinary) field, that most OHP researchers and practitioners often have to learn and apply knowledge and skills from fields other than psychology, such as medicine, counseling, safety, ergonomics etc. For example, for one of my ongoing projects I have to read a lot and analyze data about physiology&health in the context of occupational stress: having psychology training by itself or working with a collaborator in that field is just NOT enough. As another example, I had to learn a lot about ergonomics in order to complete one project focused on occupational stressors and musculoskeletal disorders. Regardless how previous Wiki editors categorized OHP, I believe we should create and maintain a scientific Wiki culture where statements should be clearly referenced and writers/readers respect/support the identity development of any merging fields like OHP. One final note: I totally agree with Psyc12 that all of us should devote more of our energy to improving the main page of OHP (and those of other fields we care about and are identified with) and to doing other scientific advocacy work, such that the public can be better educated about what our fields really are (OHP in my case)!! 65.129.69.250 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)user66

Sorry, editor 65.129.69.250, please see my detailed response above. Im sorry but you are incorrect on the facts and your statements are misleading to readers. The fact is, you do not need to train one single day in any thing, to legally call yourself/use the job description OHP practitioner. You also do not need to be a member of a group of OHP practitioners. You can if you like, but you do not need to legally. You can even charge people and organizations money for the services you might provide, as a OHP practitioner, whatever your age, wherever you are in the world, including the USA. We are talking about using Job Titles and whether it is legal to use the jo title OHP practitioner or researcher, as it is referred to on the current article page and actually charge money for it. Please refer to the above comments I have just made for further detail. Thank you.Psych999 (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Psych9999. I do not think editor 65.129.... was incorrect at all, as I did not get the impression that he/she was talking about legal issues in practice. Rather he/she was correctly noting that many OHP issues require training beyond what I/O/work and other kinds of psychologists typically get in order to do properly. Psyc12 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think it is time to move on. Mrm7171 argues that OHP is just a subarea of I/O/work psychology and invokes with insistence a supposed consensus in support of his position. But as far as I can see, this consensus is purely imaginary. As an illustration, this consensus is clearly not present here. On the contrary, a vast majority of contributors consider with reason that OHP is now a differentiated field of psychology. Let's stop allocating our time and energy to an issue that is obviously not a issue anymore. tbtol 86.68.226.209 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Qualifications/Training of OHP practioners versus Occupational/Organizational Psychologists

Occupational/work stress and the psychology of occupational health, are important areas of research and intervention and these areas do not belong to any one single group or profession. Wikipedia readers of this article need to know what type of professionals and others, who work in these areas and the types and differences in training offered around the world, so new students may make informed choices based on current objective information. That is what Wikipedia is about. I'm sure other editors agree.

There seems to be a confusing situastion in this article. Although occupational health psychology, as the article is titled, is an area of study, it is being referred for some unknown reason as OHP. This is completely misleading to readers. It implies that OHP is the same as the psychology of occupational health and safety and occupational stress. It is clearly not.

It is much better to define the psychology of occupational health and safety as just that, rather than try and call it some other silly name or three letters. Occupational stress and the psychological dimensions of occupational health and safety are important areas and cannot be defined under three letters, however much a small group of people would like it to be so. Editors of this page need to work together to allow readers the objective facts as many students may choose a career in psychology where they specialize in occupational/work stress and the psychology of occupational health and safety.

So who exactly works in the field of occupational stress and occupational health and safety psychology?

This article as it currently stands, talks about an OHP practitioner and also fully qualified (and in most countries) highly regulated professional Psychologists. It is very necessary to outline the differences here and edit this article and include a section on training so readers can clearly see the differences between different people working and indeed offering paid services for research or consultation in the areas of occupational stress and occupational health psychology.Psych999 (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, as far as I can see (if other editors believe this is incorrect, please detail exactly how) an "OHP practitioner or OHP researcher for that matter, (as it currently states on the article page) does not need to learn anything new, necessarily." Do they? For example the fact of the matter is that an ex floor tiler for example, who has hurt his knee and needs a quick career change, could technically, put up a sign on his door and call himself an OHP practitioner, and, actually charge the unsuspecting marketplace money for it, anywhere in the world, without doing one day more, of training?

Nor would he need to join a society or group of OHP practitioners, because an OHP practitioner is an unregulated job title, and as such anyone, absolutely any one, any where in the world can call them self an OHP practitioner on their business card and, disturbingly, charge money for it.

It may be different if you were to call yourself an Occupational Health Psychology practitioner? I am really not sure about that, because then you would be using the word Psychology in your job title, and thus be implying you have training in Psychology, which I think? using the word Psychology in your title or on marketing materials like business cards or a sign on your door, is still protected in some parts of the world?

But no, we are talking about the job title OHP practitioner or researcher. So there is a difference here. That difference is that Professional Occupational/Organizational Psychologists also study and then may choose, (after years of graduate training), to go out and consult in occupational stress and the psychology of occupational health (or around the other way occupational health psychology).

But we are talking about the legality of using the Job Title of OHP practitioner or OHP researcher. This is how, if there still were laws protecting the use of Psychology in a job title, as has traditionally been in many countries around the world, that so called OHP practitioners and OHP researchers could get around such laws, in those countries, where laws restricting use of the word Psychology existed, and still charge money for their services.Psych999 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You sure cannot do that with the title Psychologist.. Thank goodness. That is why Psychologists are different to the unregulated, unchecked, any one, anywhere, any age, title of OHP practitioner. Very, very different. In fact in these countries listed below, there is strict regulation by the Governments of each country which protects and strictly regulates the use of the title Psychologist. The USA & Canada are only one of these by the way iss246 and psyc12). Readers can refer to the Wiki articles on psychology and Psychologist.

1.1 Australia 1.2 Belgium 1.3 Finland 1.4 Germany 1.5 Greece 1.6 The Netherlands 1.7 New Zealand 1.8 South Africa 1.9 Sweden 1.10 United Kingdom 1.11 United States and Canada

Further, and very importantly, in a number of countries, for example Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, South Africa, etc protected titles exist. Readers should refer to the Wiki article directly if interested or need to verify these regulatory facts. Psychology and psychologists are worldwide, as is Wikipedia. So please stop referring to these type of statements you keep making psyc12 (and any other editors) and I quote from your comments below, if I may, "Where I live you do not need a license or certification to do I/O work, so anyone can legally sell such services to a company". These types of statements psyc12 and iss246 etc are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia international and irrelevant to this discussion.

I guess that is why fully trained, fully qualified Occupational/Organizational Psychologists, who choose to specialize, in Occupational stress and Occupational health are proud of this massive difference. It also gives organizations they work for and in, the confidence that if they select an Occupational/Organizational Psychologist who has chosen to specialize in occupational stress that that Professional has the expertise to carry out the work, ethically and professionally. Sure, not all Occupational/Organizational psychologists 'choose' to specialize in occupational stress, or the psychology of occupational health, but some do, and increasinly so, and they certainly are qualified to do the job!

A final last point here, and I agree we should get on with editing and improving the Occupational health psychology article.

Sure, legally anyone, any age, any where, in the world, CAN call themself an OHP practitioner and unfortunately actually charge money, and say they know about occupational stress, but that does NOT make it ethical or right, in any person's language. Because they can legally call themself an OHP practitioner and say they know about psychology and occupational stress, does not necessarily mean they have even one day of formal training in these areas. Absolute facts. And this article needs to reflect these facts, these glaring differences between an OHP practitioner? and a fully qualified, graduate trained and very often government regulated, Professional Occupational/Organizational Psychologist who chooses then to specialize in occupational stress.Psych999 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Psych999, I think you are saying that this article should have a section on what it takes to legally do OHP work. I am fine with a sentence that says that the practice of varying types of psychology, including OHP, is regulated in many places, but that laws vary by place. To go any farther diverts article from the article's purpose. There is nothing unique to OHP when it comes to licensure, so if this topic is covered by Wiki, it belongs in a separate article about the legal issues for psychology practice. The OHP entry is not the place for a detailed discussion of this. Psyc12 (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Psych999, I also hear you saying that this article is wrong to refer to OHP as a field, and rather it should be a topic, just as leadership or teams or psychological testing is a topic. Your opinion is fine to discuss, but it is irrelevant to Wiki. A Wiki article must contain only content that it cited or citeable (sources are readily available). My opinion and your opinion are irrelevant. The article must define OHP the way it is defined by cited sources, e.g., the way authors of articles and textbooks define it. I have already shown that even I/O textbook writers ALL refer to OHP as a field of study, so that is how this article should describe it--not as I, or you, or other editors would describe it, but how the sources describe it. Psyc12 (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to Industrial and Organizational Psychology

If this article needs such a section, provide sources that demonstrate it, and write the section from those sources. The recent reverts are over commentary that simply doesn't belong in the body of an article. Instead, provide sourced content about the relationship and importance. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It was reintroduced. While I was trimming it back to something encyclopedic, someone beat me to it. Can someone add a source specifically about the relationship? --Ronz (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Shall do. Leave it with me. Would a journal article or text book be best? It is a very worthwhile inclusion to the article, and to the benefit of readers.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe neither. Something very authoritative would be best. --Ronz (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the best source would be an I/O textbook. I already noted on this Talk page how several define OHP. However, I don't see why an entire subsection is needed, since the connection of I/O and OHP is noted in the first paragraph of the Article. Psyc12 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the significant past and growing contributions of I/O psychology to occupational health, wellbeing and safety, I have re-included a brief entry in the article index that had been deleted as it was not sourced at the time. This current entry was the one edited/cleaned by three other independent editors. However it is now heavily sourced, with 4 citations included. Although I/O psychology is mentioned in the first paragraph, this entry is still much needed, given I/O psychology's significant importance to the areas of work stress, particularly. Also the bulk/majority of postgraduate programs, that do carry units/subjects in occupational health psychology, are part of, a Doctoral program in I/O psychology at various universities as specialised units. Students receive their qualification in I/O psychology after completing these courses. Leaving this out from the article for all of these reasons now it is sourced, and very brief, does not make sense. It provides context to the study of occupational health psychology and adds genuine value to Wikipedia. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward with the disputes here

In preparation for moving forward with the disputes here, it would be helpful for everyone to review WP:DR, which covers how to handle disputes, and WP:TALK, on the use of talk pages.

Quickly skimming past discussions, a couple specific changes would help: Discussion section headings should not mention editors and should describe the topic of discussion. Editors should focus on sources, potential sources, and the relevant policies and guidelines.

Could someone summarize the disputes that have been ongoing since May? --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, I first joined Wiki and this discussion in early June and from what I saw the main issue of dispute was whether OHP can be considered a separate subarea of psychology, with Iss246 saying it is and Mrm7171 insisting it is just a topic within industrial/organizational/work psychology. Iss246, I, and others have provided a number of sources, including articles and textbooks, that define OHP as a separate subfield, and showed that there are separate OHP journals, associations, and conferences. Mrm7171 has made a number of statements claiming OHP is not a separate field. One is that because job stress topics appear in industrial/organizational/work psychology journals, OHP must be part of that field. Some of this dispute concerns the sidebar, with Iss246 and Mrm7171 taking the same positions. More recently the issue of what it takes to legally do OHP work has come up. Psyc12 (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In my view, there is a clear discrepancy between the elements provided by Iss246 on the one hand (which are numerous and robust), and the elements provided by Mrm7171 on the other (which are poor and speculative), in support of their antagonistic positions. If Mrm7171 is unable to provide clear evidence in support of his position that OHP is not a differentiated field of psychology in brief delays, I think we should simply move forward. We are blowing hot air for too long here. tbtol86.68.226.209 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to review what sources have been offered. I don't expect anyone would argue about the use of the CDC.gov article offered below. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward on the article

Can we move forward on the article now? In that spirit I made a minor edit, beginning the article with a short definition of OHP. This is condensed from the NIOSH (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/) definition. I refer to OHP as a subfield of psychology, which is how NIOSH and every other source I have found (some I provided on this Talk page) defines it. I suggest we leave it that way unless someone can come up with sources that define it in some other way.

I am new to Wiki, so apologies if we aren't supposed to be doing any editing yet. Psyc12 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect we'll get any argument about using the cdc article. Good find.

As for editing, go ahead. If anyone disputes the edits, let's discuss them rather than reverting. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with the CDC citation

Hello. Could someone help make the CDC citation right. I'm not sure what I did wrong with the CDC citation. It does not appear as a citation on my screen.Iss246 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I solved the problem of the citation not appearing. I removed the markup language.Iss246 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

I revised the last 3 sentences of the opening paragraph. When I went to the source in footnote 3 to look for the citation Psych999 is asking for, it redirected me to the source in footnote 1, which is the NIOSH website's definition of OHP. I could not find that they used the term 'psychosocial'. So I consulted the Quick and Tetrick Handbook of OHP 2nd ed. and used their description instead. This looks like a well respected source that might also inform the 2nd paragraph where Psych999 is asking for a citation. The language would be a little different though. The first two chapters (Tetrick & Quick on the general overview and Barling and Griffiths on history) would be helpful here.

Tetrick & Quick do a nice job of describing the connection of OHP to other areas of psychology and other fields (p. 5). Within psychology they talk about human factors, I/O, health and clinical, and outside, to public health, preventive medicine, and industrial engineering. Barling and Griffiths talk about the historical contribution of social psychologists. Psyc12 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External links

Concerning external links: The general guideline is WP:EL. The policy is WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTLINK, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A list of external links only indirectly related to the topic of the article is considered a linkfarm, and is inappropriate for any article.

I went ahead and reviewed all the links. I didn't find any that were specifically about that topic of this article that provided information not already in this article. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/ was the best by far of what was there, but seemed to be overly redundant with the content already in the article. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, I didn't think that the external links you removed formed a link farm because (a) they pertained only to health-related organizations that had a close connection to OHP (not just any health-related organization) and (b) graduate programs in OHP. I thought your deletions were excessive. Every organization enumerated played a role in OHP. I did not include the health institute in Italy, for example, because it did not play a role. NIOSH/CDC and parallel organizations in the Nordic countries have underwrite OHP research. I think you went too far. I would like to have the links restored. Let me here back from you. Iss246 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The NIOSH link provides its phone number in case of a work-related problem, it takes the reader to NIOSH contributions to OHP, and provides a link to the listserv.Iss246 (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See the policies and guidelines already mentioned. I think WP:ELNO #1 and 13 are clear and directly apply.

Note that Wikipedia articles are very conservative in the use of external links beyond those used for references. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are nos. 1 and 13.

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

13.Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.

You're a person of good will, and don't want to get into a too heated an argument with you. Besides, I'm away from home in London, and don't want to spend too much time on Wikipedia. I contend that the sites provide unique resources beyond the article but I cannot foretell what the article would be like if it were ever to rise to becoming a featured article, a fine accomplishment but one that is not reachable in practice, at least for me anyway. The sites are directly related to the subject matter and provide relevant information not contained in the article. I ask you to reconsider and put back some of the links.Iss246 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ronz after looking at the information regardinging links and when and when not they should be used in Wikipedia articles. So I think that they should remain removed from the artricle, rather than re-including some.

I am also concerned and would like editors to discuss, the current inclusion of a member group's newsletters, as sources. There are currently numerous links throughout the article's references and therefore the article as sources to newsletters in pdf form too. It looks like these inclusions of club newsletters, are trying to use Wikipedia to promote or advertise a group or club's agendas, alternate point of views and encoraging paid membership in my opinion? Some of these links are not working either? Could other references be used in the place of club newsletter links. What do other editors think?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as the external links go, how about identifying a few to discuss in detail?

As far as references go, if a link no longer works, we should do our best to include all the information on the reference (date/author/publisher/etc), and look for archives and copies that we can link instead.

We shouldn't be using self-published sources that aren't clearly reliable. Given the topic, I don't think there should be much need to have any self-published sources. See WP:SPS and WP:PSTS. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-published references from club/society/group newsletters clarification needed

I have tried to remove either dead 404 links or newsletter self published references as sources from clubs/societies/groups?

Can editors please include a source that is not newsletter based. Can the source be gained from a text or journal article instead please? iss246 you just reinstated these links.

Can Ronz and any other experienced Wikpedia editors comment here please, given your clear opinion stated above Ronz. That is we shouldn't be using self-published sources?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest change to the definition of OHP

Mrm7171: I will explain why I restored the original definition. I appreciate that you are trying to explain that OHP is interdisciplinary and you've put a lot of work into your edit, but your definition is far from mainstream and is confusing. You cite a source but it is old (1986) and obscure. The original definition came mainly from two well respected sources, NIOSH and Tetrick/Quick (two leading figures in the field), and it is consistent with definitions from other contemporary sources, such as textbooks. OHP is clearly a subarea of psychology, and is not a subarea of nursing, medicine or other fields. Rather it has borrowed from those fields, and people in those fields sometimes cross-over and do OHP work. Your definition would be like saying I/O psychology is not a subarea of psychology, but rather is a multidisciplinary field of study concerning the application of psychology, business, engineering, sociology etc. If you want to make the point that OHP is interdisciplinary, and borrows from or overlaps with these other fields, I think the second paragraph would be the place to do that. The first paragraph should provide a short and clear definition of OHP as a subarea within psychology. The second paragraph would be the place to elaborate. Psyc12 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Psy12. Yes, i did put a lot into the edit! And it was sourced. My edits are well sourced you cannot simply delete them!

Thought it was diplomatic editing, to be honest. So now am left wondering what you acually are getting at? psy12/iss246 you both have gone on about 'OHP,' as multidisciplinary. ie. nursing, economimics,... the two societies/clubs/groups for 'OHP' also speak of this constantly?

Your president elect, in the European OHP group, Sergio Iavicoli is a Medical Doctor, without any formal psychology training whatsoever? Why are you now insisting OHP is psychology? Many members of the two groups/societies/clubs in OHP, are also not psychologists and don't have any formal psychology training? Some do, some don't.

What is it you are actually trying to achieve here please? This is wikipedia, articles just need to be based on fact. Thats all.

My point is psychology is psychology. You need to formally study in accredited psychology courses. You don't study nursing etc in a psychology course at any major university. I am going to restore this or we need to mention it clearly in the definition. You are confusing mne now, thought thats what OHP members want? OHP is obviously not part of the international psychology profession, or is it in your view? I am reporting on sourced facts, that 'already exist elsewhere,' not my opinion.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. The way you phrased your addition was confusing. It made it sound as if OHP was not a subarea of psychology, but rather a subarea of all these other fields. It is ok to say that OHP is interdisciplinary, just as I/O and many other areas of psychology are interdisciplinary, but what this means is that it borrows from other areas, and that there is overlap in interests between psychologists and these other areas. Thus we have people from other fields as members of OHP societies. The current second sentence gets at this idea a little bit in noting it came from I/O, health, and other disciplines. A third sentence could note connections to all the fields you listed, although it might also go in the second paragraph. Maybe it would be easier to discuss on the talk page first and find the best language, and then add to the article.

Also keep in mind that not all sources are equally good. OHP is a new field, and things are rapidly evolving, so it would be better to use sources that are more recent than the one from the 80s. For example, if you have access, the Handbook of OHP 2nd ed. is a recent and very good source. If you want to discuss further, I will be gone for about a week, and might not respond until then. Psyc12 (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution required

No discussion noted on this talk page again from iss246 before he blatantly deleted my well sourced, diplomatic recent entry. His editing behaviour has become out of control. I have endeavoured to engage with him in diplomatic, civil editing with thorough sorces added. iss246 blatantly refuses to discuss these issues in a civil, courteous, respectful manner. He has shown disrespect and tried again to create an edit war.

Note to administrator please: i have chosen not to revert the change, but instead to discuss it on this page. Nor will I enter into a potential edit war, even though iss246 by again deleting my well sourced addition without ANY discussion on this talk page, has attempted to create one.

However this article now badly needs formal dispute resolution. There are self published club/group/society newsletters as sources, that have dead PDF links despite iss246 being trold by Ronz, another editor that this was not acceptable. He just went ahead and re-entered them. There are major issues with this Wikipedia article that need to be formally resolved.

Have invited Ronz to view this situation before going ahead now with a dispute resolution request. Is there also any chance of addressing iss246's editing behaviour. No respect for Wiki protocol seems to be given by iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The links to the professional societies (not clubs) have changed. I will update the links.01:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I updated the link to an article in the European Academy's newsletter yesterday. The Society for Occupational Health Psychology is updating the links to the Newsletter over the week. One link on the Society's web site, however, is up. It is the link to any articles published in volume 9.Iss246 (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, iss246 has reverted change, without any discussion on the talk page. Clear evidence of edit warring. Again attempting to draw other editors into edit war, instead of gaining consensus for changes. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on opening Definition

I have reverted to the original definition, from several months ago. Not mine, or psy12s more recent attempts, but the original definition so we can start afresh attempts for consensus. Hopefully we can list some other issues separately and discuss each of these as time goes on in an attempt to gain consensus please. This was suggested by Ronz another editor who has been involved with this article, yesterday.

There is a great need in the name of civility and consensus here, for all editors to firstly discuss the definition of 'OHP' to establish an accepted definition. That is, what 'OHP' is exactly and how and if, it actually relates to, or is part of, the formal international psychology profession of accredited training, licensing, government regulation etc?

Iss246 has constantly said 'OHP' is multidisciplinary, including nurses, economists, engineers, med doctors, sociologists and members of the 2 OHP groups/societies are not necessarily psychologists or have any psychology training? My understanding is that 'OHP' appears as a separate field to psychology and the psychology profession.

There are also different definitions proposed by these 2 groups, the SOHP and European OHP. They both define OHP differently and cannot agree either!? So a Wiki article and Wiki readers certainly deserve to have clarity and consensus on the opening definition.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am backing this point up with a recent definitive article you would probably be aware of, from the actual European academy of OHP website homepage.

•Houdmont, J., Leka, S. & Bulger, C. (2008). The definition of curriculum areas in occupational health psychology. In J. Houdmont & S. Leka (Eds.). Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, education, and practice. Nottingham, England: Nottingham University Press.

The article talks about the major problem that no agreed definition has been established of OHP between Europe and the USA! so how can this current Wikipedia article be definitie iss246?

Another example of a different definition of 'OHP' taken directly from the Portland State University website:

"Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) researchers and practitioners draw from the domains of public health, preventive medicine, nursing, industrial engineering, law, epidemiology, and psychology (industrial-organizational, social/health, and clinical) to develop sound theory and practice for protecting and promoting the safety, health, and well being of individuals in the workplace and improving the quality of work life."

This does not seem a sub field of psychology?

Lets discuss please, i'm sure we can get some consensus here and in a courteous, civil manner?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the thing to do is to look at the common elements across different definitions. There's NIOSH, SOHP, European OHP, and perhaps a few recent texts or handbooks. There will be a core on which they agree. It is fine to say that there's not consensus in the field on the precise definition, and even contrast US and Europe. I do not interpret the PSU definition to mean OHP is not an area of psychology. Rather it is noting that we draw from these other domains. It is assumed that OHP is part of psychology since 'psychology' is in the title, and the program is inside the psychology department. Their description of other department programs do not explicitly state they are part of psychology either but they certainly are, e.g., I/O. At my university, we offer an interdisciplinary specialization in OHP, but that means students take OHP courses in psychology, and courses in things that are outside of OHP but potentially relevant in other departments. The same happens at PSU. Psyc12 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi psy12. We do need to get consensus on the opening definition. Your point above is not clear and is quite contradictory in parts. We just need to talk clearly oin this page please and consult each other. Toward that end, I have also again posted a couple of clear questions at the base of this talk page as to what an OHP practitioner actually is. That question is very much part of the process defining OHP itself and gaining some consensus on this article. Which appears for some reason undulyt diufficult as editors are avoiding very basic questions? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on article required

Still no engagement here on the article talk page from iss246 on these points made above. Instead iss246 prefers to delete and instil his/her own version. This is Wikipedia, not This Wikipedia article needs to be refined. Based on Ronz and other experienced editors advice clear points of discussion need to outlined. So for starters:

There is no clear consensus on the definition of 'OHP' published anywhere else. Great deal of difference in definitions.

'OHP' as a small group of people, outside of the mainsteam international psychology profession and is interdisciplinary. That is nursing, economics, medicine, sociology etc? Therfeore 'OHP' is not a sub field of psychology?

Can this article be using club/group newsletters, self published as reliable sources? Are there not other published sources, not self published group/club newsletters which could be used iss246? surely?

These poor PDF links (some not working) appear to be 'advertising material' at best and directing readers to these external club/society newsletter links?

Can some other experienced editor please comment/act on this? Ronz? others?

It appears from my understanding these external self published club newsletter links used as sources are against Wiki guidelines?

Hopefully some actual discussion on this page toward a civil, respectful consensus please iss246, not just deleting and reverting your own preferred versions? This is Wikipedias!Mrm7171 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Six quick responses to Mrm7171.

First, there is sufficient commonality (Europe and North America) on what OHP is that Psyc12's edit of my original definition works.

Second, Mrm7171 uses a method that I call "taint by association" although there no taint. OHP researchers are concerned about the impact of certain psychosocial working conditions on the health of members of different occupational groups. Sometimes that research bears on laborers. Sometimes on dentists. Sometimes on nurses. That doesn't make OHP professionals laborers, dentists, or nursing professionals. YES, nursing researchers themselves are interested in the impact of those psychosocial working conditions on members of that profession. Therefore there is some natural common interest. Nursing researchers have attended the APA/NIOSH/SOHP conferences. I add that union leaders have also attended the conferences (the teachers union, the communication workers) because of their interest in what OHP researchers do. That doesn't make OHP researchers union leaders.

Third, Mrm7171 bites off tidbits of material to denigrate OHP but ignores other material such as the American Psychological Association being the leading sponsor of OHP. The APA is a major organizer of the biennial conference.

Fourth, economists became interested in the impact of psychosocial working conditions because those conditions affect labor markets. So what? That does not detract from OHP unless one is constantly on watch to figure out how to use casuistical argument to detract from OHP. I add that economists have attended the APA/NIOSH/SOHP conferences. Sometimes I read an article in an economics journal because it has relevance to me. So what? Does that make me an economist?

Fifth, those comments by Mrm7171 about "clubs" are consistent with other destructive efforts by Mrm7171 to tear down OHP. How did two professional organizations, EA-OHP and SOHP, become clubs? What about ICOH-WOPS? Is that a club too? We are not talking about the picnic club someone joined in the third grade.

No, iss246 please refer to the definition of club on Wikipedia, rather than take misguided cheapshots and get yourself all offended, sensitive and defensive again, over absolutely nothing. Under the club article on Wikipedia, and under the 'proessional society' subsection, please see the following description for club. SOHP is definitely a club, not a 3rd grade picnic club as you mistakenly took my good faith descriptor as, but a club nonetheless. Words have various meanings in English. No offence.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What offends me is your unrelenting attack on OHP. Your attack began when you tried to pigeon-hole OHP as a subdiscipline of i/o psychology. And it continues with this nit-picking, this lumping professional organizations as clubs, and denigrating articles professionals in the field wrote for the organizations' newsletters. There is nothing that says one can't use newsletter sources provided the sources are written by experts. You do nothing else on Wikipedia but attempt to undermine OHP.Iss246 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The dead links you referred to are not dead links. They were up yesterday. I checked them.Iss246 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Professional societies These organizations are partly social, partly professional in nature and provide professionals with opportunities for advanced education, presentations on current research, business contacts, public advocacy for the profession and other advantages. Examples of these groups include medical associations, scientific societies, autograph club and bar associations. Professional societies frequently have layers of organization, with regional, national and international levels. The local chapters generally meet more often and often include advanced students unable to attend national meetings." taken from Wikipedia clubMrm7171 (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sixth, Mrm7171 asks for respectful responses but shows little respect for an applied discipline within psychology that has emerged and stands firmly on the ground. A discipline that has professional organizations (not clubs), conferences, journals, and recognition from the American Psychological Association. It is time to stop the inquisition.Iss246 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, once again iss246 your caustic accusations of bad faith, when no bad faith actually exists, is bewildering and your defensive, agressive tone over imaginary accusations on OHP detracts from a civil discussion here. Obvioulsly my comments about external newsletter links and advertising on Wiki has hit a raw nerve. I'm sorry but it is obvious you are using wiki to try and advertise a couple of club (see above) newsletters groups.

The only bad faith is Mrm7171's efforts to assemble tidbits of information to confuse people as to what OHP is. Let's take the business about advertising. What advertising? The newsletters of the EAOHP and SOHP have very little advertising. The most extensive advertising in those newsletters is in the form of announcements of the biennial conferences, the EAOHP's conference and the APA/NIOSH/SOHP conference. By Mrm7171's reasoning, if someone were to cite an article published in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, that article would be banned because those newspapers contain advertising.

What Mrm7171 has to do next is to restore the text he deleted, text supported by sources from the newsletters. That is the appropriate thing to do. It is wrong to summarily delete text based on the idea that the text represents the workings of a club-supported newsletter that contains advertising. The newsletter articles were written by professionals with knowledge of the field.Iss246 (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Iss246 No text was deleted. Fact. Only 3 newsletter links that went to 404 errors, dead pages. Again, you are making things up. If they are now active, restore them. Please see my fuller replies below at the base of this talk page. Questions for us to move forward with this article, you have ignored (again), are also below. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the definitions between OHP Europe and OHP society US are very different. We need to get a consensus on this. The current definition is well sourced. I think we are moving toward a solution here. Taken from the website of the Portland university. Just lay off the bad faith accusations, if that's possible iss246, its getting pretty tiring and cheap, if you ask me and very sensitive over nothing.

On the question of self published society/group/club newsletters, as reliable sources is there a better source, maybe from a journal or textbook?

You say OHP is part of pure mainsteam psychology, regulated by governments around the world? Are you?

So, what exactly is an OHP practioner? Can a Nurse be a OHP practitioner? without any psychology training? I do not unmderstand your logic iss246? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Just added brief sentence defining an 'OHP' practitioner. I worked a lot on it in good faith iss246. I think it reads well and is very well sourced.

That is OHP is multidisciplinary and OHP practitioners come from many different backgrounds and sets of experiences (as iss246 and multiuple publications have stated).

Also does not need to be a psychologist or even study psychology at all. In fact, the president of EAOHP, Sergio Iavicoli, is a Medical Doctor and an 'OHP' practritioner, not a Psychologist, as he has no formal training in psychology whatsoevcer.

If any of these facts, are inaccurate iss246 or others, please specifically detail which part is inaccurate and what the facts are regarding an OHP practitioner? We can discuss all of this on this talk page and come to a civil consensus. I'm sure of it. We just need to work together as editors of this article and toward a mutual consensus. Mrm7171 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Links to the SOHP Newsletter

These links to the SOHP Newsletter worked on Saturday. The SOHP webmaster recently worked on them.Iss246 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Vol 9 http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV9October2010.pdf

Vol 8 http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV8June2010.pdf

Vol 7 http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV7October2009.pdf

Vol 6 http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV6May2009.pdf

Vol 5 http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV5January2009.pdf

Vol 4 http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV4October2008.pdf

Vol 3 http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV3May2008.pdf

Vol 2 http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV2January2008.pdf

Vol 1 http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/Downloads/SOHPNewsletterV1.pdf

I tested them today. They worked. The deleted material should be restored.Iss246 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Again. Only 3 were not working before and only those 3 of those with 404 errors were deleted. The rest were left in place. Now you contacted your club/society Webmaster, as you say, restore those 3 if you want, if your webmaster of your club is positive the newlewtters are now working.

Again though, are you sure iss246, that for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, that you could not find a better source, maybe a text or journal, rather than self published club newsletters that are only distributed to a small group of club members? Maybe other editors could find a better source? I will look myself. If I can find a better source from an actual text book or jhournal I will add it.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we focus on editing please, and then we can move on from this article. Again you chose not to engage in discussion on the questions i asked, to try and get a civil consensus. So they are listed again clearly below.

I have re-included these PDF links on this public talk page, to the external self-published newsletter sources, for your society/club iss246. I am not sure if they are legitimate or able to be used as reliable sources, especically relying on so many newsletters, throughout this article. I also am concerned that having to use PDF downloads, as the only way for readers to check the reliability of these sources, pose significant risk to user's computer security. I think that these PDF self-published newsletter links as the only sources, vaildating serious and somewhat controversial points made in this scientific article, need to be checked by the Wikipedia community.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Check your references 33 and 34 in the main article references section iss246, and please check your facts before saying falsely that text had been deleted. It had not. I only deleted references 33 and 34 and one other. I have today restored each of these 404 dead links, in good faith, as you said they were now working. However after restoring them, they are still going to 404 dead links, ie. no active page. Check them for yourself please iss246, before making false, bad faith accusations, once again.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, I bring your attention again to references 34 and 35 (re-ordered now because you have added another reference overnight). The two same references I noted in the paragraph above, are still definitely 404 errors, going to dead pages. They need to be deleted?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will have a look at the references over the next two days. In the meantime, I should mention that I inquired. There was a glitch at the University of Connecticut server where the website is housed. It is being worked on. The links should go back up.Iss246 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward with the article

Moving forward with the article revisions please.

I was advised by Ronz and other experienced editors, to pose questions of contention, to you and other editors regarding this article so we could discuss the changes and gain consensus but you again, completely ignore these basic questions for this article to move forward? So, in the name of civility and consensus I will list them again: 3/ Another important point is that the APA American Psychological Association as iss246 refers to, is "the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA is the world's largest association of psychologists, with more than 134,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members.

It is made up of 54 divisions There is a division for almnost every area of psychology, imaginable, based on criteria set by the APA. 'OHP' is NOT one of these 54 divisions within the American psychological profession, despite being around for over 20 years. 'OHP' and 'OHP practitioners' are not recognised as one of the 54 divisions of psychology by the APA for good reasons.

The Public Interest Directorate of APA and NIOSH have been the prime sponsors the Work, Stress, and Health conferences which the bulk OHP researchers and practitioners in North America attend. Of course the conference is international and OHP researchers and practitioners from other continents also attend. APA publishes the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. One of the original organizational meetings on the founding of SOHP was held at APA's offices in Washington, DC in 2004, which is documented the first volume of the SOHP newsletter. In summary, APA has been very supportive of OHP. With all the research Mrm7171 does in his multiple attempts to derogate OHP, he could have found this out himself.Iss246 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This further points to 'OHP' (despite its confusing claims) not to be part of the psychology profession, but instead multidisciplinary? Comments welcome please iss246 and others if this is wrong? Lets discuss these 3 points though and work toward consensus so we can move on from this article.

APA has 54 divisions. 'OHP' is not one of them and for good reasons. 'OHP' does not meet the APA criteria to be one of the 54 divisions of psychology. They make the rules and set the standards. Simple. That is why 'OHP' and its 'multidisciplinary' nature are not part of mainstream psychology or an 'OHP practitiner' is not a professional psychologist.

The study of psychology as it applies to work stress and health, is separate to 'OHP' and 'OHP practioners.' and their 2 societies/clubs. They are just areas of study. That is why a generic journal covering such issues is okay with the APA. But again, 'OHP' is mutidisciplinary and not part of the mainsteam psychology profession internationally. Iss246 knows this! and won't engage in discussio on these questions clearly outlined below so we can move on from this arrticle through editor consensus.

Mrm7171, you are incorrect about why there is no OHP division in APA. This was a decision made about 10 years ago at conferences in Tampa and Portland Oregon where the founding members of SOHP met to discuss the future of American OHP. One of the options was to have OHP as a division of APA, but it was decided to make the society independent for two reasons. First, most of us at the meeting were not members of APA, and it is an expensive society to join. Second, we wanted to allow members who were not psychologists, and having SOHP as a division of APA would have left those people out. All it would have taken to create the APA division was having enough APA members who wished to start the division. I don't recall the number. Psyc12 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As for what we call SOHP, it fits the criteria for a professional society. I suppose you could call it a club, but by that definition, the American Medical Association is a club. Psyc12 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)