Talk:Occupational health psychology/Archive 4

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 Wikipedia article, very biased, and not adhering to core Wikipedia principles. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia enough to care. Wikipedia is the most important encyclopedia today. Maintaining the integrity of its content is critical. Protocols Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia, iss246, and your fellow 'OHP Society' member, who 'enlisted' you and a whole bunch of other 'OHP society' members to join up at Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia stands for also by supporting that contempt for Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, iss246, has done it either.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

Is OHP limited to psychosocial factors?
I don't recall any definitions of OHP that limit it to psychosocial factors. Here's two examples of definitions from reliable sources.


 * Spector's I/O textbook chapter on OHP. I capitalized physical to more easily see.


 * "OHP…is concerned with psychological factors that contribute to occupational health and well-being. It deals with psychological reactions to PHYSICAL and nonphysical work conditions, as well as behavior that has implications for health. Included in this chapter will be discussion of PHYSICAL conditions that affect health, occupational stress, occupational accidents, and the interplay between work and family, and burnout."

Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are mixing up physical injury with physical hazards and with physical factors, but anyway, I reckon we have a pretty solid sentence now. As you say, other factors, so they are now included. There is no direct reference to physical risk factors though? What page were you looking at psyc12? Mrm7171 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Included occ stress in there too. With no less that 4 VERY solid references from Tetrick, Barling etc all quoting occupational stress. as involved with OHp. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Second chapter objective, Student should be able to "List the major PHYSICAL work conditions that affect employee health."


 * Handbook of OHP, Tetrick and Quick opening chapter. Note they do not limit it to the psychosocial environment, and by mentioning safety and injury, they imply the physical environment.


 * “The primary focus of OHP is the prevention of illness or injury by creating safe and healthy working environments”

Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I totally agree with that psyc12. Consensus on that one too.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just added 'illnesses' too in addition to occ stress, as you correctly quoted above psyc12.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Spector, P. E. (2012). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice 6e, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
 * Tetrick, L. E., & Quick, J. C. (2011). Overview of occupational health psychology: Public health in occupational settings. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.) Occupational Health Psychology 2e. (pp. 3-20). Washington, DC: APA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What do we do abouit the other references in the text? If Spector says that in his text what do we use?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The terms "stress" & "occupational stress"
Mrm7171, I am discussing the term here. It is okay to use the word "stress" in ordinary conversation or informal writing. I use it myself informally. In the research literature the term is problematic. Its problematic nature was identified a while ago by people such as Kasl, Dohrenwend, Frese, Zapf. Some researchers have used term to represent stressful conditions (e.g., a work environment in which supervisors are needlessly critical of employees). Other researchers have used it as a reaction to stressful conditions (e.g., psychological distress felt after being criticized by an angry customer). Still other researchers have used it to represent the environmental-stressor-to-psychological-distress transaction. There are probably more ways the term has been used but it is getting late here in New York. I think it is better to omit the word from the OHP entry because of the ambiguity of the word in research. We want to keep ambiguity to a minimum in the OHP entry, and be true to OHP research. That is why I would like to omit it. Let me hear from you Mrm. Iss246 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, sorry iss246, totally disagreee, with all due respect. Your comments are too philosophicalk for this encyclopedic article. We just need to rely on RSs obviously. I have added 4 very solid reliable sources. They all clearly state work/occupational stress. I actually stopped with 4 only. I found a few more, but it would have become ridiculous to have 10! Anyway lets just leave occupational stress in there. I may add work/occupational stress if you like. So no, don't go deleting occupational stress with 4 major reliable sources. Obviously. Thinking about it it would not hurt to add a few more> Mrm7171 (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Added a few more. I think you are mixing up 'stress' with work/job/occupational stress. I think there are now 8 or so very solid, reliable sources. I understand your philosophocal discussion above, but when >8 very solid reliable sources why argue? I sure don't want an edit war or any conflict over such an incredibly solid edit? Why are you against It?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you arguing over a bag of beans iss246? I get the feeling any edit, I personally make is no good with you. Is it? Shows how hard I have had to work just to add anything to this article. You oppose everything just because you started the article. That does not mean you own it. For no good reason you want to delete my edit because I wrote? Your close friend outside of Wikipedia psyc12,k may also oppose it because I inluded it? Time will tell.= Here is an edit with 8 solid, reliable sources attached and backing it up. I think Wikipedia would want it included. There would be no reason to delete as you say? I don't see your logic.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. For the purpose of clarification Mrm, what does the term "stress" mean as far as scientific research is concerned? This is not a trick question. It has been used in at least 3 ways, and maybe more ways. Definitions are important in science. I would like the sentence to be clear to the reader. Iss246 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mrm7171, I think your are mixing up the term "stress" with the term "stressor," which is understandable. The term "stressor" is okay with me, but not the term "stress" because of the definitional ambiguities I mentioned above. Mind you, I am not splitting hairs. I am trying be consistent with how the terms are used by researchers.


 * I am familiar with most of the citations right after the term "occupational stress." I think you may have over-interpreted the papers you cited, which is common enough, hence the stressor-stress mix. I will ask Paul Landsbergis, whose publication is one of the most recent ones in the array of publications you cited, what he thinks of this discussion of the term "stress." Iss246 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, you are holding a "bag of beans" iss246. No, I know what a stressor is too, but thanks for patronizing me further and conveying an impression you are 'all knowing' above everyone else. I know what I am talking about here on these issues and for the record. I may not be as experienced as you are iss246, using Wikipedia to write articles about your 2 'OHP societies', but my 30 plus years of experience and graduate degrees in this related area (despite your disgusting slanderous, falsified, baseless rant about my qualifications you have posted on your talk page) which I am going to report to Wikipedia, when up until recently I as you know had NEVER mentioned my qualifications on Wikipedia. My experience and qualifications have allowed me the 'understanding' to know the difference between these related psychological concepts including what a stressor, occupational/work/job stress, psychosocial risk factors, psychosocial hazards ...etc all mean.


 * No, we are talking about occupational/work/job stress pure and simple. I will now add another 5 major, published, reliable sources as references all again supporting the relationship between OHP & work stress. We don't need to refer to your friend, outside of Wikipedia, you sure have already introduced a whole bag of your friends from your OHP society to support your views back in June this year. That included psyc12, your close friend and fellow OHP society member PSYC12.


 * This issue over occupational stress, clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt shows the most obscene and classic example of ownership behavior defined here by Wikipedia. Ownership of articles You and your friend psyc12 and others have prevented me from adding anything to this article without creating this type of nonsense and walls and walls of unneeded text on this discussion page. I have edited in good faith. You have done this since 2008 over occupational health psychology and related topics. I only entered the scene in 2013. Interested readers, could refer to the walls of text created between you and a lot of other editors between 2008 & 2011, and make their own minds up. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1Mrm7171 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue I am raising is far from a bag of beans or a bowl of soup or a bottle of beer. As early as 1978, Kasl, in a classic book chapter, wrestled with the issue of how to conceptualize what is going on in the workplace. He showed how early stress researchers confounded the IV and DV because of conceptual misspecification. Frese also wrestled with this issue. I looked at the Landsbergis et al. chapter that you cited. The Landsbergis team linked work stressors (e.g., the combination of high psychological workload combined with low control, effort-reward imbalance, long work hours) to CVD. They were very clear in specifying the IVs and the DVs, and as far as I can tell at 11:30 PM they did not use the term "stress." They used the term "stressor" and specified the stressors. You can call me names if you want. I am pretty much right on this matter. Iss246 (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mrm, you cited Paul and Moser. I read the Paul and Moser article not long ago. It is about the impact of unemployment on psychological disorders/distress. They use the term "stress" but they clearly indicate that they are referring to the independent variable (e.g., the accumulation of stress factors as part of the grinding impact of unemployment). Mostly they use the term distress, which refers to the dependent variable. My objection to using the term "stress" in the OHP entry is that it is not perfectly clear what the term refers to, IV, DV, or IV-DV relation. That had been a problem that Kasl addressed in 1978 and in later papers. Iss246 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * iss246 I even took out the reference to Paul Landsbergis, yet another person you 'apparently' know outside of Wikipedia. Should I take out Moser as well? They are one of hundreds of good references, (and could argue that point with you, but this is NOT the place for that and would create even more walls of text), so instead I just took it out, and included a couple more in its place. I also did this so not to bias the article. I would hate to have you contact Paul Landsbergis outside of Wikipedia like you did back in June and try and enlist him also, like you enlisted psyc12 and the bunch of other 'OHP society' members and friends of yours outside of Wikipedia, who all 'joined up' at Wiki at the same time, to throw weight behind your cause. So yeah, I decided to take out the Paul Landsbergis reference, just in case tomorrow Paul Landsbergis or even Moser, now you know him too, waere also here on this talk page, supporting your cause too!(part joke to 'lighten things up here,' but hey I wouldn't put it past you iss246) Mrm7171 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * When I was a researcher in molecular biology twenty-some odd years ago, I knew dozens of people in my specialized field on a first-name basis, had met hundreds of other molecular biologists at meetings, and corresponded with many more. Using the reference of somebody that one happens to know does not constitute conflict of interest, and your striking out the reference to Landsbergis was unwarranted. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again stigmatella, thanks for 'dropping back in' all of a sudden? Thought you would have had your 'hands full' with the Talk:Needle exchange programme battle you have been involved in. Wow, reading through the 'walls of angry (to say the least)text' on that page makes our discussions here, look a walk in the park. Anyway, thank you for that comment. I added a better reference, two more in fact to the occupational stress entry. Nothing to do with conflict of interest. Good luck with your arbitration case, looks like the only way forward for you guys.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I don't claim to be familiar with the field, I mostly lurk. However, certain patterns of behavior do not require knowledge of the field to comment on. You feel that you are unfairly being confronted by a tag team of colluding editors, and that justifies certain forms of response that an outsider like myself wouldn't appreciate. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again Stigmatella can you not comment on behavior on this page please. And on content only. And mind your personal abuse, like you dish out to other editors I have noticed today. I realize you like really like arguing, based on what I have read on Talk:Needle exchange programme but this is just a discussion on content please. Please see my comments on that page also. I did not make much comment before but seriously I know your 'type' on Wikipedia. You just want hostility and as you say lurk and drop back in. You were here before, and have no real interest in this topic. Other editors have asked you for arbitration and you have refused. However this is off topic now, my apologies. I will take my comments over to that page. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As I have explained to you, I accepted arbitration re Needle Exchange Programme. You MISREAD my comment on its talk page, and didn't follow through to the mediation page which clearly indicates that I accepted arbitration. My written acceptance on the arbitration page trumps any misinterpretation on your part. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is NOT the correct talk page for discussion of Needle Exchange Programme. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I said THIS directly above. "However this is off topic now, my apologies. I will take my comments over to that page." Comments are now on THAT page Stigmatella. I am quite interested in that article actually and the arbitration case. But please lets take it to that article. It is NOT appropriate here, as I already said. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On a more serious note, and keeping things simple, which with psychological concepts is best to do, wherever possible, and as far as occupational stress goes, (not the term stress by the way), which is even more elusive, definitions abound. There is so much confusion within the psychology and other literature relating to the definition of Stress that it is impossible to pin down. I have indulged your comments over definition here iss246 long enough, but please just drop this now. Its inclusion is so ...... solid now that it might as well be a rock. Wikipedia and this discussion page is NOT the place for us to be solving the eternal dilemma in the field, and for decades now, over the definition of stress! Or do you actually believe that YOUR definition iss246, is the only one now? Please drop it. I do wonder though, in all seriousness, given you wrote this article originally, why the heck you have not included any reference in this article to work stress and OHP. That is a rhetorical question. Please can we move on.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The debate over the word occupational stress & OHP continues despite 9 reliable sources

 * For the purpose of writing this article, we may need to differentiate the vernacular "stress" into the potential causes / external stressors / input variables etc. on the one hand, and the psychological response / output variables on the other. Such a differentiation (expressed in varying terms) is widely-used and may well make this article better. If you think so, please suggest one or more specific edits. What form of words is being proposed for use where? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RK, What type of stress are you talking about? Physical stress or psychological stress? This is an occupational article. We need to remember that. If we were to define occupational stress, ie stress as an outcome in this instance as the 8 or 9 reliable sources provided already talk about, we would need to write a literature review. There is simply no consensus in the world currently on what occupational stress actually is? Further, reliable sources in the area of OHP do not talk about stress. They talk about occupational stress, occurring in the workplace, not the death of a loved one or moving house.Mrm7171 (talk)


 * Okay, so lets create more 'walls of text' instead of moving on here. Lets take on the concept of stress that is not related to this article. Occupational or work stress is what OHP is all about. Discussions on defining 'occupational stress' should be reserved for the article on occupational stress and a discussion on biological stress should be reserved for the article on Stress (biology) or stress management for the stress management article.

Perhaps I could simply repeat my question: for the purpose of writing this article, we may need to differentiate the vernacular "stress" into the potential causes / external stressors / input variables etc. on the one hand, and the psychological response / output variables on the other. Such a differentiation (expressed in varying terms) is widely-used and may well make this article better. If you think so, please suggest one or more specific edits. What form of words is being proposed for use where? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RK. The problem here is not the mention of stress, but rather how it is used in this sentence. The way it is used, it sounds as if stress is an outcome, but in the research literature this is not how the word stress is typically used, so it is imprecise and potentially confusing. Perhaps a way to fix this is to replace "occupational stress" with "stress response". This retains the idea of stress, which is quite relevant, but makes it clear that it refers to an outcome. As an aside, the article on occupational stress needs some work as the definition is rather vague. Psyc12 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Psyc12 has a solution to the problem of readers getting confused because the vernacular language they use every day contrasts with the terms researchers use. The term "stress response" works for me. Iss246 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nonsense (psyc12/iss246). Refer exactly to those 8 or 9 current published reliable sources on the article page. Occupational stress in this case is referring to an 'outcome', as you know, that is I am stressed out at work. This group or team is stressed out at work, etc Talk simply please psyc12 and refer only to what those 8 or 9 major published reliable sources say. It does not matter what words we want to use as editors or "what works for you" iss246 as you just said. It ONLY matters what is in reliable sources, as you very well know psyc12. Also I have not 'as yet' reported your conduct regarding the 4 reverts you made on the same day? Have you read my entry on my talk page? I understand that an administrator may or may not block you, but you clearly breached that line. Please stick to Wikipedia rules here, particularly things like basing our editing on reliable sources and NOT crossing the 4 reverts in a day line. Those 8 or 9 reliable sources could easily be 20 within an hour if I wanted. If you introduced different wording it would need to trump those pretty major reliable sources and it would need to use the words "stress response" psyc12. And reliable sources do not use that wording. Produce the reliable sources saying so.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The matter is not nonsense. The matter concerns the problem that researchers have used the term stress in a least three different ways (as the IV, DV, and the IV-DV relation) up until investigators like Kasl and Frese started to improve on the conceptualization. Researchers are more apt to describe stressors and distress; those are clearer terms. Paul and Moser, whom Mrm cited, ensure that on the very few occasions in their meta-analysis paper on unemployment and psychological disorder when they used the term "stress", they clearly indicated what they meant (they clearly indicated that they were referring to the independent variable). At the same time, the vernacular that readers use has not changed much. I want to be clear that I am not against using the word "stress." I simply want the OHP entry to be clear for the reading public. I think Psyc12 had a good term "stress response." I would be equally happy to use the term "stress reaction." "Stress response" or "stress reaction" indicates that we are referring to the DV. The term "stressor" indicates that we are referring to the IV. Iss246 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked how two of the sources that MRM7171 provided treat the term stress, and they DO NOT treat it as an outcome.


 * Beehr & Glazer, talk about stressors and strains, which is consistent with most contemporary usage.:
 * "Beehr and McGrath [cite] wrote that stressors are stress-producing environmental circumstances or stress-producing events and conditions (SPECs). In other words, events and conditions in the environment, whether the environment entails physical or psychosocial stimuli, create a motivation to react. If stressors or SPECs are not readily coped with, negative reactions ensue, and these reactions are referred to as strains." (p. 8).


 * de Lange, Taris, et al. use the term stress reactions:
 * "Karasek's (1979) demand-control (DC) model has been a leading work stress model in occupational health psychology since the 1980s. According to the model, a psychological work environment can be characterized by a combination of job demands and job control. Especially the combination of high job demands and low job control (high-strain jobs) is assumed to result in psychological stress reactions, such as high blood pressure and low job satisfaction.", p. 282. Psyc12 (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked the chapter by Landsbergis et al. Mrm cited. They don't use the term "stress" either. We should strive for greater clarity. Iss246 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose that in some areas of this article, the word "stress" would suffice, while in others we would need to use clearer language. "Stressor" and either "strain" or "stress reaction" seem to be widely used by specialists and readily comprehensible to encyclopedic readers. Would they be suitable, where the article requires such differentiation? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes RK, I believe the terms you mentioned would be more understandable to the readers. Iss246 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree RK. Those terms would be suitable. Psyc12 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Where might their use make the article better? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * iss246, you just mentioned above, ""Karasek's (1979) demand-control (DC) model has been a leading work stress model in occupational health psychology since the 1980s." Nonsense. OHP was only invented in 1990. see this reliable source, the apa http://www.apa.org/research/action/control.aspx Findings "Industrial psychologists discovered that how much latitude employees have at work - their control over job-related decisions - affects their health, their morale and their ability to handle their workload....


 * Can we continue this at the base of the page please RK so another editor or administrator can get to it if needed. Your discussion here is hidden away, that's all. Thank youMrm7171 (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We may be on the edge of a breakthrough here, actually sticking to a useful point and thus using the talk page for its intended purpose of improving the article. I'll just repeat the question: where in the article might it be useful to clarify the term "stress" by changing to "stressor" (a cause) or to either "strain" or "stress reaction" (the result)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RK. In the second paragraph, occupational stress should be changed to stress reaction for better clarity. Either that, or the sentence should be completely rewritten to list the areas of research, something like, "OHP is concerned with occupational stress, accidents and injuries, the interface or work and family, [etc. etc.]" This might be better as the sentence is getting muddled with too many variable names and citations. Psyc12 (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Better clarity might be a very good idea. Can you suggest a replacement sentence here, so that we can try to achieve consensus? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RK and Psyc12. I am off to teach a class. RK's comment was on top of the list of comments I read. I saw Psyc12's comment sandwiched amidst the many comments made by Mrm. RK's and Psyc12's comments make sense to me. Can one of you make the change in nomenclature in the OHP article? I am with you. Thanks. I have to run. Iss246 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you already clarified your opinion iss246 in 2008-2011. You said OHP was equivalent to work stress?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's keep this simple.


 * "Occupational health psychology is concerned with a number of topics, such as accidents and safety, burnout, musculoskeletal disorders, occupational stress, work schedules such as shiftwork, workplace violence, and work-family issues" Source is Spector I/O textbook. This isn't everything, but it hits major topics. More could be added from another source, but the rest of the paragraph gives more specific examples so maybe it isn't necessary. Psyc12 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't really make sense scientifically. But also Iss246 was saying OHP is the equivalent of work stress? Do you agree psyc12? What is the point of mentioning anything else? Seriously? If OHP is work stress as your friend, scholar and OHP society fellow member sai this, we should listen to him on this topic? Mrm7171 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Iss246 said that "occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress. That is the primary subject matter. And iss246 also said this psyc12. "I could report on the equivalence of work and stress and OHP" .Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 I 'kind of' agree with iss246. What do you think psyc12? Is OHP equivalent to work stress like iss246 states? There sure is no consensus based on my opinions about that sentence and iss246 statements about the equivalence of work stress and OHP? Mrm7171 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an attempt at a "gotcha" that does not work.
 * For the record, I did not write that "OHP is the equivalent of work stress." OHP is concerned with work stress, it is not equivalent to work stress. Moreover, that concern with work stress does not mean it is unconcerned with, say, accident risk, the relation of effort-reward imbalance to psychological distress, work-home carryover, etc. Iss246 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all iss246. Please STOP the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. You have used that trick with other editors to win your battles it seems since 2008!! Lay off the false accusations with me. For the last time. And focus on content only!Mrm7171 (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you were discussing exactly the same topic with other editors and these are just direct quotes, word for word by you. I quote another section: "In response to DoctorW, occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress." .Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC) See it for yourself iss246. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1Mrm7171 (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you tried to convince all of these other editors for all those years OHP was the same as work stress, why now are you getting all technical? We are discussing the same thing you discussed with all of those other editors between 2008 and 2011.Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1Mrm7171 (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One more note on this attempt at a "gotcha." If my memory serves me, I think I was writing that the journal Work & Stress is an OHP journal. That is also a topic that was discussed on this page recently. Now that Mrm has talked about me. I am not going to talk about him. I've got an early flight to Texas tomorrow. See y'all soon. Iss246 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about you iss246. We are discussing your opinions. And we are discussing the definition of the word stress as you insisted. I wanted to move on rather than create these walls of text. But you (see above) wanted to get all technical about the word stress. So we all are discussing it. And your comments are clear. "occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress." Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't print here what DoctorW said about you in 2011 after all those years? Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 Because I won't comment on your behavior, only content. Nor will I slander you like you have with me on your talk page, despite my 30 years plus experience with these topics and graduate degress in the area. And a genuine interest in these topics Have you removed that slanderous, false, filth you had posted on your talk page yet iss246?  Mrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Early references

 * Hi Bilby, fair enough removing a couple of references pre-dating occ health psych. Similar to my point mentioned directly ababove. I'm fine with your edit, it makes sense.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bilby, should all the references prior to 1990? be removed? I think you had a good point. If they pre-date 1990? then obviously ththey were not part of OHP either? Thoughts please?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will start deleting those too Bilby. You made a great point. If sources used here pre-date 1990, they were obviously part of other areas of psychology, medicine etc. They cannot therefore validly belong to an article strictly discussing OHP as this one does. I'll get to work.c (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the sections titled origins of OHP pre-1990, also needs to be deleted. Prior to 1990, research conducted into work stress and similar topics was obviously not OHP. I will get to work on that too. Thanks Bilby. It will really clear this article up, I would love to move on to some other Wikipedia projects I have started on. It made no sense to me why articles prior to 1990 were being used or the research 'claimed' by OHP! That defies logic. If OHP began in 1990, all research prior, was from other areas of psychology and related disciplines. Simple. Can't argue with your logic there Bilby.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

References specifically for the current definition of OHP should definitely originate from its formal definition or later, so Bilby's removals were indeed useful. On the other hand, if they are supporting the relevant point that academic publication in the modern field of OHP occurred before some start date, they should probably stay. (The field was defined at some point, but work in the area was done before then.) Such references would be particularly though not exclusively relevant to the history and origins of OHP. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense. 1990 was the start date of OHP. You can't be using references in an OHP article that were conducted by organizational psychologists and then claiming for the field of OHP. Research and science doesn't work that way. What would use in those articles? I'm going to start removing them. Again, this is common sense another principle of Wikipedia. Are you that biased RK/ Really? I actually thought you wanted to benefit Wikipedia. I'm going to start these edits in good faith. Any other reasoning please add before I do. But your last comments do not make sense.

Timeline of work stress & OHP related topics prior to 1990 the start date of OHP
Here is the logic and common sense and fairness again for the record, so it is clear for 'independent' editors concerned about the quality of wikipedia articles rather than editor's self interests.
 * 1) Before 1990 no OHP existed.
 * 2) Research into OHP related topics like work stress first conducted in the 1960s by Organizational psychs, and others
 * 3) They were published in journals like organizational behavior & Journal of Occupational psychology
 * 4) Many, not all, of those research studies were conducted by Organizational Psychs, like Cary Cooper, Tom Cox, and many others
 * 5) These Organizational psychs were trained in Organizational psychology. They conducted the research prior to 1990. It belongs in the industrial & Organizational psychology and other articles, NOT the OHP article. OHP did not exist!

Then OHP comes along in 1990, and tries to 'claim' these studies conducted by Organizational psychologists and others conducted prior to 1990 as part of OHP today?? COME ON!! Pleeaassse! Give me and Wikipedia, who's site we are all on here, a break. Sorry but this takes the cake. This has to go to arbitration. I do not believe Wikipedia want their articles to be biased like this. It is not a private website.

I'm going to delete those references obviously.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can other editors please address these clear, logical points made directly above if you object. This is Wikipedia. Sorry to keep repeating that.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, please don't add references to support your claim that OHP is concerned with occupational stress if they don't mention OHP or don't mention stress. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but it was inappropriate. - Bilby (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair points Bilby. I won't.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, please obtain consensus before removing historical references, or the history section. The name OHP may have been coined at some point but work in that area was done before, indeed that's why the modern definition of OHP was introduced, mentioned in the 1980s at least and from 1990 as a separate discipline. It was an existing area of work that had developed to the point where it needed a name. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, RK its name was organizational psychology. And the work was done by Organizational psychologists. Please address the timeline above. You keep avoiding that. Would you appreciate articles like Bowhunting or List of Roman emperors to be biased. How is the history section in this article anything to do with OHP RK? Direct question? '''I am going to make some bold edits. No one has addressed these questions or disputed withe evidence or reasoning, the timeline above. Mrm7171 (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We have a definition of OHP, and we also have studies from decades before that fall within that definition of OHP. They were in fact the foundation of the discipline and are obviously relevant to its history and origins. The ancient Romans didn't use the term "civil engineering" or indeed any other English phrase, but I find over 300,000 Google hits for "Roman civil engineering". As I mentioned above, please obtain consensus here before making changes. You might possibly find it useful to put them in your personal sandbox and mention them here, with a diff so that we can easily find them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, RK. Thanks for discussing this. I will consider all of these points. This is a pretty confusing article. After Bilby made the pre-1990 point which seems pretty logical to me more thought on this is required. However the points I just posted, regarding reliable sources and occupational stress. They are not confusing. Please read my section there as carefully as I have just done with yours here. It is based on 'core' Wikipedia principles. I stopped at the number of references provided, only because it was getting ridiculous. But if need be, I can provide a heck of a lot more.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RK makes an important point. The analogy to "Roman civil engineering" is apt. It is important to mention the individuals whose work helped to lead up to the emergence of OHP. History is important. Iss246 (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving on please, version 5
Moving on please. I would like to introduce a training section into this psychology article. I realise this has already been discussed. However hoping now some issues have been clarified, mainly the obsolete and irrelevant issue of whether occupational health psychology is a specialization of organizational psychology or not, we could do so? I think it would be worthwhile, and personally have no point to prove by doing so. Clinical psychology, health psychology, industrial & organizational psychology, educational psychology among other similar articles have got this section. Even the 2 OHP societies have education for practitioners as a major agenda. So...?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

TRAINING SECTION PROPOSAL FOR THE ARTICLE?
No-one has bothered to comment on a constructive addition to this article.

OHP GRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAMMES Europe North America
 * University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
 * University of Leiden (English), Netherlands
 * West University of Timisoara (English), Romania
 * Bowling Green State University
 * Clemson University
 * Colorado State University
 * Kansas State University
 * Portland State University
 * Tulane University
 * University of California at Los Angeles
 * University of Connecticut
 * University of Houston
 * University of Minnesota
 * University of South Florida
 * University of Texas at Austin

'''Although none of these are Doctoral programs in OHP. I checked each of them,''' surely we could do better than just listing these courses?  The EA-OHP says that "The growth of occupational health psychology depends, in large part, on the availability of relevant, high quality education and training. http://www.eaohp.org/education-and-training.html That is why I think it is important to have a section on training in OHP?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In relation to my neutral statement that no Doctoral programs in OHP, existed still after 20 years, I was challenged on that point, for some reason by Bilby and iss246/psyc12 and was confused as to why?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I also wondered why iss246 said this in Sepember 2008 to a whole bunch of other editors, and way before my time in 2013, to support his claim that OHP should be in the psychology template sidebar? That was the only reason I even looked up the courses Bilby. But anyway, this is what iss246 said as a major support for his claim to include OHP in the applied psych sidebar. Iss246 you said this:


 * “I counted OHP doctoral programs at these institutions (although the list may not be exhaustive): Bowling Green State University, Clemson University, Colorado State University, Kansas State University, Portland State University, Tulane University, UCLA, the University of Connecticut, the University of Houston, the University of Minnesota, the University of South Florida, the University of Texas, and University of Nottingham in the UK." Iss246 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1


 * Did you not know that none of these courses were actually a doctorate in OHP iss246 when you used the amount of 'non existent' Doctoral Programs in OHP, as a cornerstone to support your argument to include OHP in the applied psychology sidebar and against the consensus at the time with a bunch of other good faith editors who took your word for it? Honest question.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this why no editors have commented on this valid proposal to include a proper section in the article on training. If the SOHP & EA-OHP both consider training as a critical part of advancing OHP why are we not including a training section? Mrm7171 (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What references can be used to support the single 'occupational stress' entry?
There are at least 5 of those references still there that use occupational, job or work stress. That is solid. That is what Wikipedia want. Reliable sources. I will add a few more when I get a chance. Occupational, job or work stress is what has been used for decades by a 'who's, who" in the research world concerning occupational stress. I know it is an older reference now, around the time OHP was 'invented' but a really good chapter by Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). (pp. 571-650). It explains the work of Organizational psychologists and earlier work in occupational stress. Would that be okay to use as a reference? If psyc12/iss246 bans it that is okay. I included it mainly for RK and others to see that I/O or Org psychs actually were the pioneers of this field of occupational/work stress. And not my opinion.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Kahn was a social psychologist, so this cite is not a good one to show that I/O psychologists did early OHP work. Anyone interested in the history of occupational stress might check out Cary Cooper and Phil Dewe's Stress A Brief History. They trace occupational stress to the 1950s at the Institute for Social Research at University of Michigan, and note the early work by Katz and Kahn on role stressors that dominated the field for a long time. All of this was social psychology not I/O.


 * I will stipulate that I/Os have made a large impact on OHP. That is not in dispute. What I don't understand is how this is relevant to this article, which is on OHP not I/O. The I/O article would be the place to discuss the role of I/O in the study of stress.Psyc12 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, so Bilby has said nothing before 1990? Why was that again please Bilby? You deleted any reference prior to 1990? I have just included Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). (pp. 571-650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Is that reference okay? I will put in a bunch of very reliable sources talking about job/work/occupational stress from the journal work & stress, even, and from the journal of occupational health psychology. But we are going to have a lot!


 * The reality is that occupational stress is the term that all of the major international researchers way back to the 1960's have used. It is the mainstay. Why iss246 doesn't know that I'm not sure. Maybe psyc12 would be more aware of that? Anyway occupational stress is the term used to describe occupational stress, in the vast majority of reliable sources. I will cite maybe another 5 or 10. Any further thoughts before I do?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The point I am making is more than terminological. The point is about conceptualization. What is "occupational stress"? Think about it. Is it the independent variable, for example, an imbalance between the high effort a worker puts into his or her job and the small rewards received for the job? Is it the dependent variable, for example, how distressed the worker feels after receiving paltry recognition and low pay for a job well done? Is it the entire circuit from the work in a job in which the effort far outweighs the rewards and the psychological distress the worker feels as a result of that working condition? In the past, the terms "stress" and "occupational stress" could mean any of those three things and perhaps more. I recognize that the terms "stress" and "occupational stress" have been used for a long time; I'm not unaware of that. But the terms have so much surplus meaning that they can mean many things. I am addressing the conceptualization of the terms. This is not something I invented in order to argue on Wikipedia. The problematic conceptualization was illuminated by researchers such as Stanislav Kasl and Michael Frese. I prefer a clearer conceptualization. That's all. For example, that we use the term stressor to represent the IV. And that we use one of a number of potential terms, "strain," "stress response," "stress reaction," distress, and &c. to represent the DV in the worker who was exposed to the stressor. Many researchers in the OHP community use the term "strain." Iss246 (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you check the references of that chapter psyc12, you will find a lot of researchers prior to 1992, way back. Many, not all I/O psychs. What I mean by I/O psychologists is that their Doctorate was in I/O psychology. Tetrick who wrote the OHP handbook I think by memory has a Doctorate in I/O psychology? Don't quote me. As far the 1960s i am using published journal research. I think it was the organizational journal personnel psychology? I will check, in the early 1960s that published some seminal work? Maybe you remember it?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, just checked Dr. Tetrick, received her doctorate in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1983. Director of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Program in 2003. Dr. Tetrick is the Editor of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. She co-edited the Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Iss246, I understand your points over definition. Believe me. I understand what an independent and dependent variable is too. I took out the study you mentioned. I replaced it with 2 more for greater clarity. This is Wikipedia. This is a minor point. It is the inclusion of occupational stress based on what major reliable sources use and have used for decades that matters here. As you would be aware occupational stress is also referred to as an outcome. Society understands occupational stress as an outcome too. In the reliable sources, they talk of occupational stress as an outcome. Which of the current sources on the article page right now do not? I will include more specifically indicating occupational stress referring to outcome. For that sentence that is all that is needed. And 10 major, rock solid, reliable, published sources (after today), all stating that will support my inclusion of the two words in the spot those 2 words, occupational stress currently sit.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that there may be some confusion here. I didn't delete any references because they were pre-1990. I deleted three pre-1985 references because the term "occupational health psychology" was not used prior to 1985, and those references were being used to support the claim that "OHP is concerned with occupational stress". Accordingly, they could not be used to support that claim, because they could not have mentioned OHP, and I confirmed this by checking the articles. - Bilby (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying Bilby. That's what I had thought.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bilby for your efforts on the OHP page. Iss246 (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * iss246, you stated this earlier: ""Karasek's (1979) demand-control (DC) model has been a leading work stress model in occupational health psychology since the 1980s." Nonsense. OHP was only invented in 1990! It was not a OHP model. see this reliable source, the apa http://www.apa.org/research/action/control.aspx I quote from the APA site: Findings "Industrial psychologists discovered that how much latitude employees have at work - their control over job-related decisions - affects their health, their morale and their ability to handle their workload. Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham reported, in 1976, that control (in terms of job-provided autonomy) enhanced motivation and growth - in blue collar, white collar and professional positions." Such references used in this article prior to 1990 should be deleted. They belong in the organizational psychology and other articles.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind, you will only make a further excuse or explanation how OHP, invented in 1990, somehow owns all of this industrial psychology research conducted prior to and post 1990 belongs to OHP??Mrm7171 (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Work of any date may (if it's useful to do so) be described as OHP if it falls within the modern definition of OHP. It does not matter who did it or what they called it at the time, and ownership is not a relevant concept. For the purposes of this article we should include some such work, at least as part of the history of OHP. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So? Mrm7171 (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How many journals should we mention and on what grounds?
why then Richardkeatinge are you and iss246/psyc12 only 'allowing' the 2 OHP society journals to be included in this Wikipedia article? Should we not include other major international journals? That is, other major, reliable published sources like Wikipedia want, particularly in articles relating to medicine and psychology? I would like this Wikipedia article to benefit from us relying only on what the reliable sources say. hat is why I persist here. I have high regard for Wikipedia, and I feel that this article is very biased and a small 'band' of editors are taking 'ownership' of the article. So RK can we include some major reliable sources alongside the 2 smaller journals just because they are 'associated' with the 2 OHP societies? Surely we could work them into this article as well somehow? That is what Wikipedia want. Why are you and (psyc12/iss246)so against including major reliable sources outside of the 2 OHP societies and not giving industrial psychology credit for the contribution it has and continues to make to OHP?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't need a list of every journal that's ever published OHP. We don't, in fact, necessarily need to mention any journals at all though consensus seems to be that we should mention a couple that are reliably described as "flagship" journals for the speciality. We also refer to a list of journals that may welcome OHP work, and that seems quite enough for an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just edited the third paragraph in good faith, and with a solid reliable source, and based on what I said directly above: It is a compromise. It does not affect the integrity of the third paragraph in any way. However it recognizes other journals outside of the 2 smaller 'OHP societies' journals. It now reads:


 * "There are two journals that focus closely on OHP research (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress).[4] [31][34]as well as several journals that publish articles on OHP topics, such as Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology [35]."Mrm7171 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to administrator: This is an attempt to add some neutrality to Wikipedia's article. It will no doubt be undone by a member of the 'tag team', and the major psychological journals mentioned above, again 'censored' by editors acting as a 'tag team' and edit warring. I am waiting for help here by an independent editor to assist with enforcing some type of order and adherence to Wikipedia protocol.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The current paragraph reads well Rickardkeatinge. As you know there has been major problems on this article. Emotions are running high. Psyc 12 breached the 3 revert rule the other day with 5 reverts within a 24 hour period. You did nothing. You are not independent by any means and have no rule interest in this article. I should have requested dispute resolution long ago. I will be reporting psyc12s breach of Wikipedia revert rules as well as iss246's from a couple of weeks ago. The addition I just made was a compromise. It was not the same sentence as a few days ago. I maintained the integrity of the paragraph and just added those other major sources. Richardkeatinge you just blindly reverted the change without any discussion here. No doubt when the fellow tag team members come in they will revert again.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RK. The only reason to mention JOHP and W&S is to establish that OHP is an emerging discipline that is mature enough to have its own journals, as well as societies and conferences. However, the third paragraph is redundant with the section on history since 1990 which mentions these journals and societies, so the entire 3rd paragraph could be deleted to reduce redundancy. Maybe this information fits better under history anyway.


 * It also seems to me that we have consensus to change stress to stress reactions to make things clearer. This is a reasonable compromise that retains the idea of stress, which is a large part of OHP, while avoiding potential confusion about what the word stress means.


 * Finally, thank you for your efforts on the article. Your insights coming from a different discipline are very helpful. Psyc12 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm doing my imperfect best, and trying to remain within my limits. I agree with your suggestion of removing the entire 3rd paragraph of the lead. To the encyclopedic reader, I think it's un-necessary detail where it is. The societies, and the flagship journals at least, do need to be mentioned - they are fundamental to the claims of OHP to be an identifiable discipline - but not, I think, in the lead. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We are all imperfect RK, that's not the point! I agree, getting rid of the 3rd paragraph. I suggested that earlier remember, but the 'tag team' rejected it. SOHP & EAOHP mentioned way too much anyway. However will find a new place in the article to place those other related journals and the inthe other references in that paragrah NOT currently mentioned elsewhere. Neutral point of viewMrm7171 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just removed the third paragraph of the lead. I had previously wikilinked the relevant societies and journals in the main body (Development after 1990: academic societies and specialized journals). Mrm7171, your changes will require consensus; I look forward to your arguments on this page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the change. Now one detail. JOHP is not published in association with SOHP. It is an APA journal, and APA has given SOHP a group rate so all SOHP members receive a subscription paid for by dues. SOHP has no formal role in the journal itself. Neither the journal nor SOHP website claims an affiliation. By contrast W&S on their website says it is published in association with EA-OHP. I'll revise accordingly. Psyc12 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

NOT appriate to be discussing other articles on this article talk page. Discuss other articles only on those separate article talk pages please as Wikipedia requires all editors to do. Bilby would agree, i'm sure, he is pretty aware of how these things work? Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It needs to be noted, that 'any' changes to 'any' other Wikipedia article 'needs' to be discussed entirely separate to another article. Discussions of other 'article changes' of any kind, and solely based on Wikipedia protocol, as Bilby is aware, need to be discussed on that article page only. It is NOT apt to be discussing any other Wikipedia articles on this article page. Above there are mention of other articles by psyc 12. That is not how Wikipedia works psyc12. These are all entirely separate, articles, as distinct and separate as any other separate article. ThanksMrm7171 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The history of the topic of occupational stress & OHP on Wikipedia
Yes, that is what that we are talking about Bilby. OHP is concerned with occupational/work stress. Given that earlier iss246 was talking about the importance of history, I was just looking back over the history of the OHP topic on Wikipedia since 2008. I found this discussion, 2008 onwards. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 RfC: Should Occupational health psychology be included in Template:Psychology sidebar. Very relevant to this discussion on the use of the term occupational/work stress and OHP.

Here is what you said iss246, about work stress to support your argument for including it against consensus, in the psychology sidebar. "I conducted a search of PsycInfo. On one line I entered "occupational health psychology". Then I entered "or" to concatenate OHP with what I inserted on the second line, the terms, "job", "and", and "stress". A great deal of OHP centers around job stress or work stress........As it stands, I got 9706 hits. That number of hits, together with the presence of doctoral programs...Iss246 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to DoctorW, '''occupational health psychology is reflected under the terms work stress. That is the primary subject matter.''' In fact, one of the prominent OHP journals is called Work & Stress. I conducted a Google search under the terms work stress, and got 19,400,000 hits. I had 2,090,000 hits when I searched sports psychology. I don't think that that the number of hits should be the only criterion for a division of psychology making its way into the sidebar…”.Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC) and then iss246 you said this in march 2009, continuing on your fight to have occupational health psych put in the applied psych sidebar against consensus.

“I could report on the equivalence of work and stress and OHP”.Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1


 * It appears that you were not so concerned back then iss246 about IV & DV variables iss246? and terminology?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be mainly about the applied psychology sidebar and as such is inappropriate here. To the limited extent that it has any relevance to this article, it is duplicated elsewhere on the talk page. I have collapsed the section so that it's not quite so much in the way. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I undid the collapse as I totally disagree. This is part of the history of the occupational/work stress dialogue directly related to occupational health psychology. You trying to censor it, is further group article ownership.


 * Iss246 or other editors, any reply to my points directly above and based on Wikipedia core principles of using reliable sources?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to administrator: I have now been forced to include 11 reliable sources for this 2 word inclusion of "occupational stress". That is ridiculous. And still, psyc12/iss246, close friends outside of Wikipedia and psyc12 enlisted by iss246 in June of this year, with a large number of other OHP society members that all joined up on Wikipedia at the same time add weight to iss246's side of a discussion. Recently RK, with interest in other articles completely off the topic of this article has become involved in this 'tag team' preventing any change to the article whatsoever. This 2 word addition and my minor addition to the third paragraph based on excellent sources has created 'walls of text'. I guess like any 'ownership behavior' on Wikipedia, an editor like myself either battles against this tag team or leaves the article as the leader. iss246 has told me to do on numerous occasions in no uncertain terms. He has fought it out with other editors over this topic of occupational health psychology based purely on the interests of an outside society he and psyc12 belong to. Unlike richardkeatinge I do have an interest and knowledge of this topic. I respect Wikipedia greatly and believe that this biased article must be corrected and more reliable sources added. I just wish it could have been done in a civil manner, and that is why I stupidly, in hindsight, left a dispute resolution request so long. I also did not wish to waste the limited resources of Wikipedia on a dispute that I had hoped could have been worked out in a civil manner. However that is clearly not what has occurred. Mrm7171 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Already a member of the 'tag team', Bilby, backing up the leader iss246, has deleted without any discussion on this talk page 2 of my 11 reliable sources. This is all over a 2 word edit. A 2 word edit. If this is not the most classic example of ownership behavior in the history of wikipedia I'll be a monkey's uncle. All over a 2 word addition. Ownership of articles 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.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I just undid my own revert. The 2 reliable sources Bilby just deleted without any discussion on this talk page, Reliable Sources by Cary Cooper, one of the world's leaders in occupational health psychology research and occupational stress, can remain deleted by Bilby. I won't engage in edit warring.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You appear to have added two sources which didn't mention OHP, as support for the claim that OHP is concerned with stress - a claim which, in itself, is not in dispute. (The dispute is now about how to present this, in regard to the best wording, not a lack of sources). However, I may well have missed something - can you provide a quote from either Kompier, Cooper, & Geurts (2000). "A multiple case study approach to work stress prevention in Europe" or Cooper & Cartwright (1994). "Healthy mind, healthy organisation: A proactive approach to occupational stress" where OHP is raised? The only reference I could find in Kompier, Cooper, & Geurts was a reference to a paper in the Journal of OHP, and I couldn't find any mention of OHP in Cooper & Cartwright. - Bilby (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note from section above. Could editors like psyc12, only discuss this separate article, on this separate article talk page. Discussion and any changes to any other separate article, 'need' to be discussed only on that article's own talk pages and a whole new topic. That's just how separate Wikipedia articles work. Wikipedia's article policy. Bilby and RK are vety aware of that core rule to editing I'm sure. Psyc12 in a discussion above was making reference to other separate articles, like the journal of occupational health psychology??...that is an entirely separate Wikipedia article, psyc12, it is NOT apt to be discussed here on this article talk page, please. We need to be careful that we only ever discuss the article we are on. Thank you.


 * Just added link to occupational stress. Included 5 major published reliable sources all directly supporting that OHP is concerned with occupational stress. 5 is enough. Could include many more, but stopped. Psyc12, this is Wikipedia. Reliable sources and NPOV are everything. Although common sense should prevail regarding the number of sources added, deleting sources as you have is not what Wikipedia wants. Please don't revert these 5 reliable sources again. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A problem is that some of these sources do not say that OHP is concerned with these topics. I do not object to adding another source or two (more than that is overkill), if it supports the statement, but in this case at least some do not. Mrm7171, if you do not want me to revert your additions, please take more care to be sure the references support the statement you claim they support. Please go through the ones you added and delete those that do not address the issue of areas OHP is concerned with. I know some do not. If you don't want to do that, I will just delete them all, as it is not my job to double-check your referencing. Psyc12 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to double check anything psyc12. I think perhaps you need to 'verify' your assumptions though. Which sources don't support this statement: OHP is concerned with occupational stress? Not OHP's relationship to the other topics you mentioned in that sentence? Mrm7171 (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Instead of discussing here psyc12, because you knew the sources were relevant. These sources were from the journal of occupational health psychology and they were about occupational stress. How else can I explain this to you psyc12. Perhaps you don't understand what occupational stress is? Or how journal research works? If research is specifically about occupational stress and it is found within the journal of occupational health psychology, it therefore shows that OHP is concerned with occupational stress. Can't get clearer, can it psyc12? Instead, as usual, you engage in edit warring and deleted them without discussing on this page first. And other editors ignore it. Will attach this further instance to my list of edit events which is showing a clear pattern of your edit warring. They need to be restored or discussed here please as you removed them 'falsely' and with no cause. I won't engage in edit warring.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Any discussion on falsely deleting these reliable sources and addressing the facts outlined above? If the research is specifically about occupational stress, and it is found within the journal of occupational health psychology, it therefore shows that OHP is concerned with occupational stress? Not sure how else to put that?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that OHP is concerned with stress at work. Indeed I suspect that we could include it without any reference at all, on the basis of consensus. The issue of your two references is therefore rather trivial. The problem is that a reference for any fact needs to say it explicitly, and the two you mention don't seem to, not that I've personally checked. Your reasoning above is original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad everyone has now finally agreed to include the 2 words; occupational stress. And Richardkeatinge, you saying now we could include it without any reference at all". Wow, it would have saved the walls of text created on this page for no reason. That was my point all along but iss246 believed there were so many definitions of stress and occupational stress that we should NOT include the term occupational stress? We would never have even discussed it, let alone pages of debate & discussion, if iss246 had not mentioned the huge differences and still lack of consensus over the definitions! I am okay with the 2 sources used RK.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mrm7171, that is a distortion of what I wrote. I wrote that in the history of research in this area some researchers viewed the term "stress" as reflecting the stimulus (the stressors); others, the response; and others, the entire circuit of stimulus and response. Because of that history, I thought it prudent to employ less ambiguous terms such as "stressor" and "stress reaction" (or "stress response" or "strain"). I add that the most commonly used term for the effect of stressors on the individual is the term "strain." Iss246 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've given you my opinion only. I haven't checked the sources nor what anyone else thinks, so I'd suggest caution in making any changes. Consensus here first is always a good idea. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than argue, I accepted psyc12s, 're-written version,' even accepted deleting 3 of my perfectly sound reliable sources. My comment was talking about what you said here Richardkeatinge..."Indeed I suspect that we could include it without any reference at all, on the basis of consensus". My point was how ridiculous it was to create 'walls of text' over including something so obvious.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I have been at pains here to ignore all examples of un-collegiate behaviour and less-than-competent approaches to debate, instead trying to understand the nature of the disagreement, to ask constructive questions that may lead to consensus, and to suggest solutions that accord with the sources and are acceptable to all contributors. I strongly recommend this approach to others. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Note on the importance of professional articles such as medicine or psychology
WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative

"Because the general public frequently turns to Wikipedia when seeking information about psychology, psychological scientists have both a social responsibility and a personal stake in ensuring that the information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written."

This statement above supports what I have tried to ensure in this biased article against a great deal of opposition wanting to use Wikipedia to convey a perception that is not necessarily accepted in the international psychology community. This is Wikipedia. As members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, like iss246, psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others viewpoints are not truly independent on these important issues.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize to any 'truly' independent editors who have stumbled accross this dispute, but I feel that the "information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written." I feel that this article, the way it is presented is currently biased, does not include major reliable sources from outside a small OHP society. WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia InitiativeMrm7171 (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem particularly relevant. The APS-Wikipedia Initiative is a call for professionals in psychology to edit articles on psychology. Thus having people from the two OHP professional societies involve themselves in OHP-related articles is consistent with that initiative. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the important point to remember here Bilby. This is not an article about Game Boy or Junglee (2009 film)! "Because the general public frequently turns to Wikipedia when seeking information about psychology, psychological scientists have both a social responsibility and a personal stake in ensuring that the information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written." That needs to be mentioned again. Professional articles in areas like medicine and psychology are important. This statement is therefore very relevant here on this current psychology article.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the APS-Wikipedia Initiative is that psychology articles are important, because they are used by the general public to find information about psychology. Therefore it is a call for professionals in the field to edit psychology articles to ensure that they are accurate and up to date. When members from the professional OHP societies contribute to articles related to their specialties, their actions are in keeping with the intent of that initiative.
 * The issue you are pointing to is maintaining a neutral point of view, which is not the specific focus of the initiative. Any initiative which encourages people from a particular background to edit Wikipedia will risk emphasising their perspective, but that needs to be considered against the value of having professionals in the field contribute. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue that WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative is talking about Bilby is that the general public frequently turns to Wikipedia when seeking information about psychology, therefore psychological scientists have both a social responsibility and a personal stake in ensuring that the information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written." Apologies for repeating this simple yet very important point made in that article, which applies equally to 'any' article on Wikipedia which discussion psychology and the psychology profession and yes it is also neutral point of view too. And such articles are more important in that way than say, articles on Game Boy or Junglee (2009 film) for example. We can have Wikipedia administration look at this issue as well. That might be a good idea for all psychology and medicine articles in the future?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement. However, I agree psychology articles need experts to ensure that they are accurate and up to date. Those experts, it seems to me, should include members of the professional societies with expertise in those fields. On an unrelated issue, please stop trying to personalise these discussions with repeated references to my editing history - it feels like trolling, whatever the intent may have been, and is irrelevant to the issue at hand. - Bilby (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You follow me around to different psychology articles Bilby. I feel like you are trolling me. I only mentioned Game Boy or Junglee (2009 film) as two recent articles you were just editing. Big deal. Didn't even look at the articles or your edits, or comment myself on those unrelated articles. Pretty normal. But you following me around for some reason, on psychology articles, I have edited, is very odd. That could easily be seen as trolling. Also your obsession with protecting the 'OHP society' is odd. Stop personalizing things with me please and focus on content only. I may contact administration about this issue raised in the WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative of medicine and psychology articles and their importance over articles about a shoe for instance or a bikini. Better examples? I will separate this issue of importance of articles from this discussion. I think it is a very good point. Can we move on? Mrm7171 (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as issues raised by other editors of meatpuppetry with those 7 members of the 'OHP society' who were 'invited to join' and all joined up in June, at exactly the same time, to 'support iss246's point of view, these being: psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others that is a separate matter and NOT an issue for this talk page please Bilby.
 * Can we just stick to content please on this talk page, and move on with more important matters, than creating walls of text over ridiculous issues like the inclusion of 2 words like occupational stress, in this still very biased article?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that this was my point, then yes, I agree we should move on. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mrm7171, all that you have written cuts a number of ways. First, your characterization of a call to the societies as an example of "meatpuppetry" suggests that APS is engaged in meatpuppetry too, although I am sure that APS isn't. It is to Wikipedia's benefit that experts contribute to the encyclopedia. Second, you listed above many names but only Psyc12 and I have made a substantial number edits. Waving all those names like a bloody shirt means little. Other than Psyc12 and I, the individuals attached to the names you listed made a negligible contribution to the OHP entry if they made any contribution at all. As criticism, it is nowhere. Third, you accuse me of having an agenda. It seems to me it is you Mrm7171 who has an agenda although you dress up the agenda in high fallutin terms such as helping the general public get an accurate view.... Your agenda is to cut down OHP. Finally, no one is following you Mrm around. If one wants to work on the OHP entry and related entries, one crosses your path. Iss246 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mrm7171, this entire section is inappropriate for this page. In fact I'm not sure that it is appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. If you have any edits to suggest, please suggest them, with references, and with a succinct justification. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Where in this article might it be useful to clarify the exact meaning of the word "stress"?
I know I've asked this before, but I'd like to get a definitive answer, either that there are specific instances of the word that could profitably be clarified, or that we can all accept its present usage in this article and move on. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the article, and I think it is ok. It is used only 2 or 3 times, but in a way that is clear. Psyc12 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think RK that this question addresses how large a part of 'OHP' is work stress? Mrm7171 (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't intended to, nor was it intended to start another digression of minimal use to this article or to an encyclopedia. Let's stick to simple practical points for a bit. So far we have Psyc12's opinion that we do not need to further clarify the word "stress" in this article. Any disagreements? (None from me.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am the person least happy with the word "stress," but I have used it in some old edits. I could live with its limited use in the article. Iss246 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I said all along, why are editors creating 'walls of text' over something so ridiculous. Is it again, that the Society for Occupational Health Psychology now does not want to use the word occupational stress in its literature, for some reason?? There was no need for this discussion over the inclusion of something so obvious as occupational stress relating to OHP! There are much more significant issues with this very biased article, which is the property of Wikipedia. Can we please move on now?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we can safely declare a consensus here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifying and addressing bias, one paragraph at a time.
It has been suggested that this article is biased. I would like to invite anyone who thinks so to copy and paste no more than one paragraph to this talk page, to provide also a rewritten version with the bias ameliorated, and, in no more than five lines, without any digressions, reminiscences, or personal comments, to give policy-based reasons why the edit is a good idea. And then to leave the matter until others have commented. I would request that the comments should also be brief, policy-based, and free from digressions, personal comments, etc. Given a clear draft and brief, courteous, relevant comments, we may make progress. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

How many references do we need to support the statement that OHP is concerned with workplace stress?
None? One? Two? Many? Lots? Me, I'd suggest that none is defensible and one or two good texts probably the best bet. Comments?


 * None needed. The reference at the end of the sentence lists all of the areas in the sentence as OHP areas. To add a specific reference for stress is redundant and unnecessary. Psyc12 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Psyc12, in that it already seems covered in the overall reference. From my reading of the discussion, I don't see that lack of references was ever the issue - it was more about whether or not the use of the term was misleading, and/or if different wording was required. - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. I hope to achieve consensus by breaking down the issues into simple, relevant questions; most of them are very easy to answer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the above I have again removed extra references which were not required to support the point. Extra references are not desirable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RK which Wikipedia policy are you referring to which gives you authority to revert 2 RSs? There are 3 and even 4 references in other parts of this article? I am going to put those 2 reliable sources back in. Unless you can provide some compelling reason based on Wikipedia not to? Why on earth RK, would you be provoking further conflict in this article anyway? Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above." Revert only when necessary


 * I do not see why reverting and 'all of a sudden,' 2 perfectly good reliable sources was necessary, especially given recent problems in this article which led to it being listed for dispute resolution? If you are looking edit warring i won't participate. Sorry, but I will put those reliable sources back in, you have no grounds but to provoke edit warring to have deleted them.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Final response, for the record
Good call. That is exactly what I kept saying. It belongs right here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive. The case can be re-opened and continued on from where Kww strongly suspected meat puppetry. Now there is much stronger circumstantial evidence. "I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that. However, I cannot prove it, checkuser says the are not socks, and any collusion between the accounts seems fairly innocuous. There's just not enough meat here to take action.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)"

Firstly I have not attacked Dr. Iavicoli or anyone else in OHP personally?? I think I asked at one point, what training he had in psychology. A medical doctor would certainly ask what training a psychologist had in medicine too, if that psychologist was so heavily involved in an area of medicine like he seems to be in occupational health psychology that's all! Period. That was it. Everything else is a fabrication. The edit history proves that. '''Regardless, I have great respect for many researchers in the field of work stress like Arnold Bakker, Tom Cox, Cary Cooper and others. Many of which, are either organizational psychologists, by profession and by title, Professors in Organizational psychology or hold Doctorates in I/O psychology.''' Period.

'''Another note on that point of respect, is this. I have particular respect for those researchers and practitioners that have not 'betrayed' their own great discipline of industrial/work/organizational (IWO) psychology. It is a grand profession, a grand field within psychology. And psychologists and professors like Cary Cooper, Tom Cox and Arnold Bakker that proudly display their allegiance to this grand field within the profession have my greatest and most sincere respect.'''Mrm7171 (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What itszippy said is quoted above iss246. What Kww said is quoted 'word for word' too. All of the proof of your meat puppetry is contained in the objective edit history. As far as 'tarnishing' people iss246, you 'take the cake,' my friend. All I have done is post the bleeding obvious and stood my ground on all of these issues, perhaps foolishly, in hindsight. Wikipedia rules are in place for a reason. You have been in battle with editors on Wikipedia since 2008. They all dropped by the wayside. I don't blame them. 'Standing firm' on Wikipedia policies and matters of principle has been no easy task. I now completely understand what DoctorW was talking about when he posted these final exacerbated comments about you in 2011 iss246. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

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

Personally attack me all you like for 'standing my ground' on all of the issues I have stood my ground on and pulled you up on iss246. Whether they are principles or policies involving this great resource the world has, called Wikipedia, or the great profession and discipline the world has, called psychology, I have refused to 'drop by the wayside' as so many other editors have understandably done with you iss246, since 2008! The serious issue of meat puppetry and the further circumstantial evidence I have now collected, based on the extensive and objective edit history, despite your ramblings above, belongs right here: Sockpuppet investigations, under re-investigations. Not here, on this talk page!Mrm7171 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly I don't care if you Mrm7171 stop or continue your campaign against OHP. I think OHP is a grand subject. My arguing with you reinforces that feeling.


 * Iss246, you keep banging on and on and on about a campaign against OHP???, What ......... campaign? There is NO campaign against OHP. Okay, for the last ...... time! Anyone who did actually waste their time reading these 'walls of text' created on these pages would find no evidence of any supposed campaign against OHP. That is in your mind only! Your frantic paranoia and classic 'deflection' of the real issues here, such as meat puppetry and the various fabrications perpetrated by you iss246, since 2008, yes, I admit, I am now 'bringing to light.' In fact, I would have loved these issues to have been sorted long ago and perhaps some of the other multitude of editors you have battled with (over OHP topics since 2008) had 'stood their ground' with you, longer than they did. But I don't blame them.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the various topics covered in what is referred to as occupational health psychology or the psychology of occupational health or what Professor Tom Cox has proposed calling it occupational health psychology and management. and so on and so forth. The main point is that yes, the topics covered in the psychology of occupational health are very important. Yes, I agree. Your point is?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's summarize. Most of what you Mrm7171 do on Wikipedia is try to undermine OHP.


 * You Mrm7171 suggested that Dr. Iavacoli is not an appropriate head of EAOHP if EAOHP is truly a psychology organization. You argued that EAOHP is tenuously related to psychology. Look it has a physician as president. But psychology professor Tom Cox was president too (and one of the organization's founders). Was EAOHP concerned with psychology when Tom Cox was president but suddenly lukewarm to psychology when Dr. Iavacoli was president?


 * Honestly iss246, that all sounds pretty confused to me? Doesn't make a bit of sense?? Anyway, you don't need to explain or attempt to explain it to me. I don't care, quite frankly. But as I say, I do have a lot of respect for Professor Cox. That is true. He is a great Organizational Psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You Mrm7171 fly with the wind hither and thither whichever way it carries you so that you can find an angle from which try to undermine OHP. You suggested that Dr. Iavacoli had not trained in psychology, as if you could somehow estimate from your vantage point how engaged Dr. Iavacoli was with psychology.


 * Again, no I am sure that Dr Iavacoli is a fine Medical Doctor. I don't know him. Please stop insinuating that I have anything against the man. You are a fabricator iss246. Why do you keep bringing him up anyway? Very odd! It is irrelevant to the serious issues such as meat puppetry. And as I say I have a great deal of respect for Professor Tom Cox. I know his work in the field of work stress. He is a fine Organizational psychologist.


 * You Mrm7171 attacked EAOHP and SOHP, saying that the two organizations are clubs. How would you know that they are clubs? Based on what? Fantasy?


 * Yes, I correctly referred to the societies as a club, true. That is a professional society. See the definition under types of clubs, section 2.6. professional societies clubMrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You Mrm7171 attacked their newsletters as self-publishing rags.


 * "Rags,"?? what does the word rag mean in that context? Never used the word in my life, unless using it to clean up similar messes to the ones you have created for the SOHP here on these pages iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You Mrm7171 attacked OHP, calling it a subdiscipline of i/o psychology when it clearly isn't. It emerged from the confluence of health psychology, i/o psychology, and occupational health (Everly, 1985).


 * No, iss246 I said work/occupational stress belongs to industrial/work/organizational (IWO) psychology profession/discipline. Here is a quick example. Between 1990 and 2001 there were 70 articles published using the key words of ‘occupational stress,’‘work stress,’ or ‘job stress’ in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP) and 49 articles published in the journal of Occupational health psychology. But my understanding now of OHP, is that work stress is only a very small part of OHP? That's fine you and psyc12 have corrected that. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You Mrm7171 said I engaged in sockpuppetry when I was clearly exonerated by Wikipedia. I quote you above, "the further circumstantial evidence." You don't have anything. But when Wikipedia checked the IP addresses of Psyc12 and me, it was clear that we were different people working in different parts of a continent.


 * No, you were certainly not exonerated. It is going to be re-opened, with fresh evidence. IP addreseses are only checked for sockpuppets, which is what itszippy first reported you all for initially. Then it turned out as Kww stated that it was a case of meatpuppetry. However at that point Kww needed a bit more evidence. Which I now have and will be presenting in due course. Editor Kww said this at the base of that Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that. Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Kww said it iss246!!! Do you get that? I am just the one now with the further circumstantial evidence or "meat" that was required to prove it! Simple. Comprehend now?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also again, see here: You keep mixing the issue of IP addreses up? Compared with sockpuppetry Unlike sock puppetry, meat puppetry involves more than one person, rather than a single person using more than one account. Often, these people use two separate computers or connections, thereby rendering the checkuser inquiry useless. Therefore, only circumstantial evidence can be relied upon in order to make a positive identification.Meat puppetry Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Now, to quote Mmr7171, "the serious issue of meatpuppetry." If I respond to the suggestion that I use meatpuppetry, you claim I am attacking you.


 * You Mrm7171 resort to a form of McCarthyism, insinuating I am engaged in meatpuppetry but you don't go before Wikipedia, and ask that I be rebuked by Wikipedia. It is so much easier to repeat the same baloney again and again like a puppet version McCarthy. Saying that someone somewhere maybe has circumstantial evidence is pathetic puppet-version McCarthyism. Arguing that I rounded up people to participate in a secret cabal that aims to manipulate Wikipedia is fantasy! You can't prove something that didn't happen. All you can do is repeat the same baloney again and again.


 * No iss246 editor Kww first alerted Wikipedia to the fact that you engaged in meat puppetry. See above once again. For the last ....... time, Kww first alerted Wikipedia to meat puppetry, I am just going to provide the final pieces of "meat" required to prove it.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Finally, you Mrm7171 drag out DoctorW's remarks about me but you fail, fail, fail to cite my defense of why OHP should be on the sidebar--I call that selective quoting. Selective quoting is a trick that knaves use to try to fool the public.


 * No, iss246 I included DoctorW's final statements summarizing you between 2008 and 2011, because he was astonished by you. As he said. Also if anyone reads the way you forced OHP into the applied psych sidebar will clearly see how you even counted the different doctoral degrees in OHP. When in fact, no doctoral degrees actually exist in OHP. Things like that. Readers shoulkd really take the time to look at the transcripts so to speak. Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You really can spin some ...., can't you iss246. I'll give you that. You should have used your Doctorate in Child/Educational Psychology to become a 'spin doctor" instead!...I mean, even counting the number of "google hits for work stress" and "counting the number of "baloney" (ie. meaning false or non existent) Doctorates in OHP, as support to 'force' OHP into the applied psychology article and sidebar. When you knew darn well that no Doctorates in OHP actually exist anywhere in the world! A Very, very interesting read! I must say. I highly recommend that book any day. See here: Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1(talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One accusation after another. Your PC is nothing more than a baloney slicing machine. Iss246 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You should become a Shakespearean playwright iss246. You missed your calling!William Shakespeare (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Final note: ....Kww said "...There's just not enough meat here to take action.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC). Well iss246 and psyc12, my "baloney slicing PC" as you referred to it as, is just about to provide that slice of "meat" that Kww needed to 'prove' your meat puppetry!Mrm7171 (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good call Bilby. Yes, I totally agree. I think most of this talk page is 'off topic.' I will start closing off all the sections 'off topic' straight away!Mrm7171 (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to question of where this belongs

 * Hi RK. In answer to your question you asked above, "where is this topic appropriate on Wikipedia?" yes the issue of possible Meat puppetry and the 7 members of the 'OHP society' who were all directly solicited by iss246, to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process and all joined up on the 'same day' in June, at exactly the same time, to 'support iss246's point of view, these being: psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others, is not altogether inappropriate for this page, given that some of these editors continue to engage in unprovoked edit warring and who knows when others will 're-appear' to support iss246's point of view. That is why I posted a dispute resolution request. Just so you don't wrongly attack me again RK, for mentioning the term Meat puppetry I did not bring it up, although I did agree with Kww at the time. This is what editor Kww rightly thought.


 * "I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that. —Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)"


 * Given there is new evidence which has now come to light, it should probably go back to Sockpuppet investigations rather than discussed further on this page?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, this discussion page is NOT the place for discussions over meat puppetry. Please keep focused on content only. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that would probably be a waste of your time. Your "evidence" only says that he encouraged knowledgeable professionals to help expand the article, which is not generally considered to be a problem.  Our concerns about "meatpuppetry" are more focused on people who ask others to vote a particular way at a deletion discussion, to make specific edits, or to say particular things in a discussion.  Just asking people to help expand an article doesn't usually qualify.
 * You could make the same sort of request, by the way: if you know people who might be able to contribute to the article, you are permitted to ask them to do so.  NB that the message should be something like "Please help expand and improve this article", not "This dreadful article is full of pro-SOHP bias and promotional material, and I want you to help me change its viewpoint".   WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is what itszippy said at the time. In fact, iss246 contacted all of these members of the society, whether experts or not? right at a critical point in the discussion. Anyway when itszippy reported he said this: "These four accounts have all recently been created and have edited only Talk:Occupational health psychology. There is currently a dispute going on between two users on that page. Iss246 has at times been accused of editing against consensus ([1] - I will not comment on whether that is actually the case; it is only significant that the accusation has been made) and it looks like these accounts are being used to give the false impression of support for Iss246's edits. Each of them has made a similar comment on the talk page supporting Iss246. They have used similar kinds of arguments (and their writing style is similar), citing a background or experience in the field, and all argue that OHP is an independent discipline ([2], [3], [4], [5]). That these four accounts were all created within days of each other, just as Iss246 was involved in this dispute, and all have posted very similar arguments supporting Iss246's position within a few days of each other seems suspicious enough to suggest that sockpuppetting is going on."


 * Since then more evidence has come to light tooMrm7171 (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Who says all of these persons are experts, just as a separate issue whatamidoing.


 * I am not sure what Itszippy said. For the record, it is not true that I contacted wholesale members of a society. I contacted a small number of prominent members of SOHP and EA-OHP. Four or five. The context is this. Mrm7171 had impugned the qualifications of Sergio Iavicoli to be the president of EA-OHP (I intentionally did not contact Dr. Iavicoli). Dr. Iavicoli succeeded Tom Cox as president of EAOHP. I thought a leader from one of the organizations should reply. To my knowledge no one responded, perhaps because each of the leaders I contacted thought that Mrm7171's attack on Dr. Iavicoli was fatuous, and didn't deserve a reply. I felt otherwise because I observed method to Mrm7171's destructive attitude toward OHP: pick on one OHP-relevant topic to undermine then when obstacles block his attempt to undermine the topic pick on a second OHP-relevant topic; then when other obstacles emerge to block his effort to undermine the second OHP-relevant topic, pick on yet a third OHP-relevant topic; on and on and on. I view him as a serial tarnisher. I therefore responded to Mrm7171's attacks on Dr. Iavicoli. Iss246 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Iss246 has for some time been encouraging academics to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia. He/she says that this is where many students go first for information, so the academic community should do its best to make the information as accurate as possible. He/she told me the OHP article needed the help of others so I decided to get involved. At no time did he/she ever ask me to support a particular position. If it seems that I often agree with Iss246 it is because on so many occasions Mrm7171 has gotten something obviously very wrong. Interestingly, it is not only the two of us who agree, but other editors do as well. In fact there are 4 or 5 of us who have no problem reaching consensus without walls of text and personal attacks. Psyc12 (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ownership of articles Multiple-editor ownershipThe 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.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of WIKILINKS in this article and the one single word SPONSOR?
Bilby I just placed a wikilinks over the word SPONSOR. As I said above I don't care either way, but I thgougt YOU said Bily that Wikilinks were important? But you just deletede my Wikilink? over the word SPONSOR? Wow, is this one word so important! Maybe we should just CENSOR the word altogether. Better that than what is happening here. Wikilinks are important I agree. So someone better CENSOR the word SPONSOR.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Should we just delete the word SPONSOR altogether? It doesn't seem to 'work' 'spin' wise. I don't personally give a toss. This article is so biased it is ridiculous!


 * Perhaps what you consider to be tag teaming, meatpuppetry, and bias against your point of view simply represents strong CONSENSUS against your contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.52.219 (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that. —Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)"


 * Hi (possible) MEAT PUPPET ?? number 8 or is it number 9??, lost count, from the Society of occupational health psychology with another UNKNOWN, Mysteious IP address of 173.57.52.219! That would probably make it all of the OHP society members now?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Like Joe McCarthy, Mrm7171 is loose with the accusations. Iss246 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Meat puppetry just causes a whole lot of distrust and makes editing articles objectively, virtualy impossible, after it has taken place. Personally, all I care about now is that obvious meatpuppetry. Stuffing around with 'single word edits' on this article page is something I really, really don't give a toss over. Seriously. But hey, classic cases of MEAT PUPPETRY is something that will need to be re-investigated right here: Sockpuppet investigations with new evidence. This discussion page full of and emotionally involved editors, sure aint the place for that re-investigation!Mrm7171 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The wikilink went to a disambiguation page, sponsor. As such, the general approach is not to link to the disambiguation page, (per WP:INTDABLINK) as it doesn't provide any relevant information to the reader. As there isn't a specific page to link to, and the disambiguation page isn't helpful, it is better not to add the link. It is also generally considered to be overlinking to link common words, unless there is a particular value in providing the extra information. - Bilby (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Society of occupational health psychology is a PAID sponsor
SOHP PAID for the sponsorship. Paid financially. See here. http://www.apa.org/wsh/ on the right hand column. under sponsors. Any chance of including this fact in this biased, censored Wikipedia article?

This 'fact' just needs to be included in the article among many other facts. Any objections to including the facts? SOHP is a PAID UP financial sponsor. Anyone can be a paid sponsor of that conference. Why is that section even included anyway in this grossly biased article? Any reasons why a paid sponsorship of a conference on work stress is included in this article owned solely by Wikipedia?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that if the facts need to be suppressed and censored by mermbers of the society of occ health, this entire sentence should be deleted. "In 2008, SOHP became a full partner with APA and NIOSH in organizing the, by then, biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences. Also in 2008, the EA-OHP and the SOHP began to coordinate activities (e.g., conference schedules)."


 * Either the fact that the only reason the SOHP is involved in this conference is because they PAID with their money to be involved or this is deleted. It is misleading to suggest otherwise. Anyone could be involved. Why is this conference even mentioned? I am just stating the facts.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen a source saying that the relationship is that of a paid sponsor. The one you provided does list them as a sponsor, along with the APA and NIOSH, but it doesn't say what sort of sponsorship they provide, and there's no mention of their involvement only being because of financial sponsorship. However, the source leads with "'Work, Stress and Health 2013: Protecting and Promoting Total Worker Health™ was convened by the American Psychological Association, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP)." Thus they are one of the conference convenors - that's a much more important relationship than that of sponsorship alone. - Bilby (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Definition: Sponsor (commercial)

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"To sponsor something is to support an event, activity, person, or organization financially or through the provision of products or services"

FACT: IN THIS CASE IT IS A PAID SPONSORSHIP! MONEY HAS EXCHANGED HANDS. THIS IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THIS ARTICLE IS SO BIASED!Mrm7171 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What Further evidence is needed? If I have to I will get even more evidence that they paid for the sponsorship! Mrm7171 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just added the word 'SPONSOR' as the reliable source clearly states after considering your points Bilby. I also added the reliable source as required. See here. http://www.apa.org/wsh/ on the right hand column. under sponsors. Deleted nothing from other editor's. Complete compromise while maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The wiki definition does not say it has to be monetary. Providing a service is also sponsorship. But even if SOHP gave some money, it is irrelevant to the issue here, as the role is bigger than just sponsorship, as noted below.Psyc12 (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Psyc12, sounds like the society of occupational health psychology has "given money" It sounds like you know already they have. APA can provide that information. You are going to great lengths to hide this fact for some reason. The sponsor wording stays. Will wikilink it when i get confirmation that money has changed hands so to speak. Leave it with me. APA will know. No problems.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, once again, all over one word!! There is so much bias and coverup in this Wikipedia owned article. Wikipedia owns these articles. Inconvenient truths or facts should not be left out of Wikipedia. That is a classic form of propaganda.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * '''"As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) see full article here propaganda


 * The website clearly indicates that APA, NIOSH, and SOHP are equal partners. The program lists three co-chairs, one from each association. It says that the three organizations "convened" the conference. The change from SOHP as an equal partner to just a paid sponsor (and note the website says nothing about SOHP paying anything) misrepresents the relationship among the three. The partnership of the three organizations is an important part of OHP history, which is why it is here.Psyc12 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, the equal partrner wording is left in psyc12, don't worry. Its just the paid sponsorship which had been conveniently left out, so to speak?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To state here that an organization is a commercial / paid sponsor, all we need is a reliable source saying so, plus consensus that it's worth including here. So far, Mrm7171, you have neither. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I stated from this source http://www.apa.org/wsh/ on the right hand column. under sponsors. This ownership behavior Ownership of articles on this article and 'blocking' any reliably sourced, much needed, objective, neutral edits from being made, still continues! Just another example that not "even, one, single, word" can be added by anyone outside of the 'tag team' to this extremely biased article. Don't worry, you have again succeeded in preventing anything objective and neutral to this article. Mrm7171 (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sponsorship - look it up - is not all commercial sponsorship, in which someone pays for publicity. That's why we have a separate article on commercial sponsorship. To suggest that academic societies sponsoring a conference demonstrates commercial sponsorship is original research, and it's also nonsense. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You go look it up I would suggest RK. It may be a lesson for you in the world of promotion and marketing spin! I received confirmation from the conference that YES, the society of OHP sponsorship is indeed PAID for with money. That is, confirmation that the Society for OHP PAYS money, to be listed as a sponsor of that conference. Further, anyone who pays money could also be listed as a sponsor! That is normally how sponsorship works RK. Look at the gurnsey of a football player or a racing car. (Psyc12/iss246) already knew that. Further, I discovered, if the SOHP did not PAY money RK, they would not be a sponsor and would not be able to promote their logo. Just straight forward paid marketing I am afraid to say. They would not be involved either, if they did not PAY to be involved. They had to pay money, cold cash to be involved. Not sure how else I can explain it RK? That is the way sponsorship works.


 * '''However what is important is on what Wikipedia policies do you base your opposition to including one single word into this article with a very reliable source attached? Mrm7171 (talk)


 * Academic sponsorship of a conference certainly would be expected to involve the use of valuable resources, especially administrative time but also cash, starting with expenses such as hiring venues. This is not commercial sponsorship even if sponsors have their logos etc all over the place, and until you can find reliable sources saying that this sponsorship is commercial in nature, your comment has no business in this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This Reliable source see: http://www.apa.org/wsh/ on the right hand column. under sponsors.uses one word. SPONSOR. Not commercial sponsor? I think you are getting confused RK. So I repeat: "on what Wikipedia policies do you base your opposition to including one single word into this article with a very reliable source attached?" You have provided no policies to support rejection of even one single word addition. This article is the property of Wikipedia, and we all need to follow their rules. Should we re-list this for mediation?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * An academic society sponsors an academic conference? This is not, on the face of it, particularly noteworthy, it is one of the things that academic societies normally do. You will need to obtain consensus in order to insert it in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RK, I am going to post this article for dispute resolution, again. Have you any objections?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I ask that question to you and iss246, psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and any others?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I mean, what iss246 has done, is like me ringing up on the telephone the 'whole football team' and asking them to all 'join up' and open an account at Wikipedia today, all at once, so the whole football team can then support my point of view on this article talk page. No, I would not do that I have more respect for Wikipedia's common sense policies and just more common sense I think. It would also be Meat puppetry and it is a form of sockpuppetry. Meat puppetry creates tension, and distrust, and articles cannot move forward how Wikipedia wants 'their' articles to move forward. Comments on that specific 'elephant in the room' RK before I post this article for dispute resolution?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement."Mrm7171 (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If there's consensus to describe SOHP's role as a sponsor, co-convenor and/or partner, then I don't have a problem with adding that content. Out of those roles, though, the most significant is partner or co-convenor, so if it isn't worth listing all of their roles, it would make sense to only list one of those two. (I note that all three convenors are also listed as sponsors on the site). The secondary issue is that the source provided only lists SOHP as a sponsor, but doesn't state what sort of sponsorship arrangement they have. So if we do include sponsor, we can't describe SOPH as a paid sponsor, or otherwise imply that this is the case - we can only say "sponsor" on its own, as that is all the source offers.
 * This means we have two main options:
 * In 2008, SOHP became a full partner with APA and NIOSH in organizing the, by then, biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences.
 * In 2008, SOHP became a full partner, co-convenor and sponsor with APA and NIOSH in organizing the, by then, biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences.
 * Is there a preference here for one or the other? Or is there a different option to consider? Both statements are currently sourced to, but a secondary source may also be a better option. - Bilby (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we using 2008 or 2013, including the university of puerto rico as partner as well, right hand side in this 2008, reference or deleting this reference entirely in this article? Might be easier? Why is it in here anyway?


 * Also Bilby, would it be okay in your eyes, for my exact analogy, mirroring what iss246 did. That is, if I contacted the whole football team and asked them to all 'join up' and open an account at Wikipedia today, 'all at once,' so the whole football team can then support my point of view and build consensus, on this article talk page what would you think.? You can say "off topic" but hey, that is exactly what iss246 did. I resent it. I resent the fact that iss246 still does not take ownership for what he did. It is childish and completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. When is another gang of 'OHP society members' going to reappear? Seriously! I feel that the only way this article is going to move forward is with the help of an independent administrator. I'm sick of pointing out the bleeding obvious here! Thoughts Bilby. Straight up. RK? You have not commented. You quickly oppose a one word change but what about my analogy? How can it work here with what iss246 did. How could it work if I brought in my whole football team?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I'd like to keep the focus on how to handle the sponsorship question. In regard to University of Puerto Rico, they appear to be listed as a sponsor, but not as a convenor. I see value in listing convenors, and perhaps mentioning that SOHP was also a sponsor, but I don't see value in mentioning the sponsors who aren't also convenors. - Bilby (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I should add that a third option is to not mention the Work, Stress, and Health conference. It reads like a significant event for OHP, but it would work better if there was a secondary source. Perhaps it is raised in one of the OHP history papers? I'll see what I can dig up. - Bilby (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As i said, probably easier to delete the line rather than dick around this one word. The meat puppetry issue is real Bilby, it won't go away.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And Whatamidoing, you have been very vocal toward my edits, and not crossing a t or dotting an i, what are your thoughts on the damage of Meat puppetry? I know you are a valued Wikipedia editor, but you have given iss246 a lot of support over this article? Would it be okay if I contacted my old football team, all of them, and they all 'suddenly joined up' today and supported my point of view consensus, like psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others did when iss246 solicited all of his fellow society members to support his point of view? Mrm7171 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, he asked knowledgeable professionals to help expand the article, which is not the same thing as asking people to "support his point of view" in a dispute. Recruiting new editors to help expand articles is normally considered to be a good thing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not SOHP paid money to sponsor is a detail that is unimportant to the history and not worth mentioning. An important historical event was the addition of SOPH to the APA-NIOSH partnership in sponsoring the WS&H conference in 2008. There then were three organizations working together to help cultivate the field of OHP. In 2008 the conference was held in Puerto Rico, and for that one time, the University of PR was a sponsor. I don't see that as important enough to mention either. Psyc12 (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Bilby for setting out two options:
 * 1) In 2008, SOHP became a full partner with APA and NIOSH in organizing the, by then, biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences.
 * 2) In 2008, SOHP became a full partner, co-convenor and sponsor with APA and NIOSH in organizing the, by then, biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences.
 * 3) omitting the sentence entirely.

Of Bilby's two options, I'd definitely prefer the first; the extra descriptors in the second are superfluous, supererogatory, excessive, over the top, un-necessary. (Per Psyc12 we definitely don't need to mention the U of PR.) What about, since it's the word our source uses, the sentence: Personally I'd have a slight preference for omitting the sentence entirely. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In 2008, SOHP became a full sponsor with APA and NIOSH of the, by then, biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences.


 * Bilby: I found a source on sponsorship--the January 2008 SOHP Newsletter. They say:


 * "The 7th International Conference on Occupational Stress and Health is just around the corner-- with over 500 papers and posters from all points of the globe. For the first time ever, SOHP will be joining with APA and NIOSH in sponsorship of this conference, beginning a partnership that is anticipated to continue into future Work, Stress, and Health (WSH) conferences."


 * I think we should use RK's well written sentence "In 2008, SOHP became a full sponsor with APA and NIOSH of the, by then, biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences" or delete the thing entirely from the article. I'm willing to compromise and not include the commercial aspect or money changing hands, so to speak. But if it has to be included the word sponsor or sponsorship has to be included. Even the source psyc12 just found says sponsorship. My preference though, like RK, is to delete the sentence entirely.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If anything is deleted, I would think the last sentence of the section that SOHP and EA-OHP coordinate their conferences is not all that important to the history. I am fine using the Hammer et al. wording. Psyc12 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect, that's not the sentence we have spent energy discussing here building consensus psyc12.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My difficulty with "SOHP became a full sponsor with APA and NIOSH " is that becoming a sponsor is not necessarily significant, and there will have been other sponsors in other years. Becoming a convenor is significant, though. So my feeling is that we should mention both sponsor and partner/convenor, or just partner/convenor. - Bilby (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a point. Convenor? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think "partner and sponsor" because that is the language of Hammer et al. that is cited. Psyc12 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble thinking that the "sponsorship" matters at all. They seem to be a typical academic sponsor of a typical academic conference.  We assume that they have the typical duties of sponsors (e.g., financial support) and receive the typical benefits of sponsors (e.g., prestige).  However, we don't actually know that:  it might be that all of the partner/convenors simply declared themselves to be "sponsors" without paying a single extra dime.  (This can be, and is, done.)
 * I don't understand why Mrm7171 seems to think that them being "a sponsor" is important. I also don't know why being an in-kind sponsor, such as a newspaper providing free advertising, would be materially different from a sponsor providing cash to pay for the same newspaper ads.  Money is fungible.  I agree with Bilby that becoming "a sponsor" is not necessarily significant, but that becoming a partner in running the conference (which provides some control over its contents) is important and should be mentioned.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasons for including the word "sponsor" are that the conference itself used it and it seemed to matter to one editor here. The trouble with it is that it's rather vague and covers both normal academic and clearly commercial activities. It has thus given the impression to one editor of a straightforward commercial relationship, an impression which clearly isn't appropriate for the article. I'd still suggest "convenor" as being a much more precise descriptor, or "co-organizer", but whatever others want is fine with me. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Co-organizer" or even "one of the organizers" might be easier for most people to understand, but either works for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer the term "partner" because it suggests equal contributions. I am okay with the term "co-organizer" or the expression "one of the organizers" because the terms work for readers. Iss246 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe the word 'sponsor' should be just 'censored' from this article altogether? From a marketing perspective is it a good idea to keep it? We have just spent hundreds of wasted words and 'walls of text' over including one, single, word! Delete it or don't delete it, I don't care either. This article is a joke. I really don't give a toss. The 7 meat puppets that were introduced by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology are a much larger issue! So if whatamidoing thinks we should delete the word, I think we should definitely delete it RK? I don't care. No problems at all. It's gone. Delete it. I just don't care, quite frankly. I thought this ridiculous discussion was settled long ago. Who cares about one word, if not for the Society for Occupational Health Psychology 'using' Wikipedia for their marketing campaign!Mrm7171 (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just put in the word ...."co-organizer"..not based on any reliable source but hey that doesn't matter. That is what this article needed based on Whatamidoing's suggestion. Using reliable sources just does not matter. So that is what the article gets. To heck with reliable sources. 'Co-organizer' it is!! Not sure if that's even a word though, that's all? Wikipedia rules don't obviously matter here? Which other articles do Wikipedia protocol not apply?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge made an edit today such that the sentence in question reads as follows: "In 2008, SOHP joined with APA and NIOSH in organizing the, by then, biennial Work, Stress, and Health conferences." I think the edit is a good one, and recommend that we move on. Iss246 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RK found a way to clearly state the point while avoiding the debate over what noun to use (sponsor, partner, organizer). I agree it is time to move on. Psyc12 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Issue now on last sentence of the section that SOHP and EA-OHP coordinate their conferences

 * Everyone has moved on from this issue of the SOHP paying for sponsorship and involvement in the conferences. This is a different sentence? Are you looking at correct sentence?> You suggested removing it psyc12? I agreed. It is irrelevant to the article. This what you said word, for word above: "If anything is deleted, I would think the last sentence of the section that SOHP and EA-OHP coordinate their conferences is not all that important to the history." ???Mrm7171 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC). Confusing! What do other editors think?

Recent changes
I will not engage in edit warring with you iss246. The minor 'good faith' changes I made were based on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy. I will leave the interpretation of your conduct today to the administrator's of Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia policies.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not reverted your change psyc12. I will not engage in edit warring. Discuss in a civil manner please. why you believe that this sentence is relevant? "Workplace assault is much more prevalent than workplace homicide." Sure. But how is that relevant. Also, please do not keep 'blindly reverting' my good faith edits. I refuse to engage in edit warring with you psyc12.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is relevant because the prior section talks about homicide. This sentence is a transition from homicide to nonfatal assault. In the future, check the comments on the history page for my explanations. Psyc12 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, have left it in. Although it seems totally out of place? Yes, it may be a true statement but what is its relevance to OHP? was my question. It could be in 100 different Wikipedia articles! That's fine, keep it in. Not worth creating 'walls and walls of text' over it on this talk page. We should just move on.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was in my office today working when you (Mrm7171) made a change in the military section but I did not have the article by Major Thomas handy, and I didn't want to work completely from my memory of the article. When I read your edits, I only made a minor change. The article was at home. After dinner, I looked up the article. The article is about OHP-related interventions in the U.S. Army. That is why I wrote "tentative change" when I made the minor edit. It was not until I got home, and reread the article that it became clear to me that the article was devoted to OHP and not other branches of Ψ. I add that the article is named, "OHP Research and Practice in the US Army." Now other branches of Ψ have done important things for the U.S. military and the military services of other countries but if you are going to include mention of those contributions, you should include mention of them in the entries for those branches of Ψ. Iss246 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to any administrator. I have stepped right back here. I have not reverted anyone's edits today and would not 'blindly revert' anyway, without discussing first. Iss246 is a very experienced editor, who clearly knows what three-revert rule (3RR) violations are. In fact, I posted a clear warning directly above, so there was absolutely no doubt. Further no experienced editors like Bilby have a thing to say about it, despite me asking for advice where to post this. Today, within a 12 hour period iss246 has engaged in continual blatant edit warring. Iss246 has reverted at least 7 of my good faith edits without a care for Wikipedia's strict policy applying to all editors not to cross the (3RR) line. I will not engage in edit warring, or be dragged into a continual edit war. I realize my own editing will also be assessed by an administrator. So be it. I accept whatever an administrator of Wikipedia decides to do here.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meat puppetry final version

 * Meatpuppetry is soliciting other people to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion. A "meat puppet" is another editor that has been solicited to sway consensus.[1] It is a violation of this policy either to solicit meat puppets or to be a meat puppet for someone else. What do you think whatamidoing? Mrm7171 (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You see whatamidoing, it was all of a sudden, all signed up, right at the crux, right at the critical point, 7 members of the society all joined at the same time! Sorry that is hardly "just asking people to help expand an article doesn't usually qualify"


 * You see, if it was just an innocent SOHP member joins this week, .... and then another SOHP member joins the next, well.. that would be quite innocent, I guess.... but that aint what happened, was it? It wasn't like that all in fact. I think what kww was 'driving at' and was correct, it now turns out, is that within 24 hours, right in the heart of a heated discussion about iss246 going against the consensus of 6 other psychology editors between 2008 and 2011 that he was being challenged on, put out an emergency call to all members, and suddenly 7 different members all joined up frantically.


 * They posted things like. "I agree with iss246 totally" So do I..." So do I" Yeah, me too...and so on you get the picture. I think that's also what itszippy put the sockpuppet investigation in for. However it turned out just as Kww thought it was not sockpuppets it was meatpuppets!!!! and a whole lot of them! 7 in fact! psyc12''', 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others,....??What do you think whatamidoing...all innocent?


 * The thing is, whatamidoing, the proof is all there in the edit history. The edit history does not lie. The edit history does not distort.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That is also why Kww said this: ""I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that. —Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)"


 * There is now much more evidence that both itszippy and Kww did not know. What do you think now whatamidoing? All still okay? Mrm7171 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So, whatamidoing, what do you think now? Not all quite so innocent?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what I said above: Your "evidence" only says that he encouraged knowledgeable professionals to help expand the article, which is not generally considered to be a problem.
 * You have no actual evidence that he invited "other people to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion" (emphasis added). Your evidence is only that he invited people to edit this article, which is normally permitted.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes I certainly do whatamidoing. Quite a bit. I think in cases of meat puppetry, it comes down to circumstantial evidence, rather than IP addreses and the like. Nonetheless these are very serious matters. You saying, "you have no evidence is hardly objective. I'm sorry whatamidoing, I realise you are a very valuable Wikipedia editor and perhaps because of that you have privileges that thousands of other editors don't have, like me. That may be true. I would like to think it is not. It would destroy my faith in this great resource the world has called Wikipedia, but time will tell. I'm just presenting the facts. That's all. Mrm7171 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Compared with sockpuppetry Unlike sock puppetry, meat puppetry involves more than one person, rather than a single person using more than one account. Often, these people use two separate computers or connections, thereby rendering the checkuser inquiry useless. Therefore, only circumstantial evidence can be relied upon in order to make a positive identification.Meat puppetryMrm7171 (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

'''I have attempted to have this article resolved through the proper dispute resolution process three weeks ago. I think that editors have become too emotionally involved. There does not seem to be any civil discussion going on here. I believe that if other editors had allowed the proper dispute resolution process to take place, none of this recent editing would have taken place.''' That is why Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes in place.

I do NOT believe any discussion on these talk pages regarding the re-opening of the sockpuppet/meat puppet investigation should be discussed here. I have said that numerous times. Neither is this page a jury. My strong suggestion is that an administrator, someone neutral and completely independent can step in here on this very old dispute involving the same group of involved editors. I still have many problems with this article. I think an independent administrator could point out Wikipedia editing policies for all editors to fully comply with. I would be more than happy following advice that an independent administrator were to provide for 'all' involved editors to comply with.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Also Bilby please refrain from accusing editors of harassment unless you have clear evidence of such. I'm not sure which editors you are making allegations against? But is not helpful and can be viewed as a personal attack. Please consider the language used thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC) See here:Accusing others of harassment[edit] Shortcut: WP:AOHA "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle. At the same time, claims of harassment should be taken seriously and not be summarily dismissed unless it becomes clear the accusations are not well-founded"Mrm7171 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There has been harassment and personal attacks in regard to this article from both sides. That said, repeatedly posting allegations on multiple articles that someone engaged in meat puppetry, despite their denial of the claims, is harassment. I gather you have decided to restrict this to the appropriate noticeboards, so this shouldn't be a problem any more. - Bilby (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Given you are an 'independent' and very experienced editor and know all the 'ins and outs,' so to speak, much more than me, Bilby, where does a clear violation of the 3 revert rule get posted please.? Today, as an administrator can clearly see, iss246 reverted on no less than 5 occasions within 30 minutes. Neither you or I are an administrator, but that would be a constructive question to you, as an experienced and completely 'independent editor' editor, where to post that? The three-revert rule[edit] Shortcut: WP:3RR Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."Mrm7171 (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking through the history today, it is very difficult to tell who has reverted who. But as near as I can tell, you've made at least two reverts, Iss246 has made three, and Psyc12 has made two. So technically no one has broken the three reverts rule, but it is getting uncomfortably close. Addressing the edits in question here is a good way of proceeding, so it is great to see discussion below. - Bilby (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bilby, are you looking at the same diffs history as I am? I'm sure your maths aint that that bad? Anyway, just a comment. No need to reply.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Need to change heading of this article to OHP not Occupational Health Psychology
Based on Whatamidoing and iss246 relying on Everly's 1986 reliable source (occupational)health psych is a specialization within health psychology.

This is word for word from the health psychology talk page, what whatamidoing says so boldly and confidently and knowingly about the field and Wikipedia rules?

She and iss246 both say this:

The quotation says: Occupational health psychology is a specialized field of application of the larger discipline of health psychology. everly 1986

"Is your issue that "OHP" and "Occupational health psychology" are different things? Or that "Occupational health psychology" is not an "allied field" because the source says that it is a "specialized field"? Or both? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks whatamidoing.

See below at base of page. You are right. Reference does not anywhere say 'allied' field or 'related' field. It says a specialization within health psych. Indeed professional Health psychologists who research and apply health psych in the workplace would agree, I guess. So what the .... is 'OHP' then? Good question iss246. Do you know iss246 or whatamidoing?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I guess I'll catch up. However, your recent changes seemed unhelpful - I don't imagine anyone (including yourself) is truly arguing that OHP doesn't mean Occupational Health Psychology, or that the two terms refer to different things. - Bilby (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still hoping to get Mrm7171 to answer that first question. Mrm7171, this question has been deliberately framed as a simple yes/no question:  Do you, personally, without any need to produce reliable sources to support you personal belief, believe that "OHP" and "occupational health psychology" are significantly different things?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I think you and iss246 need to answer that question. See below. You seemed so confident whatamidoiing, storming in with your big bold statement in a border, even! And you are asking me??? Response please? Mrm7171 (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am trying to understand what your concerns are. I request that you answer this simple question.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatamidoing & iss246 boldly stating occupational health psych specialization of health psychology?

 * Whatamidoing. You boldly quoted in big, bold reference with a big border around it this


 * Mrm7171, can you help me understand your issue? The quotation says:

So, if you so very strongly believe that (occupational) health psychology is a specialization of health psychology..what are we doing with this duplication?? Obviously OHP is not health psychology.???Please explain whatamidoing, what are you saying??Mrm7171 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Added sentence direct from whatamidoing and iss246. But I am confused now? Is OHP occupational health psychology whatamidoing. You seem to have all the answers on every topic on Wikipedia. Your response?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (Reprinted my own comment from today's health psychology talk page.) The Everly source is one of the beginning documents in OHP. Everly linked OHP to health psychology, i/o psychology, and occupational medicine. Because the term OHP was not used previously (except by Everly's colleague Feldman), Everly was searching for a way to place the field. That is natural that he would link it to health psychology.


 * Since Everly's paper, OHP developed on a trajectory that differed from that of health psychology. If you look at health psychology journals, the research contained therein largely does not pertain to work although the research is clearly important (risky sexual behavior, racism and health, prescription drug insurance and utility theory, desistance from drug abuse, how to get more people to donate blood, pain, weight gain in children, self-care and illnesses such as diabetes, health problems after natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, therapy for back pain, getting people to improve their diets, etc.).


 * I also note that it was I who introduced on this talk page the quote from Everly. Mrm7171 claimed to have read the article but never used the quote until I introduced the quote. This makes me suspect what he knows about the Everly article comes strictly from my writing about it. Otherwise, he would have used the quote as ammunition before I ever got to introduce the quote.


 * Everly notes that the workplace is a very suitable venue for making efforts to improve people's health. Without being too specific, he wrote about new, "multidimensional" ways of using the workplace to promote good health in people. He mentioned a "systems consultation" model. He also described ways to train the upcoming generation of occupational health psychologists. That training, according to Everly, should include clinical or counseling psychology, "business administration or industrial psychology," "medical physiology," occupational medicine, and public health. This was the beginning. It was not a perfect blueprint. But it was a beginning. The field of OHP took off subsequently. In 1986, Everly could not have anticipated the exact trajectory of the field although the trajectory of OHP departed from the trajectory of health psychology, an equally worthy field. Yet Everly deserves credit for helping to coin the term occupational health psychlogy (Feldman should share the credit) and give OHP that initial push. Iss246 (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A more contemporary source on the origins of OHP is chapter 1 of Leka and Houdmont's 2010 book, Occupational Health Psychology, John Wiley. They refer to various fields as "foundations" of OHP. In Europe it is health psychology, Work & Organizational (I/O) psychology, and social/environmental psychology. In the US they say the foundations are psychology (they don't distinguish types) and other fields like management and public health. By foundation they mean that the separate field of OHP borrowed from these other fields, not that it is part of these other fields. Physics is a foundation for engineering, but the two are not the same thing. To say OHP is just health psychology is incorrect because the field of health psychology rarely deals with workplace issues--just look at their journals. Perhaps in 1986 Everly thought that health psychology should embrace worker health and safety, but it never happened, and so OHP went off on its own.Psyc12 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you psyc12. I disagree. I know colleagues in the UK who are Health Psychologists. They specialise in (occupational/wor) psychologhy? Also why then is the 1986 reference being relied upon in the health psychology article by youyr close friend outside of Wikipedia, iss246. I am genuinely confused. Could we please discuss as Richardkeatinge asked below. I know you both keep tellingeveryone you are Professors and you know best, but please just discuss with other editors before going ahead. Thank youMrm7171 (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wiki is based on reliable sources and not on individual cases with which we are familiar. I know lots of people who do lots of things, but that is irrelevant to this article. If the question is whether OHP is a subfield of health psychology, then we must look to reliable sources. I provided a recent source that says that in Europe health psychology is one of the foundations, not that OHP is just health psychology. There are lots of other recent sources that say similar things.Psyc12 (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Description of occupational health psychology
The accurate definition or description of "occupational health psychology" seems to be causing some problems. It would certainly help if we can agree on what it is; it might well help if we can clearly identify where we disagree, and come up with an approach that satisfies all editors. I present some statements for your consideration:

It is appropriate, at least in this article, to abbreviate Occupational health psychology as "OHP"; the abbreviation is simply an abbreviation and in context carries exactly the same meaning as the full term.

Activities may be classified as OHP if they are to do with the psychology of health at work. Such activities may also accurately be described as "industrial psychology", "organizational psychology", or other genres of psychology. Overlap between genres is normal and should cause no difficulty; it might be perfectly reasonable to describe a study as "OHP" in one context and as "industrial psychology" in another.

Genres /subdisciplines of psychology may include activities such as academic research, academic conferences, graduate training programs, undergraduate programs, consulting work, individual work, and probably others. While at least one of these activities is essential for any genre to achieve the status of a subdiscipline, a subdiscipline may be considered to exist if only one or two of these activities are demonstrably described as being within it.

In some jurisdictions the personal descriptor "psychologist" is legally protected. There is an analogy with the term "architect" which is legally protected in the UK at least. Non-architects commonly describe themselves as "architectural consultants", and by general agreement what they do is architecture. Similarly, a non-psychologist may do psychology of any genre, so long as they don't describe themselves personally as a psychologist. This has no bearing on the validity of any subdiscipline of either architecture or psychology. Non-architects may contribute to architecture and non-psychologists may contribute to psychology. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Richardkeatinge for your comments and invitation for all editors to discuss in a civil, courteous, respectful manner. I am just unclear as to why Whatamidoing's post with a reliable source that Occupational Health Psychology is a specialization of Health Psychology. I just wonder why it is being duplicated in this article. I look forward to a civil, calm discusion between editors. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia has articles on thousands of subtopics, such as subspecialties. If there is enough material to support a full article, then we write a full article.  There is no rule that says every sub-type of health psychology must be in the main Health psychology article, nor is there a rule that says every sub-type of psychology must be in the main Psychology article.  In this case, Occupational health psychology happens to meet the criteria for having an entire, stand-alone article dedicated to the subject, and so we therefore have this article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying whatamidoing. I understand the rules on this then. I think that there is an issue where confusion currently lies. That is, many people believe occupational health psychology, as you quoted is a specialization, or OHP is a sub-speciality as you just stated. If it is, then the Everly quote you used in the health psych article, should state occupational health psychology is a specialization. If not, the source needs to be removed from that article. That's my understanding at least. Can you please give your point of view on this. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You write "occupational health psychology, as you quoted is a specialization, or OHP is a sub-speciality" (my italics). I would see both descriptions, and indeed others, as perfectly appropriate. Do you see them as mutually exclusive, so that OHP could be one or the other but could not be both? I really am having trouble understanding what you mean and would be grateful if you would elucidate on that point, and perhaps the others that I have listed above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies Richardkeatinge and Whatamidoing, my original query does seem a bit confusing after re-reading it myself. I do agree with both of your logical comments regarding subspecialties and the practice of psychology. My only point was that the Everly source clearly places occupational health psychology as a specialization within health psychology? However psyc12 states below that occupational health psychology is not a specialization/sub speciality, and a completely "distinct field" should this 1986 source be relied on at all, as a key reliable source, in either this article, or the health psychology article?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is some overlap between health psychology and OHP, but they are distinct fields. It would not be correct to say that OHP is just a subarea within health psychology. If you look at the content of textbooks and journals in these fields, there is little overlap.Psyc12 (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of long term edits and reliable sources?
I removed the subsection that notes overlap between OHP and I/O psychology. It is redundant because the opening paragraph already notes the link between I/O and OHP, and the hyperlink will take the reader to the I/O article that provides all the details in greater depth. Psyc12 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed links, added some new ones. Removed second link to occupational stress as an earlier link already existed.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was right to remove the double brackets around the Effort-Reward Imbalance model because there is no page devoted to it. It would be good if someone were to start a Wikipedia entry devoted to Johannes Siegrist's Effort-Reward Imbalance model. Iss246 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just added to the recently edited sentence, to reflect what the 1985 reliable source actually says, so reader is not misled.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We covered this ground already. We should not confuse the reader into thinking OHP is a subdiscipline of health Ψ. Everly also indicated the OHP specialists need public health too. In fact, he did not mention i/o psychology but that was omitted from the sentence I changed. It is enough. The origins of OHP have been established here, we don't need to edit-war about it. We should be satisfied that health Ψ, i/o Ψ, and occupational medicine contributed to the development of OHP. Iss246 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Why did psyc12 delete richard keatinge's and others editing efforts here please? "This paper has been credited, inaccurately, as the first to use the term.


 * It is an unimportant minor detail that clogs an already long article. Psyc12 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Richardkeatinge and others added '3 reliable sources' to that important sentence psyc12, explaining a 'major inconsistency' in the literature and origins of 'OHP' Richardkeatinge's edit allowed a NPOV to be presented in the article on that anomaly and was agreed through consensus. You just came in and deleted and 'censored' it for some reason?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Iss246 & psyc12, you delete Richardkeatinge's entire sentence 'with 3 reliable sources' attached. It showed a major anomaly in the literature where various authors and texts disagreed entirely as to when and where 'OHP' was invented? Why are you deleting key points est. through consensus instead of allowing NPOV?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion this is a minor point that doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article. There is no need to call out 3 groups of authors who made an error. My suggestion if you feel strongly Mrm7171 is to ask some other editors to comment here to see if there's consensus one way or the other. Psyc12 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There already was consensus on that point with numerous editors about 6 months ago and it had 3 reliable sources. The article needs to present NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't censor. If it is such a small point, why delete it? Why do you and iss246 care SO much? Why create unnecessary conflict and more 'walls of text' now? Why are you both so personally involved and not neutral on this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's just restore Richardkeatinge's edit and his 3 reliable sources attached please, for the sake of civility?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mrm7171, you are the one arguing about this and making accusations. All I did was answer your question. Psyc12 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is Richardkeatinge's edit, developed through consensus 6 months ago, with 3 reliable sources. Will just restore it and let Richardkeatinge look at it later. That sounds fair. Creating a lot of unnecessary text here though over this? Why are you and iss246 so desperately trying to delete that NPOV edit?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a great deal of minutiae any bit of which is true based on multiple sources. That doesn't mean minutiae should clog up an encyclopedia article. I am okay if you ask Richardkeatinge, Bilby, and WhatamIdoing to have a look at this matter. They are experienced Wikipedians who have shown an interest in the OHP article in the past. Iss246 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Best we just put Richardkeatinge's sentence & 3 reliable sources 'back in the article' in the meantime, as those editors have not commented yet. You both have not said why it matters so much? or why you are both so vehemently opposed to its inclusion? It was developed through consensus 6 months ago?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a short sentence but very well written by Richardkeatinge, concisely summarizing the very strange anomaly in the 'OHP and OHP society's literature' and marketing material, as to the origins of 'OHP.' It also presented this anomaly with a NPOV, which is all that matters in this Wikipedia article.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to edit war over what is simply an edit developed through consensus and provides a NPOV. Are you both ok with me just putting Richardkeatinge's sentence and the 3 reliable sources you deleted, and give other editors a chance to comment later, or will you just revert it again? Why is it so 'personal' for you both?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please ask for the judgment of all three for the sake of arriving at a harmonious conclusion. The anomaly isn't so strange. Errors of credit happen often enough, even in science, and even in less trivial situations (e.g., the wrong person gets a Nobel and the right person doesn't). Iss246 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This edit was written by richardkeatinge and involved the consensus of you and psyc12 and all other editors 6 months ago. It is not very civil to just delete it like you both have and creates unnecessary conflict. Restoring it is just the fairest thing to do? Also can you comment below iss246. I would like your thoughts on external links please?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just restored Richardkeatinge's & other's sentence and 3 rel sources attached as it did not seem fair to just blindly delete by psyc12&iss246. If after Richardkeatinge and others decide it is not needed I will go with the consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is true that someone made a mistake in attribution. But it is a minor point. That is why I deleted it. A major encyclopedia-worthy attribution error would be if the Nobel committee awarded the Prize to the wrong scientist or denied the Prize to the right scientist. If we included every minor attribution error made, Wikipedia would be overrun with attribution errors. Iss246 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted again iss246, even though we were respectfully waiting for Richardkeatinge's input? The sentence relates to the history of 'OHP' and your 'OHP' society. Richardkeatinge's sentence reflected a clear anomoly in the literature, (written by other members of your OHP society) and should remain in the article. This "error" as you call it, seems why you and psyc12 are so focused on deleting that small detail, and indeed any other information from this article, which may not reflect positively on your 'OHP' society members. But this is an encyclopedic Wikipedia article meant to be presenting a NPOV based on what reliable sources say?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I requested that you contact 3 experienced editors, RK, WhatamIdoing, & Bilby, for input regarding your insistence on including a minor attribution error. You didn't. I deleted mention of the minor error. Iss246 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In US slang, you are making a "federal case" out of including a factoid. Iss246 (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This entire article reads like a 'promotional brochure' for your society of 'OHP' members, rather than an encyclopedic article, written with a NPOV and based on what the reliable sources 'actually' say. Richardkeatinge's edit should be restored, and the 3 reliable sources attached to it. Iss246, please consider alternatives to reverting rather than blindly deleting other editor's 'long standing,' well sourced, key sentences. I have found this article to be very helpful in providing guidance with these types of issues. Revert only when necessaryMrm7171 (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that sentence & 3 RS is deleted again, a solution would be to also delete this sentence? "The term "occupational health psychology" appeared in print from 1985." (as both are part of the other)? I would support that approach as well. So, either we include both sentences together, or neither, seems most logical?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)