Talk:Occupational health psychology

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mrm7171 (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 30 July 2014 (→Nature of the re-writing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:43, 30 July 2014 by Mrm7171 (talk | contribs) (→Nature of the re-writing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupational health psychology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Psychology B‑class High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability B‑class

	Occupational health psychology is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

External links to Newsletters

Iss246, I did not delete any text only a few dead links to club newsletters in the reference section. These links in the reference section were definitely 404 errors. The other links to the same newsletter that are 'active' have been left in the article. Again, NO text from the article has been deleted.

However if you have now somehow 'reactivated' those dead 404 'newsletters links' that were used as primary sources in the reference section of the article restore them.

Otherwise they need to be deleted as Wiki in any case cannot have 404 outdated links. Are there no primary sources you could use either? I am also concerned that your links to the club newsletters. (Again please refer to the Wiki definition of club under professional societies) are advertising the club membership itself. It is a private club (professional society) not a government run Psychology Board for instance. Including direct links on a Misplaced Pages article, an encycolpedic article, to that club newsletter and website, where monetary dues are paid, in my opinion, is dubious at best. However more experienced Wikipedians can make a judgement on this.

—Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 12 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Moving forward again

@Bilby: This neutral and reliably sourced long established edit, formed through consensus, was blanked by iss246? Then he blanked this edit I tried to add instead? . Psyc12&iss246 have also blanked this neutral, reliably sourced edit. ? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute. It explains Misplaced Pages's policy very clearly. Much better to follow Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute. It explains Misplaced Pages's policy very clearly. Much better to follow Misplaced Pages policy than flame throw or edit war iss246. I edit a huge number of articles on Misplaced Pages. I have no particular interest in any one topic. Fact. Only that ALL articles need to follow Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy and will not edit war. You ignored Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute policy. You just recklessly, knowlingly broke the The three-revert rule. Misplaced Pages:Edit warring I edit a huge number of Misplaced Pages articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

NPOV dispute initiated

I try and spread my time on Misplaced Pages editing a very large number of divergent articles and have absolutely no affiliation or attachment to any one particular topic. My objective edit history proves that. I have recently come back to this article, because it was agreed by other editors, 4 months ago, that it would be entirely re-written. I voluntarily left it because I wanted to spend my time more productively editing other articles, which I continue to do and have done so in the 4 months since coming back to this grossly biased coatrack article!

Some of the other main reasons why I believe it to be biased are these: It is a non-neutral article, that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. No other editors can add reliably sourced material, without it being blocked by iss246 & colleague psyc12. 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. Controversies of origin and overlap. Presents OHP as a distinct field within psychology. It does not give due weight to other reliable secondary sources. Points of view are not recognized internationally within the psychology community.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, you have not written about the sources describing the controversies. Iss246 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would much rather continue spending my time editing the large number of other articles on Misplaced Pages rather than again getting caught up here, on this biased coatrack article solely written by you and psyc12. That's why I voluntarily left it to other editors like Richardkeatinge, 4 months ago, as they were going to totally re-write this 'promotional brochure' you have both created on Misplaced Pages to try and bring it to an encyclopedic standard, fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I don't blame them though, it's a big job! Given you both are not willing to discuss major changes is probably better deleted. However if I did walk away, again, the article would remain this careful selection (and omission) of facts that you have both created (which further makes this article biased). Evidence that you both have always blocked other editors from trying to bring even some type of neutrality and NPOV to the article, is that you quickly delete the Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute tag from the top of the page, while we were trying to discuss these concerns? Can you consider placing the proper tag back iss246 or psyc12, as a good faith?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The clear issues I have raised above have not been addressed, or discussed here on talk? Tag attached to page. Why not discuss these issues of bias and POV I have raised so we can work toward a resolution rather than iss246 or colleague psyc12 deleting/censoring even this correct tag? Why not discuss thje points raised and I am sure the tag can then be removed, once resolved, as required of all editors? I am just again trying to work toward a civil resolution.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

made a few well sourced, accurate additions to the lead to reflect worldwide view, as discussed above, rather than just a US focus. Misplaced Pages is international. All articles need to reflect all countries wherever possible.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, just because Nottingham has a doctoral program with a particular name does not justify your making wholesale changes to the first paragraph. In addition, the term "occupational health" is from the article cited. If someone uses the link, the individual will pass through to occupational health and safety.

I remind you that administrators asked you not to tinker with the OHP entry. Iss246 (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. I voluntarily stepped back from this grossly biased coatrack article, so other editors, (not you iss246 or your OHP society friend & colleague psyc12) could entirely re-write this article. That was 4 months ago and nothing was done! I remind you iss246 that you recklessly stepped over the bold red line, 4 revert rule recently! Mrm7171 (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not threaten me with blood. That is inappropriate. 01:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"iss246 that you recklessly stepped over the bold red line, 4 revert rule! typo."

The changes I just made were based entirely on reliable sources. And trying to bring a worldwide view to this grossly biased coatrack article written almost entirely by you and your OHP society friend & colleague psyc12. The ONLY work you ever do on Misplaced Pages is on this and a couple of related articles. I'm sorry, but your editing behaviour indicates your purpose is solely as a Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account. This article needs to be re-written (ie. improved dramatically) or possibly deleted if it cannot be significantly improved!

For the record, and as an example, The alternate titles I correctly tried adding (also known as occupational health: psychology and management United Kingdom and occupational health, safety and well being psychology Australia) is a psychology and management are correct. Misplaced Pages is a worldwide encyclopedia. Not a USA encyclopedia iss246!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that you again censored the correct Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute tag from the top of the page, while we were trying to discuss these concerns and reach a suitable resolution? I also noticed you have just blanked my reliably sourced, neutral changes, I tried to make, without any discussion here on talk, as to why you did so? It is obvious you only want to edit war. I have not reverted again. I won't edit war with you and your colleague psyc12. But this article needs to be re-written and improved significantly or deleted.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Will find some solid reliable sources for the lead, ie. the UK & Australia terminology. Give me a day or 2, if that's okay. Glad we are moving toward some type of worldwide view in this article at least. cheers.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bilby: Bilby, I thought you had said at some point said that the lead in articles are not normally requiring a reference? (consistency?) Can you as an experienced editor give a very definitive guide on this point please? Will find solid sources if needed though? cheers.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:LEADCITE. The lead should summarize the body, and the claims in the body should be cited. But if it's not exactly clear where in the body one should look, or if the info is a direct quote, or various other things, a citation in the lead is OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk:Thanks. I've noticed in most articles, that alternate titles are used in the opening sentence of the lead. A quick eg is Preventive healthcare. No reliable sources are added in any article for these alternate titles in brackets & in bold after the main article title?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

@Iss246:Please be advised there is an active discussion regarding NPOV and gross bias and POV in the occupational health psychology article underway Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Also please do not revert multiple editors constructive edits in future without discussing on talk. That is edit warring behaviour and will be reported.

It is not acceptable for you to also delete other independent editor's very sound recent edits like Incrediblehulk made to the article iss246. Stop edit warring and take part in the discussion on the noticeboard please.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, what are you doing here? You were barred from editing this entry in January. Iss246 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Complete nonsense iss246 as you are fully aware! I voluntarily stepped back from this grossly biased coatrack article, so other editors, (not you iss246 or your OHP society frioend & colleague psyc12) could entirely re-write this article as all editors had conceded was needed. That was over 4 months ago and nothing was done!

So I recently posted a tag. Correctly. But you censored that as well! You were asked also to stay away from the article too, while other editors re-wrote it. Do you remember now? But you refused!

Now Iss246, you refuse to take part in civil discussion here on talk. You refuse to address my concerns on NPOV and bias and the correct tag you keep removing. You keep deleting mine and now an independent editor's sound and constructive edits. You refuse to take part instead in a civil discussion over at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. This is not right. I won't edit war further with you here. I regret that you ignore and disrespect other editor's valid opinions. I also apologize to the community for my own numerous reverts today and will stop right there and will not revert further. But this grossly biased coatrack article you and your OHP society colleage psyc12 have written, and are desperately taking ownership of Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles needs to be re-written entirely or deleted. Simple.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nature of the re-writing

The issue of rewriting the article was raised by Richard Keatinge above on this talk page. His concern wasn't bias but that the article was too detailed. He said:

"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." Psyc12 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Richardkeatinge and Atama both described the article as a coatrack article 5 months ago. Richardkeatinge also said: " 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."

The definition you and your USA OHP society friend/colleague iss246, comes directly from the CDC, again in the USA. In the UK for instance, the field is increasingly termed "occupational health: psychology and management." In Australia it is referred to as "occupational health, safety and well being psychology" However when I tried adding these alternate titles, as other articles do, you deleted it, censoring this information, keeping only the US terms and definitions, and US organisations like the USA NIOSH & USA CDC and your USA OHP society etc etc. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be international. If you want it just to be USA we need to clearly specify that, not censor it, like you and your close friend iss246 are doing.

My concern is that both you and your OHP society colleague also only ever seem to edit articles relating in some way to OHP or OB? My other concerns relating to bias and POV remain unanswered above. You both even delete the NPOV dispute tags!Mrm7171 (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Further when an entirely independent and experienced editor, InedibleHulk, at the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard viewed this article 'cold' they stated correctly: "This "occupational health psychology (OHP)" seems to be about the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health type in particular. If that's the case, it should be US-centric, because that's a US federal agency. If the article is meant to have a broader scope, the definition in the lead shouldn't be sourced to the American one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Now psyc12 you and iss246 are even trying to delete their correct additions and downplay their valid comments based on the obvious?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Categories: