Jump to content

Talk:Division of Industrial Hygiene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
[[File:|140px|A 1941 film about the Division of Industrial Hygiene. Click to play an excerpt. ]]
A 1941 film about the Division of Industrial Hygiene. Click to play an excerpt.
Source: "Building 2 contained the first laboratories in the United States built solely for the study of industrial hygiene in the nation." [1], p. 30; "The DOH now occupies... a converted warehouse building in Cincinnati" [2], p. 201; "Unfortunately, during the 1950s occupational health was not a major concern. Most Americans in the 1950s were uninterested in occupational health." [3], p.17
  • Reviewed: Ian Fraser Muir
  • Comment: The Division of Industrial Hygiene is the direct predecessor of NIOSH. The article is entirely historical, but I still request an experienced reviewer to check for COI issues.

Moved to mainspace by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Self-nominated at 04:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - I'm concerned that the sourcing used for the hook is WP:SYNTH–do you have a source that shows that worker health falling out of favour caused the relocation, and that they weren't merely coincidental? I could be wrong.
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I don't see any WP:POV problems due to WP:COI–another editor can take a look, if they'd like, but I think it's fine. As soon as the sourcing works out, we are good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
@Theleekycauldron: The hook is specifically worded so that it does not imply a causative link. It says the relocation happened "when" worker health fell out of favor, not "because" of it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski: Sure, that puts it in a grey area– but in a 200-character text bite like DYK, people aren't going to see the two pieces of information and assume that they're independent, or not causative (at least, in my opinion). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH: repinging because i messed it up theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): aaaaaaaaaaa theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC) <- this did not work either[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: It's not a grey area; these words have specific meanings, and the hook uses the right words to mean the intended and correct thing. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I agree with you that the literal, facial meaning of your words does not imply causation. I think, though, that on a forum like DYK, even the quick-glance notion that two separate statements might be connected leave some people thinking that there's a causation, or that one provides context for the other. Also, if it really isn't connected, it shouldn't be in the hook–we're going for one fact at a time. If we can't show that one is the context or cause for the other, they shouldn't be in the same hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Would it be sufficiently clear if we replaced "when" with "at the same time that"? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): possibly– i guess my question is why include the two together at all, if they're unrelated? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: They are related. Moving from a nice building to a crummy one happened in the context of their research topic falling out of favor. I was careful with the language because I don't have a source that directly confirms a causal link, but it does provide the relevant broader context in which the move happened. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): In that case, I think you would need to show with sourcing that one serves as relevant context for the other. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Do you need a source that the Division of Industrial Hygiene focused on worker health? There are lots of those. Maybe the problem is that "industrial hygiene" is an unfamiliar term; it's essentially a synonym for worker health studies and interventions. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I'm leaning towards no, you would need a source that directly confirms the statement you're making. It is sensible to say that because the division was focused on industrial health (something you can show) and because worker health fell out of favour (something you can show), that the division relocated. Perfectly logical step–but wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, and we aren't able to make that step without a secondary source providing direct confirmation that one is context for the other. Is there no way we can show that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If not, I'd say that the hook is probably more trouble than it's worth. May I suggest some alternate hooks?
ALT1: ... that one program at the Division of Industrial Hygiene was focused on preventing poisoning due to TNT at government-owned explosives factories operated by contractors during World War II? source: "To prevent a repitition of high mortality from diseases such as TNT poisoning, which occured in World War I, the Ordnance Department and the Public Health Service entered into an agreement whereby the Division of Industrial Hygiene would provide occupational medical and industrial hygiene services to government-owned, contractor-operated arsenals. source
ALT2: ... that one program at the Division of Industrial Hygiene during the mid-1960s was focused on lung cancer among uranium miners? "In 1967, however, several lung victims received wide publicity, which motivated the Joint Committee to schedule hearings on the nature and extent of lung cancer among uranium miners. source
Your choice, of course–these are just suggestions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I don't think you understand what the hook is saying. There is no "because" in the hook. It's not WP:SYNTHESIS to state that two things happened at the same time and pertain to the same topic, while using specific language that does not assert there is a causal link. In my long experience at DYK I believe this should be considered acceptable. Given that it looks like you have only three DYK credits at this time, if you don't mind, I'd like to get a third opinion from a more experienced reviewer on this. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): i mean i can't stop ya theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping @Vaticidalprophet and BD2412 for you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I pinged here for any reason in particular? BD2412 T 15:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: the nominator's asked for a third opinion/review, do you mind helping out? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with the notion that worker health "fell out of favor"; to the contrary, the fuctions of the division were overtaken by OSHA, which is a quite far-reaching worker safety regime. BD2412 T 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. OSHA and NIOSH were created in 1971; this statement is about the 1950s. Also, this division's functions were taken over by NIOSH, not OSHA. Can we have a reviewer who will actually look at the sources? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which source do you propose stands for the rather bold proposition that "worker health fell out of favor"? BD2412 T 19:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: It's listed right under the hook. I can find more sources too. After WWII, worker health received less attention and resources until it came back into focus during the 1960s, which led to the creation of NIOSH and OSHA in 1971. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something more like, "when interest in worker health waned". BD2412 T 20:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: That works great. It makes it clear that the loss of interest wasn't a permanent state. So:
John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is entirely acceptable. I do not see any unsupported assertion of but-for causation in the hook. BD2412 T 20:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one other tweak - perhaps it should say "as interest in worker health waned" rather than "when interest in worker health waned". BD2412 T 20:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking about the same change. Either is fine with me. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "as" is slightly better.
BD2412 T 22:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Okay! Any other issues or can you approve it? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for ALT 0b. It is not far from the character limit, but excluding the "(depicted in video)" language, it is within bounds. BD2412 T 00:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to promote this to prep, but find the hook unsupported by the article. The Division seems to have moved to Cincinnati in 1950, but that was before the budget cuts and the time when interest in worker health is said to have waned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth and Theleekycauldron: The short answer is that the move occurred in 1950 and the source says interest waned in the 1950s, so they overlap. The slightly longer answer is that both were part of longer processes that occurred from the end of WWII until the mid-1950s. The Division's administrative staff already moved out of Bethesda in 1947, the location in the warehouse was made for budget reasons, programs began to be eliminated in 1951, and 1953 saw especially deep cuts. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I'm sure you are right, but I'm not sure that is reflected in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been traveling and moving to a new city the last few weeks. I should have time sometime next week to revise the article text to support the hook better. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth and Theleekycauldron: I've included more information in the "Transfer to Bureau of State Services" and "Move and downsizing" subsections. Hopefully this is sufficient. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T:DYK/P3

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Division_of_Industrial_Hygiene&oldid=1206094851"