Talk:Job safety analysis

A "Toolbox Safety Meeting" in industry is when a meeting is held to train workers on the safety issues of an activity. This is what the reference to "Toolbox" in the article intends.

Massive copyvio
This edit introduced a massive copyvio. What should we do? Not only has it been buried, but it reads like a copyvio. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the last good version. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this copyvio is a bone in my throat. Upon inspection, there isn't a huge difference between last good version and current. I'm going to boldly revert to last good version. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Aw, a little copyright villation from time to time is a good thing. :) Problem is, either Wikipedia has nothing else someone must collect relevant information and piece together a version that references external materials, so lacking someone stepping forward and putting something together, one's left with "borrowed" materials. Damotclese (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Kindly inbox details Abambuz8211 (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Newly-added Controls section
Looks like a cut-and-paste from a copyrighted source was added, and there is no context, it's bullet-points that are not explained or edited in any way. Looks like crap. It should be removed. Damotclese (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Is Crap
A review of the article once again, and I hate to say it but the whole thing is crap, it's not encyclopedia, it is jingoistic, it is crammed packed with untestable, unverifiable beliefs, the references and citations are either non-existant, poor, or point to corporate policies and practices that are geared toward liability reduction rather than toward safety.

On the plus side I see that obvious advertising and promotion references and links have been removed, so it's great seeing that editors are working on maintaining what there is.

There are an endless series of beliefs, notions, "helpful advice" and supposedly academic reviews of what should and should not go in to a JHA before work, JHA in aftermath-review, and the whole spectrum of where JHA is applied, and what I see in the extant article is a jumble, mash, unorganized soup of various individuals' and corporate / governmental entitys' take on JHA.

Do we have an editor who is an expert in JHA who can create a unified, legitimate, serious article maybe using some of this existing text but making the article, well, legitimate? Damotclese (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the criticism above, so I am going to try to sort it out. As I am not an expert, it may not immediately transform into a perfect article. If anyone has constructive suggestions, feel free to make them. Otherwise feel equally free to do some of the work or wait until I am done. I do not know how long it will take. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved over the past 3 years. Damotclese (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done a bit more, and would appreciate your comments. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Pollution and System Safety Mgmt- Student Projects
— Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)