User talk:Mrm7171 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erpert (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 15 January 2014 (→ANI: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:44, 15 January 2014 by Erpert (talk | contribs) (→ANI: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Current

The current state of affairs on 'OHP' discussion. Please refer to the relevant article talk pages, including archives

A few clear, straightforward questions have emerged and remain open and unanswered?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a fine question to ask. But you need to ask it of published, reliable sources, not of Misplaced Pages editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify. OHP is a new subarea within psychology that focuses on workplace health and safety. Like many (most?) areas of psychology (e.g., clinical, developmental, neuro, and social), people who do research in OHP are from a variety of disciplines, which gives it an interdisciplinary aspect. What reflects its existence as a formally recognized subarea is that a bunch of doctoral programs advertise they train students in OHP, funding agencies such as NIOSH support that training, there are increasing numbers of job ads for OHP psychologists, there are OHP conferences and journals, there are courses taught with the title "OHP". I teach one myself.Psyc12 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

May 2013

Hi, Mrm7171. It looks like you and Iss246 are having some difficulties. Do you know how to use talk pages to discuss conflicts? All you need to do on this page is to click one of the buttons towards the top of this page, and type your comment at the end. Then sign your comment by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment. The Mediawiki software will automagically turn those four tildes into your account name and the date when you click the "Save page" button (towards the bottom, just like on article pages). Then wait for a while until Iss246 notices your explanation.

It would be very helpful if you would click the edit button and explain what changes you believe should be made to these pages, and why. People at the English Misplaced Pages are very big on WP:Reliable sources like university-level textbooks, so if you have a good book or a journal article that supports your views, then feel free to tell us what that is. Psychology-related articles tend to have a lot of room for improvement, so it would be good to hear from you about ways to improve them. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing, i appreciate your genuine comments and suggestions. I am still learning, and have taken the advice of more experienced editor's when provided to me in good faith. I am today working through how to accurately cite/add references to articles and comments based on Misplaced Pages best practice. Thanks againMrm7171 (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Psychology sidebar

Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago. OHP has clearly emerged. APA publishes the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. APA collaborates with the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP); although APA publishes JOHP, SOHP members are the journal's editors and reviewers. APA, NIOSH, and SOHP collaborate in organizing a biennial international meeting in North America the focus of which is OHP. On alternate years, the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP) sponors an international meeting in Europe. Journals, meetings, and scholarly societies reflect on the field. Psychologists from many different disciplines (i/o, health, developmental, experimental) and medical professionals participate in OHP. It does not belong to one parent discipline.Iss246 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What you say here is irrelevant to you going ahead againsty ALL other editors with psychology training, and jamming the occ health psych entry into the psychology sidebar. You say above, ..."Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago." taken from Iss246

No, it was not settled iss246. That is completely false. According to the articile in the psychology sidebar and applied psych sidebar, at least 5 editors completely disagreed with you. That is, no consensus to include. As one of these editors,. stated, you just went ahead and did it anyway.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not altered this page (yet) before others can be brought back in here. Covering up the facts that there was no consensus, does not change anything. You needed consensus to included OHP in the psychology sidebar. This is clearly the main issue here. It has never been resolved. You cannot just jam OHP into the psychology because you want to against all others. If there is consensus direct me and other editors/administrators to the sections where other editors agreed with you doing it. I cannot find consensus for your actions anywhere. Genuinely please show me where. If you cannot OHP needs to be deleting UNTIL we can get consensensus. It has not been deleted. And i wont delete it until others can see the facts first. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Mrm7171 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was never reached on including OHP in the applied psychology sidebar. It is an open contention.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just so any other readers/editors/administrators can see this is not just my comments, i have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting from the psychology sidebar, another editors summation of the 4 year consensus against occupational health psychology not being placed in the applied psychology sidebar. I encourage anyone else to read the full set of editor' discussions with iss246 over a 4 year period. The fact is, all other editors, ie. the consensus, strongly disagreed with Iss246 including it. He just went ahead and did it anyway! This was DoctorW's final comments, word for word in 2011.....before it seems he also gave up!Mrm7171 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Occupational Health Psychology

Thank you for inviting editors to talk on your talk page. This is a good way to work.

At 10:58, May 26, 2013, you changed the following sentence: "Occupational health psychology is concerned with psychosocial characteristics of the workplace," to read as "Occupational health psychology is concerned with psychosocial characteristics of the workplace, as is the broader field of I/O psychology."

I don't think the change is necessary. Here are my reasons:

1. The opening sentence of the paragraph already indicates that OHP was born out of the confluence of i/o Ψ, health Ψ, and occupational health. The debt to i/o has already been acknowledged. Here is the opening sentence: The opening sentence of the paragraph reads as follows: "Occupational health psychology' (OHP) emerged out of two distinct applied disciplines within psychology, health psychology and industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology, as well as occupational health

Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology."

2. Your addition makes it seem as if OHP is a narrow subfield of i/o Ψ when it is not. Health Ψ was born out of clinical Ψ, but health Ψ is not a subfield of clinical Ψ. I/o Ψ was born out of social Ψ and psychometrics; however i/o Ψ is not a subfield of social Ψ and psychometrics.

3. I/O Ψ has been dominated by concerns, and rightly so, with such topics as job analyses, personnel recruitment, organizational culture, and so on. I/O-related research on health has been far less common. On reason why i/o psychologists have jumped over to OHP (along with experimental psychologists, health psychologists, and occupational physicians and nurses) is that they are concerned with work and health.

4. I/o Ψ is not broader. It is different. OHP is concerned with blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, the impact of unemployment on health, work-home-stress carryover. It is different. It's not broader or narrower. It's different. That is all. Social Ψ is different from i/o Ψ although i/o has roots in social Ψ.

I know you made a second change while I was writing this, I am going to leave this comment here.

Maybe we can hear from some of the other Misplaced Pages editors who have posted on your page.Iss246 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, at 12:20, May 26, 2013, you wrote: "We do need to talk iss246, about this entry and indeed OHP being a separate field within applied psych. Let me know before either changes anything. thanks "

I have written to you above. I will transpose what I wrote above, to the spot below. Please reply.Iss246 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the change is necessary. Here are my reasons:

Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology."

Thanks Iss246

I/O was first established in the 1880s. It was not born out of social psych. I/O subsumes any study of any topic relating to work and psychology. Thus the name work psychology. It is very broad. I/O psych has always studied work stress. In fact, modern theories of stress have evolved from I/O psych.

I/O is moving toward OHS and work safety, that is true. I don't see the point. Are you trying to say OHP invented work stress? Which areas of OHP do you see as being distinct from the broad 1880s field of work psychology? I/O psychs, have been studying every aspect you have mentioned above for decades. I can prove it to you. The researchers would have defined themselves as work psychologists in one form or another.look forward to your points. I do not accept your logic so far. Nor do i accept that our profession or the field of psychology would benefit from substantial duplication.

Talk pages

Congratulations on starting to figure out how to use talk pages. It's lot like editing an article. To reply to a comment, just click the button and put your reply in a separate paragraph after theirs. Help:Using talk pages has more details.

The Wikimedia Foundation has plans to create a much less confusing talk page system, but it may be several months or even next year before it's ready to be tested. So for now, just do your best, and if the formatting isn't perfect, then someone else will fix it for you. For right now, I suggest that you click here, and that should (I hope!) let you add your message underneath the most recent ones from Iss246. Type your comments underneath (sort of like adding your comments when you reply to someone else's e-mail message), and save the page. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, this is great that we can have this discussion.

I never said OHP invented work stress. Please don't put words in my mouth. Stanislav Kasl wrote an important article (actually a book chapter) on stress and work in 1978, before occupational health psychology was a term.. There is a journal named Work & Stress that was founded before the name occupational health psychology had any currency. It was Kasl in the 1978 paper cited above who pointed out that the term "stress" is problematic because it can mean at least three different things, the environment, the individual's reaction to the environment, or the circuit of environment and the individual's reaction to it. We use the term stress more because it is evocative rather than a precise term.

You date i/o psychology to the 1880s. That is a little too early. Some thinkers believe i/o psychology began in 1901 with Walter Dill Scott's work on improving the effectiveness of advertising. Others suggest that Hugo Munsterberg fathered the field with his 1913 book on psychological efficiency in the work place. Munsterberg is part of the Taylorist tradition, which flies in the face of OHP. Ironically, you can say, i/o psychology always studied work stress because Munsterberg's efforts, like Taylor's, caused so much stress in workers--I am using the term stress evocatively here.

Social psychology comes into the picture because i/o psychology is very much concerned with social influence in the workplace. For example, research on leadership owes a debt to social psychology. Leadership is one of the bread-and-butter areas of research in i/o psychology. You can also see the influence of social psychology as the human relations movement took hold in some corners of i/o psychology. The journal Human Relations was founded by social psychologists and psychoanalytically oriented psychologists at the Tavistock Institute in the late 1940s. Of course, i/o psychology owes a great deal--an enormous amount--to psychometric psychology: selection tests, performance appraisal, etc.

Bear in mind that i/o psychology is an applied discipline. Like engineering. The basic science comes from somewhere else. Physics and chemistry provide a foundation for engineering. Social psychology and psychometric psychology provide a foundation for i/o psychology. This is not an insult to i/o psychology. That is what an applied discipline is. It applies principles from basic science. OHP is also an applied discipline. Its foundation is built on i/o psychology, health psychology, occupational health, and, I dare say, with its burgeoning interest in the influence of psychosocial working conditions on cardiovascular disease (CVD), internal medicine. I add at the recent Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles there were several papers that concerned the relation of psychosocial working conditions to CVD.

I wondered if you are a college student, which I think is great. I'm a college professor who writes and lectures on OHP, a topic I love. I did not come out of i/o psychology although I have OHP colleagues who have a background in i/o. I come out of developmental psychology and epidemiology. I think it is great that you have so much passion for i/o psychology. I had a hypothesis that you became very interested in i/o psychology, and plan to have a career in it, for which I wish great success.

Please don't get upset if I tweak the opening of the OHP Misplaced Pages entry. Iss246 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks iss246...firstly please don't change or undo any edits as the OHP entry currently stands, until we can resolve this situation, and come to a mutual agreement. You are much more experienced with wikipedia. I don't want to be involved in an 'edit war,' now I understand a little more about wikipedia. Please don't be upset about this request to simply discuss things with me, before you go ahead and start undoing my edits again please. thankyou. will respond more fully when I can.

Also, I am not a student. Have many years experience with what I'm talking about and the profession. Importantly please iss246, you have not responded to my point about not creating "duplication within psychology." This is particularly important as it relates to the entry of OHP as a distinct field of applied psychology and currently listed in the sidebar. If you don't engage in a discussiuon relating to the psychology sidebar i am going to edit it accordingly based on Misplaced Pages best practice and trustr you won't just again delete or 'undo' my entry, given you have not wanted to engage in discussion here. My underrstanding is that would be disruiptive and I want nothing of an edit war please ISS246, I'm sorry.

Please don't get upset over this but I am slowly learning the rules that a very long term user like yopurself already knew and perhaps takes advantage of? Discuss with me here instead, like you professed please ISS246, rather than deleting my entry i am going to make with the applied psychology sidebasr which corrently includes OHP. This is very contentious, and does nothing good for the science or application of psychology as it is not. I can prove this as far as an overall acceptance and standard within the psychology profession. That is, not 're-inventing the wheel' so to speak.

Work Psychology, is in fact, 'anything' involving work and human behaviour (psychology) as I'm sure you would agree ISS246 being a psychology professor. As such I/O or Work psychology is the overarching, major discipline within psychology, which deals with anything involving work and psychology. This is an accepted fact. Please don't pigeon hole this broad field of applied and psychology by inserting only recruitment, job deign etc..its simply not a valid argument and appears to come from a limited knowledge of the profession and professional and research based work psychology. Please ISS246 instead offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically. As I am concerned your obvious passion for OHP is somewhat blurring the objective facts here... with all due respect and as sometimes happens.

Can

Can you tell me please what the Wiki policy is regarding the placement of other's comments on editor's own talk page when done so in possible bad faith or a means of personal attack?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Personal attacks are prohibited everywhere. NB that "personal attack" is narrowly defined. "You're a stupid racist person" is a personal attack. "You said exactly this" is normally not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also Dvdm, my opinion is that all articles require accuracy, currency, knowledge, and be factual and free from bias and be edited for the benefit of the greater Misplaced Pages community and readers. This is particularly true, in my opinion, with articles, relating to international professions, like psychology, medicine, etc etc..where accuracy, standards and broad-based acceptance of standards and protocols, within each profession apply. I note you have possibly been working in unison with another editor, to delete 'any' much needed revisions of a couple of articles I have ever attempted. In my still limited experience of Misplaced Pages, it is the communities resource, and articles needs accuracy and currency and not in any way, be misleading to the community. Also deleting other people's important changes sometimes, and without discussing with them your intention, does no good for the[REDACTED] community and can lead to unneccessary conflict, when prior discussion about edits could avoid any such unneeded conflict. Based on a quick look at comments from many other editors on your talk page here, you seem to delete a lot of other editors work, in a lot of different areas So, please, for the last time, I ask you to discuss with me, before you for some reason, 'blindly' delete my edits, in future. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

'Sudden,' shifting of significant information, away from this talk page by whatamidoing and dvdm??Recent, heavy editing by Dvdm and WhatamIdoing to shift a lot of information very quickly, suddenly away from this page and readersa view. to the archive section? (please view the VIEWHISTORY to see.

This occurred only a day or two after I said this article needs to be dealt with through dispute resolution?

Suddenly a day later Dvdm and Whatamidoing came in and cleaned everything up/shifted everything away to somewhere?

Where do you shift the work please whatamidoing and dvdm? Where is the discussion?

What is going on here? This is Misplaced Pages, and this sudden shifting of information away from the talk page now seems very strange?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. I hadn't noticed that the page was lacking the automatic link to the archive. I added one today. WP:Archiving is normal when a page gets to be that size. As the archiving is done by date, it should not have affected any of your comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss not War

Hi iss246. including a link in the i/o article is irrelevant and crowding to the article. Cannot have every link in an article's contents page on wiki. Way too long for readers to work through the contents page including anything even vaguely relevant. eg OB OHS, goes on and on all ion the contents page, could list 100 different "relationship to...links, as you've done? Can you imagine it? Isn't 'OHP', the coined brand, (but maybe not Occupational Health Psychology as a 'topic/area' of study), multi disciplinary as you keep on saying?

It would be much more worthwhile including a similar section in the occupational health psychology article, I think. That is, relationship to I/O psych link in the contents page of the occupational health article? which I am going to do unless there is very good logic not to. Your response on my talk page is fine. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, ISS246, I say Please do not blanket any good faith additions I make to articles, without discussing with me. Don't try to drag an editor into an edit war! I don't want one. I am not deleting your input. Discuss with me instead. On my talk page is fine with me. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Learning your way around Misplaced Pages

If you haven't looked around Misplaced Pages very much for help and advice on editing, you probably missed this manual and this overview. I wish someone had pointed them out to me when I first started editing. --Ronz (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Appreciate the information. The other editor iss246 has just gonme straight ahead and deleted your trimmed version which is where consensus was before I had a chance to add a great source? So, not sure what to do. Mrm7171 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Find sources. There's no rush. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. I was in the process of reading your information sent to me and had found a great source. I would have added any source much earlier, but the conversation with you, as a fellow editor, indicated getting the best source? Then, while i was doing that, wham, bam in came iss246, and blanketed mine, and yours, and other editors hard work. Without any discussion. Again. I calmy re-typed, yours/my combined edit, ie. your accepted through consensus, trimmed edit. Bang, iss246 deleted again. Then wham, I was blocked.

The minor addition, with the source I found, is much needed by the way, contextually, and of real value to Misplaced Pages readers interested in this professional psychology article with a long, long history between iss246 since 2008, with numerous other editors who obviously gave up, through exhaustion, and now me in 2013. It is obviously a very important professional debate. If interested read the 'walls and walls' of debate between iss246 and many other editors since 2007/2008 in the archives.

Anyway, I would be interested in your feedback? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Any source is a good start. It gives everyone something to work from. --Ronz (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My perspective has been to present the facts, not my way, just the facts as I understand them at least, regarding the current international status quo on these issues in psychology. Unfortunately in my attempts I think I have come across pretty poorly, to other Wikipedians who may, or may not be familiar with the topics we were discussing and much of what I was saying was unsourced due to my lack of editing and technical skills at the time. Apologies for that. Anyway for what it's worth, there it all is.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to I/O psychology section

I have had no clear advice on how to re-introduce this brief section? So based on everything I now know about Misplaced Pages protocol I have 'tentatively' added it, subject to other editor's input, and now with numerous sources added, based on current literature available in the field.

However I need to make my perspective clear as far as this minor edit goes and moving forward. That is, if after making this addition, if another editor wishes to delete it, I may not agree, (given the significant reasoning and basis for it I have now presented), but I will NOT undo or revert that editor's delete. I say this so as to maintain civility and working toward a consensus on this whole article, rather than going back over past discussions. I also will not enter into edit warring over this. That defeats the purpose of Misplaced Pages and works against group consensus and "ideally on a version that everyone involved can agree on, and as a second best a version which everyone involved is willing to accede to." as JamesBWatson recently stated very succinctly.

Alternatively it may be that my brief addition (and the basis for it outlined below), is okay with other editors? In that case, it could remain? as it is very well sourced. However that is my opinion, based on the current published literature in the field of psychology.

I also believe and have attempted a compromise on this matter. Although this Misplaced Pages article it is a very confusing one, in my opinion and based on the long history iss246 has had, with many editors over the years (since 2009?) so my addition tries to provide both perspectives.

That is, it gives I/O psychology the credit for its major contributions to the psychology of occupational health, safety and wellbeing. Particularly in the area of occupational stress. And it also separates what seems to me now, that 'OHP' governed by a couple of societies, is an entirely distinct area from psychology profession that being the 'OHP' profession. This is based on iss246's insistence that 'OHP' is a multidisciplinary field, not part of the formal psychology profession. 'OHP' and the 2 groups, SOHP & EA-0HP involves as iss246 have stated, nurses, sociologists, doctors, economists, engineers etc.

Whereas psychology is psychology. And I/O psychology is I/O psychology.

It is just that 'OHP' and I/O psychology both study and apply the same areas, primarily work stress and the psychology of occupational health and wellbeing.

So based on all of this, my reasons for today's re-inclusion of this brief section follows and can also be found on the article's talk page.

Given the significant past and growing contributions of I/O psychology to occupational health, wellbeing and safety, I have re-included a brief entry in the article index that had been deleted as it was not sourced at the time. This current entry was the one edited/cleaned by three other independent editors. However it is now heavily sourced, with 4 citations included. Although I/O psychology is as iss246 states, in the first paragraph, this entry is still much needed, given I/O psychology's significant importance to the areas of work stress, particularly.

Also the bulk/majority of postgraduate programs, that do carry units/subjects in occupational health psychology, are part of, a Doctoral program in I/O psychology at various universities as specialised units. Whereas no Doctoral program in OHP currently exists in the world. Students receive their qualification in I/O psychology after completing these courses. Leaving this out from the article for all of these reasons now it is sourced, and very brief, does not make sense. It provides context to the study of occupational health psychology and adds genuine value to Misplaced Pages.

I look forward to any other editors genuine comments and input toward a group consensus, and or resolution and then moving forward! I have also been working on improving the I/O psychology article. Most recently collaborating and working with other editors, on the occupational stress section of the article, which I believe is now very well sourced and reads well. I intend to continue these efforts.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. What you added looks fine to me. The issue of dispute in the past was whether or not OHP is just a topic within I/O or was a separate subfield. You are correct that most (but not all) OHP graduate training takes place within an I/O program. I don't object to adding something like that in this section. I wonder though if it would fit better in a section on training in OHP that would talk about how/where one gets trained in OHP. Psyc12 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Occupational health psychology, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Ibadibam, will only use minor edits as appropriate in future.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Civility

I recommend you get leave the article alone, stop focusing on other editors, and choose a new dispute resolution method to follow from WP:DR. I think I saw someone mention mediation. I'm not sure there's been enough attempts at noticeboards or the like, but it's worth a try if you feel it's best. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Ronz. Tried the approach you suggested, by taking the time to clearly outline the few issues of difference in the article. I thought you made a pretty good suggestion to get things resolvede in a civil manner.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages community has never placed civility as high as the relevant policies/guidelines/etc suggest. The community is mixed on what civility is, how important it is, and how it should be enforced. My suggestion, which I try to follow, is to be civil yourself, don't expect nearly as much civility from others as you'd like, focus on content rather than individuals and their behavior, and take time to deescalate behavioral problems when they get disruptive (even if it means putting aside content disputes in the meantime). --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a shame. Consensus should be reached in a civil manner. But thanks for your input Ronz. Its appreciated.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, Mrm7171, I am very glad to see you removing un-necessary praise in Misplaced Pages's voice for quoted studies. If sources are of poor-quality, we shouldn't use them in the first place. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And, as a general comment, this article seems to be overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it. For example, I'd be happy to mention that OHP has used both qualitative and quantitative research methods, with a hatnote, but the two present sections on the subjects seem overblown. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Mrm7171 made some apt edits. I tip my hat to him. I'm not absolutely sure with regard to my thinking about the research methods section but on balance my thinking is that the section is helpful to readers because the section, which includes internal links, gives a reasonable idea of the tools OHP researchers employ when investigating the relation of psychosocial workplace factors to disease. Iss246 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. However, to my eye, the section is not really what I'd find most useful in an encyclopedia, and were I to take to wikilawyering (perish the thought), I might think that it relies rather too much on primary sources. Will you indulge me, if I try a bold edit, by leaving it for a few days to get other opinions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The occupational health psychology article is still very bloated and overloaded in my opinion as well.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi psyc12, have just left a reply on itszippy's page. Sorry you could not be more compromising over this article. I was willing as my post to you clearly showed. There is a lot of evidence of me being personally attacked and I will take the time to show exactly what has occurred, based on diffs, and quite frankly I have had enough. Dispute resolution is now the only way to get some neutrality and much needed changes and additions to this Misplaced Pages article and streamline as Richardkeatinge suggested, research sections of this overloaded article written entirely by one editor. The article requires some significant changes. We are talking about psychology and psychologists here and many of the views presented are not supported in published reliable sources, nor are views held by the international psychology community. These are important matters and this article is terribly biased and I wish only to make it a better article for Misplaced Pages.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Thanks itszippy. Psyc12, for the last time please focus on content and assume good faith rather than fabricate and deflect. I am happy to have these issues resolved by an independent editor as itszippy has suggested and will initiate this process myself if necessary, as I feel nothing will change in the article if I don't. Dispute resolution probably should have been used a long time ago. The changes to the article are needed. If you say you have not opposed Richardkeatinge's comments that the article is "overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it" and research sections are "overblown and rely too heavily on primary sources," just let me make those edits he has quite rightly suggested please. Apologies itszippy for conversing on your talk page. Thanks for your help.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Tom Cox, Organizational Psychologist

Iss246. Can you please discuss on the work and stress and EA-OHP talk pages as required please. You just undid edits that were 2 weeks old. Often in Wiki articles it will mention a person's profession, not qualifications. For example, Tom Jones, a medical doctor, or Jim White an Engineer. Tom Cox, Organizational Psychologist, founded the Journal Work & Stress and he founded the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Tom Cox in his opening line on his own website http://proftcox.com/, proudly refers to himself as an Organizational Psychologist. In fact, he states .."I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." Please discuss on articles talk pages. I do not wish to have an edit war iss246. I am very open to discussion on the article's talk page however as we are required to do. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've met Tom Cox a couple of times. He's a really nice guy. It is not relevant to the entry that he calls himself an organizational psychologist just as it is not relevant that he earned a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma. Or that Stan Kasl earned a Ph.D. in social psychology. His work is relevant to OHP. The way I view Mrm's prefixing the "organizational psychologist" label to Tom Cox's name is a tactic in an effort in making OHP appear to be a subdiscipline of i/o. Iss246 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

'Qualifications' are irrelevant. Reliable sources are all we have. Very often in Misplaced Pages articles, a person's profession is included directly after their name. An example would be "Jim Smith, MD, was the first person to ......" I just found many examples of this in a variety of different Misplaced Pages articles. Why are you so biased toward Tom Cox proudly referring to himself as his Profession anyway. He is an Organizational Psychologist. He doesn't mention all of his different qualifications in that reliable source. Only ""I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specializing in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." Tom Cox is the founder of Work & Stress and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The reliable source used in this article and was included after editor discussion two weeks ago, was relevant. Tom Cox only refers to his profession iss246, which is an Organizational Psychologist in this reliable source. http://proftcox.com/Mrm7171 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Tom Cox is also the founder of Work & Stress and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You reverted this three times today iss246. The edit had been there for 2 weeks since and was a 'recent edit and consensus.' Your editing today was disruptive and designed only to cause an edit war. It is irrelevant if you have met someone or not. That could also be fabricated. We need to have this dispute resolved formally. I am going to initiate this because I do not wish to be drawn into an edit war. You have clearly refused to discuss it on the proper article talk page. Tom Cox in this reliable source http://proftcox.com/, refers to himself as an Organizational Psychologist. This reliable source states on the opening line on his own home page of own website, "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." Your editing today is disruptive, and designed only to enter into edit warring.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is one of many instances showing how it is a very common way of writing and to provide objective support to my points made. See article Ian K. Smith. In this Misplaced Pages article like so many others, it states in the first line.... "Ian K. Smith, M.D. (born July 15, 1969) is an American physician and author best known for his appearances on...." It does not state Ian Smith's various qualifications. They would be irrelevant. Given Tom Cox invented the journal Work & Stress and founded the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology it is also relevant to include his profession, if it says so in a reliable source.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm is mixing two things up. In the Ian Smith entry, the encyclopedia article provides bio info on Smith. That's ok. The EAOHP entry is devoted to EAOHP. Write about Tom Cox's training in an entry devoted to Tom. That's all. Not in the EAOHP entry. Iss246 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Not mixing anything up iss246! I was the one who included the 'bio' on Ian Smith, as an example that when referring to someone that qualifications are not used as you keep bringing up qualifications. They are irrelevant to a Misplaced Pages article and to 'bios' as a matter of fact. Also Tom Cox is the founder of Work & Stress and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. They are his babies, so to speak. So, a mention of his profession, ie. an Organizational Psychologist, is very relevant. The article is semi-biographical in that way. The Reliable Source, Tom Cox's own website is the published RS used here. "I am Tom Cox: I am an organizational psychologist of some experience specialising in issues relating to work, health and the sustainability of working life." http://proftcox.com/Mrm7171 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not dispute what is written on Tom's blog page. I dispute the need to include "organizational psychologist" prefixing Tom's name in the EAOHP page. If you want to start a Tom Cox entry, just as an Ian K. Smith entry was started by someone, go ahead. You can include his training in behavioral pharma and how he became an organizational psychologist. I did not prefix Marie Jahoda's name with "social psychologist" or anybody else's. I didn't prefix Robert Feldman's name, Raymond Wood's name, or George Everly's name. Iss246 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed my two entries on your talk page, iss246. Here they are again. Non - Bios too.

Here is another direct example of how many Misplaced Pages articles are written. This directly relates to this issue of Tom Cox. Please see this Misplaced Pages article Induction motor It states in the first line of the History section: "In 1824, the French physicist François Arago formulated the existence of rotating magnetic fields, termed Arago's rotations, which, by manually turning switch........" It also, by the way does not mention his qualifications!Mrm7171 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And here is another one. Perhaps even more relevant given its psychology connection. Please refer to the intelligence quotient article. It clearly states this: "French psychologist Alfred Binet, together with psychologists Victor Henri and Théodore Simon, after about 15 years of development, published ....." Not only have you engaged in unprovoked edit warring and disruptive editing but you are also completely wrong in your assertions and reasoning. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(Copy from article talk page)

Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page

Why won't you discuss these issues you have iss246 on this talk page calmly and in a civil manner. We can work toward a civil conclusion based purely on reliable sources for this encyclopedic article? Why won't you do what Misplaced Pages instructs us to do? Please discuss rather than blindly delete and cause disruption to good faith editors. I know you originally wrote this article, but you do not own it. That's all I am saying. No one owns an article iss246. Please again refer to this Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles "This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" an article or any page at Misplaced Pages. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page."Mrm7171 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I make no ownership claims. I try to do a good job. I use sources. I don't use blogs. Iss246 (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages says this about using blogs. Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material Tom Cox, on his own personal website is talking about himself. It cannot get any more reliable than that. If you would just discuss on the talk page rather than delete edits on no basis apart from you not liking it, we could get a civil outcome based purely on reliable published sources. Why won't you discuss. Why do you want an edit war? I do not want an edit war iss246. I do not know why you are so possessive over the article. I know you wrote it, but this is Misplaced Pages and other editors have a right to edit, without their solid edits being deleted without any calm, civil discussion and no basis for doing so.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Iss246 you just deleted the truth and left your fabrications. The fact is not even once have I spoken about my qualifications on Misplaced Pages. Therefore your comments on my profession, qualifications and experience are fabricated by you entirely. Everything I have said about you I am afraid is verifiable through edit history. Would you care to elaborate on your desperately slanderous and fabricated comments further before someone else examines them?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Final 9 facts about occupational health psychology

We haven't, or at least I haven't, had a chance to discuss these 9 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 9 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)

9/ Work & stress journal is multidisciplinary NOT just dedicated to OHP. This is what the publisher of the journal says.

A number of professional organizations concern themselves with occupational health psychology: These include the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP), the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP), the Institute of Work Psychology (IWP) which has "consistently yielded a considerable influence on the field of occupational health psychology."and the International Commission on Occupational Health's scientific committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors (ICOH-WOPS).There are a number of international multidisciplinary journals which publish OHP Research. These include Work & Stress, Journal of Vocational, Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology as well as the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology which is dedicated to OHP.

Occupational Health Psychology

Unfortunately this topic of occupational health psychology has been the issue of a very very long debate between iss246, and other editors since 2008 and on several different articles including the debate iss246 had with 5 or 6 other editors over the applied psychology sidebar issue. I only entered the scene in 2013. Readers can read the archive dating back to 2008 with iss246 battling it out with other good faith editors editors here:

Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

I have not wanted to expend Misplaced Pages resources, but feel that the only way forward now is to stand back and have someone completely 'independent' sort this dispute out. As Misplaced Pages says: "Multiple-editor ownership. The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process.

There are a small number of points I have ready for dispute resolution and then everyone can move on. Primarily that other major, published sources are able to be cited in the article or at the least an opportunity to present them in a fair objective neutral environment. I am positive now that we have exhausted all attempts to resolve it in a civil manner. When members are all representing the same viewpoint, for example from the same 'community' like the OHP community, their edits cannot count as independent.

Much has been achieved through persistence in the article to date. But more needs to be done. And I feel the only way forward now is to step back and initiate formal dispute resolution. Mrm7171 (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free. But in general, the only way you will get any useful result from dispute resolution is to have a specific issue to resolve. You need to be able to clearly state "this is the source I want to use, to add this claim". If you can't do that, you won't have much luck with most of the process. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is complex when ownership behavior is at play. The other difficulty here is that iss246 enlisted support outside of Misplaced Pages at a crucial point in June this year. One of the many editors who suddenly all 'joined up' and then ganged up on me, was psyc12. All of the others have dropped off. Psyc12 has remained.

Iss246 & psyc12 are not independent editors. They are close friends, outside of Misplaced Pages and part of the small OHP society. Iss246 has also used Misplaced Pages:Canvassing to help support his viewpoint. Given that occurred and iss246 went to those lengths already, who knows if another long term Misplaced Pages editor, who is also affiliated in some way with the 'OHP' societies, outside of Misplaced Pages, has also been canvassed Bilby?

So, I think standing back and getting formal dispute resolution is the only way forward.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

All other editors iss246 has battled with since 2008 have fallen by the wayside. I don't say any of this lightly.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving on again, with content only, please

Occupational or Work stress, which is the 'core' of OHP, is taught in almost every graduate Organizational, Occupational and I/O psych degree in the world. Fact. Increasingly occupational health and safety is too. There are several thousand accredited graduate degrees in organizational psychology, occupational psychology & I/O psychology. Students will always choose to study those courses. Even Cary Cooper, Arnold Bakker, Tom Cox and a lot more I can think of, all proudly (and wisely I may add) choose to keep their professional titles as Organizational Psychologists, but specialize in work stress. Students always will, and should, choose 'accredited' (by psychology boards & governments) organizational or occupational psychology grad programs, similar to medicine RK. They then choose to specialize in 'OHP type subjects' like work stress, already offered in literally hundreds of 'accredited' grad degrees all around the world and completely and utterly separate to the 2 'OHP' societies. End of story.

For me, quite frankly, as I have said countless times. I, just, don't care! I really, truly don't. It is not my opinion. So can we leave it right there. Please. This relentless accusation that I am attacking OHP is a joke. I am editing in good faith. I also am sick to death of focusing on editors behavior instead of content! This is Misplaced Pages. That is why I have initiated dispute resolution. So we can focus ONLY on content. Nothing else.

So what I have had sitting on the talk page, are the 2 questions below. That is what my dispute resolution is over and being able to edit without accusations of bad faith and personal attack.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology Formal Dispute Resolution Notes

Iss246, I resisted posting a request for dispute resolution much earlier, when I probably should have and was advised to do so, to avoid 'walls of text' on the discussion page. In hindsight that was a mistake, being quite new to Misplaced Pages. I did not want to expend editor resources on something I had hoped editors could achieve through civil consensus. But instead you have again pleased your self here, not Misplaced Pages, (who owns the article and indeed the site) by posting a subjective and possibly contrived? mini CV, it seems, for an independent volunteer to now have to wade through for no reason. This as I have been told is not the place for such discussion. It should be on your talk page. I posted this article dispute to get a resolution and to focus on content only. I could post a detailed description of my own 30 years plus experience, and grad qualifications specifically relating to the topics under discussion, but that would be grossly inappropriate for this place for content dispute resolution matters only. I just want these content issues, and our disputes resolved now, in an objective manner now to this controversial occupational health psychology article based on how Misplaced Pages wants their articles to be.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Journals

The sentence "Other journals, such as Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, and the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, also publish articles on OHP research" appears at the end of the 3rd paragraph. We had earlier arrived at a consensus to delete mention of journals except two journals dedicated to OHP research. I think the sentence should be deleted in view of the prior deletion of journal mentions. Iss246 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I've done it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree too, and I recall the consensus. Psyc12 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am increasingly concerned that this encyclopedic article which is 'only' about the topic of occupational health psychology, (not the 2 OHP societies), is again being biased toward focus only on the 2 OHP societies and published sources by members of the 2 OHP societies. And the journals associated with them? It is not including reference to the significant contributions of Organizational psychology and organizational psychologists? Focusing on content only, this bias should not be occurring. It has nothing to do with whether OHP is a specialization either. It is making this Misplaced Pages article, very biased, and not adhering to core Misplaced Pages principles. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

I know I may be personally attacked for saying so, and accused of everything under the sun, for pointing out what Misplaced Pages wants from its own articles, but it needs to be said. Again. That has been my point all along. Organizational psychology has had a major impact on OHP, particularly work stress, and if it is relevant to include it should not be immediately deleted. That is not how Misplaced Pages wants important professional articles in psychology or medicine to be for readers?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if that influence has come from the many researchers in OHP with their 'core' credentials in I/O psychology. Their training and know how, now being applied to OHP, had to come from somewhere.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that many of these issues under discussion, are foreign to many readers without a background in work psychology. I appreciate that. Similar to articles on complex mathematical algorithms, I'm sure, and most readers not having a clue, including myself. Personally, I would not edit articles I know nothing about. However these are important matters in psychology, primarily work psychology and I feel competent enough to edit. I also respect Misplaced Pages enough to care. Misplaced Pages is the most important encyclopedia today. Maintaining the integrity of its content is critical. Protocols Misplaced Pages have developed over many years must guide all editors, in my opinion. I apologize to any other editors or readers for my persistence in getting this controversial psychology article 'right,' and how Misplaced Pages wants its articles to be.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12, I made this slight change to the sentence (to reflect that other journals, not just the 2 'OHP-Society' associated journals, please see my comments directly above relating to lack of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view in this article): There are two journals, among others, that focus closely on research related to occupational health psychology topics Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress. I asked you to please discuss my addition. I asked you to discuss on this talk page please. I asked you to wait to see what other editors like Richardkeatinge thought. You didn't. I know this is a controversial article and views are polarized, but you also were aware that there is a current 'content dispute resolution' process, in waiting. I refuse to participate in an edit war with you or your close friend outside of Misplaced Pages, iss246, and your fellow 'OHP Society' member, who 'enlisted' you and a whole bunch of other 'OHP society' members to join up at Misplaced Pages, at the beginning of June this year. My slight change today was made in good faith. Rather than reverting my edits repeatedly, why could you have not discussed the change on this page? I politely asked you to do so? I would have been open to discussion if it was concerning content only.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You reverted my attempt to add something close to NPOV to that sentence and this article, on 4 separate occasions today psyc12.

23:40, 7 October 2013 (diff | hist) psyc12 01:26, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) psyc12 02:56, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) psyc12 02:48, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) psyc12

I am not sure if an administrator considers this to be a breach of the The three-revert rule. I have refrained from reporting it. Perhaps if a more experienced editor who is truly 'independent' and objective on this article, could advise on how this would be viewed by an independent administrator?

I also left a brief courtesy note on your talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I already explained my edits on the talk page and in the history comments. Your interpretation (actually misinterpretation as I explained above) of the Work & Stress website is using a primary source, which is discouraged by Misplaced Pages. Above I provided 5 secondary sources, including the Work & Stress editor and founder, Tom Cox, that clearly state that Work & Stress is an OHP journal. Yet you persist in trying to present Work & Stress as something else without any support by other editors, and you keep changing Richard Keatinge's words, which I have restored. You asked for dispute resolution, so accept what Richard Keatinge has done. Psyc12 (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12 you knowingly reverted my good faith changes based on the publisher as a reliable source. Previously we had not discussed the actual publisher as a reliable source. Also the sentence had already been rewritten yesterday by you and I. Changes were then made to it. You did not discuss on this page. I was waiting to see if Richardkeatinge would comment on your breach of the The three-revert rule as he also would be aware of the line being crossed as you were well aware when you crossed it without a second thought for Misplaced Pages protocol that all editors need to comply with.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll just quote from policy: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know. I stopped. I didn't engage in edit warring. Misplaced Pages has rules. We all must follow them RK, it is patently clear that you are not independent here. I think I have ample evidence that I am operating against a 'tag team' and classic ownership behavior. I follow Misplaced Pages rules. I understand why they have these rules. Psyc12 fully understood the rules too. He ignored them. And you are showing contempt for all that Misplaced Pages stands for also by supporting that contempt for Misplaced Pages. This is not our own personal website here!

There is clearly no independence in editing here either. The physical risk factors discussion above, with no RS stating OHP is concerned with physical risk factors yet 50 saying OHP is concerned with psychosocial hazards is a clear example of this. I am willing to have my own conduct examined also by an administrator. And over an extended period. I guess everyone's conduct will be examined. And I hope Misplaced Pages rules are used to judge everyone's conduct, including my own.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

12 hours later, RK, no reverse has been made by psyc12. I made this pretty explicit. I did not go 'running off' to an administrator to report psyc12 for it. Still haven't. This sequence of events is clear. It shows psyc12's complete contempt for core rules like 3RR violation. We all need to follow them. I'm not an administrator. It's up to Misplaced Pages to decide if psyc12 is blocked, not me. They may or may not decide to. But hey, at least the sequence of events is clear for them to make that decision. It is not the first time psyc12 or his close friend outside of Misplaced Pages, iss246, has done it either.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view??

I have attempted to bring some NPOV to this section in the third paragraph, we have been discussing. Journals such as Organizational Behavior, founded by Cary Cooper, as well as major international journals like the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology which similar to the work & stress journal covers many occupational health related topics including work stress, coping, occupational health, bullying etc and should be represented in this article.

The 2 smaller journals that are 'associated' with the 2 'OHP societies' should not be the only journals mentioned in this article on occupational health psychology just because they are 'associated' with the 2 'OHP societies'. That is not NPOV in my opinion. I realize I run the risk of editors like psyc12 & iss246, both members of this "OHP society" and close friends outside of Misplaced Pages, attacking me again, and 'muddying the waters' on this issue, simply because I am trying to bring in some NPOV, but that is why I have opened a formal dispute resolution process.

Occupational health psychology the topic of this article, does NOT equate to the '2 OHP societies.' Occupational health psychology is a valid area of study within psychology. It does not belong to the 2 'OHP societies' and only a restricted set of published sources used. The publisher of work & stress even states their journal is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all those concerned with the interplay of work, health, and organizations.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be beginning to grasp the nature of your concerns. I am not a professional psychologist and I am looking to this article to provide an encyclopedic overview of current OHP, a newly-defined subdiscipline. Since the societies have done so much to define OHP in the first place I would not be surprised to see references to them or to work published by them. I don't see a need to define every overlap with other subdisciplines either in journals used, in training, or in subject matter; I would simply expect that such overlaps exist and might be alluded to if relevant. I wouldn't ever have expected OHP work to be published in just two journals though it strikes me as reasonable to mention two journals that do focus on OHP. I wouldn't want to see a list of other journals in the article, I don't think it's even important enough for a specific external link, though in a reference, as we now have it, it may be useful. In short, to the extent that I understand your concerns, I don't find them particularly useful to an encyclopedic article.

In Misplaced Pages terms these issues are not mainly a matter of NPOV, but of good writing skills, appropriate weight, and editorial judgement expressed through consensus. I hope for your contributions in these forms. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ RK, although I understand your points made. My aim in this article is to present the major published reliable sources and in this case major contributors to the field of occupational health psychology topics. Take the clinical psychology article for example. The main published reliable sources, journals and books are mentioned throughout. If only 2 journals associated with 2 Clin psych societies were mentioned to the exclusion of all others it would be a very biased psychology article. I'm positive medicine is the same. In this psychology article the sentence says: "There are two journals that focus closely on OHP research Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress" Full stop. That is just not true, there are several other major reliable sources which also focus closely on occupational health psychology topics. My view is that a few of them should also be mentioned in that section. I thought the way I re-wrote it was pretty diplomatic. I hope that makes more sense RK? I would be interested in your comments?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No reply from any editors to my good faith comments above relating to the editing of this biased occupational health psychology article?

Copyright concerns

Hi Mrm7171. Unfortunately, some of your recent changes to Work & Stress involved adding copyrighted text, so I have had to revert them. Misplaced Pages works under a stricter series of rules in regard to copyright that what would otherwise be permitted by fair use, so while your additions may not necessarily have been a problem outside of Misplaced Pages, we generally need to rewrite text or present it as direct quotations. If you have a chance, I found Misplaced Pages's copyright questions to be useful. - Bilby (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, was oversight, added quotation marks. Source was already identified in the article also. Mrm7171 (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss content not behavior

Hi RK. I have had the 2 'content' questions on the base of the talk page for a day or 2 now. If interested in adding your comments, please do. I am only interested in discussing content, moving forward and making this article what Misplaced Pages wants it to be. I'm sure you would want a Medical article to be just as encyclopedic. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC) RK, when you have time, could you please assist with archiving some of the talk page as has been done previously for edits older than 30 days. I have tried but failed in my own attempts and lack of technical competence with code. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi RK. You just deleted without discussion, 2 reliable sources. In other parts of the article there are 4 sources for a statement. The two sources were not needed to be removed. Do we really need to go to an administrator just to get this ridiculous situation sorted? There were originally 10, now you remove all of them? and say no reliable sources are needed? Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources RK. Please feel free to reply on my talk page or the article talk page, as required.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary could you please discuss before 'blindly reverting' without any discussion, only days after dispute resolution and with obvious editor conflicts on the OHP article. I would appreciate it if you undid your revert please RK. So we may have a civil discussion first. I will not engage in edit warring and therefore have not reverted it again. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was necessary. - Bilby (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How was pointing out with a reliable source, that the Society for Occupational Health Psychology is a paid or commercial 'sponsor' of a conference. Misplaced Pages is about facts and reliable sources. Any organization, if they pay money to sponsor someone or something can put their name to it. Why do you not want Misplaced Pages readers to know the truth that this Society for Occupational Health Psychology pays' for all of its publicity?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This is better handled on the talk page. At pointed out there, though, you have not provided a source stating that they are a paid sponsor. You have presented a source stating that they are a co-convenor of the conference, and a sponsor along with the two other co-convenors. This does not necessarily entail that the sponsorship is financial. - 00:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association has confirmed that the sponsorship was 'paid' for financially. That is the Society for Occupational Health Psychology pays money for all their publicity. The reliable source was actually clearly posted on the talk page too? In fact, I just used the single word sponsor in the article, not even sponsor (commercial) as you insisted. I was wondering why it was deleted without any discussion or reasons provided, that's all? Here it is again http://www.apa.org/wsh/ and sponsors are clearly on the right hand side. It is just one word? Why do you and other members and affiliates of the OHP society, desperately not want readers to know the truth that Society for Occupational Health Psychology pays money for their publicity? That's okay, you are probably also connected to the Society for Occupational Health Psychology similar to all of the other editors? That's your business Bilby. That's fine, will continue this discussion on the talk page then. Probably better that you also don't post on my talk page then, like you have been doing in the past. That would be appreciated too. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

I will not engage in edit warring with you iss246. The minor 'good faith' changes I made were based on Misplaced Pages policies. I stand by that. The edit history can clearly see that. I have not engaged with you, by getting into an edit war. I will not. I asked you to please discuss why you were 'blindly reverting' my changes again today, and this time all within 30 minutes, and on no less than 5 separate occasions. I will not comment on you personally. I am commenting on your violation of Misplaced Pages policy. I will leave the interpretation of your conduct today to the administrator's of Misplaced Pages. I regret that you continue to engage in edit warring and attempting to drag me into an edit war with you. I will not. I wish to keep editing on this article civil and based only on content and Misplaced Pages policies.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply to iss246's defamation

On iss246's talk page he has this fielth still posted. Nice guy!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Here is what we know about you Mrm7171. You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. You like i/o psychology perhaps because you took a course in it. You think you are smart but you lack understanding. I write that you lack understanding because you selectively ignore what I write. For example, I write that Tom earned a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma yet you ignore that fact although the fact is in Tom's page on LinkedIn. Or you assert I don't like Tom because I objected to your using a reference found in a blog. That does not translate to dislike. But you did the translating (better to call it mistranslating; intentional mistranslating). Good thing you don't work as a translate or at the U.N., then you would really ball things up. You are not that smart." courtesy of iss246

Wow, thank you so much iss246, for your kind words. For the record. No, I am not a troll. I also do hold a Doctorate in Psychology and almost 30 years experience. But really, who cares! Seriously I don't care. Nor is that relevant. In fact, unlike many others I have known I don't even use my Dr title anytime. The only reason I mention this now, on my own talk page, is that iss246 refuses to delete his defamatory, baseless, childish comments about me above still posted on your talk page. So, self defence I guess.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Name calling. Thank you. Erpert 18:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Kasl, S. V. (1978). Epidemiological contributions to the study of work stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. L. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work (pp. 3-38). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Christie, A. & Barling, J. (2011). A Short History of Occupational Health Psychology: A Biographical Approach. In C. Cooper & A. Antoniou (Eds.), New directions in Organizational Psychology and behavioural medicine, (pp. 7-24). Washington, DC: Gower Publishing.
Barling, J., & Griffiths, A. (2011). A history of occupational health psychology. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.) Handbook of occupational health psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 21-34). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Christie, A. & Barling, J. (2011). A Short History of Occupational Health Psychology: A Biographical Approach. In C. Cooper & A. Antoniou (Eds.), New directions in Organizational Psychology and behavioural medicine, (pp. 7-24). Washington, DC: Gower Publishing.
International Commission on Occupational Health: The Scientific Committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors
International Commission on Occupational Health: The Scientific Committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors; Board Members.
http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/ohp/journals.htm

Current

May 2013

Psychology sidebar

Occupational Health Psychology

Talk pages

Categories

Can

Discuss not War

Learning your way around Misplaced Pages

Relationship to I/O psychology section

August 2013

Comments on Civility

Moving forward

Tom Cox, Organizational Psychologist

Asking iss246 to calmly discuss these issues on this talk page

Final 9 facts about occupational health psychology

Occupational Health Psychology

Moving on again, with content only, please

Occupational Health Psychology Formal Dispute Resolution Notes

Journals

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view??

Copyright concerns

Invitation to discuss content not behavior

Recent changes

Reply to iss246's defamation

ANI