Jump to content

Talk:Health psychology

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Health psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have looked at three or four current health psych text books. Occupational health is not mentioned. Why is this unknown field in the article? Psyballed (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should look to other sources. Textbooks in health psychology tend to be less than satisfactory. As far back as 1986, when occupational health psychology was emerging as a discipline, Everly linked OHP to health psychology.[1] If you look at Oxford University's Bibliographies of Psychology, the occupational health psychology annotated bibliography is listed under health psychology.

I know you are starting out in WP and mean well, and most of your edits are good ones, but I think that the edit I made should stand. Iss246 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think text books in health psych are excellent sources. If literally not a single health psych text book says that this field is related to health psych that is very compelling in this instance. Have you got any reliable source other than this thirty five year old source? That would help here if you do. Psyballed (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psyballed. Here is the list of units that Oxford University Press subsumes under Health Psychology: Acculturation and Health, Addictive Behavior, Drugs and Behavior, Habit Formation and Behavior Change, Health Psychology, Loneliness and Health, Occupational Health Psychology, Personality and Health, Psychology of Stress and Coping, and Rehabilitation Psychology.

I got from the OUP website. See for yourself: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/page/psychology Iss246 (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not say health psych is related to this other field? Clinical psych is more related to health psych and many sources say it is, so I would like to add that too. Have you got a reliable source clearly saying occupational health psych is a related field to health psych? Psyballed (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Occupational health psych is not mentioned in any of the main text books for health psych's index even. Not mentioned once in any index in any text book on health psych? Psyballed (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psyballed, Oxford University Press lists the subjects within psychology that are related to HP under HP. See OUP's website. Look carefully. By the same token, under clinical psychology, Oxford listed the subject related to clinical psychology. And so on. Iss246 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This is not a good source. As I said occupational health psych is not mentioned in any health psych text book or any health psych book even in the index. Have you got any source at all apart from this list? I am a health psych by the way. Psyballed (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psyballed, you can't say something like "My sources are good sources but your sources are not good sources." That is schoolyard stuff. Iss246 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psyballed, this is what I don't understand. You have about 15 edits on Wikipedia. So you are a "newcomer" to WP. I have in excess of 13,000 edits. Right off the bat you know so much about WP that you can challenge me. It is not that you don't have the right to challenge my edits. You do. But it is unusual that someone so new to WP knows his or her around WP from the git-go. When I was new to WP, it took me some time to get going and know how to do things. But I am going to assume that your edits and your comments are in good faith. For the time being.

Here is a source that you missed although I cited it earlier but you neglected to check it: "Briefly stated, health psychology is dedicated to the application of psychological theories, principles, and practices to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of physical disease and dysfunction. Occupational health psychology, then, is the practice of health psychology relating to, or in the context of, the occupational milieu."[1] Iss246 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading a lot about different rules here on Wikipedia. It seems you do not have any reliable sources for your entry apart from this 1986 book. I did not miss it by the way. Not a single book or text book on health psychology even so much as mentions occupational health psych in the contents or index? Yet you have placed this statement in the front of the article as if it is a statement of fact. Your assertion that it is related needs to be discussed in the article itself and backed up by sources. Apart from this one line in a 35 year old reference have you got any sources? Psyballed (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psyballed, The reference comes from the founding of the field of OHP, for your information. I have additional references but I don't like your inquisitorial attitude, particularly given your so-called newcomer status. I am going to hold back. Iss246 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No inquisitorial attitude. If you had a source you would provide it. Also my reading about the lead of an article should only detail the main points from the article but occupational health being the one related field to health psych is not even discussed in the rest of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Can you talk with me about this please as I am a health psych and none of my colleagues nor any book on health psych have ever even heard of this other field and occupational health psych is not even so much as mentioned in the index of any health psychology book. My understanding is that up to date sources are needed. Please don't "hold back" if you have any other sources. Psyballed (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone on WP can make any claim about their competence. I have no way of knowing that you are a health psychologist, as you claim. Or that you have colleagues who are health psychologists. I do know two things about you that are verifiable. One is that you present yourself as a newcomer to WP, given the 15 edits I saw earlier today. The second is that you come on like gangbusters on my edits. I really don't think you are new to WP. Iss246 (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know who made this addition to the health psych article. What do you mean on your edits? It is the one edit we are talking about. What I see about you is you deflect and are very defensive and the sources you add to justify this are not what all of the other significant sources say. You refuse to discuss the edit., You instead choose to offend me as a defensive technique to take away the focus on your edit. I asked about the fact that you have put this in the lead but after I read that article I pasted above anything in the lead needs to be discussed at length in the article. You act as if you own this article. Who do you think you are giving me crap like you have simply for questioning this bizarre section of health psychology on Wikipedia. Very odd. And if you were so experienced as you boast and put me down for being new you would easily find a number of good reliable sources that are not 35 years old and you also should know about the rules on the Lead section I read today. Can you please stick to answering these points I've raised instead of big noting yourself and being so obviously defensive given you obviously have no sources. Psyballed (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give me that mumbo jumbo "defensive" BS. Or you-think-you-own-the-article baloney. What is bizarre is something you don't like to see. You pretend to be a newcomer to WP but we know better. Iss246 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Can you tell me where it says it is a related field in this reference you added please? Schonfeld, I. S., Occupational health psychology. In D. D. Dunn (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies in psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.[1]. I am sorry but the other references you added also do not say occupational health psych is a related field nor justify in being in the Lead section. Psyballed (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, pal. Don't police me. What are you, Inspector Javert? Here is a quote from the Oxford Bibliography, which you could have looked up yourself, "OHP derives from two disciplines within applied psychology, health psychology and industrial/organizational psychology. OHP is also linked to disciplines outside of psychology, such as occupational medicine and public health." Iss246 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From health psych perspective this field is unknown and is not mentioned in any health psychology sources. Please don't keep being rude. Psyballed (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is no discussion of this in the main part of the article. If there is no discussion in the main part of the article it should not be in the Lead section. You have not responded to that. Have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? Psyballed (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psyballed, don't hound me. Read the texts. You will see that the emergence of OHP is partly owed to HP. Iss246 (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk about the fact that there is no discussion of this in the main part of the article. If there is no discussion in the main part of the article it should not be in the Lead section. You have not responded to that simple rule. Have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? Psyballed (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also you need a Health psych source that says from health psych perspective this field is related. These are my points. Nobody is hounding you. You are just refusing to talk about the points I am making. Psyballed (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychalled, I'm convinced you are the same nudnik who hassled me in the past only now you are hassling me from another angle and using a different name. It is the same one-note song. Iss246 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted these sources. Can you address my questions instead of deflecting. Psyballed (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psyballed, why are you following around and altering my edits with a singlemindedness that is not reflective of your being a newcomer to WP? Iss246 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Stop avoiding the couple of questions I am asking please and discuss this with me so we can get a consensus and stop edit warring and stop making nasty comments to me to deflect from the fact that you have no sources still. Once again have you actually got a source that actually says "four different divisions within health psychology and one related field, occupational health psychology have developed over time" Also there is no discussion of this section of yours in the main part of the article. My understanding 0of the rules here on Wikipedia is that if there is no discussion in the main part of the article it should not be in the Lead section. Have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyballed (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psycalled, don't be a nudnik like your predecessors. You're not the newcomer to WP you pretend to be. Iss246 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously are deflecting otherwise you would discuss the fact that there is no discussion in the main part of the article and based on Wikipedia rules it should not be in the Lead section. Have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? Also none of the the sources you added including the original source actually say "four different divisions within health psychology and one related field, occupational health psychology have developed over time" so please talk about this fact and stop edit warring. Psyballed (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psyballed. Don't give me a lecture. I adjusted the references. You talk about rules. You are not supposed to pose as a newcomer. Iss246 (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Everly, G.S., Jr. {1986}. An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 5, pp. 331–338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange

External help

[edit]

I ask for an experienced WP editor to help settle the disagreement between Psyballed and me. The disagreement is over occupational health psychology being one of the fields to which health psychology is related. Iss246 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously are deflecting otherwise you would discuss the fact that there is no discussion in the main part of the article and based on Wikipedia rules it should not be in the Lead section. Have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? Also none of the the sources you added including the original source actually say "four different divisions within health psychology and one related field, occupational health psychology have developed over time" so please talk about this fact and stop edit warring. Psyballed (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psyballed, you unfortunately don't know what you are talking about. But I forgive you for being mixed up. It is really difficult--very challenging--for a Wikipedia newcomer, a veritable neophyte, to observe that occupational health psychology is related to health psychology. You're just a newcomer who has nothing more to do than spend 95% of his time on Wikipedia hassling about this matter.

By the by, the paper by Marks et al. indicates that there are four divisions of HP. The sources I wrote indicate that OHP is partly related to HP. Read the text pal. It would do you good. Like fresh air. Iss246 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection for one week

[edit]

After a week, if this edit warring continues, I will simply indef block anyone reverting, no matter how "right" you are. Use the talk page to discuss the problems. Or don't and get blocked, it doesn't matter to me, because either way, the warring is going to stop. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of the article's history shows that adding/removing OHP has been going on since 2008 (with Iss246 involved that long, but the objecting editors varying over the years). Maybe it's time for an RFC (widely advertised, particularly at WP:WikiProject Medicine and WP:WikiProject Psychology) to get a firm consensus on the issue to help prevent another twelve years of slow wars? Schazjmd (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dennis Brown and user:Schazjmd, what Dennis Brown suggested is a reasonable idea. FYI, my edits regarding occupational health psychology have been altered for years by someone who went by MRM7171, until he was banned. Then he was replaced by another editor who had to be asked by administrators to desist.
I don't want to be in an edit war. I don't want to be challenged by someone who is so single-minded regarding undoing my edits on the subject of OHP that the editor hardly applies himself/herself to any other WP entry. If I add something, I like to source what I add. I try to obtain reasonable sources from reputable publications. Iss246 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the relation of occupational health psychology to health psychology

[edit]

Are the sources cited to document a link between occupational health psychology and health psychology sufficient to establish that the two fields are related? Iss246 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different sources point to the divisions within health psychology and the relatedness of occupational health psychology to health psychology. The following source identifies four divisions (clinical health psychology, public health psychology, community health psychology, and critical health psychology) within health psychology.
  • David F. Marks, Michael Murray & Emee Vida Estacio (2018) Health Psychology. Theory-Research-Practice (5th Ed.) Sage. 2018-11-16. ISBN 978-1526408242
A different set of sources indicates that occupational health psychology is related to health psychology (although occupational health psychology owes its emergence to more than one discipline). Those sources follow.
  • Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P. A. Keller & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5 (pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
  • Raymond, J. S., Wood, D. W., & Patrick, W. K. (1990). Psychology doctoral training in work and health. American Psychologist, 45, 1159–1161. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.10.1159
  • Quick, J.C. (1999). Occupational health psychology: Historical roots and future directions, Health Psychology, 18, 82-88. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.18.1.82
Iss246 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
technical difficulty

User:Dennis Brown. I'm not sure what I did incorrectly in posting this RfC.Iss246 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't observe WP:RFCCAT - |health psychology is not listed there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus here. Iss246 refuses to allow anyone else to edit the article and instead deflects all genuine questions from other editors it seems. Iss246 is going against Wikipedia:No original research. There is no reliable source that actually says "...four different divisions within health psychology[4] and one related field, occupational health psychology (OHP) have developed over time" Sources commonly say "four different divisions within health psychology" but do not mention this other field. Also there is no discussion of this in the Main section of the article and my understanding is it should not be mentioned in the Lead section. Iss246 has refused to discuss this point with me as well and instead has used their IP address and their account to edit war and revert me with no discussion about the points I've raised. Thank you. Psyballed (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing more technical direction

Iss246, start the RfC in its own section. Please include the sources in the RfC question (don't make other editors go hunting through the talk page and article history to try to figure out what you're talking about). Advertise the RfC on the talk pages for WP:WikiProject Medicine and WP:WikiProject Psychology, you can use template:Rfc notice to do so. Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you avoid the question. This is original research. Not a single health Psych text discusses this so called other field. You have patched the two together or created original research and synethized the two sets of sources. Have you got any source at all that has both statements in them? That is "...four different divisions within health psychology......... and one related field, occupational health psychology (OHP) have developed over time" Sources commonly say "four different divisions within health psychology" but none of your sources mention both statements together in the same source.
You also have not answered my other question about this not being in the Main section of the article so it should not be in the Lead section. Psyballed (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psyballed, I have responded to your question by supplying sources. They may not be the sources you like, but è la vita. I originally didn't want to use more than one or two sources but your attempting to give me the third-degree as if you were the district attorney in 1940s B detective movie led me to add more sources in order to buttress the evidence showing that occupational health psychology is related to health psychology. Please don't take that inquisitorial tone with me. I don't take such a tone with you. Iss246 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again you don't answer the question but want to make stupid comments about detectives! This is original research. Not a single health Psych text discusses this so called other field. You have patched the two together or created original research and synethized the two sets of sources. Have you got any source at all that has both statements in them? That is "...four different divisions within health psychology......... and one related field, occupational health psychology (OHP) have developed over time" Sources commonly say "four different divisions within health psychology" but none of your sources mention both statements together in the same source. Can you answer directly to these couple of questions as this would be helpful and we can move on. Thanks. Psyballed (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iss246, I can only access the Everly ref, but it doesn't provide strong support for OHP being considered a related branch of health psychology; only that This definition locates OHP at the interface between occupational health and psychology. Cox and colleagues suggest that the areas of psychology that might be applied in addressing occupational health issues include health psychology, work and organizational psychology, and social and environmental psychology" Do either of the other two sources have more specific wording that connects OHP as being considered part of the field of health psychology, any more closely than in the way any field of psychology is necessarily related to the others? Schazjmd (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles can be found in the PsycInfo database. If you have access to a university library (perhaps as an alumni benefit), you can access the papers. If you rely on a municipal public library, the library's interlibrary loan facility can get you the articles. You can probably find a reference in the online chapter of this book Springer published: https://connect.springerpub.com/content/book/978-0-8261-9968-3/chapter/ch01. Iss246 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you unable to provide any quotes from your sources that support your contention? (Also, please read and follow WP:INDENT in talk page discussions.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Schazjmd, in response to your request for identifying what the sources write about OHP and HP, Everly (1986) wrote "health psychology is dedicated to the application of psychological theories, principles, and practices to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of physical disease and dysfunction. Occupational health psychology then, is the practice of health psychology related to, or in the context of, the occupational milieu."
The abstract of the article by Raymond, Wood, and Patrick (1990) summarizes the ideas they are advancing in the article, "Psychology as a profession has an opportunity and obligation to advocate for and develop healthy work environments. This will require the design and conduct of doctoral-level training in occupational health psychology. A model for training might well be based on the assumptions that there is a viable role for occupational health psychologists trained at the doctoral level for both academic and applied work settings, and that doctoral training would be based on the integration of health psychology and public health. Issues remaining to be addressed in the development of doctoral training programs include appropriate predoctoral training, academic standards, the interdisciplinary nature of faculties, and appropriate settings for training. Future directions in establishing doctoral training in occupational health psychology will best be taken in dialogue with several other professions and institutions that share a common interest in reducing leading work-related diseases and injuries and promoting public health in the workplace."
Sauter and Hurrell (1999) write about the emergence of OHP indicating that "the field of psychology, on the other hand, possesses the requisite expertise in work organization (industrial/organizational psychology; organizational behavior) and stress, health, and mental health (health psychology; clinical and counseling psychology). However, none of these disciplinary areas in psychology gives substantial attention to occupational health and safety as a relevant concern or area of research and practice."
Sauter and Hurrell continue, "As envisioned by NIOSH and APA [who in 1990 together initiated the conference series devoted to OHP, a conference series that continues today], a main imperative for the field of OHP is to advance knowledge and expertise regarding organizational factors that threaten worker safety and health. This suggested disciplinary focus does not disregard individual-level risk factors, such as lifestyle, health behavior, coping, attitudes, personality, and so forth (which are more the domain of health psychology), but it puts a premium on applying psychology to better understand the influence of workplace environmental stressors on worker safety and health. To help steer the OHP field in this direction, which is consistent with priorities in public health, the following definition of OHP was proposed by NIOSH: "Occupational health psychology concerns the application of psychology to improving the quality of worklife, and to protecting and promoting the safety, health and well-being of workers."
Schonfeld and Chang (2017) write "OHP is interdisciplinary in that it borrows strength from such fields as industrial/organizational psychology, health psychology, occupational medicine, and epidemiology."
The bolding is mine. Iss246 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iss246, thank you. I missed "Occupational health psychology then, is the practice of health psychology related to, or in the context of, the occupational milieu" in Everly, that is a better connection than the text I quoted. The Raymond+ and Sauter+ quotes aren't very strong. Schonfield and Chang aren't included in your sources so I've no idea what paper/book you're referring to, but that quote doesn't really support that OHP is considered part of HP.
So I switched to gbooks to see what health psychology textbooks had to say, trying to pick just the most recent.
The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology (2013): "Over time, there have emerged within European health psychology some areas that specific address issues with different approaches: clinical health psychology, occupational health psychology, health psychology, community health psychology, and critical health psychology."
Health Psychology: Understanding the Mind-Body Connection (2018) refers to OHP as "a specific area within health psychology" when talking about "training pathways".
But Health Psychology: Theory, Research and Practice (2011) in its overview presents "four main approaches to health psychology" (clinical health, community health, public health, critical health) and Handbook of Health Psychology (2012) makes no mention of "occupational health".
Oxford, at least, draws a definite connection between health psychology and OHP. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, here is the source for the quote "OHP is interdisciplinary in that it borrows strength from such fields as industrial/organizational psychology, health psychology, occupational medicine, and epidemiology": Schonfeld, I. S., & Chang, C.-H. (2017). Occupational health psychology: Work, stress, and health. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Iss24 21:46, 20 October 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please provide the part in the reference where it actually says that OHP is considered part of HP or is the one single field related to Health Psych? the Oxford source doesn't say that and it should obviously be in a Health psych reference? Psyballed (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Psyballed, the googlebook view for The Oxford Handbook doesn't display page numbers. The sentence I quote above is in the section The Development of European Healthy Psychology, the 5th page after you reach that heading. Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Psyballed, the point is OHP is related to HP. OHP is one field related to HP. It is not "the one" field related to HP. Iss246 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The Oxford reference does not say "....four different divisions within health psychology and one related field, occupational health psychology (OHP) have developed over time". None of the 4 sources currently in the article say that or close to that. If sources do not back up the text they should be immediately removed I was reading in Wiki rules today. Iss246 do you or WhatamIdoing have any reference at all which combines both fields in the same sentence or even same paragraph of a source without patching the two sources together and synthesizing them creating original research. There are many related areas to health psych. Why are you creating original research? I am a Health psych myself and I have never heard of this other supposed related field. Psyballed (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Psyballed, there are different sets of references. The placement of one reference shows that there are four divisions within HP. The placement of the other references indicates that OHP is related to HP. That is how the citations are placed and should be placed. One omnibus reference does not apply to everything, that is to both the fact that HP has four subdivisions and the fact that OHP is related to HP. You just argue for the sake of arguing. You know very well from the placement of the citations that one citation applies to HP's subdivisions and the four citations apply to OHP being related to HP. There is no substance to your kvetching about OHP. Iss246 (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at "Over time, there have emerged within European health psychology some areas that specific address issues with different approaches: clinical health psychology, occupational health psychology, health psychology, community health psychology, and critical health psychology."
It should be obvious that everything "within" the same thing (bolding mine) is also "related" to the other members. It is not logically possible for several things to be "within" the same set but still not have a relationship with the other members of the same set.
@Psyballed, I invite you to provide a reliable source that says health psychology is not related to occupational health psychology. It seems I've asked for that many times in the past (your previous accounts?) and never yet received any source saying that there is no connection whatsoever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not support the statement created through Original Research

[edit]

The Oxford reference does not say "....four different divisions within health psychology and one related field, occupational health psychology (OHP) have developed over time". None of the 4 sources currently in the article say that or close to that. If sources do not back up the text they should be immediately removed I was reading in Wiki rules today. Iss246 do you or WhatamIdoing have any reference at all which combines both fields in the same sentence or even same paragraph of a source without patching the two sources together and synthesizing them creating original research. There are many related areas to health psych. Why are you creating original research? I am a Health psych myself and I have never heard of this other supposed related field. Psyballed (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research Also this synethsized statement in the lead section is not discussed in the Main section of the article? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. This fact and Wiki rules around the Lead section has been avoided by editors Iss246 and WhatamIdoing? Psyballed (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't answer the question on the statement not being discussed in the Main section of the article. So why is it discussed in the Lead section? Please drop the personal accusations. If you have a problem report it. But don't be so rude. Assume good faith WhatamIdoing. This other field is not in one single Health psych text book. Not one. Yet you and your friend on Wikipedia it seems back each other up with promoting some field that no Health Psychs around the world know about or recognize! I'm sure lots of fields are related to Health Psych but this statement in the lead section makes it seem this field OHP is the ONE and ONLY ONE field related to Health Psych. That's bullshit. It is not the only one related field. Psyballed (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing that OHP is one of the fields related to HP, and that this relationship is, indeed, acknowledged in sources that mention "both fields in the same sentence".
I gather that your new concerns now are:
  1. that the originally proposed text might be interpreted as meaning that OHP is "the one and only" related field, rather than "a" related field, and
  2. that the rest of the article should give more attention to this relationship.
Do you have any other concerns? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am looking at this policy Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section in regard to the mention in the Lead but not in the article. Perhaps we could have a section which discusses all of the types of fields that are somehow "related" and include those in the Lead section too? The problem is that the sources in the article do not say OHP is a related field. Where does it say that in any source WhatamIdoing? Psyballed (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe everyone except you understands that multiple reliable sources claim a relationship between the fields.
The solution to your WP:LEAD concern is point #2: "that the rest of the article should give more attention to this relationship". It's not strictly required by LEAD (you can have contextualizing content that is not repeated elsewhere, e.g., saying that X includes Y but not Z), but the solution to something being mentioned in the lead without being explained at greater length in the body is to explain it at greater length in the body, not to remove it from the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-known that OHP is related to health psychology. The current sentence should remain in place.Ohpres (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on writing a paragraph for the body of the article on the connection of OHP to HP. I assembled sources and need to read through them a little more. Iss246 (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I wrote the paragraph I mentioned in my previous comment. My aim was to keep the paragraph brief unless there is demand to expand it. Since OHP was mentioned in the lead, consistent with the above discussion, I wrote the paragraph for the body of the entry. Iss246 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Please add Optimism#Associations_with_health under the See Also section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahloci (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Sorry, Jonahloci, this article makes no mention of "optimism", and the see-also would be only be a tangential relationship. I also removed the section-see-also in Optimism that pointed to this article; a reader wanting to know more about optimism and health would not be well served being brought to this article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your revert here[2]. Jonahloci (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Health_psychology&oldid=1194749564"