Talk:Occupational health psychology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Simple, straight forward questions for discussion

These 5 simple, clear questions to other editors like iss246/psyc12, are as straightforward as I can possibly make them, and critical to gain consensus and move on from this article. We can then include training and update the definitions and training etc in this Wikipedia article to make it as accurate, current and objective as possible.

1/ Is OHP is part of pure mainsteam psychology? (regulated by Governments, Psychology Boards, Universities around the world)?

2/ iss246/psy12 any other editor, please explain what exactly is an OHP practioner?

3/ Who can be a OHP practitioner?

4/ What minimum training does an OHP practitioner have please?

5/ The president of EAOHP, Sergio Iavicoli, is a Medical Doctor, not a Psychologist as he has no formal training in psychology whatsoever? Is he an OHP practioner?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Iavicoli has conducted OHP research in addition to his research in occupational medicine. I suggest that you write to him and discuss OHP with him. Regarding the other questions, Psyc12 already answered them, explaining governance, licensing in the U.S., etc. It's time for you to stop the inquisition.Iss246 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I will answer your questions, but like Iss246, thinking back on all this discussion, I get the feeling that I keep addressing the same points over and over, and that the discussion really isn't making much progress. I or Iss or someone else makes a point you disagree with, and you just keep raising it again and again. As for the definition, I would go back to the definition that you changed a couple of weeks ago, as it was clear and to the point. ISS and I are both happy with it. As I've said now twice, I don't mind adding a sentence to mention other fields that have had input. To be honest, I am reluctant to do any work on this article at all, because it seems that you will edit it to mean something entirely different, and engage me in a long discussion, where I feel you just reject everything I write because you disagree. Maybe you don't, but I'm sorry that's the impression you are giving me.

Now answers.

1. OHP is a new and emerging field that is a specialization within psychology, just like I/O or social. Whether it is regulated or not depends on where you are. I don't think in the U.S. there is any state that specifically regulates it, but I could be wrong. There can be different kinds of psychologists (and even nonpsychologists) who do applied work or research that fits into OHP from a topic perspective, but the same is true of other kinds of psychology. For example, I/O psychologists consult with companies on many employee issues, such as leadership, but so do educational or social psychologists, as well as people with backgrounds in education and business management. This doesn't mean that I/O is not a subarea of psychology. As for I/O, which is a good analogue, many people who consider themselves I/O psychologists originally had training in something else. So the boundaries among subareas can be permeable.

2. An OHP practitioner would be a psychologist who consults with companies on psychological issues dealing with occupational safety, health, and well-being. That doesn't mean that anyone who does this work is an OHP practitioner. They might be a physician or nurse, or epidemiologist, or something else. I'm an I/O psychologist and I published a study in a criminology journal. That doesn't make me a criminologist, and it doesn't now mean that criminology is a field in I/O psychology.

3. A psychologist who does OHP work. People in other fields can also do similar work.

4. At least an MA in psychology.

5. I would say he is a physician who does work that fits within the OHP field, but he is not a psychologist. That doesn't mean that he can't do the same work. Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists both treat anxiety disorders, but that doesn't mean they are both the same thing. You might call them both mental health professionals. A parallel term for us might be health and safety professional. That would cover occupational health nurses, occupational health physicians, industrial hygienists, industrial epidemiologists, and psychologists among others. Psyc12 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks psyc12. I am glad we are discussing this article as a group of editors, working toward consensus, meaning we all agree. However I need to draw our collective attention again to the fact that we are all editing a Wikipedia article. I quote: " Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. That's pretty clear.

Therefore I think that in relation to the opening parapgraph, that we start to present 'all' of the different published definitions of what OHP and occupational health psychology actually is on this talk page for starters. And there are many! They include definitions from club newsletters, it seems, university webpages, articles, journals, handbooks and differences between societies in different continents even, from the past 20 or so years. I'm sure you concur with that. And based squarely on Wikipedia fundamental protocol, we now need to present before settling on any one in particular. The current definition on the article page is a hybrid. Until we present all of the various published definitions of OHP we need to leave it in place while we work on this.

Although this appears a lot of work, this is Wikipedia, not a private website where subjective points of view can be expressed much more freely. I am willing to work toward a consensus here to make this article of high value to readers. If you cannot do that we need to get formal dispute resolution to settle this which will be based on the process that Wikipedia has outlined above for all editors to follow. what I have outlined above. However I am confident we can reach a civil consensus ourselves?. So, would you or iss246 like to start listing the many different published definitions of OHP or shall I?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Strategies for moving forward

Editors have created on this talk page what's commonly referred to as a "wall of text." There's a number of essays on the subject like WP:MWOT.

If someone could summarize open areas of dispute, that would be almost a necessity to get others involved.

I see some confusion over dead or bad links. A reference doesn't need a link, nor should a reference be removed when the link no longer works. Replace the dead link with a working archive link if one is available. Links to caches usually aren't appropriate replacements as they tend to go bad quickly. If an archive link is not available for the material, simply fill the reference with all the material available (author, publisher, date of publication, etc).

Ronz, I think I fixed all (or most) of the links after difficulties with the University of Connecticut server that housed the links were worked out. I thank Mrm7171 for pointing out the problematic links.Iss246 (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, pdf formatted documents as perfectly acceptable to link.

In my experience, most disputes can be solved by focusing on the sources. If information isn't currently verifiable, make it clear so editors have a chance to find sources or clarify how it is verfiable.

If sources are in dispute, list them on the talk page and discuss them in the context of WP:PSTS, WP:RS, WP:IS, and related policies/guidelines/essays about sources and their use.

If verifiable information in in dispute, identify what policies/guidelines/essays relate and how they apply, especially WP:NOT, WP:NPOV , and WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, thank you for your input. I am not prepared to carve a summary out of the wall of text. But I can comment on one important item of business.

For the Wikipedia OHP entry, I think we should use the definition of OHP that comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC is a highly respected institution. It has extensive experience in the health field. NIOSH, which is a major unit of the CDC, is an important center for OHP-related research. The CDC's definition of OHP is authoritative. Given the prestige of the CDC, the CDC's definition of OHP would be widely accepted by Wikipedia readers. I therefore endorse the view that we stop dickering about what definition to use, and employ the CDC's definition of OHP in the Wikipedia entry on OHP.Iss246 (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Thanks for your excellent suggestion. I think, given the significant effort numerous editors have obviously put into this controversial article, getting to a 'true consensus' is a very much worthwhile pursuit and consistent with Wikipedia's guiding principles. Although iss246 says he is not preparted to do so, that's fine. I will. And welcome any other editors doing so also? Then we can achieve true consensus and a quality article for Wikipedia readers. We can then move on from a job well done. Hoping other editors including psyc12 also see your suggestion Ronz as worthwhile.

I also completely disagreee with iss246 asking to just insert 'one of' the USA definitions iss246 puts forward above and obviously prefers subjectively. However it is only one of many, many definitions for OHP and occupational health psychology. We need to present as many definitions published as possible and practical, before blindly accepting one in particular and state thatr it is representative. For a definition to be representative it needs to take into account all countries, worldwide, with an interest in occ health psychology not just the USA. This is a global encyclopedia not a USA only, one.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Just including this direct quote again from Wikipedia, which is pretty clear on how this should all work. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Sounds fair enough to me. After all, Wikipedia is not a personal website where you can present subjective points of view.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My view does not reflect U.S.A. chauvinism. It reflects the fact that the CDC is one of the world's leading biomedical research institutions. And through its NIOSH division, CDC researchers (e.g., Steven Sauter, Joseph Hurrell, Lawrence Murphy, etc.) have wide experience with OHP. The CDC is known for its probity. If Mrm7171 find's its definition of OHP suspect, why not undermine the CDC's definition of bacteriology too? The business of the definition being subjective is a smokescreen to prolong the wool-making. Wikipedia does not need a multitude of definitions of OHP just like it does not need a multitude of definitions of social psychology. All that a multitude of definitions does is confuse readers, particularly readers who are new to psychology. It is not "neutrality." A multitude of definitions sows confusion. The CDC is a highly respected institution. As a research psychologist, I can tell you that the CDC's definition is reasonable. Let's use it, and move on.Iss246 (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, work on Wikipedia is voluntary. If you want to participate in getting a truly 'global' article, which we have to do, show some respect and patience please, or not, but don't instead continue to insist on rushing the Wikipedia process and insisting on your way. It doesn't work like that. This is not a private website. It is an encyclopedia. If you don't want to participate. Don't. But given the time I and other editors, including yourself have obviously already spent on this article, it's worth getting it right. And the opening paragraph as you say, is very important. If it was easy surely OHP practitioners around the world, would have had this sorted by now!

Given you have responded though, my reply is this. Firstly the CDC is a USA based organisation only. It is not representative worldwide representative organisation like the World Health Organization. Fact. So it is only one limited definition. Second, you and psyc12 both say you are members of the society of OHP. You have insisted of including self published newsletters as constant reliable primary sources throughout the article so I quote the definition from the homepage of the SOHP website. It is completely different to the CDC definition. A side note, is why don't the SOHP use the CDC definition? At least now we have a few wildly different definitions of OHP on the table, albeit all USA so far. There are many, many more definitions also from textbooks, articles, the European definitions etc. So, editors can see my point from this Society of OHP definition, you have on your SOHP club website.

"Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) involves the interdisciplinary partnerships of psychological and occupational health science professionals seeking to improve the quality of working life, and enhance the safety, health and well-being of workers in all occupations. Because 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)." This is closer to the hybrid definition we currently have in the article, which I think is pretty good. Let's keep discussing. Or leave it as is? and move on to the next area of unresolved discussion as Ronz has suggested is critical to us getting consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The second point we need to get clarifiled as well as the opening paragraph and definitions is what exactly is an 'OHP' practitioner? what training they need? and who regulates them?

Okay, so psyc12 has now said an OHP Practitioner has to be a Psychologist and needs an accredited Masters Degree in psychology as a minimum.

Does that mean the European OHP Society president Sergio, and other members who are NOT psychologists or do NOT hold at least an accredited Masters Degree in Psychology are NOT OHP practitiioners?Or is there a clear difference between what an Occupational Health Psychologist and a OHP Practitioner is?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to the beginning on the definition

I just restored the definition of OHP to the one from July. Iss246 and I are in agreement that this is a good definition that is consistent with respected sources. I double-checked the Handbook of OHP 2e to be sure it is consistent with our definition, and it is--not identical, but consistent.

Mrm7171. This discussion has reached the point of absurdity. The article is about OHP, not about the origins of the term and how different people have defined it somewhat differently. As ISS noted, if we try to reconcile different definitions, readers will just get confused. I have said what I have to say multiple times, and I have patiently responded to your questions. Enough is enough. Recall I got into this in June, and what I observed was that you continue to argue over and over until you get your way, and when you don't get your way, you continue to argue. This is now the third month of arguing over the definition. There are three of us active on this article, and two of us agree on the definition, so it should stand.

Mrm7171. If you want to contribute to this article, you would do better to take some new topic within OHP and add a new subsection rather than going behind ISS and me and changing everything we do. The way you continually change/delete other people's work is counterproductive, and it is disrespectful. I have known ISS for decades and he/she is a leading scholar in this field who is very well published. You would learn a lot if you were more open to his/her input.

As for the practitioner issue, it is too complex and is beyond the scope of this article. All this article should say is that practitioners in many fields provide assistance to organizations in dealing with OHP issues. Psyc12 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The absurdity psyc12, is thinking that you can treat Wikipedia as a private website, rather than the online encycoledia it is and a fellow editor and professional in the field as less important than you. If your 2 'OHP' clubs/societies cannot even agree on a common definition of what 'OHP' is, why should Wikipedia readers have to accept your subjective version? I am an editor too and have spent a great deal of my time on this psychology article. I'm not your student! I'm a professional in this area myself, and we were having a civil discussion on these issues as Ronz had suggested we all do. I agreed with him. I do not agree with your current definition. We just need to get some proper consensus on this article which starts with the opening paragraph. My points were clear, coherent and logical progressions and following Wikipedia protocol and clear advice from Ronz another editor with more experience than me. I won't be bulliede into your way or the highway, just because you both are members of the same 'OHP' club/group/society. No offence, but you do not speak for the international psychology profession either.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Further response to Mrm7171

1. Mrm7171 is sowing confusion. The CDC is a USA-based organization but it conducts research worldwide, and is highly respected worldwide. Its definition of OHP is reasonable. An arm of the CDC, NIOSH, has pioneered OHP research and continues to engage in OHP research. The CDC's definition of OHP is based on extensive experience and is embraced by many in OHP.

Once again, iss246 please refrain from personal attacks. You have constantly tried to make this personal, instead of just focusing on valid points of difference and coming to a consensus. My point is that your 2 socities/groups/clubs are both 'OHP' and outside of the mainsteam psychology. The reality is that you cannot even agree on a definition of OHP between yourselves. My point has been that Wikipedia deserves objective, neutral presentation of these published differences in definition.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Because EAOHP is largely a European organization (although its membership is worldwide), Mrm7171 can get in touch with the EAOHP leadership, and directly query the leadership about the CDC's definition.

3. I have something to say about the matter of where some individual got his or her degree. Mrm7171 directed this at Dr. Sergio Iavicoli (I also observe that Mrm7171 derogated Dr. Iavicoli by calling him "president Sergio"). I respond. I have published in psychiatry journals although I am not a psychiatrist. The research is still psychiatric research. And I remain a research psychologist. A sociologist I know has published psychology research although he remains a sociologist and not a psychologist. This kind of inquisition about where someone got his or her degree is baloney. It is a smokescreen designed to continue an unproductive dialogue and to derogate OHP.

Dr. Iavicoli is a medical doctor. He has conducted and published OHP-relevant research. He remains a medical doctor who has a research interest in OHP. Period. Stanislav Kasl mentioned that many of the same research methods are employed across disciplines (for example, in epidemiology, sociology, psychology, etc.), enabling a researcher who trained in one discipline to conduct research in another discipline.

I'm sorry iss246, but I am concerned only about the integrity of this article. I have made valid points toward a consensus. No offence, but I care less about a club/society in which I hold no interest and am not a member. But we are writing a psychology article here for Wikipideia and readers worldwide, as you know, and it must be objective, neutral, current and accurate and we must come to a consensus, one way or the other other. I also will not be bullied by the two of you who are members of this club, ganging up and 'tag teaming' on meMrm7171 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

4. Regarding licensure and accreditation, Psyc12 already responded to that query. We should not keep returning again and again to the same questions.Iss246 (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Complete disregard of Wikipedia principles

Hi iss246/psyc12. I am sorry you have both decided to completely disregard all Wikipedia protocol here, and 'tag team' and instead attempt to 'bully your way through' on this article, instead of continuing with a civil resolution to a few minor issues I clearly outlined where we had disagreement as editors. This approach was recommended by a very experienced editor Ronz.

Anyway I may not have the experience on Wikipedia as you do iss246, but I have a great deal of respect for Wikipedia and realise this is not my private website and I need to follow principles, protocols and procedures. I have tried to amicably gain some type of resolution with you both, but all you have done is abuse me personally and edit this article 'your way', rather than come to consensus.

I think that we obviously need mediation on this. I won't engage in edit warring with you both. I will let the recent edits speak for themselves instead and leave this up to Wikipedia to mediate objectively. But we do need objectivity and consensus here. My points regarding presenting all evidence in an objective manner are valid. I really want this article to be of high value to readers.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not disregard at all

Hi Mrm7171, it is not that I disregard Wikipedia. I respect Wikipedia. I even donate money to Wikipedia. I have volunteered to edit articles, and earned barnstars for my efforts. When I am wrong, I give way, as I did in a controversy over baseball statistics. I am not engaged in an edit war. What you Mrm7171 have been engaged in is obfuscation. When you are called on it, you hide behind the blanket of "I am new to Wikipedia." I want greater clarity. You want a multitude of definitions when would one, from a highly respected source, would serve satisfactorily. Multiple definitions would only confuse readers, particularly the many readers who are new to psychology. You derogate OHP by first claiming it is a mere arm of i/o psychology. You try to delete OHP from a template and Wikipedia entries such as the applied psychology entry. You derogate the president of the EAOHP by calling him "president Sergio." You call learned societies clubs as if they are assemblages of amateurs. The newsletter articles you derogate have been written by respected contributors to OHP. Let's get this straight. You Mrm7171 have engaged in destructive activities, and yet have the temerity to call Psyc12 and me bullies when you are called on the destructive behavior. Our goal is to make the OHP entry clear and readable in the teeth of your obfuscatory efforts.Iss246 (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No iss246 you are definitely acting in a classic bullying, 'tag teaming' manner as you know. I won't tolerate it. Sorry. Ronz suggested working through our points of contention in a sequential manner. You have ignored his advice and my attempts and time taken to do so. You just keep reverting to the past. And really, if you donate money to something, maybe you should do so in a more dignified manner. Saying you donated money to Wikipedia, so you have a right to override other editors and Wikipedia's methods seems cheap to me. Sorry. None of us have the right to do that or override other editors valid points of view or their attempts to reach civil consensus and present the published sources on a given article, in a neutral objective manner. I am a professional myself.

You both need to stop the bullying act and work with me on this article in a respectful manner or we get mediation. But we ALL need to follow Wikipedia protocol. This is not a private website like your OHP club/society where you can say what you like. The reality is the 2 'OHP' clubs/societies that do exist in the world, and outside of mainsteam psychology, have not even been able to agree on a definition of OHP so why should Wikipedia readers settle for anything less than a proper well constructed definition, which considers all of the many different published definitions that currently exist.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not true. I reject your claim about the private web site. The claim is a smokescreen. I respect Wikipedia. That I contribute to Wikipedia and that help Wikipedia with editing are signs that I care about Wikipedia. I am not buying Wikipedia if that is what you insinuate. I believe I care more about the integrity of Wikipedia than does Mrm7171. Every time Mrm7171 raised an issue it was answered by either Psyc12 or by me, iss246. The response was never good enough. The CDC as a source was not good enough. Professional societies are reduced to clubs according to Mrm7171. Articles by professionals in the field are mere puff pieces by club members. And so it goes, to quote Kurt Vonnegut. It is not an issue of bullying. The issue at hand is that one party with considerably less knowledge of a field can act with impunity in reducing learned societies to clubs or the CDC to an unsatisfactory biased source. Individuals with knowledge of the field know that learned societies are learned societies and the CDC is a respected organization that would not promulgate some off-beat, non-mainstream definition of OHP.Iss246 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I add this. I have pretty good knowledge of mathematics and statistics. If I were editing a statistical site, for example the contingency table entry, and it was clear to me that another editor had more knowledge than I had, I would give way to that other editor's work. We don't get that kind of action here in psychology, where everyone is an expert.Iss246 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have just re-read an earlier post on this discussion page from your ally psyc12. He also clearly agrees that we need to work on this definition and gain consensus. 'I quote psyc12, if I may take the liberty, I think it will cool things down a bit and bring some much needed perspective here. Please also Refer to psyc12's full post on this talk page, from about a week ago. Psyc12's comment was....

"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." ....this was the exact quote from psyc12.

iss246 you need to stop the drama and confusion you are trying to create here. It is frantic, and we just need to get consensus in this article and all move on. If your co-editor psyc12, based on his clear comments I have pasted above, agreeing with this need for consensus, can be rasonable, I am hoping you can hold your personal attacks and work on this article together to get a really good outcome and quality Wikipedia article please. That means stop making changes please without discussing them first.Mrm7171 (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed, you made another change to the opening definition again, without any discussion. Are you trying to draw me in to reverting this change again? Maybe just read psyc12's comments above. I won't be dragged into a cheap edit war with you iss246. I'm determined to get a resolution to all of this in a mature, civil manner, however long it takes.Mrm7171 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A selective reading of Psyc12's comments.Iss246 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote that Mrm7171 I had hoped that you would be willing to work with us in a reasonable way, but I think I was wrong. What I see you doing is just arguing on issues that you do not demonstrate a lot of knowledge about. If you want to take this to an administrator or mediation, that is your right. The current opening definition is fine. It is a waste of time to keep beating this dead horse, and you are wasting everyone's time, including your own, to keep harping on this. This is not your article, and I am getting tired of having to argue every small change with you, as if I have to get your permission. I have made changes to what Iss246 did with no discussion, and it resulted in no arguing or reverting. Iss is reasonable when the change is positive. But Iss is invested in making sure that this article has everything correct. That doesn't mean it has to be Iss's way, but just that whatever way it is conveys a correct and clear meaning to readers who are mostly not experts in psychology. I have written hundreds of papers with more co-authors than I can count, many of whom are cited in this article, and I have never encountered the conflict that I have encountered with you. I am very sorry to direct this so

personally, but what you are doing is counterproductive. Psyc12 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks

I have constantly asked both iss246 and now psyc12 to refrain from personal attacks that have been ongoing now for a couple of months and growing in ferocity and intensity. Even though I have repeatedly asked these combined editors to stop their personal attacks, they have both continued unabated, rather than focus on editing. I also believe that with the 'overtones of superiority and grandeur' you both are now bringing to those attacks trying to demean me as an editor with valid points of view on this article, are both misplaced, given my own, (albeit very understated) knowledge and experience of the topics we are discussing.

I provide some recent examples where psyc12/iss246 have attempted to demean me as an editor and my knowledge of the topic under discussion follows:

:::::"If I were editing a statistical site, for example the contingency table entry, and it was clear to me that another editor had more knowledge than I had, I would give way to that other editor's work. We don't get that kind of action here in psychology, where everyone is an expert.Iss246 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

and a further comment from iss246 and I again quote "The issue at hand is that one party with considerably less knowledge of a field"....

And one comment out of 'many,' from psyc12 "What I see you doing is just arguing on issues that you do not demonstrate a lot of knowledge about."

What makes you believe iss246/psyc12, that you both are so superior? What gives you the right to think your opinions are better than my sourced opinions and editing attempts? or in fact that you both have more knowledge than I do? You simply don't.

I will continue to keep my cool as I just want to gain consensus with the several points I have clearly made and taken the time to make after Ronz's suggestion of a strategy to move forward in this article, but it has become patently clear that you both will not stop these personal attacks in unison 'tag team' fashion, unless some formal action is taken from Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Having more knowledge than Mrm7171 in one subject area does not make me feel superior. That is Mrm7171's guess as to what I feel. A friend of mine has more knowledge of mathematics than I have. That knowledge difference neither makes him feel superior nor me, inferior. That is just the way it is. He could do a better job than I could on the Wikipedia differential equations entry. Mrm7171 may have more knowledge than I have about Russian history. That's okay. In that case, he would do a better job than I could in contributing to the Wikipedia Australian history entry. How much knowledge one has makes a difference in creating and elaborating an encyclopedia article. That is the point I am making. My point has nothing to do with personal superiority. It has to do with competence in creating and elaborating an encyclopedia entry. That is all I am trying to say.Iss246 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

iss246, my original point you just responded to, (again making false assumptions as to your superior knowledge base) was actually stating that you are breaching Wikipedia policy regarding no personal attacks and civility between editors. I have told you countless times to focus on editing and the article, not personally attacking me, but you have ignored this. You also again commented on where you presume I reside, with a sarcastic comment about history. I'm not sure though who you think I am, but I can assure you I am as experienced, if not more so, in these areas, than you and your close friend/ally/fellow SOHP member. With all due respect and please don't take this the wrong way, and it is really is not relevant, but I thought you said a while back you studied child/developmental psychology and maths? Either way. It's not the point. It is about well sourced edits, reliable sources and consensus. Please read my comments below. I plan to restore your original version of this opening paragraph, from back in June. You and your personal friend and fellow SOHP member, deleted my well sourced, well edited changes and instead created a new opening, without my input yesterday. So in case we do require mediation, I think going back to basics, that is 'your' version from two months ago, is the only fair way of moving forward and gaining consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I made it Russian history. It was just a hypothetical, not sarcasm. Mrm7171 has shown a tendency to interpret in a negative light many things I write on the talk page.

Mrm7171 seems to deny that one person could have more expertise in a subject than another. It is true what Mrm7171 writes that my doctorate is in developmental psychology (Mrm7171 called it child psychology in what could be taken as a put-down). Mrm7171 omitted to mention that I completed a post-doc in epidemiology. During that post-doc I became interested in research on the impact of psychosocial factors on health. I have published on the relation of psychosocial working conditions to health. Perhaps Mrm7171 has a great deal of experience in OHP. But he didn't demonstrate that knowledge when he tried to reduce OHP a small province of i/o psychology. I also reiterate that my view regarding knowledge of a subject area: Knowledge of a subject area does not make me feel personally superior. The only point I wanted to make is that having more knowledge of a subject area is useful when creating and elaborating an encyclopedia article.

Finally, I write that the CDC definition of OHP is a very good definition. The definition is comprehensive. It overlaps with other extant definitions. It comes from an authoritative and reliable source. The CDC has a great deal of experience with OHP. The CDC underwrites a great deal of OHP research, both intramural and extramural. It cosponsors through its NIOSH unit the biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences. The definition is solid and belongs in the opening paragraph.Iss246 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Restoring opening parapgraph back to June

The opening paragraph needs to be restored back to how it was in June, ie exactly how iss246 restored it back to only a week ago. This is surely? the 'only' fair method of moving forward here and establish a baseline and editor reverts. It is not iss246's/ psyc12's recent change, nor my attempts, but rather the 'long standing' parapgraph always in the article. If mediation and dispute resolution is initiated, we can work from that 'base,' rather than what you both came up with on your own last night. This is fair and reasonable. If you again revert this change at least this record will be here and my attempt again at diplomacy and working toward a civil consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Before I do that, what do other editors think?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. What I restored was the definition from before you changed it a couple of weeks ago. Iss246 and I feel this is better than the one from early June. If someone feels they have a better idea, they need to come with a solid rationale that can be supported by expert sources. Psyc12 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, psyc12, what exists on the article right now is 'your' version, that is, you and your friend/ally iss246, both members of society of OHP. You have not discussed it with me, the other independent editor on this article page.

Would you answer this basic question please?

If the current definition on the article (you and your friend and fellow SOPHP member, iss246, developed 'without my input' yesterday) is so solid, why is the definition on your own SOHP club/society website home page completely different? Why is the EA-OHP club definition so different? Why is a couple of university websites so different. Why should Wikipedia be your testing pad?Logic would say that your club/society SOHP, would adopt the same definition would it not? at the least, given you are both USA based?

Thereferore, rather than you and iss246 thinking you can just 'brush these realities away,', and personally attack me and delete my well framed points of contention, you both need to face them. Again, for relevancy, please excuse my repetition, as uncomfortable as it may be, to re-paste your very own comments. They were quite rational. And they still stand, and this, as you suggested, is exactly what we need to do, however tedious it may seem to you now. Or not. And I will then reinstate my well sourcede definition if you cannot discuss these points with me.

Your exact comments a couple of days ago, (with no distortion and incomplete context, iss246) are as follows....

This article is not mine. This article is not yours. This 'global' article is Wikipedia's property, and it needs to reflect the global picture on every article it houses on the www. And you need to understand that 'independent' editors are part of the Wikipedia project and community and we all need to gain consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It also, particularly in this case does not matter whether the two of you outnumber me, we still need to gain consensus as I added a very good well sourced and well edited couple of changes. And you both as a tag team deleted them.

A couple of other points. The fact that you and iss246 are both members of the same OHP society/club is also questionable, may I say. And I certainly have a great deal of experience in the field, although do not feel the need to blow my own trumpet so loudly.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. The current definition I took from the history about a month ago--I should know what I did. As for not discussing it with you, I have been discussing the definition with you for months and gotten nowhere. I have tried engaging you in a collegial discussion, but you have been dismissive and disrespectful. I don't see that continuing the discussion of the definition will be productive. Psyc12 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, if you wish to disengage even further, or indeed completely, from this discussion, that's entirely up to you. The Wikipedia project is voluntary. But I am wanting consensus here. Sorry I have put too much time into this. Moving forward, my suggestion is we go with YOUR own comments you made only 2 days ago psyc12, These being: "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." Psyc12

Yep, I agree. So how do you propose we begin? Or you can simply pass. That's fine too. But I think my changes to the opening paragraph in that case, were reflective of ALL the various definitions, around the globe condensed into one well sourced, well edited parapgrah. I'm happy to go with that.

Also, you never answered this question psyc12. It is very rational and relevant, so I will pose it again. If the current definition on the article (you and your friend and fellow SOPHP member, iss246, developed 'without my input' yesterday) is so solid, why is the definition on your own SOHP club/society website, Homepage, completely different? Why is the EA-OHP club definition so different? Why is a couple of USA university website's that offer units in OHP, so different?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. Do not change the definition. This can be a good base, especially since you disagree with it. I changed my mind and no longer think combining definitions is a good idea. If you feel so strongly about the definition, then go to mediation. Psyc12 (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry psyc12, this is the way Wikipedia works. We either work together to gain CONSENSUS which I want to do. But we need to move forward and do that. Your suggestion was good. Again I paste your suggestion here; "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." Psyc12

I as an independent editor, did exactly that. Version 1 at least. I 'synthesised' as well as possible, the various definitions that are used by the 2 societies, the couple of USA uni websites with OHP courses, articles, handbooks etc and produced a well edited, well sourced opening paragraph.

If you don't want to add to it, final consensus is now gained. I will re-include my paragraph hybrid including iss246 traditional couple of sentences, and then my synthesised, sourced couple of sentences to round it out. The base, as it stands is only your edits without attempting to integrate all of the various published definitions that exist on OHP around the world. I spent a lot of time on this article. Comments, before I do. It would be great if you could follow through on your own suggestion psyc12?, and try to help get a 'synthesisaed version rtepresentiong all published sources, the core, as you said we agree on, but not its not necessary if you wish to disengage entirely? Once done we can move on. Mrm7171 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You do not have consensus at all. I did not say I agree, only that I think further discussion is a waste of time. Psyc12 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to have reached consensus to keep changes in the article. The definition you both created as friends and fellow SOHP memmbers was without my input, whatsoever. You needed to take my input into account. Yourt current definition is not a hybrid definition synthesising all of the various definitions that exist, as psyc12 suggested (and at least admitted was necessary) and I then put in the hard work creating a version 1 of this hybrid definition and worked it into the paragraph. The main issue is as you know, psyc12/iss246, members of your own small multidisiplinary society SOHP cannot even agree on definition or indeed 'how much weight' psychology actually has at all or the 'size of P' in the acronym 'OHP.'

The paragraph must have inclusion of OHP being 'multidiciplinary and involving nurses, economists, sociologists, engineers, etc etc. and the fact that OHP practitioners do not need to study psychology to be an 'OHP' practitioner was also worked in. If psyc12/iss246 cannot agree on or any of my well worked well sourced hybrid definition, and want to disengage from discussion and gaining consensus, the ONLY logical thing to do is strip the paragraph back to the long standing one from June, without any recent changes. I wish you both had followed through instead of trying to 'guard this article as if you both own it somehow!110.143.253.102 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs)

Just added the original paragrapgh. Added that OHP practitioners do not 'necessaarily' need to study psychology. All of it is true. It is well sourced. It reads well and most importantly it presents and synthesises all of the various published definitions of OHP that exist around the world. Consider working with me on this paragraph rather than you engage in further unneccessary hostility toward me and my points of view and sourced material, and edit warring for no reason. The paragraph is a good start. Why don't you both add to it? so we can gain a civil consensus here?Mrm7171 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. You have now done exactly what you accuse others of doing. You have undone everything I did on the opening paragraph, and it is now confusing and doesn't actually say what OHP is. It gets into issues about practitioners, but it does not define what you mean by practitioner. I told you weeks ago that if you wanted to add a sentence saying that it is interdisciplinary, I was perfectly fine with it. You ignored that advice, and rather than working collaboratively, you choose to insist everything must be your way. You also ignored Ronz's advice to work more collaboratively. Psyc12 (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No psyc12 just undid my own revision. That paragraph is good though. Me undoing that revision just then, shows I am not like you and iss246 working together without inviting my input. You chose not to engage in civil discussions to reach an amicable solution and consensus. My recent posts clearly remain on this talkk page supporting these facts. Mrm7171 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mrm7171. Psyc12 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Iss246/psyc12, given that you have 'constantly', mentioned SOHP Society for Occupational Health Psychology (the club/professional society, you are both members of), hosted by the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Department at the University of Connecticut, this is their/your own definition of OHP.

"Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) involves the interdisciplinary partnerships of psychological and occupational health science professionals seeking to improve the quality of working life, and enhance the safety, health and well-being of workers in all occupations. Because 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)." the 'definitive' Society for Occupational Health Psychology definition of 'OHP'.

If this is the only 'OHP' club/society which exists, apart from the one in the UK, why don't we use your own club/professional society definition, 'word for word.' I'm okay with using this definition. SOHP is much more related to 'OHP' than CDC is? Surely your own club/professional society would have the definition right? As you both say, you are members and you have constantly told me that you both have much more knowledge on all of this? So, why don't we use your 'knowledge based' Society for Occupational Health Psychology definition?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As a preface to my comments in the paragraph below, I again observe the "attack" flavor of Mrm7171's above remarks, which contrast with Ronz's suggestion that Mrm7171 show greater civility (incidentally OHP researchers have studied the impact of incivility directed at workers--especially see Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 20001). In that "attack" spirit, I note that Mrm7171 calls a learned society a mere "club." In that attack spirit, I am accused of doing something every moment of the day, i.e., I am doing something "constantly" such as mentioning SOHP. In all honesty, I don't think I have "constantly" mentioned SOHP or constantly mentioned EAOHP or constantly mentioned the CDC.

Now I address Mrm7171's concern about the definition of OHP. First, I think there is considerable overlap in SOHP's and CDC's definitions. Second, succinctness and clarity are especially important in an encyclopedia article. Third, SOHP's definition, while good, is too wordy for an encyclopedia article. Fourth, I favor the CDC's definition because it is more succinct and to the point.Iss246 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, Ronz did not say to me personally, to show civility, it was more toward you, quite frankly. If anyone. He did advise me to detach from the situation yesterday as again, you and psyc12 were 'tag teaming' against my point of view. You are both friends in the real world, and fellow members of SOHP your club/society. Please don't keep taking offence at the word club either, it really isn't a big deal. SOHP is a club. I have made the point before, it clearly fits the Wikipedia definition. But for the record, and for the last time, one type of club is a professional society. Check the Wikipedia definition iss246. Please also keep the discussion on track, and focus on content, instead of commenting on editor's behavior. I just want to focus on the article content please.

The SOHP definition is aimed at people who might wish to join the society, i.e., graduate students and professionals. The Wiki definition is for the general public with little or no background in psychology or related fields. Our definition is better suited to the second group, as it is simpler than the SOHP one and it does a better job of giving a clear and concise definition of the field to someone with limited background. I think someone with limited knowledge might read the SOHP definition and not quite get what the field actually is. I don't see anything inaccurate in the SOHP definition, and it is totally compatible with ours (there are no conflicts), but the SOHP one is complex and describes elements of the OHP concept without giving a clear and concise definition. It says it is about partnerships, the intersection of different fields, and is inclusive of knowledge. I wonder what the average high school student would make of all that. In terms of readability, the SOHP definition has a lot more words per sentence (average 38 vs. 26). So my feeling is that we stick with what we have.Psyc12 (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward/discussing content only

Now, as far as the opening paragraph is concerned, the matter is clearly not resolved. The current article, as it stands, does not take into account the facts that:

1/ 'OHP Practitioners' as referred to throughout this Wikipedia article, can be, and actually are nurses, sociologists, doctors, economists, industrial engineers and others. There is no minimum training to be an 'OHP practitioner,' unlike a Psychologist

I am clearly separating from the above point, an Occupational Health Psychologist, who could also be called an 'OHP Practitioner' (if they chose to), because anyone can call them self an 'OHP Practitioner.' There is no minimum training.

However the reverse does not apply. For example, a Nurse, who refers to him or herself, as an 'OHP Practitioner' cannot also necessarily refer to him or herself as a Occupational Health Psychologist, without the minimum training required to be a Psychologist in whatever country they reside.

2/ 'OHP practitioners' also do not need, and very often do not hold, any formal psychology training whatsoever, and can, and still do call themselves 'OHP practitioners.'

For example, Dr Sergio Iavicoli, a Medical Doctor, and President of the UK 'OHP' society, holds no formal psychology training whatsoever, but still is referred to, and refers to himself, as an 'OHP Practitioner. However is not an 'Occupational Health Psychologist' as he is not a Psychologist and cannot refer to himself as such.

In fact, in the OHP article's 'references' section, it clearly shows Dr Sergio Iavicoli, and indeed many other writers and so-called OHP experts (as iss246 and psyc12 have referred to them?), also call themselves 'OHP Practitioners' without any formal psychology training at all. That's fine as there is no minimum training for an 'OHP Practitioner.'

These basic, neutral published facts, are clearly documented on many occasions throughout the self-published SOHP PDF newsletters, used as primary reference sources by iss246 throughout this article. Wikipedia just readers need to know these realities, which are already published outside of Wikipedia. I am requesting to include these published and important points, in this current article.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. These issues are way too complex to put in a wiki article about OHP. To distinguish an OHP psychologist from an OHP practitioner who isn't a psychologist would be confusing. And what is an OHP practitioner anyway? If my physician treats my work-related stress, is he/she now an OHP practitioner? These issues would be great for a conference session on practice issues that deals with who is consulting with industry on various OHP topics, whether we need separate licensure, etc. I have been part of conference sessions on some of these issues, but they are way too specialized for a wiki article. Psyc12 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No psyc12, the following points are not too complex for Wikipedia. Anyway, these are the points of contention that need to be put in this article which will have published sources attached.

1/ 'OHP' is multidisciplinary, eg nurses, economists, doctors, etc.

2/ The 2 'OHP' societies are also multidisciplinary eg. members are psychologists, nurses, economists, doctors, etc.

3/ Using the title Occupational Health Psychologist is regulated/restricted in most countries.

4/ Using the title 'OHP Practitioner' is not regulated in any country. Anyone can use the title.

5/ There is no minimum training needed in psychology or anything, to call yourself an 'OHP Practitioner'

These simple facts, with quality published sources attached, can easily be integrated into this article. I will do the work if you like. Or you can help? So, any of these 5 clear points, somehow inaccurate? If so, why or how please? And as simply and succinctly as possible please.

The reason these are important points, and need to be included, is they help define this article on Wikipedia and fill in the blanks. Throughout, reference is made to 'OHP Practitioners,' without any definitions included as to what an OHP Practitioner actually is? That is confusing for readers and not very informative as an encycolpedic article. You are also using the terms occupational health Psychologist and occupational health psychology, so accuracy and caution is required to protect these terms. I cannot get simpler than this, as Ronz suggested we do, as the next step in resolving these issues and to move forward.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of this could be included, but the issue is where and in what detail. I'll respond to each of the 5 points below.

1. Sure, but it needs to be done in a way that isn't confusing.

2. Sure.

3. Now we are getting into a complex issue. I haven't done a survey, but the title psychologist is not regulated in all countries, and in the U.S. states differ. I don't know if any country regulates the term OHP psychologist itself. I've responded to this issue before earlier on the talk page. I wouldn't say more than the practice of psychology is regulated in many but not all places.

No, not hard at all psyc12. We just discuss what has already been published regarding use of the title psychologist. Look at psychologist on Wikipedia. An excellent guide/model exists as to which countries regulate and how. So a simple couple of lines to that effect in the current article is all that's needed. It does not matter what is in front of the word psychologist, it is the word psychologist itself. And I have not had this discussion with you or iss246 psyc12 prior so I'm very glad we're getting it sorted now.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

4. This is true, but so what? I can legally call myself an OHP guru, an OHP consultant, and OHP expert, and OHP professor, or almost any title other than those that are regulated (psychologist, nurse, physician, lawyer, etc.). How is this relevant to the article? All the article should say is that people in many disciplines help organizations deal with problems that overlap with OHP. I don't know that the term OHP practitioner is one that many/any of them use. Once we start saying what you can legally call yourself, we will have a very long list.

No, again, not hard at all. I said above, the reason this point is needed, is there is constant reference to an 'OHP practitioner' throughout the article. All that matters here is that we define that term 'OHP Practioner' for readers and who can use it? Answer is, anyone can use it, unlike the term Occupational Health psychologist. We just put in exactly that. Nothing more, nothing less. Easy. Anything else, is irrelevant to this article and Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

5. I am really confused here. What does calling yourself an OHP practitioner have to do with anything? Legally kindergarten children can call themselves OHP practitioners, consultants, etc. I don't know why it would be important in this article to say that there are no minimum qualifications to legally use a particular title. In general you can call yourself anything you want as long as that title is not regulated. Psyc12 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, similar solution to the last point (4) and similar reasons why it is necessary to include it. Because OHP practitioner is constantly referred to in the article. And if we didn't, readers would get confused. It also clearly delineates between the term Occupational Health Psychologist which as discussed above, is regulated in 'most' countries. That is all that is needed. Eveything else is irrelevant to our discussion here, the article and Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One other thought. I don't think we want to give the general public the idea that it is ok for anyone to sell OHP-related services to organizations, and that they don't need any specific training or credentials. Sure it might be legal, but it would be unethical. Psyc12 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your OHP Societies invented and use the term 'OHP practitioner'? Given it is in the article, we need to define it. Easy. Anything else is irrelevant to this Wikipedia article and my points. Your Societies didn't however invent the term Psychologist, nor regulate who can use it around the world. Governments do that. By defining that point regarding the term Occupational Health Psychologist in the article is also easy, ethical and very necessary!

I can make these simple changes/additions, if you both like. Please let me know. They are very straightforward. Thank you for discussing them with me.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and add something, but be sure you are adding and not deleting other editor's work or changing it. That is what tends to cause conflict/problems. If other editors disagree with what you add or feel it isn't clear, it can then be discussed to figure out a way to make it clearer.Psyc12 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Licensing

Because for about 20 years I taught a review course to help recent Ph.D.s prepare for the psychology licensing exam, I know a little bit about the subject. I add some thoughts about licensing. First, Mrm7171 is right that psychology licensing in the USA is done by states. I don't know how psychology licensing is done in other countries. Second, state licensing is the norm in the USA. It also the norm for other professions in the USA (e.g., medicine, teaching). Third, in New York State and in other states, psychology licensing is generic. One could earn a Ph.D. in, say, social psychology, and apply for a license. To obtain a license in New York State, one would have to demonstrate that he or she earned a Ph.D. in a branch of psychology, pass an exam, and demonstrate that one had completed an internship bearing on the application of psychology (some states want one year pre-doc and one year post-doc, it depends on the state). Fourth, not every state has generic licensing. Some states have psychology licensing that is more in tune with clinical psychology (e.g., New Jersey). Licensing in the USA is decentralized.Iss246 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to the above. In New York State, my home state, to call oneself a psychologist, one has to have gotten a license issued by the New York State Regents. Of course that license must be renewed every few years.Iss246 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you must have added this while I just responded to this point no. 3, above to psyc12. Please refer to that. Lets keep this all very simple now iss246. All of the USA lisensure stuff is irrelevant to mu point, the article and Wikipedia. Also refer to Wikipedia's article on psychologist. This is a great model we can work from. A couple of sentences placed in the current article should suffice, as I said above. The term Occupational Health Psychologist is discussed above too. It is the term psychologist that's regulated by most governments around the world. But please read my detailed responses I just posted above to psyc12. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The corollary to what I wrote above is that in order to call oneself a psychologist, an occupational health psychologist, a clinical psychologist, an applied social psychologist, etc. in New York State or in states with comparable licensing requirements, one has to be approved by the Regents in those states. The term "psychologist" is controlled.Iss246 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

And excuse me. What I wrote is relevant.Iss246 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. If you just want to add a sentence or two to say that in many countries, psychologists must be licensed to practice, that would be fine with me. It can refer to the article you link above. Psyc12 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

To Psych12 and Mrm7171, I don't think there is benefit to discussing licensing under occupational health psychology. Although important in a field like clinical psychology, it is not a key component of an OHP entry. I explain my reasons for this view.

In Wikipedia, there is a brief discussion of licensing in clinical psychology but not in other branches of psychology listed on the sidebar. I think licensing is most pertinent to clinical psychology where there is one-to-one treatment. Even the health psychology encyclopedia entry does not include a discussion of licensing although some health psychologists engage in one-on-one treatment. There is no discussion of licensing in the i/o entry (although I know that some i/o psychologists in New York State get New York State licenses--I taught them in the licensing review course I used to teach).

Occupational health psychology practitioners largely do not treat individuals one-on-one as clinical psychologists do as a daily part of clinical practice. An OHP practitioner may help a business by conducting an organizational health appraisal, making available existing community services to employees who need them (an outpatient clinical psychology or psychiatry practice), developing a violence-prevention program if violence has been a problem in the organization, helping create an employee assistance program, developing worksite wellness programs, organizing a peer support network, conducting a safety check if accidents have been a problem, organizing teams of employees to think up ways to reduce accidents, and so on. The work is largely on an organizational level. OHP practitioners operate less like clinicians and more like consultants, but consultants whose aims include the betterment of the health of most employees.

I view the coverage of licensing, even if that coverage amounts to one sentence, as a needless diversion from the main content of the article. The only coverage of licensing that I could find in the psychology disciplines is in clinical psychology, where it most aptly belongs. I think the OHP entry should be consistent with other nonclinical entries.Iss246 (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have one more thought about licensing in psychology. It is a complex topic for various reasons. In the USA alone there are 50 states with 50 sets of rules regarding licensing. Countries elsewhere have their own sets of rules although maybe the EU has added some uniformity to the licensing rules in Europe. I think it would be best for someone to start a new Wikipedia entry devoted to the ins and outs of psychology licensing.Iss246 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to correct something I wrote about licensing. I was wrong about what I wrote above regarding licensing in New Jersey. I want to correct what I wrote. I had lunch today with my colleague who co-taught the licensing exam review course with me. Having remembered that he taught a special course to deal with NJ's oral exam, which NJ psychologists have had to take in addition to the national exam, I asked him about licensing in NJ. He told me NJ also has generic licensing, and that NJ is moving away from the oral exam. In order to call oneself a "psychologist" in NJ, one has to have met the licensing requirements in that state. Similarly, in order to call oneself a "psychologist" in the State of New York, one has to have met the licensing requirements in New York State. It is the term "psychologist" that is controlled in those two states (and many other states), not the terms "clinical psychologist," "i/o psychologist," etc.Iss246 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, I am only talking about 'use of the title' Occupational Health Psychologist. Wikipedia's psychologist article has already done the work for us. There are also only 2 types of 'OHP practitioners' mentioned throughout the article. An Occupational Health Psychologist and everyone else. So a couple of sentences, and the link to the Wikipedia psychologist article, should be enough.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In going back over the use of the term practitioner in the article, I wonder if it is likely to lead to confusion. The article mentions OHP psychologists and other practitioners, but it isn't clear who these other practitioners are. How about changing this to something like "OHP psychologists and people [or practitioners] in related disciplines". I don't think we want to get bogged down into issues of defining legally what a psychologist is, as that is covered elsewhere. One way to deal with it, is to hyperlink the first use of the word 'psychologist' to the wiki article that largely deals with issues of licensure and use of titles. That way the issue is dealt with without the OHP article going off topic. Psyc12 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I largely concur. I would use the terms OHP researchers and OHP practitioners. I would not use the term OHP psychologists because the "P" already represents the word "psychology," otherwise I think you are on to a good idea. But I think we can continue to fine-tune our wording.

I also agree that we should not get bogged down in who can be legally called a psychologist. That would take an entire Wikipedia article.Iss246 (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

To me if you say an OHP practitioner, I assume it is a psychologist because of the P in OHP. If you say OHP psychologist, there's no ambiguity, but it is redundant. How about saying something like "OHP researchers and practitioners, as well as people from related disciplines...." This way the second phrase implies the first group consists of psychologists. Psyc12 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, I think you are zeroing in on an apt expression. We could replace the word "people." We could use the expression "OHP researchers and practitioners, as well as professionals/experts/specialists from related disciplines...." I am not absolutely sure which term, "professionals," "experts," or "specialists," works best. Right now I lean toward the term "professionals." What do you think?Iss246 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think "professionals". It implies people who have the appropriate background/credentials to do the work, and gets across the idea that not everyone could (or should) be doing this work. Psyc12 (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on sources, not on speculation by individuals and including unpublished new material. wp:reliable source, wp:original research or wp:synthesis We just need to use published sources, that already exist, please.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

All throughout this article, and the references used from self-published PDF linked, Society of 'OHP' Newsletters, as well as journals, handbooks, texts, only 2 terms are already published. They are "Occupational Health Psychologist," (not OHP Psychologist?) and "OHP' practitioner." We need to stick with these already published terms only please.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Mrm7171. The term should be OHP researcher or practitioner and not OHP psychologist. The psychologist is assumed. Psyc12 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, psyc12, thank you, 'OHP Psychologist' does not make sense. I agree. That would be saying 'Occupational Health Psychology Psychologist? Not even sure who first started using this term, 'OHP Psychologist,' on this talk page?

Anyway, Occupational Health Psychologist does make sense, and is the commonly published, and commonly used, term for one of the 2 types of 'OHP practitioners' as I pointed out earlier.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Only 2 types of 'OHP practitioners'

There are only 2 types of 'OHP Practitioners' mentioned throughout the article, and all published sources used as references.

1/ Occupational Health Psychologist and 2/ Everyone else who practices and researches OHP.

This fact is already published, and exists 'outside of Wikipedia.' We are just reporting on this published fact in this article. The EA-OHP, for example, uses "The Occupational Health Psychologist" as the title of their self-published Newsletters. Occupational Health Psychologist is an important term and should obviously remain in the article.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 has a point about the EAOHP's newsletter, which is called The Occupational Health Psychologist. I don't know about EU countries like the UK, but in the USA the term "psychologist" is controlled. One has to have a state-issued license to call oneself a psychologist. In Canada there are province-centered psychology licensing boards. The result is that in much of North America a professor of psychology who conducts research in, say, social psychology, but does not have a license cannot call himself/herself a psychologist. He or she can, however, call himself or herself a "professor of psychology" or a "psychology researcher."

On the other hand, the term psychologist is used all over Wikipedia, for example in the entries on social psychology, personality psychology, developmental psychology, etc. without regard to the fact that the term is controlled in much of North America (and probably elsewhere). From a technical standpoint the term is used incorrectly (at least as it applies to the USA and Canada). But the term is so widespread in Wikipedia, I suspect readers have a general idea of what the term means. As a result, I could tepidly support the use of the term "occupational health psychologists" because it parallels the terms "social psychologists" and "personality psychologists" found in Wikipedia. I underline that I am more fully supportive of the term "OHP researchers and practitioners" because this latter term is more technically accurate and would apply to North America and the rest of the world regardless of licensing requirements.

Please report what you, Mrm7171 and Psyc12, think. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have one question for Mrm7171. Do you know if the term "psychologist" is controlled in the UK? Can a professor of, say, developmental psychology call himself or herself a psychologist in the UK even if he or she does not have a license? Or is the term used so often in an informal manner that it doesn't matter if the professor calls him/herself a psychologist? Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see OHP used very often to mean OH psychologist. Thus I think it works better in the article to talk about OHP practitioner, researcher, professor, etc. Psyc12 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Psychologist Wikipedia article outlines the various laws and has done the work for us. We can just refer to that as a link iss246. We need to use the term Occupational Health Psychologist, as it is already published and used elsewhere eg EA-OHP newsletter as well as many other published sources both in the USA and Europe.

As far as the article goes, I would like to build on the opening sentence in the second paragraph? It currently reads..."Occupational health psychologists and other OHP researchers and practitioners are concerned with a variety of workplace factors that can be risk factors for injury, disease, and distress.

The 5 points I have made above, can all be integrated into this one addition I would like to make. Is this okay iss246/psyc12?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, could you write the second paragraph right here on this talk page. With many years as a professor, I would like to read a draft of the second paragraph you propose. I can't speak for Psyc12 but I suspect Psyc12 would like to read it too. You could start a new section, and write your proposed revamped second paragraph there. I want to avoid an edit war on the OHP page. In the spirit of Ronz's comments, it would be better to hash out any changes in the second paragraph right here. Thank you.Iss246 (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I add one note. I don't think the Wikipedia article on the term "psychologist" did justice to the complications of licensing. I am not sure such an article could have anyway.Iss246 (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree about working it out on the talk page--that's how I work with colleagues and students. I also agree about the psychologist article, but then it likely would take a book to fully describe the complexities in licensing and how it differs from place to place. In the U.S. alone, you would have to describe each state's own laws, and then try to integrate them into some coherent principles. Psyc12 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but I would like to include each of the 5 points I have outlined above in the actual article, as an 'integrated' entry, given that we have now discussed them on this talk page. If I write something I just need to know these points will be included and you both are okay with that? We can then discuss the actual wording further before uploading.

As far as the Psychologist article, it should suffice for our purposes. All that is needed in the way of an entry is that most countries have regulations on who can use the term Psychologist, regardless of what is put 'in front of it.', eg clinical, forensic, occupational health etcMrm7171 (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. It is hard in the abstract to say something is ok without seeing it. I suggest that you look at our feedback above on the points, and then do your best to write the section. If you want to do it in parts (e.g., start with a first paragraph), that would be fine (might be easier). We can then give you feedback and we can all discuss any points of disagreement. Just start a new topic below and insert it. Psyc12 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate something I said above. In many Wikipedia psychology articles (e.g., social psychology, i/o psychology, etc.), the term psychologist is used without regard to the matter of licensing. I do not want to go on a campaign to reform those sites. The term has common currency in the layman's vocabulary without regard to licensing requirements in different countries, states, and provinces.

I would be okay using the term "occupational health psychologist," and insert double brackets to create an internal link around the word "psychologist" for the purpose of alerting readers to the idea of licensing, which is an important part of the psychologist article. The term would look like this: occupational health psychologist.

Other than that, there is no need to devote space to licensing in an OHP article. That is why Wikipedia is so good. The internal links help the reader obtain an understanding of concept with a click of a mouse.Iss246 (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, I'm sorry I don't agree with your brevity, given the large amount of detail elsewhere throughout the article? It's a start by adding the psychologist link, but we need to define what an occupational health psychologist actually is, because the article discusses it. Given the very significant difference in training between other OHP practitioners, eg. doctors, nurses, economists, engineers and many others, and a Psychologist we need to define these two distinct types of OHP practioners. Easy. The article is very abstract otherwise. We need to present what is already published elsewhere, and cite these published sources.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The other major point here iss246, is that other psychology articles, eg. clinical psychology, educational psychology, health psychology and i/o psychology involve only one kind of 'practitioner' that is, psychologists. That is why they are called psychology. Whereas 'OHP' involves 2 types of practitioners for some reason, but still uses the term psychology. Therefeore this point is critical to include in more detail, making this oddity clear to readers and the differentation between psychologists working in the field, and other OHP practitioners like nurses, doctors, engineers, economists, sociologists, and so on. This is also roughly how I plan to write this into the article as you requested a draft. I will add more to it as we progress. It integrates the point of OHP being multidisciplinary but still wanting to use the word/discipline psychology.

Makes things very confusing by using the word psychology but having some 'non psychology trained' persons, like nurses and sociologists, doctors and economists, using the title 'OHP practitioner' and the word psychology in that OHP practitioner title?' But given the OHP society has created this unnecessary confusion(and operates outside of the international psych community) and this article exists on Wikipedia, these points need to be clarified. Let me know if you want to add anything to my description above. Otherwise I am going to go ahead and make these critical points in the article now, as they have been discussed and are very 'clear cut' as to why they need to be included. Nothing you have said has added any weight to why these common sense points should not be included either.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I understand your point. We need to consider this. That someone can could conduct research in one field although his or her training is in another field. Why this crossover can occur is because many of the skills required to conduct research in one field apply to another field. I will give you an example from my career. I have published in psychiatry. I am certainly not a psychiatrist. Some of my research has even crossed over into child clinical psychology. I know sociologists who have published psychiatric research. That does not make them psychiatrists. Stan Kasl in a famous book chapter he published way back in 1978 described how many research methods cross over a variety disciplines. It is possible for someone trained in one field can conduct research in another. It happens a lot.

It is not a good use of our time to argue about the fact that (1) people originally from another branch of psychology (like me) conduct OHP research and (2) people from outside of psychology (a physician like Bengt Arnetz) conduct OHP research. Interdisciplinary research has been with us, and will continue to be with us.Iss246 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree iss246. Research and the term OHP researcher is an entirely different matter than a practitioner. In the article it differentiates between psychologists, other OHP practitioners, and then OHP researchers. We are just talking about practitioners, who 'apply' the research and use a title like a Psychologist or an OHP Practitioner. We need to define the difference between the two types of 'OHP practitioner.' I will write in a line or two about that point as well.

Many other kinds of psychologists and nonpsychologists do work that overlaps with clinical, educational, I/O etc., so the situation is no different from OHP. For example, psychotherapy is done by social workers, rehabilitation counselors, ministers, to name a few. One of my former I/O students took a minor in counseling and does psychotherapy with his I/O degree. Psyc12 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, we are just talking about an 'OHP Practitioner.' This is a term created by the 2 OHP societies, not the international psychology community. However the 2 OHP societies are using the word psychology and this gives the impression that Occupational Health Psychology Practitioners' are actually trained in psychology or as Psychologists. That is why so many countries around the world have regulated the use of these words.

However many Occupational Health Psychology Practitioners are simply not trained in psychology, at all, because it is a term invented by the 2 OHP societies only! But because it is used, it automatrically is rtegulated. We just need to report it in this article, because it is published heavily elsewhere.

In regard to your example regarding ministers, social workers etc.. they are not calling themselves psychologists or using the word psychology in their title. Are they? Again, my point is that 'Occupational Health Psychology Practitioners' are using the word psychology in their title.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

But again, Mrm7171. Instead of continuing this discussion in the abstract, just write a paragraph that Iss246 and I can respond to. I feel that we are spending too much time in discussions that are not contributing to the article. Psyc12 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made these clear points now and we have discussed them at length. We are working toward 'consensus' here. If you disagree with these 5clear points, I'm still up for discussion on this talk page. But I think they are pretty clear cut. I think we have consensus. This is not a university class or an article submitted to a journal. This is is wikipedia. I will as an equal WikiI pedia Editor, write these points up in the article, now we have discussed these points on the talk page, as Wikipedia protocol stipulates, and then it can be edited (not deleted) if needed. That's how all Wikipedia articles work.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OHP practitioners

Mrm7171, I understand your frustration. But I think you are making too much of the business of OHP practitioners. I know personally three practitioners because we had worked together one way or another. One practitioner and I met because we volunteered to do some recruitment for SOHP at the APS annual meeting. We stayed in touch over the years. The other I got to know because the practitioner invited me to create a workshop on a particular method of data gathering. We also continue to stay in touch. The third is a professor who also does independent OHP-related consulting. That professor and I collaborate on research but not in consulting (I don't do OHP-related consulting). Each of the three received graduate level training in OHP. Each of the three does independent contracting work with organizations (government, private) regarding psychosocial working conditions and employee health. Their consulting work is practical. It doesn't lead to publications. I don't know of anyone who calls himself or herself an OHP practitioner who does not have advanced training in OHP.

Let's turn to the licensing business because this is related to who can call himself or herself an OHP practitioner. I have a license having earned a doctorate, passed the exam, and gotten the required experience. The license allows me to call myself a psychologist. Of course, I don't need a license to say that I am a professor of psychology because that is my occupation. I don't need a license to say I earned a Ph.D. in psychology because I did. But as I said in an earlier statement, a license in many U.S. states--I got mine in New York State--is generic. If an OHP practitioner gets a license in my state that would be the same license a counseling psychologist or an educational psychologist would get if they chose to get a license. All of us could call ourselves psychologists.

That is why I am saying that although you mean well by wanting to clarify things, the arguing regarding who can call himself or herself an OHP practitioner does not merit all that ink. In addition, the Wiki entry for the term "psychologist" devotes space to the matter of licensing.Iss246 (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I add one other thought because of an issue you raised that I did not address above. The main job of academic researchers is to conduct research that is of publishable quality. I conduct OHP research but I don't consider myself a practitioner. I don't do practice. Don't engage in the practical things practitioners do. I am much more interested in conducting research for the purpose of publishing that research. Practitioners conduct research to help the organizations that hire the practitioners. Often that research is oriented toward practical problem-solving and the research is typically not for publication. Of course there are a few people who are both OHP researchers and OHP practitioners, such as the professor I mentioned above. I am only an OHP researcher. Some people are one. Some people are the other. And some people are both.Iss246 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, I agree with everything you said regarding empirical, peer reviewed, editor reviewed and finally approved, journal research. I also perfectly understand the difference between high quality journal research and research in different guises conducted by practitioners for organizations. There are many researchers who are psychology Professors, but not Psychologists. You seem to be both and obviously choose not to consult, but could.

However I think given the time already devoted to these intricacies regarding titles and use of the words psychology and psychologist, my additions are warranted. I also note that you and psyc12, have not disagreed with my 5 points. That's important. I believe we have reached consensus. I think that is what Wikipedia is all about. I do not believe that Occupational Health Psychology Practitioners, are all trained as Psychologists, or can use the title, and importantly, quite a few have no formal university training whatsoever in psychology. We have discussed this point at length, so no point repeating it again, I totally agree. That would be wasted ink.

So where to from here? I plan to write this into the Wikipedia article, concisely as possible. This is the way Wikipedia works as you know as a seasoned wikipedia editor. I have respected your opinions and our discussions, but I feel that is what I need to do as a fellow editor. Once I have written these 5 points into the article you can then correct any wording or the sources I add. I understand you have asked to write it here on the talk page first, but with all due respect, I have not asked the same of you.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, to my knowledge it is not the case that among OHP practitioners "quite a few have no formal university training whatsoever in psychology." This is not the case among the individuals I know. I believe that if such individuals exist they would be violating ethical principles. This type of case applies in almost any professional domain. Consider practitioner who calls himself or herself an applied social psychologist but who does not have the training. He or she would be breaking ethical principles. I don't think it is worthwhile to go on a hunt for those who violate ethical principles here in these pages. We know that such people exist in many life domains.

With all due respect, the changes I most recently made were more in keeping with housekeeping changes. For example, the University of Connecticut made changes in its web site, and I adjusted the links to conform with those changes. The changes you want to make are more substantial. I would like to avoid an edit war.

Regarding the sentences you want to write, they are more substantial. I would prefer to see you lay out here on the talk page the original sentences and the changes you would recommend. I think that would be helpful.Iss246 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

iss246, we have discussed at length now my 5 clear points outlined on this page, and as suggested by Ronz and other experienced editors so we can gain consensus. So, on what basis do you disagree with any one of these 5 points? As I said, I am still up for discussion before making these well sourced additions.

A prime example of an 'Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner,' without any formal psychology training whatsoever, is the medical doctor Sergio Iavicoli. He is the President of the European 'OHP' society. He has no training in psychology whatsoever, but still refers to himself, in many published sources as being an Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner? I have made this point before.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken here. I have a suggestion. Why not get in touch with the EAOHP. Put your query to an officer in the EAOHP. Dr. Iavicoli is an OHP researcher as well as a researcher in occupational medicine. He may be a practitioner in occupational medicine. I think you should get in touch with the EAOHP office. I don't think you are in a position to judge the credentials of Dr. Iavicoli.Iss246 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No judgement iss246, don't get so defensive please. Its just a fact. Medical doctor Sergio Iavicoli and many other members of the Occupational Health Psychology clubs/societies, use the title 'Occupational Health Psychology Practitioner', without any formal training in psychology. May be a good medical doctor, but he has no formal training in psychology, at all and is certainly not a psychologist. I find this as a Wikipedia editor, somethging we need to include in this article. It is a published fact. There are many other examples in the OHP club/society, self- published newsletter sources you have used as reliable sources throughout this artticle. I suggest instead perhaps you go back over your own sources. Simple. Lets just keep on track please.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. Iss246 and I have already explained where we disagree with your 5 points, and we have done so repeatedly, so there is no point in stating them again. It was a week or more ago that Iss246 and I suggested that instead of spending all this time discussing theoretical changes, that you just put here what you want to say and let us respond to it. I said it again yesterday. Yet you ignore us and I feel like we are getting no where.

Let me be clear on the issue of practice in this article. I think it is worth maybe one sentence to say that people in a variety of areas in psychology and outside of psychology provide consulting services in areas that include OHP topics. I would not get into a discussion of who is and is not legally a psychologist or a practitioner, or even what it means to be a practitioner. A link to the psychology article can provide information about licensure for psychologists. I have explained my rationale in detail earlier. Psyc12 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear now about Wikipedia protocol psyc12 and mutual respect and equality in editing. This is an encyclopedia. You also just said you have disagreed with my 5 points. That's just not true. These are your previous responses to my 5 points which again are:

1/ 'OHP' is multidisciplinary, eg nurses, economists, doctors, etc.

2/ The 2 'OHP' societies are also multidisciplinary eg. members are psychologists, nurses, economists, doctors, etc.

3/ Using the title Occupational Health Psychologist is regulated/restricted in most countries.

4/ Using the title 'OHP Practitioner' is not regulated in any country. Anyone can use the title.

5/ There is no minimum training needed in psychology or anything, to call yourself an 'OHP Practitioner'

I quote your responses directly psyc12. So it is very clear.

start quote

Some of this could be included, but the issue is where and in what detail. I'll respond to each of the 5 points below.

1. Sure, but it needs to be done in a way that isn't confusing.

2. Sure.

3. Now we are getting into a complex issue. I haven't done a survey, but the title psychologist is not regulated in all countries, and in the U.S. states differ. I don't know if any country regulates the term OHP psychologist itself. I've responded to this issue before earlier on the talk page. I wouldn't say more than the practice of psychology is regulated in many but not all places.

4. This is true, but so what?

5. I am really confused here. What does calling yourself an OHP practitioner have to do with anything?"

end quote

So, psyc12 you can see that in fact, you have actually agreed with my 5 points to a large degree. This is what Ronz asked me to do. So we could get consensus? Your only issue now is that you 'demand' that I write my entry, based on the 5 points agreed on this talk page instead of writing it into the article? Sorry, but no. I will also make this clear again psyc12, as you seem not to understand. I am not your student. You need to realise this. I am a stranger editing Wikipedia. And I am following Wikipedia protocol in doing so. You need to get this clear first and foremost and look at the facts clearly established above. Also please try and stick to your word. We need to include these 5 clear, well defined points. The discussion has already taken place and is documented above.

The way this public Wikipedia article on Occupational Health Psychology, is currently written, is very unclear, abstract and biased. It fails to include, or reflect, much published material which already exists outside of Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I don't know how you can claim I agreed with your 5 points. At best I agreed with #2, agreed in a qualified way with 1 & 3, and disagreed with the last two in terms of putting in the article. So you do not have consensus on putting these points in the article. I also do not think this article is unclear or biased, and I do not know what you mean by it being abstract. Sure there is room for additional content, but no article, even one 200 pages long, could possible include all the published material out there. So I don't know what you are trying to imply with this last point. Psyc12 (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. One last thought. I think you revealed a lot in your paragraph above where you declare that you are not my student. What you are really saying is that you are unwilling to accept the advice and input of others, even those like Iss246 who is a very accomplished, experienced, and well-known person in this field. Thus we go around and around in circles, with you raising the same points over and over, and ignoring our responses when you disagree. Working on the text on the talk page was a friendly suggestion, and certainly not a demand. I repeated it because you were ignoring the suggestion, and when you finally did respond, it was not to explain why you think it was a bad idea. Rather it is an aggressive and dismissive response that makes me wonder if you are really interested in working collaboratively at all. Psyc12 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Clear, neutral, reliable, published 'facts

These are the clear, published facts so far. They are going to be included in the article. Here they are as you both requested, before I add them in. This is entirely consistent with Wikipedia's guiding principles for every editor to obey.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

1/ 'OHP' is multidisciplinary, eg nurses, economists, sociologists, engineers, doctors, etc.

2/ The 2 'OHP' societies are also multidisciplinary eg. members are psychologists, nurses, economists, doctors, etc.

3/ Using the title Occupational Health Psychologist is regulated/restricted in most countries.

4/ Using the title 'OHP Practitioner' is not regulated in any country. Anyone can use the title.

5/ There is no minimum training needed in psychology, or 'anything,' to call yourself an 'OHP Practitioner'

6/ There are no Doctoral programs in Occupational Health Psychology that exist in any country.

7/ Occupational Health Psychology subjects are 'mostly' specializations within I/O Psychology programs.

8/ 'OHP' is not one of the 54 Divisions in psychology with the American Psychological Association (APA).

9/ The definition of 'OHP' varies significantly. There is still no agreement even between the 2 'OHP' societies.

Iss246/psyc12, these are published, objective facts. Every one of them. Nothing more, nothing less. Just the facts. They relate to occupational health psychology. They are going to be included in the article. Cannot be clearer. Engage or disengage. Up to you. But we need to remember this is Wikipedia and this is how Wikipedia says things are done if editors are to have the privilege of editing articles on Wikipedia's own website, not ours.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, Psyc12 responded in a sensible way to the five facts you enumerated a little earlier. I think you should accommodate Psyc12's recommendations. As for nine facts, I need to review them. I think we tackled some of the additional numbered items earlier. I refer to the business about graduate programs and APA.Iss246 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of these points are clearly correct, and some are oversimplifications. I am not sure that every one belongs in the article. My response to each. follows. 1 and 2 are correct and should be in the article. I don't think that 3 is correct. It is regulated in some countries, but I don't know that it is the majority. 4 and 5 aren't worth mentioning as the issue is complex and too tangential to the purpose of this article. Furthermore, we do NOT want to give the impression that it is ok for anyone to call themselves a practitioner without any qualifications. 6 is true, but not sure we need an explicit statement that says there are no free-standing programs. This is something I'd have to see in context. 7 is misleading. Here's an example where I feel like I am talking to the wall. I earlier showed how several American universities, such as Colorado State, East Carolina, and Texas (I think A&M) have OHP attached to other psychology programs. It might be the case that the majority are attached to I/O, but the problem with saying most are is it gives a false impression. 8 is true, but we don't need to bother to say it. OHP is also not a division of a lot of other societies. We don't need to list them all. 9 should not be mentioned as it will confuse people. There are no significant contradictions that need to be mentioned. Iss246 and I have told you this before, but you persist in ignoring our input.

One other observation Mrm7171. I appreciate that you are trying to work collaboratively, but I don't see you being responsive to others' input. Often when you disagree with someone you just ignore them rather than making your own case for why you are correct. You keep raising the same point over and over, after other editors disagree, and you declare that things are facts that are not. Some of your 9 points have been discussed over and over, and yet you continue to raise them again, ignoring the input Iss246 and I have made in the past. Psyc12 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12/iss246 I will say this as clearly and respectfully as possible. Stop going on and on and on, about you both being professors or knowing more than others, quite frankly I have had enough. Anyone could say that by the way! Anyone could pretend to be a professor of anything on Wikipedia!! I was just sick of listening to it, that's all. This is Wikipedia, not a lecture room. I mean, big deal, even if you were a professor! (although a lot of your comments about the psychology profession, provides evidence to the contrary, I have to say). Just stop trying to belittle other editors, with the me and iss246 are professors stuff! You seem not to be interested in editing as per Wikipedia rules and protocol, just going on and on and on about you being 'supposed' professors.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Common ground

I think we need to start by identifying and processing all of the common ground. These two statements:

• 'OHP' is multidisciplinary, eg nurses, economists, sociologists, engineers, doctors, etc.
• The 2 'OHP' societies are also multidisciplinary eg. members are psychologists, nurses, economists, doctors, etc.

seem to have some support from some editors. Does everyone agree that a statement along these lines is neutral, relevant, and possible to support directly from reliable sources? Does anyone object?

If and only if you personally would support including statements along these lines, then I have three more questions for you:

1. What sources would you cite to support these claims?
2. What exact words would you recommend for inclusion in the article?
3. What exact location would you recommend for those sentences?

There is no deadline for answering these questions, but if you want to actually get this information into the article, then it will really, really, really help if you could please not talk about anything else until everyone has had a day or two to reply to this particular request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, OHP is multidisciplinary and yes not everyone in OHP societies are psychologists. It is easy to find sources on the first point--I'm pretty sure a source already cited says it, and it is worth adding that to the article.

The second point is trickier because I don't know that there is a source that says this explicitly, but I don't think it is important to make this point in the article at all. I just checked the article, and how these societies are dealt with is fine now. I checked the websites of the American SOHP and the European counterpart and they say you don't have to be a psychologist. Here's from the U.S. SOHP "Full membership requires a postgraduate degree in a field related to OHP (e.g., Occupational Health Psychology, Public Health, Occupational Health, Industrial Hygiene)". (http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/membership.htm) The European counterpart is "Applicants should possess i) a degree in psychology or closely related subject and ii) at least three years active involvement in occupational health psychology". (http://www.eaohp.org/membership.html). Psyc12 (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to add this to the OHP page. I will add it to the SOHP page. It belongs there. The page isn't very long, and adding a sentence won't clutter the SOHP page. We need not add this bit of information to the OHP page, where it takes us off topic. It is on topic on the SOHP page. It belongs right in the SOHP page. I will add this information to the SOHP page.Iss246 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I took care of the matter. I added the membership information to the SOHP and EAOHP entries.Iss246 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Whatamidoing. Thanks for your input here on this talk page. I will consider my responses to this discussion and report them within a couple of days. I am however concerned about iss246/psyc12 being friends and colleagues in the 'real world,' separate to Wikipedia, and in obvious communication with each other outside of Wikipedia. They are also both members of this small, close knit 'OHP' society they keep talking about. I have felt like I am editing against a 'tag team,' quite frankly. It shouldn't be that way on Wikipedia.

I am also sick of listening to both of them stating they are supposed professors. Over and over. As my reply above clear states, anyone could say they are a professor of anything on Wikipedia. I hope you can appreciate where I am coming from on these matters as an experienced Wikipedia editor. Thanks I will respond to this discussion relating to the 9 points as soon as I can.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, it would really help if we didn't attempt to discuss anything else until people have had a chance to think over their replies to these specific questions. I hope we can all agree to leave your concerns about their professional qualifications to one side for right now, and just deal with this narrow issue. When we're done with this one little thing, we can get back to the many other concerns. For right now, though, if you would leave that aside until you've had a fair chance to provide your considered opinion on this issue, and if they would please not discuss any other concerns about any other editor or any other part of the article, then I think that would be best. I don't want to risk overlooking anyone's opinions about this specific question. I'm sure we can all wait patiently for a couple of days while you think this over. I really appreciate your willingness to think about it carefully. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Whatamidoing, the matter of iss246/psyc12, being friends and colleagues, outside of Wikipedia, as members of the same small close knit 'OHP' group, as well as them communicating with each other outside of Wikipedia, and their constant 'claims,' (false or true) that they are professors, so as to assert some further type of 'misguided' authority, are both serious matters, but I personally don't think should be discussed on this talk page. We need instead to keep focused and to move forward here.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is still some disagreement. Specifically, I see no agreement to include any sentences in this article about who the members of the societies are. Psyc12 added a sentence about the field being multidisciplinary. Are you willing to omit the (possibly redundant) statement about the members of the societies from this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Now 7 clear, neutral facts

Given that the first 2 points are now fully accepted, at least, by all editors as being true and factual, there just remains the other 7 which have mostly been accepted but just need closure please. A good suggestion was made by other experienced editors, like Ronz, to firstly list, and then try and get an agreement on these points of discussion first. Then additions to the article could be made and discussed on the talk page further. This is consistent with Wikipedia's own guidelines and suggestions.

This would prevent confusion and is also what Whatamdoing has started doing above, by listing the first 2 points everyone has agreed on as being factual. I agree. It now seems a logical approach to list the remaining 7 points to finalize their factual basis too. Then we can move forward. So could other editors please just indicate yes it is an objective fact, (not whether, or how, or if, it should be included in the article) or no, it is not an objective fact. Hope this seems reasonable to all? I just want to move forward with article please.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

These 6 remaining points are all neutral, objective, and published outside of Wikipedia: Are these points factual?

3/ Using the title Occupational Health Psychologist is regulated/restricted in most OECD countries. Yes/No

4/ Using the title 'OHP Practitioner' is not regulated in any country. Anyone can use the title. Yes/No

5/ There is no minimum training needed in psychology, or 'anything,' to call yourself an 'OHP Practitioner' Yes/No

6/ There are no Doctoral programs in Occupational Health Psychology that exist in any country. Yes/no

7/ Occupational Health Psychology subjects are mostly (ie>75%) attached to I/O Psychology programs. Yes/no

8/ 'OHP' is not one of the 54 Divisions in psychology with the American Psychological Association (APA). Yes/No

I just refined the remaining points, after considering psyc12's replies. I have deleted point 9 so as to compromise. Psyc12 has now answered yes they are true/factual at least, to points 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. Do you now agree point 3 is factual psyc12, now it has been altered to 'most OECD countries instead?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note, that by accepting these points as true/factual, I understand it does not mean other editors have agreed to include all of these points within the article. This exercise, as suggested by Ronz and other experienced editors, is just to establish the main points we have been discussing, and that all editors, at least agree are true/factual.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think any of these points belong in the article. I have elaborated on each one earlier.Psyc12 (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, we are not talking about what will be included in the article as yet. I am just summarizing the points you have already agreed are all factual and true at least. That is, points 1 through to 8, as above, apart from point 3. Based on adding the point of 'OECD' countries, point 3 is also factual and true now.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of the points are already taken up in the SOHP entry. For example, someone in public health can become a member of SOHP. With regard to other points, they lack nuance. I add that not every U.S. organization organized around psychology is a member of APA (e.g., the Psychonomic Society). But SOHP has a special relationship with APA despite having members from allied fields. APA sponsored an important organizational meeting that was an important step in the founding of SOHP. APA publishes JOHP, which is associated with SOHP. APA cosponsors with NIOSH and SOHP the biennial meeting devoted to OHP. The public interest directorate of APA has been very supportive of SOHP (you could read about that relationship in past issues of The APA Monitor). Psyc12 is right to say the points do not belong in the OHP Wikipedia entry. My view is that the lack of nuance in Mrm7171's points makes them not directly pertinent to the article.

Regarding a particular point Mrm7171 makes, point 5. As Psyc12 has written, anybody can call himself or herself anything. I can call myself a baseball coach. But calling myself a baseball coach doesn't make me a baseball coach. I add that the two OHP practitioners I know personally have doctorates in psychology and one is about to earn a doctorate in psychology. Each has specialized in OHP in graduate school.Iss246 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is worth discussing this, or anything else, unless and until you have publicly stated whether the two previous points have been handled to your satisfaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Final 8 facts acknowledged by all editors as true

We haven't, or at least I haven't, had a chance to discuss these 8 neutral, widely-published points of fact, and present my reasons now why they need to be included. At least a clear discussion can take place now, about why or why not these facts should be included, and how. I have refined them based on compromise and listening to other editors points of views. These 8 points that have been finally acknowledged by all editors, as at least, being true and factual are these:

1/ 'OHP' is multidisciplinary, eg nurses, economists, sociologists, engineers, doctors, etc.

2/ The 2 'OHP' societies are also multidisciplinary eg. members are psychologists, nurses, economists, doctors, etc.

3/ Using the title Occupational Health Psychologist is regulated/restricted in most 'OECD' countries.

4/ Using the title 'OHP Practitioner' is not regulated in any country. Anyone can use the title.

5/ There is no minimum training needed in psychology, or 'anything,' to call yourself an 'OHP Practitioner'

6/ There are no Doctoral programs in Occupational Health Psychology that exist in any country.

7/ Occupational Health Psychology subjects are mostly (ie>75%) attached to I/O Psychology programs.

8/ 'OHP' is not one of the 54 Divisions in psychology with the American Psychological Association (APA).Mrm7171 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Mrm7171: it would more productive if you could stick to the usual layout for talk page comments, refrain from dropping big walls of text (and repeat them ad nauseam), and only use this space for discussing how to improve the article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's two issues

I just added a sentence to the end of the opening paragraph to note that OHP is interdisciplinary and has been informed by other disciplines. I got this from Tetrick and Quick's opening chapter in their Handbook of OHP 2e. They say that the issues OHP deals with require input from other fields. They also note that OHP is part of psychology, but is informed by other fields. Thus I framed the sentence to reflect these points. Psyc12 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The two points of agreement noted by WhatamIdoing above have been addressed to my satisfaction. Psyc12 (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To user:WhatamIdoing. I added to the SOHP entry one sentence, with citation, on who can be a member of SOHP. I did something similar in the EA-OHP entry. Membership in those learned societies should be on the Wikipedia pages covering those learned societies. The OHP entry contains internal links to those societies' entries. Point 2 is addressed.Iss246 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So, given we are starting with point/fact one. OHP is Multidisciplinary. This word is now added in first sentence. Also added nurses, sociologists to the mix. Which is more important? Nursing or industrial engineering or economics or medicine or public health, or....so many areas of 'OHP'?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We all need to remember: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).Mrm7171 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It took a while, but thankfully those 8 points above have now been accepted by all editors as both factual and true. They are all drawn from reliable, published sources outside of Wikipedia. They were refined and developed, based on the combined input and discussion between all editors. They provide a 'point by point' base to work from now, as suggested by Ronz and other experienced editors.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Where to go from here

It looks like we have incorporated the two points of agreement to everyone's satisfaction. Iss246 and I both have stated that the remaining points above by Mrm7171 do not belong in the OHP article, and we have discussed our reasons repeatedly. Thus there is no consensus here, and so it is time to move on to something else, such as new topics that might not be currently covered. Psyc12 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Undone Edits

Mrm7171. I undid your edits because the sources cited do not mention them. If you want to add other fields, then find a source that notes them, but be careful with the citation superscripts to show which fields were noted by T-Q and which come from the new source. Psyc12 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, I just added sociology and Industrial engineering to the article. These are mentioned in your 2011, reference.

But there are so many, many more other professionals involved in SOHP and 'OHP'. I quote something you wrote back in June.

Your comments back in June psyc12, were: "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."

Where did these sources come from? There are so many different professions involved in OHP and SOHP aren't there? Different to the psychology profession and psychologists, 'OHP" (which was invented by the 2 'OHP' societies) seems to involve everyone. So I am left wondering as an editor on this article, which professions to include in this first paragraph.

By including only sociologists, industrial engineers, doctors we are leaving all the other professions out, like you say in your comments from June, HR, OB, nurses? We should not leave these out? Which ones, do the SOHP give more weight to a Nurse or an economist when studying 'OHP'? Comments psyc12?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, I have at least 20 different published sources for the first sentence! They range from Bowling green's website, with their I/O psychology program, to OHP handbooks, to SOHP newsletters etc. All these published sources use the words 'multidisciplinary,' as agreed in point 1. This word multidisciplinary obviously needs to be included in the opening sentence.

And the fact that 'OHP' involves so many different professions, from nurses, economists, sociologists, economists, industrial engineers, hygienists, which do we include, which do we leave out, which professions are more important, which are not? Has SOHP determined which are more important? Maybe we could use their definition? It would be easier. Simpler. I mean some of the published sources mention nursing, sociology, economics, others mention engineering, medicine, hygiene? Which published sources do we use to reflect points 1 and 2 for starters?

It is difficult with OHP to know if psychology even matters in OHP, and to SOHP?? given there are just so many different professions involved in 'OHP'? This huge multidisciplinary nature of SOHP and OHP, published all over the place, needs to be reflected in this opening paragraph, and this article, as we have all agreed. I will just choose a couple of sources and add them in then in those 2 spots in the opening paragraph, should I? We need to be representative tooMrm7171 (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This situation is exactly why I believe that we need to proceed very slowly here. Now, you want to include the word multidisciplinary. Is it really multidisciplinary, or is it interdisciplinary? What's the best one or two sources that support a claim like this? We don't need 20 sources, but we would really benefit from one or two high-quality ones that directly use this exact word. Would you please give me the URL or ISBN for your best one or two sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't put in the 20 or more major and significant sources. But we do need to represent the main ones Whatamidoing. The current first paragraph is quite disjointed and confusing. It includes the CDC definition, which is swayed toward health and safety, the SOHP position which is 'OHP is for and involves many different professions' and the EA-OHP which is more psychologically based. There are others.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. You now added sociology to the influences noted by Tetrick and Quick. Where in the Tetrick and Quick chapter do they say that OHP was informed by sociology (page and paragraph please). On p. 5 they talk about the influences of different fields of psychology (human factors, I/O, social, health, and clinical) and other disciplines (public health, preventive medicine, and industiral engineering). Figure 1.1 shows preventive medicine, psychology and engineering. Am I just not seeing it? Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing. What does it mean to say that OHP is interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary? The answer is not simple, and so to put one of these terms in the opening sentence is likely to be confusing to many readers. The last sentence of the paragraph makes the point that the field is informed by many other disciplines, and lists three examples. That's all we need here. Psyc12 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If Mrm7171 has 20 sources that say this, but doesn't choose to give us a citation for a single one, then we're not likely to include either word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Separate section proposed - 'Definitional controversies in OHP'

So, to solve all of this, I was thinking maybe we could have a 'separate section', like in other Wikipedia articles, which discusses this lack of consensus by members of the 2 societies and many others, as to an accepted definition of OHP worldwide. This lack of agreed definition has held up education moving forward in Europe and other parts of the world, because the 2 societies have never agreed on a definition. Noone has. That is what is published. That is what I propose we therefore put in this Wikipedia article.

Therefore a separate section titled something like, 'Controversies over definitions in OHP.'

An interesting published source which discusses at length some of these controversies and disagreements and lack of consensus over the past 20 years. It is 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.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This 'separate section' approach would be interesting and more able to reflect the wide range of minority and majority published material for a quality Wikipedia article. Obviously not all, but the main published sources presenting majority and the largest minority published material. It would then allow readers to be informed of the range of published sources and make their own minds up, just as Wikipedia is designed to do.

I think we need to be careful to present things as they currently exist in every article, warts and all so to speak. If controversies like this already exist and are published, and there is a related article on Wikipedia, we need to present the facts, the published facts in a neutral even, objective manner. This should represent all sides of a topic. We are not here to represent any particular interests or one country or author's opinions over another. But we need to report these differences. And leave it that and let readers have a wide range of published points of view condensed. A separate section would do that.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We have already discussed the definitional differences across sources--this goes back to June or July, when both Iss246 and I noted that the definitions might use somewhat different wording, but there is no conflict and no controversy. Definitions are not taking opposing positions. Different authors use different words, mention different things, and some are more complete than others. But even if there were some significant differences, this is way beyond the scope of a wiki article to get into fine details of definitions. Psyc12 (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again psyc12/iss246 simply says "no, you are not touching the article! That's it. Full stop." This is why I have attempted to list 8 points that at least everyone agreed were facts. As far as the definitions, and being "way beyond the scope of Wikipedia, that is ridiculous. It is easy, and it gives readers the main published sources about the issue and it is also what we need to do based on Wikipedia's guidelines.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

This article, for instance, talks about the definitional dilemmas which exist. It can obviously be used as a reliable source for starters! 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.

I can easily provide some of the main published sources, which show significant differences in definitions eg. CDC, SOHP, EA-OHp, and then we just report them in a clear, concise way. Easy. Then readers can be presented with all the main published sources and the reality that in 'OHP' there still is, and always has been, wide variation in definitions, between the USA and Europe especially.

This just needs to just be reported in the article. You cannot suppress these truths psyc12, and present a biased and subjective Wikipedia article (as it currently is in many parts), nor circumvent Wikipedia's guiding principles and what Wikipedia actually is. An unbiased neutral constantly evolving online Encyclopedia, not a brochure site, where only one side of a topic is presented to the exclusion of other published sources.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at what Houdemont et al. have to say about definitions. They are talking about curriculum development and the content of graduate training, arguing for standardization. The main distinction concerns the role of other disciplines in training. They say in Europe, OHP is defined as consisting of applied psychology, and SOME (not all) American definitions say it draws on other disciplines too. Both recognize the multidisciplinary nature of OHP topics, but they differ in emphasis in graduate TRAINING. Note they also say that some American definitions are consistent with European, and they specifically mention the NIOSH one we have used here. So there is no controversy over our definition. The fine points of curriculum content (should OHP students have a course in epidemiology?) is quite an esoteric discussion that doesn't belong in this article. Psyc12 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This source discusses the defintion of OHP on pages 6 to 8. It says "Thankfully, despite the absence of a shared heritage among the international community of OHP practitioners there exists broad agreement on the definition of the discipline." We cannot claim that "broad agreement on the definition" means "wide variation". In fact, it gives just two, fairly similar definitions, one from the European and one from the North American perspective, and gives no hint that there is any sort of "controversy" about the differences. Regional differences do not always cause controversies. There are different definitions of AIDS depending on where you live, and there's no controversy about that, either (except among a few HIV denialists). The conclusion of the whole paper directly states that the "contrasts" in heritage and definition do not seem significant enough to cause problems for setting an internationally agreed curriculum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing and strongly recommmend that all parties carefully consider his advice. (I know nothing about the subject, I am a moderately experienced editor following a note on the RSN noticeboard.) I see no need for any section on a non-existent "controversy"; we would need reliable sources to agree that there is a controversy before we include any such comment. Perhaps a single sentence could note the existence of slightly-varying definitions of OHP and give references to the main current formulations.

Further, this article is overburdened with details throughout, perhaps especially and most clearly in the final paragraph of the present lede. This lists periodicals in which OHP work has been published and then uses the list as a basis for original research. The list, and the OR, should simply be removed. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input RichardKeatinge It is appreciated. You make a very good point.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I second that wholeheartedly, there doesn't appear to be any "controversy". WhatamIdoing is a very experienced editor and incredibly patient (as is evident from this talk page). The lead needs a lot of work: too detailed, too many references (a lead doesn't need any references, they belong in the body of the article...) --Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note. Word 'controversy' I used, is perhaps not best to use, given it has instead been ongoing discussion and debate instead. Agreed. Maybe just 'definitional differences then?' Would that be okay? It is just that it is an important point however and deserves to be at least mentioned in this article. Maybe even a couple of lines with a few good sources? Anyway I included that published reference as an example that there has been ongoing discussion and debate over 15 20 years over the differences in defintion and in many different published sources outside Wikipedia. That's all.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

From that source, it sounds like the definitional differences, although real, are not considered truly significant. If the sources don't think that the differences are truly significant, then we shouldn't spend much time on them.

To give a similar example, there are some "contrasting" definitions of Cancer. I can think of two points in the definition that someone who was carefully researching the ideal definition would discover (whether cancer should be restricted to carcinomas, and whether cancer always involves rapidly dividing cells [the current correct answer is no in both cases]). But if you pick up even a medical school textbook on cancer, these "obviously important" differences probably wouldn't earn even half a page, and in a lay-oriented publication, they won't get mentioned at all. So our article, being a summary, doesn't spend much time on them either. The same style should apply here: if the sources don't spend a huge amount of space haggling over the definition and concluding that they're seriously different, then we shouldn't either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think the CDC definition of OHP works well.Iss246 (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree too. What we have now is fine for our purposes here. It is clear and concise. Psyc12 (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "our purposes here" as you just said Psyc12. This Wikipedia article is not a 'brochure' to present only one point from the range of major views published outside of Wikipedia. We just need to follow Wikipedia protocol.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"For our purposes here" means "for the purpose of writing this encyclopedia article", and that is exactly what Wikipedia is about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

3 major views over OHP definitional difference

The current definition left on this Wikipedia article page is actually only 1 of the 3 major published views on this topic. This is biased and a significant breach of Wikipedia policy. I will take the time to explain why, and as clearly and succinctly as possible.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

There are 3 'majority views' which exist outside of Wikipedia and are based on reliable, published sources below. Even though many other significant minority views exist in published reliable sources such as university webpages, books, articles, newsletters etc. I agree this article should not necessarily list all of these significant minority views.

However we do have an obligation to include the majority views.

These are the 3 major published sourced 'majority views' all discussed within the 2008 article cited above. I will quote directly from that published source.

1/ "In Europe, the generally accepted definition of OHP is that used by the EA-OHP. This is based on the definition advanced by Cox et al. (2000), "Occupational health psychology involves the contribution of the principles and practices of applied psychology to occupational health issues. It is the study of psychological, social and organisational aspects of the dynamic relationship between work and health." (sourced/quoted directly from the 2008 article).

2/ "The NIOSH-proposed definition of OHP concerns the application of psychology to improving the quality of work life, and to protecting and promoting the safety, health and well-being of workers." (sourced/quoted directly from the 2008 article and the CDC website itself).

3/ "...other groups of researchers in North America have suggested that OHP might encompass psychological procedures, practices and methodologies alongside those from other occupational health sciences such as occupational and environmental health, organisational behaviour, human factors, sociology, industrial engineering, ergonomics and economics (Chen, Huang & DeArmond, 2005). This multidisciplinary perspective was established at the outset of the discipline’s existence in North America." (sourced/quoted directly from the 2008 article).

As Wikipedia editors, we do not need to 'solve' this 'challenge' of 'definitional disagreement in OHP' but we do need to report these 3 major views at least, even if we do not include the numerous minority views, and a way of me offering further editorial compromise here.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The wording may be different, but as far as I can see, these "three majority views" are rather convergent and basically say the same thing. BTW, your use of non-standard bolding, layout, and dropping of huge walls of (often repeated) text are not really conducive to a rational discussion. Anyway, unless you manage to explain to us why these three definitions are not just marginally different, I see no reason to include them in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Mrm7171, you have presented one definition and a variety of descriptions / suggestions. These are not quite the same thing. I also note that the descriptions don't actually disagree with the definition given, though they may extend it somewhat. I, and others above, suggest that we don't need to include more than one formulation, nor would it be useful to this or any other conceivable encyclopedic article.

While I'm at it, I have removed the obvious long list of journals and ensuing OR from the lede.

Again, I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi RichardKeatinge and Randykitten. Thanks for your input. These '3 major views' (not all of the minor views published) over definitional difference have many implications for OHP, like curriculum development etc. without getting too detailed here. They have been discussed for over 15 years and given a lot of time and effort and is in numerous published sources. But maybe a direct quote, which gives one implication of having different definitions from the authors of the 2008 article is this: "....the contrast between the European and North American perspectives remains more than a mere matter of wordplay and it remains a possibility that the differing traditions out of which OHP has emerged could present a challenge to the development of international consensus on the important and core topics that might be contained within a curriculum." end quote, from the 2008 article.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion of that paper, however, says "It was shown that the contrasting heritage of North American and European OHP may not present a barrier to the achievement of international consensus among academics", i.e., now that they finished the study, they concluded that the differences were not so significant as to create insurmountable barriers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Bolding

I agree that the bolding makes these sections more readable. The bolded parts are subheadings, and they should stand out. I don't know if wiki has a different format for subheadings, e.g., underline, but there should be something. Psyc12 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's all in WP:MOS. --Randykitty (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Randykitty. I checked the style guide and fixed the subheads. You just use ==== title ==== with the number of equal signs indicating the heading level up to 5 levels. Psyc12 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I thank both of you, Randykitty, for pointing out the WP:MOS guidelines, and Psyc12, for doing the editing, to undo the bolding.Iss246 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There was no need to be using so many journal links.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but I'm still a bit lost on this. The article makes no claim that SOHP and EAOHP are members of ICOH, so I don't see the question as to whether or not they are members as particularly relevant. The other question is, though - whether or not ICOH-WOP can be described as a professional body involved with OHP. Looking at the ICOH-WOPS website doesn't seem to help, as it isn't much of a site, [1], although the secretary is described as Associate Professor in Occupational Health Psychology, so while that doesn't solve the problem, it does make it seem possible. However, Psyc12's quote seems to make the connection between the two clear, and I've now read Barling and Griffiths' "A History of Occupational Health Psychology" as well, so I agree with Psyc12's description (the quote there is a bit clearer, as it says of ICOH-WOPS "Its remit is largely to promote occupational health psychology", p29 [2]). I'd like a better website from ICOH-WOPS so that their remit was coming directly from them, but it seems likely that the description is accurate. - Bilby (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can We Please Move Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OHP Organizations and Origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICOH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 'core' content/article policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emergence as a professional discipline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope and interests of various organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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