Talk:Occupational health psychology/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed additions to current article

I would like to add some other reliable sources and external links to this article from other related disciplines and reliable sources, not just from the sources written by members of the society of 'OHP' or the journal of 'OHP' as this article is 'clogged' with currently. Other fields like occupational medicine, occupational hygiene, health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology among others should also be included. If the 2 'OHP' societies really need to be mentioned in this article for some reason?, then other professional societies from these relevant fields mentioned, should also be included for balance, and to present a NPOV free any editorial bias. Personally I do not see the relevance of including mention of these 2 societies at all, given they have dedicated articles already?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph has internal links to i/o & health Ψ. The i/o and abnormal Wiki entries don't have external links to other disciplines or outside/related organizations. So leave the OHP external links section alone. There is nothing nefarious about external links to SOHP or EA-OHP. The entry on pediatrics contains an external link to the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is useful to external links to relevant organizations. Iss246 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you saying "So leave the OHP external links section alone." iss246 is not helpful. No one owns Wikipedia articles iss246? My clear comments above, and the significant need to include other reliable sources to achieve some NPOV in this article, are valid. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You have also completely ignored any valid concerns raised over COI.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. Abnormal Ψ has abnormal-Ψ-related external links. I/o Ψ has i/o-related links. OHP should have OHP-related links. Don't make a federal case out of it. Iss246 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "Right"? Does that mean you and psyc12 will you continue to 'block' any much needed additions and NPOV to this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines say to keep external links to a minimum. This article already has four and certainly doesn't need more. I just deleted the one to the APA Directorate, as two aren't needed to the same organization. Psyc12 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12&iss246, will you both continue to 'block' any much needed additions and NPOV to this article, (not only external links) if I try to add some other reliable sources? Or will you continue to blindly delete mine and other editors, like Richardkeatinge's attempts, to add some NPOV in this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I will attempt to add some other reliable sources then, not just those written by members from your 'OHP' society, and reflect the input to occupational health psychology from a number of other related disciplines, as outlined above, to bring some much needed NPOV to this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, we are discussing external links. We already covered the minor business of someone misattributing the coining of term OHP. It was I who originally wrote in the link to APA's Public Interest Directorate. But I am okay with its having been replaced by APA's Work, Stress, and Health Office b/c that office is a relatively new group within the Public Interest Directorate. Iss246 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to add some other reliable sources, not just those written by members from your 'OHP' society, and reflect the input to occupational health psychology from a number of other related disciplines, as outlined above, to bring some much needed NPOV to this article, not just external links? Please respond directly to that simple request.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be useful firstly then, to start by adding some official external links to these other related disciplines who are also concerned with occupational health psychology not just your professional society. These related disciplines are mentioned above? Is that okay with you both? I don't want to do that and then you delete my work?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you mean linking to societies in these fields that you listed above (occupational medicine, occupational hygiene, health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology), the answer is that these societies are not relevant. Wiki guidelines say to minimize external links. This article has enough now. Psyc12 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So you will both 'block' and again delete the addition of any other external links to equally important professions and related fields and insist only including links to your 'OHP' societies that you are members of?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, recall that I reported above that the link I placed in the OHP site was deleted, and I was okay with the change. It was replaced by a better link. A link more directly related to OHP. Iss246 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of you to direct my question. You answer in tandem. You also both won't answer my straight forward questions and instead create unnecessary 'walls of text.' My point is simply that I wish to add some other external links to equally important professions and related fields rather than only including links to your 'OHP' societies that you are members of. I also wish to make a number of additions to this article based on the broadest range of reliable sources from journals and texts not only articles written by members of your 'OHP' society?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I am responding because you keep directing your question to me. This is the OHP article, so a link to OHP societies is appropriate. On the I/O psychology page, for example, you would expect a link to SIOP and perhaps other I/O societies. You would not expect a link to SOHP in the I/O article because SOHP is not an I/O society, and you would not expect a link to SIOP in the OHP article because SIOP is not an OHP society. Psyc12 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You both keep avoiding my straight forward question which is creating 'walls of unnecessary text'

1. I wish to add a number of other equally important related links to occupational health psychology, rather than only including links to your 'OHP' societies, that you are both members of.

2. I also wish to make a number of additions to this article based on the broadest range of reliable sources from all available journals and texts not only articles written by members of your 'OHP' society?

3. Is that okay?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer the question unless you say what you want to add. And how will you know if the authors are members of OHP societies or not, and what difference would it make? Psyc12 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this Wikipedia article, is dedicated only to the broad topic of occupational health psychology which is a multidisciplinary topic. This article in my opinion at least, should not be so heavily influenced by an 'OHP' professional society, and include only carefully selected and screened content. That would be like saying the Cardiology article for example, could 'only' include external links, opinions and content from one or two particular professional medical societies, their journal, and their members. The Society for Occupational Health Psychology and European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology already have separate dedicated articles. Why then are these two 'OHP' societies so 'prominent' in this separate article, when so many other relevant fields, professions and reliable sources also deserve inclusion, to achieve something close to a NPOV?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not really an answer to the question. The main issue is simply, what links do you want to add? Can you nominate some external links related to OHP that you would like to see in the article? - Bilby (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. The other 2 editors have said there is 'no room' and are opposed to the inclusion of 'any' other links. That's my point?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact, iss246 even said "So leave the OHP external links section alone." I feel 'scared off' from even trying now, to be honest?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can propose the links to include, I'm sure that they would be considered fairly. It is just difficult to talk about links in general. - Bilby (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood, but I think it is pretty clear, based on comments like ""So leave the OHP external links section alone!" from iss246, that 'any' proposed changes are not going to be treated fairly. Have stepped back now. Scared off to be honest Bilby. It shouldn't be that way.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's a bit more than 'just the external links' based on the above discussion and other editor's hostile attitude toward 'any' changes or additions it seems.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Bilby is right. Bear in mind that yesterday Mrm7171 indicated that he would like to include external links to several other fields, for example, occupational medicine and occupational hygiene. That is why I objected. The external links he proposed are not directly relevant to OHP. I am not opposed to any change. I am not hostile to any change, as Mrm charges. I am opposed to the specific changes Mrm proposed. Iss246 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, external links are discouraged so they need to be directly relevant, and I can't give an opinion about a particular link unless I know what it is. Psyc12 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think it is pretty clear, based on iss246 and psyc12's comments like ""So leave the OHP external links section alone!", that 'any' proposed changes are not going to be treated fairly.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Entire 'historical overview' section's relevance to this article?

Could someone please explain why the entire 'historical overview' section has been placed in this article relating instead, to the historical overview of the 'OHP' societies. Shouldn't this entire section be placed in those 2 separate Wikipedia articles instead? Focus here should be on the general topic of occupational health psychology not the historical overview of privately run, separate 'OHP' societies, with separate articles?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, much of this material in the historical overview section is repeated in those separate articles, where it obviously belongs?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The history section covers the development of the discipline. I didn't look at every psychology entry but I looked at abnormal, biological, ABA, clinical, and i/o psychology. Each contains a section on the discipline's historical development even if bits are covered elsewhere (to give a coherent whole). Each entry provides the context of the development each specific discipline. Three of the five disciplines I reviewed also mention a bit about institutional history. The OHP history section is comparatively brief, well organized, and largely in harmony with the history sections of the other disciplines. Iss246 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, iss246, the entire section relates to the historical overview of your 'OHP' society, not the broad topic and article on occupational health psychology. The two are completely separate. And have separate articles. Can you answer to that specifically please?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. I counted the words. The entire history section comprises 552 words. The final section on the institutional development of OHP comprises 150 words. The section on institutional development divides up its coverage over the 3 OHP societies, the 2 conference series, and the 2 OHP journals. The history section has balance. Iss246 (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but anyway, I think that these 150 words then, should be deleted, or moved to their separate article for starters. They are just not relevant to the broad topic of occupational health psychology. They specifically talk about your 'OHP' society and the conferences and the paid sponsorship deals of your 'OHP' society to be involved. So at best, this section is irrelevant, in this article. It also seems very promotional to me, but anyway?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also this entire sentence "In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) jointly organized the first international Work, Stress, and Health conference in Washington, DC." It's related to your 'OHP' society, maybe? but not this article on the broad topic that's all.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also re-included sentence and the 3 reliable sources, that another editor wrote and was developed through consensus, relating to 1985 and the first discussion of the term occupational health (psychology). Think it reads better now. More factual and specifically relevant to this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I found the 1990 2 page discussion/article and firstly corrected the title. It is Psychology doctoral training in work and health. I then expanded the section to include what it actually says in this document widely used by members of the 'OHP' society when discussing the history of occupational health psychology. The 1990 study in American psychologist actually stated Doctoral training in health psychology and public health. All of this was for some reason missing in this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you corrected the title of the article by Raymond et al.

The brief text pertaining to the institutional development of OHP should stay because it puts the institutional history in one place along with internal links for readers to learn more. The APA/NIOSH meetings are mentioned b/c they were important in bringing OHP researchers from around the world together. Iss246 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed 2 sentences, specifically relating to the affiliations with a professional society in 'OHP' and organizations and multidisciplinary conferences they also may be involved in and affiliated with and are repeated in the separate 'OHP' society articles.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we need to have both reference to the 'OHP' societies within the article and also as external links directly to your website? This article is about the broad subject of occupational health psychology not a couple of privately run 'OHP' societies? An article on chemistry for example, does not emphasize all of the activities and affiliations of the privately run chemistry-related groups and societies around the world?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly believe we should delete these external links in this article at least to these 2 'OHP' society websites. Seem very promotional to me. And irrelevant to this article. External links to the websites are found in their own Wikipedia articles too? So can we just delete them?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you feel that links to that APA and NOISH are inappropriate? [1] And why did you choose to remove information about the first OHP conferences? [2][3] I don't see any valid reason for these, and your edit summaries don't seem to be relevant to the changes. At this stage I think that these edits will have to be reverted, but I may be missing something. - Bilby (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Completely open to discussion on this Bilby. Reason I took them out and explained that edit in detail above, was 1. these specific conferences are not occupational health psychology specific. Compared to a conference organized by the society for 'OHP' conference. They are for a very broad range of disciplines, professions, including work psychologists, occupational medical practitioners, occupational hygienists, and so on. I also think they are very promotional for an encycopedic article and given they are not specifically occupational health psychology conferences should in my opinion, not be in this article. Maybe in the OHP society article, but thats another discussion? What are your reasons you believe they definitely be included?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The history of an emerging discipline has to do with the founding of its conferences, journals, academic associations, and perhaps places where training can be found. All these things are appropriate to this article. Psyc12 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

But aren't you talking about the history of your 'OHP' society psyc12? That's my point. Shouldn't your 'OHP' society history be in that article instead? Am I missing something here. That's what the reliable sources say too?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology and then on the other hand, Society of 'OHP' (that iss246 & psyc12 are active members of), are distinctly different topics and different articles. A similar example would be the broad, general field and article on chemistry compared for instance, to one of the many different private chemistry societies and groups around the world. They are far from being one and the same. The same principles applies here I would assume? Could this point be addressed please.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology, involves many different professions and disciplines, journals, texts, courses, practitioners around the world. The 'OHP' ‘society’ (with its own unique culture and internally governed, by its own set of rules, regulations, ideologies, agendas) is just a privately run society, isn't it? Just like one of the many Chemistry Societies for instances. A single chemistry society does not feature so dominantly in that article? Why do you believe paid sponsorship of these conferences for instance, by your 'OHP' society, should be included in this broad article's external links then?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look, and Barling describes ICOH-WOPS as having a remit that "is largely to promote occupational health psychology" (p29), and lists their first conference in 1998 as part of the development of OHP. I'm not overly concerned about the line stating that EA-OHP and the SOHP started coordinating activities in 2008, so I don't see a problem with leaving that out, but it looks like it is worth returning the two external links you removed and the ICOH-WOPS part of the history. I am happy to change the reference to Barling, if you would rather something secondary, as that seems like a good move. - Bilby (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to additions Bilby and getting this right. I'm just not sure if Barling's reference is the most reliable to use? Other reliable sources contradict Barling's comments that's all. ICOH-WOPS seems to be a generalist organization and conference, not specifically related to 'OHP' at all? Barling appears to be another member and advocate of this 'OHP' society. References written by these 'OHP' society members seem to contradict each other at times? For instance, when occupational health psychology was first coined? Anyway I think Wikipedia:Verifiability applies here. Maybe we should include a discussion which presents what each of these various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that contradicts Barling, but I'd be very interested in reading something that does - it might well change things. However, ICOH-WOPS might still be very relevant to OHP, even if it is not exclusively connected to it. - 05:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I just think Wikipedia:Verifiability principles can be applied well here, by presenting what all of reliable sources 'actually' say, especially when there are these contradictions in the literature? ICOH-WOPS just is not an occupational health psychology, or 'OHP' society specific, organization. Neither are the ICOH-WOPS conferences? They involve many academic fields, professions and topics. But what do you mean exactly by "ICOH-WOPS might still be very relevant to OHP, even if it is not exclusively connected to it"?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to look at the reliable sources. Which ones contradict Barling? We need to consider that Barling could be mistaken about the purpose of ICOH-WOPS, but I'm not sure what the extent of the concern is. More generally, what I mean is that a conference might be a big deal in the development of OHP, even if the conference was also about other topics. For the OHP article, the main concern is whether or not it was a significant event for OHP, not whether or not it was exclusively about OHP. - Bilby (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the exact Barling source you are looking at please Bilby, that says "ICOH-WOP'S remit is largely to promote occupational health psychology"? It sounds like a subjective opinion by Barling too? Can you provide the reference here please.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Barling, Julian; Griffiths, Amanda. (2002). "A history of occupational health psychology", in Quick, James; Tetrick, Lois (eds) Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. American Psychological Association. p29. - Bilby (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am as puzzled by the deletions. The i/o psychology entry includes references to the British Psychological Society and SIOP because they have been important to that discipline. I don't understand the deletions of the OHP-related societies from the OHP entry. The deletions should be restored. Iss246 (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I too am puzzled by the deletions, and why Barling and Griffiths is not a reliable source, as Barling holds an endowed chair at Queens University http://business.queensu.ca/faculty_and_research/faculty_list/jbarling.php. On p. 31 B&G clearly state that ICOH-WOPS "focus is largely OHP". They then talk about ICGOHP which should be added too. Like Bilby, I don't think it is important to mention that EA-OHP and SOHP coordinate their activities. It is important to trace major historical developments. Psyc12 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Barling's single line on page 29, is not a reliable source as it is his subjective opinion only. Clearly other 'objective' sources contradict his opinions. Is there any other reliable source that connects your 'OHP' societies with ICOH-WOPS? The two are completely separate entities it seems, based on all official accounts from the ICOH-WOPS itself. Nothing specifically to do with either OHP societies? The ICOH-WOPS remit is also certainly not 'OHP'. Why is in the article? It needs t6o be discussed here please?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to view the statement as subjective - it is not expressed as an opinion, but a statement of the purpose of ICOH-WOPS. However, I am very happy to consider that it might be contradicted by other sources. What sources contradict this claim statement? - Bilby (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I just restored, for 'further discussion' my own edit of the 'OHP' society paid sponsorship deal with the work & stress conference. My reasoning is stated earlier I feel that the inclusion of 2 privately run 'OHP' societies placing in this article is irrelevant? Can editors psyc12 & iss246, please explain why these activities by your private 'OHP' society are so dominant in this separate article? It seems very promotional to me, but anyway can you help me why your OHP society events are being included?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Barling is a distinguished expert on OHP. That is why he had served as an editor of JOHP. Re: SOHP, EA-OHP, and ICOH-WOPS. Those are the nonprofit organizations closely identified with OHP. No one questions why the private BPS or SIOP is identified with i/o. Iss246 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You say ICOH-WOPS is closely identified with 'OHP?' That is definitely not what the reliable sources say and that includes your colleague Barling's comment too, (who happens to be another member of your 'OHP' society). But before I provide these other sources, when you say "closely identified with", do you mean closely identified 'with' occupational health psychology as a broad topic like chemistry, or do you mean closely identified 'with' your privately run 'OHP' society?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Julian Barling is not a member of SOHP. Whatever organizations he joined, he is a first-rate scholar. He would not promote biases in his writing. Suggesting that he would is like suggesting that citations from papers written by SIOP or BPS members and that are found in the i/o entry (there are many) are also biased. This witch hunt for biases is wrong. Iss246 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested Barling would promote biases in his writing iss246, as you imply. That is a complete fabrication, and completely untrue.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that both psyc12 and iss246 are strong advocates for, and members of, the 'OHP' societies and the various goals, and agendas and associated conferences and paid sponsorships, being put forward by these private organizations that are being discussed, as facts, in this Wikipedia article, I think this article is very relevant here as a guide for all editors.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

Wikipedia:Verifiability

You said above iss246, ICOH-WOPS is closely identified with 'OHP?' That is definitely not what the reliable sources say and that includes your colleague Barling's comment too in the 'OHP' handbook. When you said it is "closely identified with", do you mean closely identified 'with' occupational health psychology as a broad topic like chemistry, or do you mean closely identified 'with' your 'OHP' societies? Can you please address this straight forward 'content related' question. I cannot produce the most relevant reliable sources that Bilby is asking of me, that contradict Barling's comments until I know the answer to this?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability obviously applies here. I think we should include a discussion which presents what each of these various sources say, giving each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view with these sections in the article Bilby. We should say: "Barling (2002) believes ICOH-WOPS' "remit is largely occupational health psychology" because that's all he actually said, and he also provided no other sources to support that isolated statement. Is there any other more reliable source that may support his viewpoint Bilby? For balance and weighting, we then just need to say something like, "However these sources x, y and z say this, and this and contradict Barling's comments. We also need to 'limit' Barling's comment to only what he said and be careful not to be implying anything further? I will provide these other reliable source which contradict Barling as soon as someone can clarify what I asked, directly above please.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you just delete all my work iss246? You just made multiple reverts of my careful edits within a 15 minute period? I made these planned additions in line with my comments directly above, relating to Wikipedia:Verifiability. I left these comments directly above, for other editors to review and discuss before making my minor additions today. I was also careful not to delete any other editor’s work, instead choosing an 'alternative to reverting' in this policy I have personally found to be a useful guide Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary You chose to avoid all discussion and questions I asked above, to clarify your editing? Instead, you just went ahead anyway, and aggressively deleted all my work? You also made no comments justifying your ‘multiple reverts on the talk page either. I find all of this very uncivil iss246. See main deletions here:

[4]Mrm7171 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I streamlined the text. Because ICOH means international, you don't have to repeat that people in ICOH-WOPS come from many different countries. We know that people in OHP come from different disciplines within psychology, and some even come from outside psychology (e.g., epidemiology). You got some of it wrong but I don't fault you. ICOH embraces many other scientific committees some of which more congruent with what you were driving at (e.g., industrial hygiene). But take a look at the latest ICOH-WOPS program, for the Adelaide meeting, that ICOH-WOPS is largely devoted to OHP (or look at a past program). If you are near Adelaide, you can attend, and find out first hand what the remit of ICOH-WOPS is. It is a great meeting. You will like it. I attended the ICOH-WOPS meeting in Québec. Iss246 (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You said above, ICOH-WOPS is closely identified with 'OHP?' That is definitely not what the reliable sources say and that includes your colleague Barling's comment too in the 'OHP' handbook. You just said, "you don't have to repeat that people in ICOH-WOPS come from many different countries. We know that people in OHP come from different disciplines within psychology, and some even come from outside psychology." Also when you said it is "closely identified with", do you mean closely identified 'with' occupational health psychology as a broad topic like chemistry, or do you mean closely identified 'with' your 'OHP' societies? Can you address this straight forward 'content related' question?

Are you really, 'actually' trying to assert that your 'OHP' society, is in some way, or any way, shape or form in fact, is at all 'associated' with this completely and utterly independent organization ICOH-WOPS? All of the reliable sources completely and utterly refute 'any' connection, whatsoever, with your 'OHP' socciety, iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you misinterpreted what I wrote. ICOH-WOPS, SOHP, and EA-OHP are independent organizations. It is, however, true that SOHP and EA-OHP have cooperated with each other (e.g., they coordinate conference schedules because the organizations don't want the conferences take place at about the same time). Independent organizations sometimes cooperate with each other. SOHP cooperates with APA but they are still independent organizations (e.g., they cooperate on organizing the Work, Stress, and Health conferences). Some people in ICOH-WOPS may be members of SOHP. Some members of ICOH-WOPS who are members of EA-OHP (for example, the ICOH-WOPS chair, is a leader in EA-OHP and also published a textbook on OHP). Each organization is closely connected to OHP. It is a fruitless exercise to split hairs about his matter.

Iss246 and psyc12 are you referring to occupational health psychology in this Wikipedia article, as a broad topic like chemistry or cardiology, or do you both actually mean your privately run 'OHP' societies? Can you please address this straight forward 'content related' question? Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to verify your new additions. You have added:

"In the year 2000, an informal group, called the International Coordinating Group for Occupational Health Psychology (ICGOHP) was formed by members from the two OHP journals (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress). Employees from the American Psychological Association and certain staff from this independent organization called NIOSH who were also members of the as well the EA-OHP or society of 'OHP'. Their remit was mostly to coordinate promotional activities for the SOHP and EAOHP and coordinate the society run conferences. "

However, there's nothing I can find in the source which identifies the members as also members of EA-OHP, although I don't see why that is relevant in the case of a group designed to coordinate activities. Is there a source for this claim?

You also added in regard to ICOH-WOPS:

"Members of this committee came from a number of different countries and from a range of different professions. Its purpose was to represent and integrate this broad range of disciplines, including occupational medicine, work psychology, occupational hygiene, ergonomics and occupational health psychology, among others. This multidisciplinary and independent organization hosted conferences on psychosocial factors, worker health and work organization."

It isn't as problematic, but I'm not seeing it in the sources I can access that are being used. Am I missing something? Or can we add a source to support that? - Bilby (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi bilby, no problem. Wikipedia:Verifiability obviously applies here and providing what independent reliable sources actually say. So I know exactly which reliable sources to provide you here, are you referring to occupational health psychology in this Wikipedia article, as a broad topic like chemistry or cardiology or are you referring to psyc12 & iss246's separate 'OHP' community? There is a big difference.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to. You just added some new claims. The claims don't seem to be in the sources being used. Do you have sources for the material you just added? In particular, the claims that "Employees from the American Psychological Association and certain staff from this independent organization called NIOSH who were also members of the as well the EA-OHP or society of 'OHP'", and "Members of this committee came from a number of different countries and from a range of different professions. Its purpose was to represent and integrate this broad range of disciplines, including occupational medicine, work psychology, occupational hygiene, ergonomics and occupational health psychology, among others." - Bilby (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

These were actually the additions iss246 made Bilby, not mine. Iss246 stated these employees, were from his 'OHP' society? This informal group were just employees or staff from these independent organizations, like NIOSH. My point has been this: Is it relevant including reference to this informal group, in this general article, about the topic of occupational health psychology similar to the article on cardiology or chemistry? These articles do not focus on a privately run chemistry society, they focus on the broad topic of chemistry or cardiology only. I think iss246's reference should be in the 'OHP' society articles instead? Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

An example is from your comments above Bilby. "in the case of a group designed to coordinate activities." I think you are talking about iss246's inclusion in this article of his fellow 'OHP' community members, and the activities they coordinate, when in actual fact, this article is only about the broad topic of occupational health psychology, like a broad topic such as chemistry.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll assume that we don't have references for those claims. I'll revert for now, but if there are sources we can use then we can open up discussion again. - Bilby (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry am I missing something here Bilby? Just said that it was Barling's reference that iss246 added. Barling states this informal group were employees of these organizations and members of the 2 'OHP' societies? What else are you looking for?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The other reliable sources come directly from ICOH itself. ICOH-WOPS has nothing to with the 'OHP' community. It is an entirely independent organization. What else do you need Bilby?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Before you revert any of my edits Bilby, could you please discuss here what further sources you are asking for? and what part of my work you plan to delete? Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, I sharpened that edit further. Hope it suffices. I used the persons names. Their employers are obviously irrelevant. The source does not state these members employers in any way endorsed their informal group. The source is Barling. Let me know if you need any other sources. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I was about to put that reference in, as was clearly being discussed here with Bilby? But instead, once again, psyc12&iss246 has already come in and deleted all my work before being able to do so? And again, no discussion on this talk page from psyc12 explaining these deletions? Anyway, I just added some neutrality to a couple of sentences and took away some 'spin' from the way things were worded. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I added this to the sentence as well,"In 2000 an informal International Coordinating Group for Occupational Health Psychology" Because that is exactly what that source says, just an 'informal group,' and it takes away puffery. I also included the fact that the ICOH-WOPS committee is interdisciplinary. Will add the best independent reliable source for that statement later today, as discussed with Bilby. ICOH-WOPS is also entirely independent from occupational health psychology's organizations, and will also introduce reliable sources later today to support that. It is important not to mislead readers into thinking it is in some way, any way, affiliated with iss246 and psyc12's 'OHP' societies.Wikipedia:Verifiability.

There was discussion. My comments were pretty much sandwiched in there. I will be brief: Sources are needed for sentence. It may be worthwhile to meet some of the ICOH-WOPS hands at the ICOH-WOPS conference. Iss246 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The section on emergence as a professional discipline needs to be 're-worded.' Just cited the 1990 article psychology doctoral training in work & health. It does not state anywhere that: "occupational health psychology was described as a specific professional discipline" as iss246 wrote? I will change text accordingly unless any objections? Also could someone please provide an independent reliable source justifying such a bold inclusion of ICOH-WOPS in this article placed alongside iss246 and psyc12's 2 'OHP' societies? That organization simply does not recognize OHP as being affiliated with it, in any way? Seems to be a false association and perhaps should be removed from the article?Wikipedia:VerifiabilityMrm7171 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I am requesting again please, that an independent reliable source be provided, relating to ICOH-WOPS. Yes, iss246, both your S'OHP' & EA-'OHP' societies are formally associated with each other, as you say. That 'half is true.' However, while certain members of this (entirely separate) organization ICOH, and its scientific committee, may happen to be members of an external society or group, like your 'OHP' society, that does not equate to a connection or affiliation with this international organization ICOH-WOPS. These ICOH-WOPS individual committee members would obviously also hold other memberships like society for industrial & organizational psychology (SIOP) and many other personal memberships on their resume or CV, I'm sure.

These personal memberships, that any of these persons on the ICOH-WOPS, may or may not hold, is completely irrelevant here. ICOH-WOPS is not formally affiliated with these 'OHP' societies, just as it is not affiliated with the many I/O psychology societies around the world. It is a false association for psyc12 & iss246 to place in this article, to create the impression to readers that ICOH-WOPS is part of their 2 'OHP' societies. If no reliable source exists, stating that there is a 'formal connection,' between OHP and ICOH-WOPS, the reference in this article to ICOH-WOPS, needs to be deleted. Will leave this here for a bit longer before doing so. I am more than open to discussing this further with other editors if required.

The above is a little confusing. Can you restate what you mean more straightforwardly? Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather than create more text here, I just made the above comments even clearer. Will leave it a bit longer though to discuss.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically if no reliable source exists, stating that there is a 'formal connection,' between OHP and ICOH-WOPS, the reference in this article to ICOH-WOPS, needs to be deleted.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand you Mrm a little better. I explain the situation among the organizations. ICOH-WOPS, SOHP, and EA-OHP are independent organizations.

It does not matter if there is a formal or informal relationship between EA-OHP and SOHP. SOHP has a relationship with APA. What does the term relationship mean here? It means that sometimes the organizations' leaderships voluntarily make joint plans for the good of organizations and their members. EA-OHP and SOHP coordinate conference schedules to avoid running their respective international conferences in the same year because many people attend both conferences. SOHP, APA, and NIOSH cooperate to jointly plan their conference series with many SOHP members also members of APA (including me); APA's Public Interest Directorate is deeply interested in promoting healthy workplaces; NIOSH researchers conduct OHP research. APA administers a Listserv that SOHP/APA members subscribe to. Just as EA-OHP is not part of SOHP or vice versa, ICOH-WOPS is not part of EA-OHP or SOHP. SOHP is not part of APA. No one claims one organization is part of another.

I also remind you that their common interest is reflected in the fact that some members of SOHP joined EA-OHP and vice versa, and some members of EA-OHP joined ICOH-WOPS and vice versa. And so on. These organizations are nonetheless independent of each other.

Making joint plans does not make one organization part of another. What EA-OHP, SOHP, and ICOH-WOPS have most in common is an interest OHP. Iss246 (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I assume you have no independent reliable source stating that there is any 'formal connection,' at all, between OHP and ICOH-WOPS? In stark contrast there appears to be masses of reliable sources, noting 'formal association/connection/affiliation', between your 2 'OHP' societies, (ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP') and even APA for that matter, but just no independent reliable sources stating the same, with ICOH-WOPS?Wikipedia:Verifiability

I am also increasingly concerned with your extremely close connection in the 'real world' with all of this, and the blatant promotion of these organizations and indeed people, you keep talking about? Especially, after again reading, and for my own reference, these 2 articles: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Advocacy?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a connection between APA and SOHP too. For example, the organizational meeting at which SOHP was founded took place was hosted by APA at APA's headquarters in Washington, DC. But there is nothing nefarious about the connection. In the real world one learned society can have a closer connection to one particular organization than to another.

The EA-OHP conference was announced on the ICOH-WOPS web site. There is nothing wrong with that. Both EA-OHP and ICOH-WOPS are advisors to European efforts on psychosocial risk managagement in organizations. Again, there is nothing wrong with that. At the upcoming EA-OHP meeting, EA-OHP and ICOH-WOPS are jointly conducting a special session devoted to policy developments pertaining to OHP (http://eaohp.conference-services.net/programme.asp?conferenceID=3745). Again, there is nothing wrong.

Organizations that have overlapping goals sometimes cooperate with each other. Organizations that have very different goals have little to cooperate about. Iss246 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246&psyc12, it is obvious that you are both very strongly advocating for and trying to advance and promote your outside interests and connection to your 2 'OHP' societies(ie. S'OHP' & EA-'OHP'). These 'real world' memberships may be affecting your neutrality and ability to produce reliably sourced editing in this and other closely related encyclopedic articles, that's all I'm saying. This article provides very clear guidance here. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Have you both had a chance to read it yet. If you have no independent reliable source stating that there is any 'formal connection,' at all, between your 'OHP' societies, and this interdisciplinary organization ICOH-WOPS, I would like to edit it out of this article? Otherwise please produce it here.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I or someone else (Psyc12, WhatamIdoing, Richard Keatinge) have verified that the organizations exist. Several of us have verified that the organizations' goals concern OHP. I verified that the organizations sometimes cooperate but are still separate organizations. SOHP and EA-OHP had a "formal" agreement to run their conferences on alternate years. None of what I have written in this paragraph to summarize what we know about the organizations is advocacy. Mrm7171, you have not explained how that is advocacy. Iss246 (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

One other thing Mrm7171. I would be okay with the word "informal" if you could please quote from the source. It may very well be there, and I missed it. I may no longer have the original article you cite. Please put the quote here on this talk page. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It appears you and psyc12, have ignored and dismissed administrator Atama's accurate assessment of your COI in this article based on your comments above. Other editors on that forum, had, as you know, also noted you strongly advocating for your 'OHP' societies as far back as 2008 not just me. Back on topic, I would like to still work with you both, but constructively, and from a NPOV, on this and other related articles to your 'OHP' societies, but am becoming increasingly concerned that your 'real world' memberships and 'outside interests' may be affecting your neutrality and ability to produce reliably sourced editing that's all I'm saying. I found this article helpful. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide Have you both had a chance to read it yet, especially the summary points at the beginning? Anyway, Regarding content, is there any independent reliable source stating that there is any 'formal connection,' at all, between your 'OHP' societies, and this completely separate interdisciplinary organization ICOH? Let's discuss here. I'm sure we can make this a great article.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am still not clear what the answers to the questions above.

1. Is CGOHP a formal or informal group? I would be willing to write either "formal" or "informal" based on a source.

2. How is it that the organizations exist, have goals, and sometimes cooperate reflects advocacy? Iss246 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals

To answer your question iss246, Administrator Atama has already made the correct assessment of you & psyc12, both having COI issues in relation to your 'OHP' societies. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. In relation to content only though, my concern again, is that in the After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals section of this article, you have included ICOH-WOPS as one of the 'OHP' societies. It is not an 'OHP' society. If you want to include it, please provide an independent reliable source stating clearly that ICOH-WOPS is an 'OHP' society. Otherwise it should be deleted, as unsourced.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not what Atama wrote. I also recommend that you read the ICOH-WOPS program or get in touch with the ICOH-WOPS leadership to find out more. As for the "unsourced" claim, it is wrong. The ICOH-WOPS connection to OHP was documented in the chapters Barling and Griffiths wrote for both the 2002 edition and the revised 2011 of the Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. The Handbooks were published by the American Psychological Association. Iss246 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard administrator Atama correctly assessed these COI issues. He stated: "I do agree that there are some legitimate COI concerns here, though. If Iss246 and Psyc12 are members of an organization, I strongly recommend taking care when referencing the organization or writing about the organization in articles."

Also again, I found this article very helpful. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide Especially the summary. Have you and psyc12 had a chance to read it? I think it would help here in this article relating to your active membership of these 'OHP' societies and these outside interests. However I do not want to use Atama's correct assessment as a 'bludgeon' here. I also don't wish to edit war. So, my concern again, is content only.

The Barling reference you quoted simply does not state that "ICOH-WOPS is an 'OHP' society" You have included ICOH-WOPS falsely in this article's 'header' After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals ICOH-WOPS is not an 'OHP' academic society. I will remove ICOH-WOPS from that section. If you find an independent reliable source that states ICOH-WOPS is one of your 'OHP' societies we can re-include it then. A possible solution, and trying to work with you and psyc12 here, maybe ICOH-WOPS could be placed, in context, and in 'another section' of the article? Does that sound reasonable alternative?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong about "informal." I got hold of the Barling and Griffiths book (it was lost for a while in my home library but I found it today), and saw that the authors used that word "informal" to characterize the International Working group. I added to the article the word "informal" to modify the name of the group. But you are wrong about ICOH-WOPS. I don't hold that it is an academic society like EA-OHP or SOHP. What I hold is that it is the scientific committee of ICOH that is concerned with OHP. Its members and people who attend its triennial conferences conduct OHP research and try to apply OHP ideas to making the lives of working people more healthy. Iss246 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right, ICOH-WOPS is NOT an 'OHP' academic or professional society. And obviously no independent reliable source states that it is, which is all that matters here. I will therefore just take it out of that section in this article's header, under After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability and to make this article accurate and credible for readers.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

RE:Change to header "after 1990"? What is, "after 1990?" Please discuss on talk how this change makes a better Wikipedia article? Can I change it again to improve, if not.Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I need to correct your interpretation of what I wrote. I will spell out what I mean. ICOH-WOPS is not a society like EA-OHP or SOHP. ICOH-WOPS is a scientific committee, the main concern of which is OHP. Iss246 (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In this Wikipedia article, about the general subject of occupational health psychology, this odd sentence seems very promotional for members of these 'OHP' societies, only it seems (and quite irrelevant to this general article, otherwise). I mean, talking about all of the different people, by name, and even their employers, they work for "Initial members Julian Barling (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology), Mike Colligan (NIOSH), Tom Cox (Work & Stress), Heather Fox (American Psychological Association, APA)....." . A couple of other Wikipedia articles I just looked at, which are very similar to this article, are chemistry or cardiology. These articles don't mention in their content so much information about specific chemistry societies around the world?Thoughts? Can we delete please based, on all those reasons?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems from your comments previously that you opposed including ICOH-WOPS in the section titled "After 1990: academic societies and specialized journals" on the grounds that it is not an academic society or a specialized journal. Thus it seemed to me that the easiest fix was to remove the "academic societies and specialized journals" from the title, thus solving the dilemma.

In regard to the mention of the Mike Colligan, Steve Sauter and the like, I note that the first addition of those names was made by you [5]. I am not sure why you chose to add those names, then complain about their presence. Why did you choose to add them? - Bilby (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, I think I included their names, without also then having to include their employers as well. Seemed half sensible and was a compromise and to be civil after iss246 & psyc12 insisted including this informal 'OHP' group in this general article on occupational health psychology. I don't see why it should be included at all, frankly? Now all the names, of all the 'OHP' members, and all their various employers, are all included? Seems very promotional. I think at least deleting their names and employers seems sensible and leave just a brief mention of this informal group, if needed at all? What do you think Bilby?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Also Bilby, re: ICOH-WOPS. I propose it is written with a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view if included in this article at all. It is a scientific committee set up by ICOH to examine "Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors" (not OHP) reliable source:http: //www.icohweb.org/site_new/ico_homepage.asp. And for NPOV, it needs to be mentioned that it is multidisciplinary? Many disciplines are concerned with Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors. Not just OHP? For NPOV, this all needs to be included, to balance Barling's opinion and not give readers a false impression.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability should apply here, especially given legitimate COI concerns have already been assessed by administrator Atama Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I think we should include a discussion which presents what each of these various sources say, giving each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view with these sections in the article that relate to the 'OHP' community in the real world. I am however still trying to work with iss246 & psyc12, who are active members of the exact organizations we are writing about, although this article's summary Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide provides clear direction when such COI issues have already been assessed. I hope my minor changes satisfy NPOV in this article while maintaining civility and respect for these other editors, and following Atama's advice to me too.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 already stated that OHP emerged out of the confluence of 3 disciplines, health and i/o Ψ and occupational medicine. That is fine. It did not need the excessive text on what graduate programs contain them. I looked at abnormal Ψ, applied behavior analysis, community Ψ, biological Ψ, etc. They don't begin their first paragraphs with an exegesis on where the graduate programs are. They begin with clear, uncomplicated introductions to the subject matter. Iss246 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems very confusing and subjective iss246 and no reason to blank that whole section too. You accused me of POV. That's nonsense. Again, I ask, have you got any diffs? to support that accusation? Any evidence? Otherwise I take it as another baseless personal attack.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

ICOH-WOPS

The article stated:

One author, Barling (2011), believes that this committee is largely concerned with occupational health psychology[47] related research topics.

Is it possible to have the quote being used for this? The claim made in the article doesn't seem to match what I have in my copy, but there may be a difference. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I previously inserted the quote from Griffiths and Barling. It was deleted and replaced. I will re-edit the sentence with the quote. Iss246 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I'm okay either leaving it out, as you did, or leaving it in as a full quotation. This section on ICOH-WOPS, just needs to be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And for NPOV, it needs to be mentioned that ICOH-WOPS is multidisciplinary, certainly not just OHP. We just need to balance Barling's statement with other sources if we do include it. For Wikipedia:Verifiability a discussion which presents what each of these various sources say, giving each side its due weight, and maintain a NPOV seems appropriate.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what is going on here? But editor iss246 seems to be aggressively deleting and 'blanking' large established sections of this article and masses of independent, reliable sources and verifiable established text? with absolutely no discussion here on talk to explain their actions? I have stood right back for now, as I won't engage in edit warring. But this seems to be vandalism of the article, and quite 'odd' and erratic editing behavior?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited out minor material such as someone's having made attribution error. It was not clear why the attribution error was important to mention. I edited the 1st paragrah to make it less expressive of POV and more neutral. The paragraph is now less wordy and tendentious. The sentence on ICOH-WOPS included an exact quote from Barling & Griffiths. Iss246 (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I also think the comment about 18 (I counted 17) countries for ICOH-WOPS is not correct. I think that you were counting countries for the scientific committee overseeing the upcoming meeting. I think there are members from many more countries. The list is heavy with people from Australia because the meeting is in Adelaide. Iss246 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, can you explain please your blanking of major sections of this article today, as well as as 'multiple reverts' I have stood back. You accuse me of POV? Can you provide diffs please, as to where you mean? And an explanation of that evidence. Without any evidence, I take your comments re POV? as a personal attack. All of the sections you aggressively blanked today were balanced, reliably sourced, and presented with a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability all of these sections present what each of these various sources say, giving each side its due weight see here as one example. [6] If no evidence or explanation is provided these sections you blanked will obviously need to be restored.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the scholarship underlying the material you added is weak. 18 countries for ICOH-WOPS is completely wrong. It low-balls the estimate. Pussy-footing around ICOH-WOPS's deep connection to OHP is wrong. Go to the meeting in Adelaide next September and see for yourself. Citing Christie and Barling about the Marx is wrong; Christie and Barling did not cite Marx. Then there is the addition of a sentence about minor misattributions regarding who coined the term OHP. What is the justification as to why this very minor fact is worth mentioning? Why should an encyclopedia reader care if a scholar misattributed the coining of the term OHP to the wrong author? Please be more careful. Iss246 (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems all very confusing iss246? I note your further personal attacks and the fact that you have provided no diffs and no actual evidence at all, to support your accusations of POV, or justify your blanking and multiple reverts within the last 24 hours, which will need to be restored otherwise? Have you any diffs please?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Instead of providing diffs or any actual evidence, so I could possibly see what the heck you are talking about above, you attack me, saying "...my scholarship underlying the material you added is weak" That's just not true. Telling me to personally go to some meeting in Adelaide? What the .... are you talking about? Your 'real world' connection to all of this iss246 concerns me greatly. Increasingly so. Back to content issues. Any diffs or evidence please, otherwise I will obviously need to restore all of these neutral, reliably sourced sections you blanked. Please refrain the personal attacks too iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is in the comparison with other Ψ articles. There should be similarity among Ψ articles. In parag. 1, give a general picture of the subject matter. The opening parag.s in other Ψ articles do not begin with details about graduate programs.

I add that you also have to be more careful about including factual errors. For example, ICOH-WOPS members come from far more than 18 countries. It is closer to 90 countries. ICOH-WOPS is more like the U.N. Iss246 (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Blanking

Your blanking continues. You just blanked this reliably sourced section too? See here: [7]. Again, any evidence please, otherwise need to restore this section too.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I corrected mistakes and streamlined text. For example, I removed 1 or 2 sentences that waste a reader's time with information about how scholars made the minor mistake misattributing the term OHP to someone other than the original coiners of the term. If that information is important, it should go into a book written for specialists. It is too minor a point to belong in the encyclopedia. Iss246 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I provide here, just some objective examples of your 'mass blanking' today iss246. I have stood right back, rather than engage in edit warring with you. You have also provided no diffs or objective evidence whatsoever, to allow some understanding, of why you have decided to 'mass blank and delete' in the last 24 hours Mrm7171 (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing the sentences in par. 1 about graduate education made the opening par. consistent with the opening par.s in articles on abnormal Ψ, biological Ψ, applied behavior analysis, clinical Ψ, and so on.Iss246 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I also removed sentence about OHP being thought to be a subdiscipline of organizational Ψ in 1985 before it was established with organizations, journals, conferences, etc. That OHP arose out of the confluence of 3 disciplines is already stated in the 1st sent. Iss246 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, you have still not provided any evidence, diffs or actual reasoning, based on Wikipedia policy/guidelines, why you blanked my edits yesterday. I would like to restore all of my reliably sourced, neutral edits (see diffs), in an attempt to bring some type of NPOV to this article. Will you blank them all again if I do? I ask this, as I won't engage in edit warring with you iss246? These are just some of the specific diffs from the edits I had carefully made over the past week or two and you decided? to blank yesterday, all of a sudden? and all within a 24 hour period. I would like to re-include my reliably sourced, neutral, good faith edits? Mrm7171 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't ignore my comments about streamlining in the opening paragraph, and removing the confusing sentences on the subdiscipline idea. Moreover, the statement about ICOH-WOPS being more like the UN than a 17-nation group is correct. ICOH-WOPS has members from about 90 nations. Iss246 (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, based on the clear, objective diffs, it is pretty obvious that you didn't just "streamline the opening paragraph" as you say.

Also, can you provide any independent reliable sources for your own ICOH statement (90 countries)? The reliable sourced attached to my edit, you blanked yesterday,[8] shows 17 countries as part of this multidisciplinary committee? But if you have have another reliable source, I'd be very interested in looking at it.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

An example of faulty scholarship. You don't believe me just because the University of South Australia showed the organizing committee on its web page. You confused the organizing committee with the whole shebang. ICOH-WOPS has "a membership of 2,000 professionals from 93 countries." http://www.apa.org/pi/work/resources/2014-icoh-congress.pdf. Iss246 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The source you provide is for ICOH, the organization. ICOH-WOPS is the actual committee set up by ICOH. Its 'remit' is work organisation and psychosocial factors (WOPS). Members on that committee, come from 17 countries as shown in this diff right here. [9]. But really, this diff is just one of the many sections of the article you blanked 2 days ago. Here are some other examples. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Mrm7171 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to re-check the numbers for ICOH-WOPS. Maybe one of us is right. Maybe the number is small. Maybe it is large. Maybe the number is in-between. The conference I attended in Quebec was enormous (multi-day, multiple sessions running simultaneously). I am going to search the web more thoroughly to get the numbers. Iss246 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that it is not my scholarship that is faulty, is it iss246? Anyway, when you do 're-check' your figures and 'facts' as you say, please always provide an independent reliable source. The source I provided above is sound. In fact I would like to restore all of my neutral and reliably sourced edits (see objective diffs above) I had carefully added over the last 2 weeks and that you blanked all of a sudden? I have refrained from doing so as yet, because I won't engage in edit warring with you iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a member at ICOH-WOPS who has served as an official at ICOH-WOPS. I am not going to disclose the name of the person because I don't know if the person wants to be identified--I want to be conservative here. The member told me that ICOH-WOPS has about 200 members who come from about 25 different countries.

The Web-based research I conducted was frustrating. I could not find anything on the Web or in library data bases about the composition of ICOH-WOPS. That is why I wrote the member. Of course, personal communications cannot be used on Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There was already an accurate, current independent reliable source provided for that committee iss246. It is obvious you had no justification to have blanked that reliable source or any of the other reliably sourced, neutral edits you deleted 2 days ago, (and continue to do it seems), despite me in good faith, stepping back and genuinely trying to resolve this with you? Instead I note that you just deleted another of my long term edits, and the reliable source attached. [15] Once again, no discussion here first?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not blank. What I did was correct material. I will tell you what I mean. I corrected the wordy bit about Kornhauser. Kornhauser's work that bears most on OHP was his book entitled Mental Health of the Industrial Worker. The research was conducted in the early 1960s and book was published in 1965. In the 1920s he was engaged in research on testing. If you think about it, I'm watching your back. Which is a better way to work. Iss246 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, this long term reliably sourced, neutral edit you just deleted today, without discussing first, [16] was already correct and concise. You had no grounds to delete it, especially while I am clearly trying to resolve these other unjustified multiple deletions made 2 days ago, with you, in good faith.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, the writing is better now. It is less wordy and more accurate. Iss246 (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Unemployment

I edited the sentence about unemployment research at the University of Sheffield in order to make it less wordy. However, the research does not take hold until the 1980s. Thus the mention of the research is chronologically out sync given its current location in the text.

I think the sentence should be rewritten again (continuing to avoid wordiness) and transplanted to a spot in the psychological distress section. There we can write a sentence about Peter Warr's research on the impact of unemployment. I own his book Work, Unemployment and Mental Health. I can do it but I wanted to hear from you Mrm. Iss246 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I liked a couple of items you introduced. For example, Kornhauser. But you got him slightly wrong. And the sentence you wrote was wordy. I edited the sentence to underline the part of his work that is most important to OHP, his 1960s work on mental health in auto workers, not his 1920s work. Because the work was in the 1960s, I moved the sentence I edited to a more chronologically apt place. Iss246 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my deleting your sentences about how some scholars misattributed the coining of the term OHP to Raymond et al., I already wrote about that here and in my comments next to my edits. I wrote that including sentences on a scholar's error is a poor use of Wikipedia space. Although the error has little relevance to the general development of OHP, it may have a place in a book written for specialists. Encyclopedia readers tend to be generalists. It is not so important that it take up valuable space in an encyclopedia. Iss246 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

iss246, I plan to restore the unjustified, frivolous deletions and blanking of my long term, concise, neutral and reliably sourced edits you blanked 2 days ago [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] and this one [22] you deleted today before quickly moving on here, as you seem to be wanting to do. For two days, I have been trying to resolve these sudden 'blanking edits' you made, and it is now clear from the dialogue above, that there was no grounds for doing so, per Wikipedia policy and guidelines, apart from you not liking these edits personally. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

'Walls of unnecessary text' have been created here on this talk page, by avoiding straight forward discussion iss246. The ICOH-WOPS committee deletion, was just one of numerous deletions you made, as 'example diffs' clearly show above. Are you going to revert my edits again, if I restore them? Please answer that straight forward question iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The amount of text I write here is considerably less than the amount of text you write. Moreover, you ask for explanations; I give you explanations, then you say I wrote a wall of text. Iss246 (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of edits

I re-included some long term neutral and reliably sourced edits, as I have discussed here for the last 3 days. With a number of the other deletions that psyc12&iss246 had made, I chose not to re-include them, for civility and compromise. However this article is about the broad subject of occupational health psychology, not a couple of privately run 'OHP' societies and what these societies, and their active members, (such as psyc12 & iss246) want this Wikipedia article to say. An article on chemistry, cardiology or biology for example, do not emphasize all of the activities and affiliations of the privately run chemistry, cardiology or biology-related groups and societies around the world either. Occupational health psychology, involves many different professions and disciplines, journals, texts, courses, practitioners around the world. These all need to be represented in this article based on what all reliable sources actually say, without bias.

Wikipedia:Verifiability principles should obviously be applied here, by presenting what all of reliable sources 'actually' say, especially when there are these contradictions in the literature? ICOH-WOPS and their conferences involve many academic fields, professions and topics. However again, for civility and compromise I left in the quote by Barling that states "ICOH-WOPS is largely concerned with occupational health psychology." (ie. related research topics). Although I certainly don't wish to "bludgeon" iss246 or psyc12 with administrator Atama's accurate recent assessment that they do, as active members of their 'OHP' society have significant COI issues it still is a point worth remembering here. I have made a series of good faith edits in this article and only from a neutral point of view. My edits have attempted to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of occupational health psychology, good or bad. I hope my numerous compromises also demonstrate respect for other editors and I just expect the same in return.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Bilby: Hi Bilby and other editors. Could editors please discuss any planned blanking/deletions before doing so? Also, if other editors believe another reliable source is required, please put citation needed tag next to it. I always do the same. It would be appreciated and part of policy. I should note, in my own editing I have been very careful NOT to delete others work, especially reliably sourced, neutral edits. Thanks. I'm more than open to discussion right here.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Psyc12: Psyc12, you just blanked this whole neutral, reliably sourced section? Please restore as per Wikipedia policy and civility and respect for other editor's work. If you need more sources add a citation tag please. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC) [23]

• @Iss246: Iss246, you just blanked this whole neutral, reliably sourced section? Please restore as per Wikipedia policy and civility and respect for other editor's work. That, as you know, was another editor's long term edit you just aggressively blanked. Your deletion is right here? [24] Please restore and discuss first.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If we can apply appropriate Wikipedia policy here, I'm sure we can work out any issues without aggressively blanking other editor's good faith edits.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Including a fact that a scholar misattributed the coining of the term OHP is of little relevance to the OHP entry. The fact may be relevant to specialists. It is not relevant to the public who consults Wikipedia to get a more general picture of OHP. Iss246 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, I don't want to edit war. Any chance you could restore your blanking of that whole section you just did. I'm sure we can discuss any concerns you have come to a civil resolution? Your blanking is this: [25]Mrm7171 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I only deleted items where you are relying on primary research, personal opinion, and misciting of sources. Two examples:

You claim that Spector says OHP is part of I/O. Here's what he said: “This emerging subfield of psychology (and other disciplines such as medicine and public health)”, p. 270. To argue that Spector thinks OHP is part of I/O because it is in the text is your personal interpretation, which is primary research.

You claim that Zickar says Kornhauser's work in the 1920s was a foundation of OHP, but here's what Zickar said about that. “Chroniclers of the field of occupational health psychology cite Kornhauser’s (1965) study as a landmark work.”Psyc12 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Psyc12: I just looked at what the edit history actually says, and it is contrary to your personal opinion. It seems that you have 'miscited' what was actually included in those deletions? Did you delete all of those other primary & secondary sources in error? If not, could you please provide some actual evidence and diffs to support your 'subjective opinions.' Multiple reliable sources were provided. Based entirely on what the reliable sources say, not my opinion, occupational health psychology appears as a sub-discipline? We need to include those reliable sources, not censor them. I realise that may not be consistent with what your 'OHP' society says, in your current literature, but it has nothing to do with your 'OHP society wants to include in this article, and everything to do with what the reliable sources say. And not just those sources written by other members of your 'OHP' society either. Please discuss.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Psyc12: While waiting for your response on these valid content points I've raised above, I think it is worthwhile restoring what could be viewed as those 3 frivolous blankings you made. I see no reason to have done so, based on your comments above, and we certainly need much further discussion here, before deleting another editor's reliably sourced, neutral, good faith edits.

[26] [27] [28]That would seem a good first step in working toward a civil resolution here. Will restore your blankings for those reasons, while waiting, if that is okay with you?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you respond directly please to that straightforward question in the first instance. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Psyc12: Psyc12 I take you ignoring my request, and questions i've asked, as an 'okay' to go ahead, and restore your frivolous blankings, and us take the first step in working toward a civil resolution here. I've noticed you have edited the article in the meantime that's all, and my pings sent. So I base that comment on you ignoring these questions, only on this objective evidence, provided by the edit history time line, that's all. Not my subjective opinion. Will go ahead and restore then. But please don't then go ahead and blank them all again. I am trying to achieve a resolution here. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Mrm7171: I am not ignoring you. I have explained further down why I made the changes I did. If you put something in the article that is wrong and not properly referenced as you did earlier, I will correct it. Psyc12 (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Psyc12: No, What I clearly said was You are ignoring the straightforward question directly above, regarding restoration of your blankings while we discuss so we can reach a civil resolution to any concerns you have. I also think that you may be, if you don't mind me saying, misinterpreting or misunderstanding Wikipedia policy on the use of primary sources. Also please provide actual diffs and links to Wikipedia policies rather than selected quotes and your subjective opinions. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of of blanking

Psyc12. You just blanked 4 separate sections of this article, without any discussion here. I'm happy to discuss but that is pretty uncivil, don't you think? There is protocol here. Can you restore your 4 aggressive deletions in quick succession. I'm more than happy to discuss your concerns in a civil manner.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Psyc12: Actually it was these 3 separate blankings. Regarding Spector, I provided other sources too. I have others. Can you please restore these deletions [29]

[30] [31] We can then discuss in a civil manner toward a resolution of your concerns. Does that sound fair and consistent with policy and guidelines? I don't want an edit war, but I found your deletions unnecessary, unexplained and uncivil, that's all.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171, a fact such as researchers finding that under some conditions a high psychological workload contributes to the development of heart disease is important enough to include in the article. The reliably sourced fact that scholars misattributed the coining of the term OHP does not rise to a high enough level of importance to be included in an article for a generalist readership. Iss246 (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

iss246. My reply. The edit you are talking of, relates to when occupational health psychology was first discovered. That is important. It is important enough for one line in the article too. Some say, 1985. And then others authors such as Barling believe it was first coined in 1990. That is noteworthy. It was well written by another editor, and had been in the article long term with 3 reliable sources attached. Please restore the other editor's work you just blanked.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, how does that misattribution bear on the development of OHP as a discipline? I could see that if a researcher found that low psychological workload leads to heart disease and then that hypothesis was reversed, such a fact could be included b/c it bears on the trajectory of the field. Iss246 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the following sentence pertaining to ICOH-WOPS: "This multidisciplinary committee currently has members from seventeen countries." It is not important enough to include. Moreover it is incorrect. The committee members on the handout from the U. of S. Australia were involved in the organizing of the meeting. That is why one-third of the members are the handout are from Australia, the host country. Iss246 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Iss246: Have you found a reliable source in the last few days, to back that up yet iss246? We are only concerned about what the reliable sources say. The independent reliable source I provided is correct and outlines all of the current members from the committee, not just the conference at the University of South AustraliaMrm7171 (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The source you are linking to, [32], lists the scientific committee for the "International Congress for Occupational Health and Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors", which is the conference. It doesn't state that it is listing the full committee for ICOH-WOPS. - Bilby (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the committee link at the University of South Australia, Bilby?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The one that states that it is the scientific committee for the conference. We'll need a source that clearly states the countries for ICOH-WOPS, rather than just this particular conference. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. Okay, have now re-worded this single, concise and relevant sentence in the article & exactly what the reliable source says, (accounting for your concerns above). All okay now? Also this discussion should problem be placed at the base of the page.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not important to an article on OHP to state there are 17 countries or 25 countries or 50 countries are represented among the members of ICOH-WOPS. You noticed the high proportion of people from Australia in the announcement for the conference scheduled for Sept. 2014. That's because the conference is in Adelaide, and those people play an important role in the organizing of the conference. When the conference was in Quebec, a high proportion of the organizers were from Canada, particularly Laval University, which is in the same city in which the conference was held. A much lower proportion of people from Australia were among the organizers. Nevertheless it remains unimportant to an article on OHP to devote space to the number of countries represented in ICOH-WOPS. Iss246 (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

All very confusing iss246. The independent reliable source I provided is correct based on sound scholarship. It outlines all of the current members from the committee, not just the conference at the University of South Australia Wikipedia is only concerned with independent reliable sources. Have you found in your scholarship, an independent reliable source in the last few days, to back up your subjective opinions, iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the note by Bilby above.

I pointed out that it is unimportant to an article about OHP to write about how many countries are represented in ICOH-WOPS regardless of how reliable the source is. You may not have realized that the source was highlighting the organizers and not the entire membership of ICOH-WOPS. 22:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Again iss246, relating to your subjective opinions you seem not to be able to cite any actual reliable sources? The source cited is the actual committee. Can you actually provide any reliable sources to back up your personal opinions please iss246. You seem to add a lot of text here, but no reliable sources to back it up! That's all.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, I read your edit. Why is it important to state in an OHP article that the committee members organizing the ICOH-WOPS conference come from 17 countries? Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, reliable sources please? Wikipedia is 'only' concerned about what the reliable sources say! Not our opinions. You've made many claims about other's scholarship, but fail to back up your subjective 'opinions' with independent reliable sources?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

To go to a website and count up the countries and then to interpret the meaning of that count is primary research which is disallowed in articles. You need a reliable reference that specifically says how many countries the members of ICOH-WOPS represent. Psyc12 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, there are many reliable sources that say all kinds of things. That Karasek flew to Sweden in 1981 on United Airlines. The source may be reliable but the bit of information is not important.

In psychology, there exist concepts of reliability and validity. The fact may be reliably sourced. But it isn't valid for this article. It may be valid for some other purpose. But not for this article. Iss246 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide Wikipedia policy only, to support your personal, subjective POV, about reliability and validity. That's psychology (which I understand very well, by the way), but not Wikipedia! Also can I assume by now, that you simply have NO reliable sources whatsoever, to 'back up' your many accusations and assumptions you've made over the past few days on this talk page?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I am not making an accusation. This is what I am saying. There are many reliable sources that provide minor, even trivial information that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Why should the countries of the ICOH-WOPS group that is organizing the Adelaide conference be part of an encyclopedia article about OHP? The information is not relevant to the article. Iss246 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, you claim that Antoniou and Cooper say OHP is a subarea of occupational psychology. Here is what they say, p. 1. "OHP is an applied field of psychology that aims to improve the quality of work life, and to protect and promote the safety, health and well-being of workers (NIOSH, 2009)."

Psyc12, please provide diffs as to what I 'actually say' in future. I find many of your comments on these talk pages misquoting me or authors, or misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. Hope that's a fair enough request, re: diffs, it's the only way all editors can look at things objectively, that's all. Also please refer to the message to you, still left unanswered, at the end of the previous header above. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The citation of APA books as including I/O books is misplaced. Under the I/O book category at the APA web site, there are books on career counseling (counseling Ψ), HIV, neural networks in organizations (cog neuro), OHP, and the origin of mind (development Ψ and cog neuro). I will delete it. Iss246 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to edit something else out: Occupational health psychology is included as a chapter within organizational psychology handbooks and texts such as Spector (2011) and Antoniou, A. & Cooper, C. (2011).[6][7].

There are 3 reasons. First, this citation is an example of cherry-picking. Spector wrote about OHP in a publication on public health. Why not cite that? Why? It is not relevant here. Neither of the citations are relevant. Second, the book by Antoniou and Cooper contains a chapter on OHP but the chapter does not say OHP is a subdiscipline of i/o. OHP is not a subdiscipline of public health either. The subtext here is a tacit claim that OHP is a subdiscipline of i/o; it isn't. Third, the extra text clutters the introductory paragraph with material that is not needed to introduce the encyclopedia entry. Iss246 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: Please provide some diffs, to support your claims iss246. I am not sure of your point? The sections you just blanked were neutral and reliably sourced. Will restore, while diffs and Wikipedia policy, can be produced please. Just because one editor does not personally like an edit, is no reason to delete other editor's work.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to make my position clear here. 1. This article should be as accurate as possible, and should reflect what reliable secondary sources actually say, and not an interpretation of what they said or might have meant. 2. The article should not reflect personal opinions that are unsupported by reliable sources, like OHP is a subarea of I/O. This argument has been ongoing since last summer, and I have yet to see a single reference make this point, and editors have posted several that say the opposite. 3. We should avoid primary research, like going to a website, counting up something, and offering that as if it is a reference. 4. Where editorial judgment is concerned, a point should not be in the article if only one editor thinks it should be and others think it should not. If I follow, three editors feel the point about mis-attributing the first mention of OHP isn't important enough to mention. If an editor feels strongly in the opposite direction, take it to dispute resolution and see if some independent editors will support putting it in.

I don't often post on this talk page because I am tired of the endless walls of text and being personally attacked and accused when I have an opinion different from someone else. Psyc12 (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Psyc12: That's a lot of text, psyc12 and is very confusing. Can you provide actual diffs please, as evidence, to support your claims? Please also refer to Wikipedia policy on primary sources and when they can be used.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard administrator Atama correctly assessed these COI issues. He stated: "I do agree that there are some legitimate COI concerns here, though. If Iss246 and Psyc12 are members of an organization, I strongly recommend taking care when referencing the organization or writing about the organization in articles." Also operating together could be considered tag teaming, which can lead to problems." (see COIN). I also found this article very helpful. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide Have you both had a chance to read it? It explains how to deal with COI issues and editors strongly advocating for and advancing the aims and agendas of their outside interests. It just seems that you are both strongly advocating for how your ‘OHP’ society wants this general occupational health psychology article to be portrayed on Wikipedia, and why you both quickly blank out neutral and reliably sourced sections, that are inconsistent with your 'OHP' society POV, instead of just editing the article only from a NPOV.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the stick and step away from the horse. This is a pointless, and overly repeated line of attack, which is exactly what Atama told you to avoid with "Please do not use my determination of a COI concern in regards to SOHP as a bludgeon in content disputes". You are using it as a bludgeon. This is not a good way forward. - Bilby (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it needed to be clearly stated. Atama made a very accurate assessment that COI issues existed with psyc12 & iss246's 'OHP' memberships and advocacy of that societies agendas. As can be clearly seen, I am trying to resolve these issues, in what I objectively see, from a neutral perspective, as an extremely biased article, so don't think bludgeoning here. But won't mention Atama's COI assessment again on this page.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also Bilby. Atama did provide psyc12 & iss246 advice, regarding their COI, and I even offered this excellent article as a guide also. Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. These 2 editors have ignored administrator's advice. So, what do you suggest Bilby?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest doing nothing. Neither Psy12 nor Iss246 have a COI in regard to OHP. They do potentially have a COI in regard to SOHP, which I am sure they take into account, but there is no reason why they should not be editing this article, and excellent reasons as to why their involvement here is a good thing. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's all I ever said too Bilby, re: the COI assessment related to their affiliations with their 'OHP' academic societies and the society agendas? Also, as I said, didn't realise the COI issues could never be mentioned here, to be honest. Regardless, won't mention Atama's COI assessment here again. Just want to move forward with this article. It does need a lot of work. Towards that goal, you haven't commented below please Bilby? Interested in your thoughts? (This unsigned message was dated 01:12, 23 March 2014)

• @Bilby: Have not heard from you Bilby, regarding Richardkeatinge's belief that this article needs a complete overhaul? I could not agree more. Interested in your thoughts, when you get a chance, given your personal involvement in the article over a long period? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward again

• @Bilby: This [33] neutral and reliably sourced long established edit, formed through consensus, was blanked by iss246? Then he blanked this edit I tried to add instead? [34]. Psyc12&iss246 have also blanked this neutral, reliably sourced edit. [35]? I have not reverted yet, but they seem sound to me? Don't want to edit war either. I'm just looking for some actual diffs and Wikipedia policies from psyc12 & iss246? Thoughts Bilby?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Look forward to your comments here Bilby, when you get a chance? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

{{delurk}} I've kept this page on my watchlist since my last comment on it. I suggest that the central problem is that our article has become bloated with detail, lacking appropriate overviews / summaries, to the extent that it is of very little value as an encyclopedic article. My style adviser has just remarked that the first half of the first paragraph of the lede is acceptable, but the article just gets worse from there on with immense lists of examples, and an obsession with organizational detail, especially demarcation (itself a debatable concept of only modest utility) between OHP and other branches of psychology. In general it needs much less detail, and to the extent that the arguments above are about including or excluding specific details, I suggest that almost all of them should be excluded.

I would remind all contributors that we do not have to include all information that has been published in a reliable source. We are supposed to produce an encyclopedic article, primarily an introduction and overview for the general reader. I, and no doubt many others, could make more specific suggestions about rewriting the article, but I wouldn't even think of doing so while the present interminable wrangles continue. The wrangles - irrespective of the rights and wrongs in any specific case - are a serious obstacle to any improvement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC) {{relurk}}

Hi Richard Keatinge. I'm open to re-working this encyclopedic article too and I think you have made some 'spot on' comments. It may be worth following other general article topics like biology or botany, where they don't focus on biology or botany academic societies, groups etc or demarcation issues. I think a flexible, cooperative approach between editors would work too and selecting from what all the reliable sources say about this general research topic without including all information in a reliable source.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

So, how can we begin re-writing this encyclopedic article? I think a collaborative discussion here first, may help to bring editors together on this task. I have noticed psyc12&iss246 have not yet commented on Richardkeatinge's proposals but have made some changes again without any discussion here first, which is not helpful?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with RichardKeatinge. Although a very minor fact may be reliably sourced, it need not be included in the article. Iss246 (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Good. The entire article needs an overhaul. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what is wrong with your approach Mrm7171. You wait for me to write something, then you ignore what I wrote. I did not say anything about an overhaul. I just said that minor points (e.g., 17 people are on a committee) don't belong. I don't think the analogy with chemistry or biology is apt.

The analogy between psychology as a whole with biology is apt.

The analogy for the OHP article is other applied psychology articles. Educational Ψ, health Ψ, i/o, school Ψ. Iss246 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246:Richardkeatinge has said this 'encyclopedic article' needs an overhaul from the first half, of the first paragraph, down. I just agreed. You said you agreed too iss246? Do you?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain exactly why the 2 'OHP' societies and their various conferences, and their affiliated organizations, like NIOSH, need to be mentioned at all? In other Wikipedia articles on general topics, like educational psychology and school psychology there is no real mention of the many separate societies, and groups, and their affiliated organizations or their conferences? I don't get it?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Organizations like SIOP play an important role in providing a foundation for i/o and provide a place where i/o psychologists can communicate with each other. APA and BPS played an important role in the furthering of health Ψ. There are organizations that are relevant to the development of OHP. Iss246 (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246: Can you respond to these questions more clearly please? Question 1. All other similar articles, mentioned above, don't include any real mention of the many separate societies, and groups, and their affiliated organizations or their conferences? And question 2. Do you agree with Richardkeatinge saying this 'encyclopedic article' needs an overhaul from the first half, of the first paragraph, down? Please respond to these 2 clear questions. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

For what my opinion may be worth, I would certainly not remove all mention of the OHP societies from this article. They have effectively established OHP as an academic discipline and are clearly important to its history.

Mrm7171 and Iss246, the two of you seem to be deadlocked in a mutually unsatisfactory relationship and I can see no obvious prospect that either of you will manage to break out. This is unfortunate as you both have expertise in the subject area (which I don't). I guess (though as a non-administrator I can only guess) that if this goes on, there is a serious prospect of topic banning for one or possibly both of you. I would like to suggest what may be a step towards a solution: that both of you commit to not editing in the topic area of your mutual interest for a significant period, perhaps six months. This would apply to both talk and main space psychology articles, though your own talk page and your own sandbox would remain open to you to make suggestions and comments. The time would allow other editors to rework this article, and possibly others, in depth. I would hope that by the time you return, both of you will find that the article(s) are much clearer encyclopedic introductions, and that they don't need the changes that one or the other will loathe. You might wish to tune up your own expertise in the meantime by editing in unrelated areas.

I am aware that this idea will seem fair to neither of you. It may however offer a genuine way forward both for the article and for your relationship with Wikipedia. It will certainly save a lot of your time and promote personal tranquility. Will you make such a commitment, conditional on the other joining in? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Richardkeatinge. I have absolutely no affiliation whatsoever with these 2 'OHP' societies or the 'OHP' community or this topic in general. However I do want to see a truly neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedic article and be part of achieving that, as much as you do. I have backed down, stepped back and compromised on countless occasions of late, and have not for over 70 days now, (and will not) engage in edit warring. An overhaul of this article will require flexibility and compromise from all editors, and above all, an acceptance and recognition that major changes 'are' required. I also strongly suggest and believe the only way that will happen, is if you, personally, drive those fundamental changes and you make a start straight away. Only then will you see what level of opposition you get?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you personally start making those substantial changes you believe are required. But you do need to make a start RK, as talking about it on these pages has proven futile. As I say, you will quickly see what opposition you get from other editors once you actually start. So, I encourage you to just do it!Mrm7171 (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171, you don't seem to understand the request. The suggestion is not "Would the people with a real-world connection to the OHP societies please take a break?" The suggestion is "Would the people who have strong views about the subject please take a break?" That suggestion encompasses you just as much as it includes Iss246. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RichardKeating, I agree with you that the brief mention of the societies is helpful. Other articles on applied Ψ topics include mention of relevant organizations. The mention of OHP organizations is brief, and serves the historical purpose of showing the discipline's development.

Regarding voluntary topic banning, I have already done that. But not in the way you RK have suggested. I have voluntarily refrained from editing organizational behavior, musculoskeletal disorders, and safety culture despite my having an academic interest in those topics. I could change my mind; however, right now I feel comfortable not going there. I think Mrm should voluntarily refrain from editing the OHP entry. I also think that he should commit to not edit in Wikipedia in such a way as to make it appear to readers that OHP is a subdiscipline of another academic discipline, for example, health Ψ or i/o. I would like that argument to end with a resolution that OHP is its own discipline within Ψ. D'accord? Iss246 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no from both of you. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I give up on trying to improve this and other 'OHP' article. As I said RK, you need to drive the change. I also think you will do a good job of that process, based on how Wikipedia want to see their own articles. So yeah, I will step right back from these 'OHP' articles, and focus on improving a lot of other articles I have been working on. I think I have at least made my points clear as to how I think they can be improved. Good luck!Mrm7171 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If we're to embark on rewriting this article, I'd like to ask for some specific voluntary editing limits, and for some specific help. Mrm7171, thanks for your offer to step right back; I wouldn't want to lose your contributions entirely, but I would like to suggest that you limit to your sandbox your edits on any subject relating to OHP or, in fact, any subject on which you have ever clashed or are ever likely to clash with Iss246. This would include all the articles to which you have recently been adding comments about the various sub-disciplines of psychology. and therefore would require significant self-restraint. I at least will put your sandbox on my watch list and will read your thoughts with interest. Iss246, it seems to me that the definition of a discipline within psychology is not necessarily simple, unambiguous, or unique. These definitions can overlap and we need to present them only so far as they're really needed for an encyclopedic audience, and in suitably nuanced ways. Straightforward claims that discipline or paper or author X is part of Y and not of Z may be perfectly reasonable in other forums, but are only seldom appropriate here. I ask you to make mainspace edits on definitional issues only after you have trailed them for at least a week on the relevant talk page, and then only after you have achieved a clear consensus on the talk page that the edit is valuable. Not mere acquiescence, but comments actively supporting the edit.

I certainly don't want to rewrite this article entirely on my own. Apart from anything else, I have no expertise in the subject and I don't even have any reference books available. I'd be grateful if any experienced editor would join me. In particular I wonder if User:Bilby and User:WhatamIdoing would be kind enough to at least keep this page on their watch lists and comment as the spirit may move them.

Given the above, I'd be prepared to make a start. I should have some time when the financial year is finished and I no longer have an urgent need to tick loads of boxes for the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Without the above commitments from Mrm7171 and Iss246, I'll use the time more productively elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RichardKeatinge, I welcome your input and that of User:WhatamIdoing and User:Bilby. As for my own editing of the OHP entry, I prefer to edit a bit at a time, in other words, in small steps.

With regard RK to your concern about definitional issues, I note that User:Psyc12 changed the definition of OHP that I had originally written, and replaced it with a definition from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Given the CDC's wide respect, I think that was a good decision. Iss246 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't realistically think that I will have time to re-write this article—certainly not between now and April 15th. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've got a couple of weeks until a get a teaching break, but I'm happy to do what I can as soon as I have a bit of time to play. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Total re-write of this article is still needed

I thought this entire article was going to be re-written? As it stands, it is and always has been, grossly biased and written from a non neutral perspective. There has been significant censorship of reliably sourced material that represents widely accepted points of view within the international psychology industry and no attempt to present a worldwide view?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a grossly unbalanced and non-neutral article, that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. It has been written solely from a USA perspective, from a USA OHP society perspective only, without providing a worldwide view on the topic. It does not present the controversies surrounding OHP. Presents OHP as a distinct field. It does not give due weight to other reliable secondary sources. Points of view are not recognized internationally. Completely open to discussion on these points of contention.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted tag I added 3 days ago to avoid duplication. Main neutrality POV tag now added, which requires talk and resolution here, before removing, with section directly above detailing just some of the objective reasons why I believe this article is grossly biased.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The OHP entry contains citations of research from Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, the US, and probably elsewhere. The entry is not narrowly focused on a US point of view as reflected in the diverse research described in the entry. Of course in the US, as in other countries, there is no one point of view on almost any topic. I am going to remove the point of view label. Iss246 (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't create an edit war iss246. The tags are very much justified. Wikipedia policy. Administrator Bilby looked at it yesterday and left it in place. Correctly. As it says, don't remove, until the POV and bias issues discussed above are resolved. This is a coatrack article, pure and simple, and grossly biased. This article needs to be completely re-written as numerous editors agreed. It needs to be improved significantly or if not, deleted.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Iss246:Please read this article Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. It explains Wikipedia's policy very clearly. Much better to follow Wikipedia policy than flame throw or edit war iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, it is you who needs to avoid an edit war. I remind you that administrators asked you not to edit the OHP entry because of your past disruptive edits, including your efforts to make OHP a province of i/o psychology. Iss246 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My only problems in the past have been this article being grossly biased. Non neutral. POV. Someone has to do something! It is a coatrack article, pure and simple! It does not represent what major reliable sources say. It does not allow discussion of controversies surrounding OHP! Written solely by 2 OHP society members. No-one else can get a word in! Tagging it is the only option to try anbd get it entirely re-written, based on Wiki policies or even deleted.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm. It is unhelpful to keep making these claims that the article is biased, without giving specifics. What in the article exactly is biased? Please be specific so other editors can better evaluate your claims of bias, and how the article might be improved. Just saying the article is biased doesn't tell us how. Psyc12 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

psyc..I made it very clear above, the exact specifics/concerns. You ignored them. The entire article is a coatrrack written only from your OHP Society perspective. This tag was the last option. It needs to be entirely re-written or deleted. Please read this article Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. It explains Wikipedia's policy very clearly. Much better to follow Wikipedia policy than flame throw or edit war iss246. I edit a huge number of articles on Wikipedia. I have no particular interest in any one topic. Fact. Only that ALL articles need to follow Wikipedia policies. It seems that as soon as I try to correctly tag this article, suddenly psyc & iss come jumping straight back in and delete it, only interested in this specific article and noone being allowed to touch it!!?? It is a coatrack article, pure and simpleMrm7171 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, that is not specific. Iss246 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I will not revert again iss246. I respect Wikipedia policy and will not edit war. You ignored Wikipedia:NPOV dispute policy. You just recklessly, knowlingly broke the The three-revert rule. Wikipedia:Edit warring I edit a huge number of Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. I have no affiliation with any one topic. However this coatrack article you and your OHP society colleague, psyc12, have solely written, needs to be completely re-written or deleted!! I realise by correctly tagging this grossly biased article, I have drawn attention to this issue and my conflict with you over it many months ago. But so be it! I stand by my record and objective edit history, to masses of different articles, and my solid contribution to the project, despite your attacks. Please consider restoring this tag based on Wikipedia policy iss246, so we can work toward a resolution.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. You claim this article is "grossly biased", but you do not provide one example of how. You claim that this article takes a SOHP perspective. Can you give examples of something that takes a SOHP perspective that is different from other perspectives? Documentation please so other editors can evaluate your claims and we can move toward resolving differences. Psyc12 (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

psyc12, you and your SOHP colleague iss246, have been the sole authors of this article, based on what you and the SOHP want in it! and block any other neutral, reliably sourced input, in any way. It is a blatant coatrack article. You and iss246 ignore this policy Wikipedia:NPOV dispute policy and desperately delete the correct tag, showing that an editor, me, believes this is written entirely from a non neutral perspective. Are you both okay with at least following policy and leaving the tag there until this is resolved?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol use or increased alcohol consumption

User:TylerDurden8823, you are not wrong when you mention AUD. I wanted to use a broader concept, "alcohol abuse" or "excessive alcohol use." The reason why those terms are somewhat better than AUD is because most research on job stress and alcohol consumption does not use AUD as its endpoint. Often there is a measure of how much alcohol the participant consumes but does not make a formal diagnosis. In fact, much of the research is survey research where it is impossible to make a formal dx of AUD. One needs to conduct a clinical interview, impossible in survey research, to make a dx. Sometimes the research shows that an elevation in job stress is related to a small elevation in alcohol consumption but such an elevation falls short of AUD.

So, while I appreciate your edit, I think the broader concept of excessive alcohol use, which embraces AUD and the kind of excessive use that job stress surveys ascertain but which cannot generate formal dxs. In the end, I think the best term to use is "increased alcohol consumption," which covers AUD and increases that don't necessarily qualify the individual for a dx of AUD. Iss246 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Spector source

I contend that the Spector source for the definition and explanation of OHP is clear and stratightforward. It works for general readers, the kind of reader who would use the encyclopedia. The source should be included in the OHP entry. I refer to this source here: Spector, Paul. What is occupational health psychology https://paulspector.com/what-is-occupational-health-psychology/ Iss246 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that it needs to be added as an additional source (in addition to what was already cited). If there is sufficient support for adding a link to a personal website, I will accept that consensus. Otherwise I feel that we do not need to add cites to personal websites when other sources are available. Notifying Graywalls and ParticipantObserver, who have contributed to discussion of this issue on other talk pages. Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that the insistence on adding one particular webpage in the face of opposition from multiple editors is suggestive either of COI (which has already been raised as a concern about the insertion of these links) or of a non-neutral point of view, or both. That the source "works" is not a sufficient reason for its inclusion. ParticipantObserver (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion from Iss246's talk page

I have repeatedly asked Iss246 to continue any discussion here, but so far they have refused, instead trying to discuss with me on their talk page. This is the discussion that occurred after I asked Iss246 to stop edit warring:
User:Sundayclose, you posted this warning at about the same time as I did two things. I made an anodyne change of a verb in the OHP entry and I discussed a Spector source on the OHP talk page. Iss246 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You started the discussion on the talk page after adding the Spector citation. Simply starting a discussion is not sufficient to add disputed content. Please review WP:BRD, WP:CON, and WP:EW. You also did more than change a verb. But I'm not discussing here. Take it to the OHP talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I did a little editing today. I added text to the sites devoted to the actors Clark Gable and Loretta Young. I placed a Spector source elsewhere, but in an appropriate spot, on the OHP page, a spot that was not part of the disagreement I have had with Graywalls. And I started a discussion of the Spector source on the OHP talk page. I also sent you an email. Iss246 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, read WP:BRD, WP:CON, and WP:EW. And for the last time, I'm not discussing here. Take all discussion to the OHP talk page. That's my final comment here. Sundayclose (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose, as I indicated above, I did take the discussion to the OHP talk page at about the same time you were posting the warning. It was at 19:30 Greenwich time today. Iss246 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me state a few facts. You added the Spector citation at 14:43. You started the talk page discussion at 15:30. As I have already stated, you should have started the discussion first, then wait for discussion, then only add the citation if there is a consensus. I'm copying all of this to the article talk page. NOW PLEASE, take all discussion to that talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

End of that discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)