Talk:Health psychology/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I

I wanted to add a university to the existing list: Drexel University (heath concentration). How do I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.237.159 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

SOHP

I included a link to the newsletters published to the web by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology because the newsletters provide information about a new organization that is concerned with a facet of health psychology that has emerged relatively recently. The newsletter articles are largely nontechnical and accessible to the general readers. ~ISS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 (talkcontribs) 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Note: I moved this comment from my talk page to foster a more thorough discussion. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The organization is legitimate, but linking to resources known to change often is deprecated - we do not know what will be there four years from now. The obvious solution is simply to link to somewhere else on the SOHP site, but (as is understandable for a young organization in an emerging speciality) they do not seem to have much that is useful for a general audience. People in the field will likely have heard of SOHP at various APA conferences, so there is no particular need for us to provide networking services. Conveniently, the EA-OHP focuses on much the same topics as SOHP (except geographically), and their website is much more readable. Does this satisfy? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some expertise the field, and I would like to include the SOHP reference. Iss246 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC) ISS

Wikipedia is not an annotated list of links to all sites related to the article's subject. Please read the external links policy, and address points 16, 1, and possible 4 of the linked section. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
re 3O: I can't speak to the content appropriateness of using this source (I can try to read the article more carefully later), but I think it would be safe to link to SOHP's newsletters - this does not strike me as a set of links that will change frequently. it seems clear from context that (a) the e-versions are copies of printed media (meaning the content of the PDFs is unlikely to change at all) and (b) that the society is trying to establish an archive structure so that the links (if they change) will change slowly and with carefully maintained connections. I think the 'linking to resources known to change often' rule is better applied to volatile content (like JStor articles, Google Searches, or blogs) than to organizations that are trying to establish a consistent presence. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjustments

I have been trying to improve the wording and document assertions made by previous writers. I have gone to the research literature to footnote various assertions made. There was one assertion about mistrust of physicians and not getting check-ups I could not verify in the research literature on health psychology although the claim is intuitively appealing. I deleted it but hope that someone will find research to verify it. In general, I have tried to footnote claims. Each day, little by little, I've been working my way through the article in order to build on what came before.Iss246 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)ISS246

And doing a fine job of it, too. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Health psychology is such an important topic, I would like to do a good job.Iss246 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)ISS

I'm glad to know that there are editors who are interested in health psychology. It is an important topic. Health psychology is a relatively new branch of psychology and it is growing. We can made this article better. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed there are a lot of broken links in the section titled "Doctoral Programs in Health Psychology." If I have time, I'll update these, but wanted to remark on it here in case anyone else wants to do it in the mean time. --Umamei (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Another look

This encyclopedia entry needs a good deal of work. Citations. Editing.Iss246 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected a number of errors. Also deleted a few irrelevant references/sentences/wording. Focused article only on health psychology not any other related fields which belong in their own sep[arate articles. Mrm7171 (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Have deleted reference to other areas such as OHP. This is the health psychology article. Similarly including masses of references from work psychology and work psychologists who have conducted the bulk of the research into work stress over the decades is not relevant mentioning their credentials and titles. Please discuss iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


iss246 refuses discussion?

iss246, I will not engage in edit warring with you. Have not reverted. You refuse to talk. This is the Health Psychologists article. Why are you trying to impose, superimpose? your OHP society's agenda. This is Wikipedia. Please discuss as we all need to respect that this is not our site. It is Wikipedia's site/articles/rules. Don't pollute the profession of health psychology iss246, with your OHP society/club hidden agenda? Why not just keep the health psychology and health psychologist's Wikipedia article alone. Why do you not see that your club or society or whatever? is not relevant to this article?

Or should all related fields to health psychology also be included? Please discuss instead of refusing to discuss.

I have not reverted your edits. I will not engage in edit warring with you iss246. You have again blatantly broken the 3 revert rule iss246, and happily engaged in edit warring for your club's agenda. Is it even psychology or psychologists? Instead, you wish to pollute such a great area of psychology that Health Psychology is!

That aside....you continue to contravene Wikipedia fundamentals.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Added a few more related areas to health psychology. Probably more related or relevant than OHp at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

On January 12, 2014 at 5:32, Mrm7171, you began to make a series of changes of my edits without discussion. Today you you have the nerve to write to me, "You refuse to talk." Let's get this straight. You follow me around reverting my edits without discussion. Then you complain that I refuse to talk. Iss246 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
In view of the similarity in the terms "health psychology" and "occupational health psychology" it is helpful to readers to differentiate the terms early in the article. Iss246 (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow you around? Are you right in the head/paranoid iss246. If you look at my edit history, health psychology is one of a very large number of related fields of interest of mine. You talk baloney! You are the troll iss246. Stop attacking me.

Add reliable major sources for your inclusions in this Wikipedia article iss246 or leave them out. This is the health psych article.

The only changes I have made are grammatical or taken out some unsourced and misplaced material. Check the facts iss246 before accusing other editors please. Mrm7171 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You have REVERTED 6 timers now within a 24 hour period. Stop edit warring. I am going to report you. Provide rock solid reiable sources next time and stop personalizing. You seem to me to be a troll, who pretendes to be a professor of everything. I doubt you actually have qualifications in any field of p-sychology based on your poor editing. Leave professional articles that you obviously have little knowledge of alone and concentrate on your OHP club instead! Or provide RELIABLE SOURCES please. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't slice the baloney thick enough. Iss246 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


References to OHP or other fields in this Health psychology article

Just took out words OHP. Not the place to be inserting OHP. The refereces cited come from public health and medicine also. Both fields , professional health psychologists which are real psychologists, are involved in. Please keep references to OHP society or OHP practitioners, which require no training whatsoever in psychology to practice OHP, whatever that is? Health psychologists are regulated, serious professionals in contrast iss246. Please keep OHP in OHP article. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


OHP is a multidisciplinary area, like OB or organizational behavior. It is not an allied field of Health psych. Health psych is part of the psychology profession internationally. OHP is not. Anyone, without any training in psychology whatsoever, can practice as an OHP practitioner. That is the fact iss246.

Include reliable sources please to back up your unsubstantiated, unsourced inclusions in this article on health psychology. Reliable sourced material, with that reliable source please. If you had one you would have included it. you don't. There is none. So please refrain from this and leave your baloney out of this article. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sourcesMrm7171 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171, you are the baloney man. Iss246 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Mrm7171, can you help me understand your issue? The quotation says:

"Occupational health psychology is a specialized field of application of the larger discipline of health psychology."

Is your issue that "OHP" and "Occupational health psychology" are different things? Or that "Occupational health psychology" is not an "allied field" because the source says that it is a "specialized field"? Or both? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks whatamidoing. See below at base of page. You are right. Reference does not anywhere say 'allied' field or 'related' field. It says a specialization within health psych. Indeed professional Health psychologists who research and apply health psych in the workplace would agree, I guess. So what the .... is 'OHP' then? Good question iss246. Do you know iss246 or whatamidoing?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

iss246 refuses discussion? version 2

iss246, I will not engage in edit warring with you.

Discuss here. I have made no wholesale changes. Just deleted unsaourced material. Who is calling who names? Mrm7171 (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:::Topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. Discuss why you include only OHP?? Not how science or Wikipedia works. Excuse me if I jump to a conclusion as to your credibility when something so fundamental is noted.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I realise you and I have a long history on Wikipedia, but rather than edit war iss246, or make things personal, or call each other names, lets just discuss on this talk page our editing. The statement that OHP is the one allied field is false. The 1986 reference provided does not say that. Is there any reliable source at all in any article or textbook or anything in the last 30 years since 1986? If as you say OHP is the allied field, please provide a reliable source. That is all i am saying. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Not our opinions. thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I compromised, and used the word "related" instead of "allied." Iss246 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Historically, HP emerged a little before the emergence of OHP. The journal Health Psychology (1982) was established 7 years before Work & Stress (1989) was established and the Journal of Health Psychology began the same year as the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (1996). Iss246 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Added sentence "many other related fields exist including industrial and organizational psychology, occupational health psychology, social psychology, medical psychology, biological psychology, sociology, social work, public health, occupational medicine, among others."
Iss246 fact is: your 1986, 30 year old source still does not say ohp is the 1 (one) related area to health psych. Sorry. But you need a reliable, solid source to include preferably under 5 years old too. None seem to exist. Therefore you should not include this bold, unsourced statement. Seriously. Please carefully read what I have written here and respond logically, before considering reverting again for the 20th time. Re-read the reference yourself if you have to. Come on. The 30 year old reference does not say that. I don't want an edit warMrm7171 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I used that Everly source because it is one of the founding documents. You are just opposed to the source because you are opposed to OHP, which you have made abundantly clear with your gratuitous comments about OHP-related organizations being clubs, etc. I am going to stick with my view.
Not opposed to OHP. Could not care less about OHP in fact. Whatever 'OHP' actually is? Stop personalizing please iss246. 'OHP' is not part of the international psychology profession. Fine with me.
As your Everly source "you are both sticking to" iss246 and whatamidoing, says occupational health psychology is a specialization within the Health Psychology. OHP like OB is something different, where you don't need to have ANY psychology training whatsoever to be called an 'OHP practitioner'. So drop the personalizing and paranoia please and focus on editing only.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's have other Wikipedia editors weigh in on this matter. Iss246 (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Mrm7171, you are correct that the source does not say that OHP is the only related field. Importantly, Iss246's addition never said that it was the only related field, only that it was one related area (one of at least six, by my count: clinical psych, "four different divisions within health psychology" and OHP).
However, your addition of other fields was unsourced. If you want it restored, then the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources for the other fields. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


"Occupational health psychology is a specialized field of application of the larger discipline of health psychology." 1986 everly. OHP, therefore, based on your 30 year old quote, is a specialization of health psychology. Will change the sentence to reflect this.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Done whatamidoing. Thanks for weighing in. Rightly so. Reliable sources are everything. If we use it though, we need to get it right. That is, what the 30 year reference actually says, if we are to rely on it. Totally agreed. Above is the exact quote. Could not be clearer. Everly 1986 states occupational is a specialization of the larger health psych field. Thanks whatmaidoing. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Just took out the three letters OHP, which seemed quite 'displaced' in this health psychology article now whatamidoing has so cleverly pointed out the Everly sourced relied upon states occ health psych is a specialized field of health psych. So these 3 letters OHP?? are irrelevant in this article. Point in another way. IF reliable source whatamidoing wants to rely upon says occupational health psych is just a specialization in health psych. Why then include these abstract 3 letters OHP?? Don't they refer to some other multidisciplinary field/club/society? Thoughts? Discussion?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This may seem subtle, but the source does not say that occupational health psychology is "just" a specialization. Being a specialization does not make the field less important.
Also, many specialization are also multidisciplinary, e.g., pediatric oncology which is both "a specialization" of pediatrics but also and equally "a specialization" of oncology, and therefore truly multidisciplinary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. Don't understand your point. OHP is not (occupational) health psychology. As you stated so boldly and knowingly whatamidoing, quoting a 30 year old reference in bold, even bordered, for emphasis and your authority!...on the topic...
Mrm7171, can you help me understand your issue? The quotation says:

"Occupational health psychology is a specialized field of application of the larger discipline of health psychology."

What on earth is your point now please? Your post makes no sense. Obviously as you say, occupational health psychology is a specialization of health psychology. No...yes??Mrm7171 (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Everly source is one of the beginning documents in OHP. Everly linked OHP to health psychology, i/o psychology, and occupational medicine. Because the term OHP was not used previously (except by Everly's colleague Feldman), Everly was searching for a way to place the field. That is natural that he would link it to health psychology.
Since Everly's paper, OHP developed on a trajectory that differed from that of health psychology. If you look at health psychology journals, the research contained therein largely does not pertain to work although the research is clearly important (risky sexual behavior, racism and health, prescription drug insurance and utility theory, desistance from drug abuse, how to get more people to donate blood, pain, weight gain in children, self-care and illnesses such as diabetes, health problems after natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, therapy for back pain, getting people to improve their diets, etc.).
I also note that it was I who introduced on this talk page the quote from Everly. Mrm7171 claimed to have read the article but never used the quote until I introduced the quote. This makes me suspect what he knows about the Everly article comes strictly from my writing about it. Otherwise, he would have used the quote as ammunition before I ever got to introduce the quote.
Everly notes that the workplace is a very suitable venue for making efforts to improve people's health. Without being too specific, he wrote about new, "multidimensional" ways of using the workplace to promote good health in people. He mentioned a "systems consultation" model. He also described ways to train the upcoming generation of occupational health psychologists. That training, according to Everly, should include clinical or counseling psychology, "business administration or industrial psychology," "medical physiology," occupational medicine, and public health. This was the beginning. It was not a perfect blueprint. But it was a beginning. The field of OHP took off subsequently. In 1986, Everly could not have anticipated the exact trajectory of the field although the trajectory of OHP departed from the trajectory of health psychology, an equally worthy field. Yet Everly deserves credit for helping to coin the term occupational health psychlogy (Feldman should share the credit) and give OHP that initial push. Iss246 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


I have colleagues who are Health Psychologists, specializing in Occupational/Work? Health Psychology. Why If occupational Health psychology is a specialization of Health Psychology as the current source in this article states, why do we need a relationship to OHP section please? I'm confused.
Also the I/O or Work psychology section is included because of its reference to occupational health, occupational wellbeing, health research in the workplace, occupational stress and so on...Hope that clarifies your question. Also there is no space limitation. Further it is very well sourced. Open to any further discussion in a civil manner.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There you go again. Personalizing. Suspecting. My edits are in good faith. I am not a liar. Stop calling me a liar or insinuating such by saying this about me, directly above. Please stop your abuse iss246!

"Mrm7171 claimed to have read the article but never used the quote until I introduced the quote. This makes me suspect what he knows about the Everly article comes strictly from my writing about it." from iss246..directly above.

I did read it iss246. I did!~ Stop accusing me of things with suspicion. Act in good faith please. I am sick of your abuse and insinuations!Mrm7171 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Finally, yes, you and psyc12 are good friends outside of Wikipedia. What is your point please?

Why is there a section on I/O psychology?

Why is there a subsection on I/O psychology? There is little or no connection between health psychology and I/O psychology, so this section seems totally irrelevant. If there's a section on I/O, why not on all the other areas of psychology? There are two areas of psychology that are particularly relevant because they deal with overlapping topics--clinical and occupational health. Since the goal of wiki is brevity, the I/O section should be deleted.Psyc12 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be sure, I checked Sanderson's text Health Psychology 2004. She mentions clinical and occupational health psychology. She does not mention I/O. Psyc12 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello psyc12. There's no space limitation on Wikipedia as Whatamidoing made very clear in an earlier post.

Please don't blindly delete this very well sourced section. It is relevant because of the points explained in the text. Please respect other editors viewpoints. I realise you are a very close friend of iss246 outside of Wikipedia, but please respect other editor's well sourced edits. Thank you. I am more than happy discussing this issue with you in a cordial, civil manner. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Industrial and organizational psychology is a discipline within psychology, which also covers the psychological aspects of occupational health and well-being,occupational stress, work organization and psychosocial factors and, more recently, occupational safety and health."

Just a further comment out of respect to fellow editors. Given many Health Psychologists specialize in (Occupational/Work) Health Psychology,.....then international work psychology and its heavy involvement in work stress, occupational health, etc it is relevant to mention. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Please comment rather than just delete my valid points of view. I know you and iss246 always tell me you are professors and you know best, but please just respect other editors points of view also. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


I noticed today iss246 just went ahead and reverted my well sourced change. I will not revert this but instead ask for editor engagement in a civil, courteous manner.

Whatamidoing posted this reliable which stated:

"Occupational health psychology is a specialized field of application of the larger discipline of health psychology."

If This source is used could I please know why it has been deleted? If it is a reliable source. And that reliable source states that (occupational) health psychology is a specialization of Health psychology, why did you delete this. Wikipedia is based only on reliable sources. Thank you. Look forward to comments addressing this point please. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I didn't edit out of the health psychology entry the section on HP's relationship with i/o section. Psyc12 and I are separate people. Right now I am an agnostic with regard to whether the i/o section belongs in the health psychology entry. If you remember, I did not raise an objection when you added the section. But I do think you should have a good rationale for why the section belongs in the health psychology entry. Someone with the help of a little argumentation could seemingly justify adding a social psychology section to the clinical psychology or i/o psychology entries. Someone could argue for adding a neuroscience section to the abnormal psychology entry. And so on. I think you should have a good argument for adding the section called "relationship to i/o psychology" because it seemed to my jaundiced eye that you added the i/o section only because I, several years ago, had added an OHP section. Iss246 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Or an OHP section to the I/O article or an OHP section to the HP section. True. Your point please explained explicitly please?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Mrm7171. I did explain why I deleted the section, and I gave a source as a justification. You have given no source to justify including it. If you could provide reliable sources that say I/O is related to health psychology, then I would gladly concede the point. That I/O is concerned with occupational health and safety to some extent is not sufficient to claim that it is relevant to health psychology. There are many sources that link OHP to health psychology, which is why it is relevant to this article. I know of no source linking I/O to health psychology.
If you want to keep this section, then please show me that I am wrong and provide sources on the talk page to justify it. Otherwise it is just your personal preference to put it here.Psyc12 (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Once again. Here's the connection. Work psychology involves occ stress, occupational health, improving workers wellbeing through strategies/interventions, and work safety. In fact modern international work psychology, particulatly in Eurpoe covers everything OHP says it covers and all the the things that OHP say they do. References already provided above 5 or 6 of them I think. If more are needed, they can be provided. But read thi first and let me know your thought. Given Occupational health psych is a specialization of health psych, it is logical that that work psych and health psych particularly its specialization occupatiional health psych. Your thought?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
What we need is not a logical argument, but a reliable source that specifically says that I/O is linked to health psychology. Sources that say that OHP and work psychology overlap is not sufficient to conclude that work (or I/O) psychology is linked to health psychology. It is possible that the overlap between I/O and OHP is not shared with health psychology. I'm not sure which 5 or 6 references you are referring to.Psyc12 (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of lying or not reading a journal article iss246!

There you go again iss246. Personalizing. Suspecting. Accusations. My edits are in good faith. I am not a liar. Stop calling me a liar or insinuating such by saying this about me, directly above. Please stop your abuse iss246!
"Mrm7171 claimed to have read the article but never used the quote until I introduced the quote. This makes me suspect what he knows about the Everly article comes strictly from my writing about it." from iss246..directly above in the previous section.
It has been constant. Demeaning. You and your close friend psyc12 that you are both professors, you know best! No-one else knows anything, only you and your close friend outside of Wiki.
....And keep accusing me for instance, that I don't read articles etc etc. I am sick of your bad faith accusations! I could provide so many objective other examples! Stop the attacks please and thinking you know best!

I did read it iss246. I did!~ Stop accusing me of things with suspicion. Act in good faith please. I am sick of your abuse and insinuations!Mrm7171 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Mrm7171, from time to time you have accused me of not being a professor and of being a professor. You go back and forth although mostly you have expressed the view that I am not a professor. For the record, I am a professor but that does not matter in Wikipedia. What matters for Wikipedia is the quality of one's contributions.

I add that I expressed a different view from that of Psyc12 regarding whether the "relationship to i/o" section belongs in the HP entry although you don't recognize that difference of opinion. Moreover, you accused me a sockpuppetry, which Wikipedia rejected.

Furthermore, in an earlier disagreement you ignored my underlining that Tom Cox, as per his LinkedIn page, earned his doctorate in behavioral pharmacology because the fact was inconvenient. You also accused me--and this really rankled me--of not liking Tom Cox because I didn't think Tom's blog was a good source although my view is consistent with Wikipedia policy. For the record, I've met Tom Cox, I like Tom and respect him. I prefer that you not tell me whom I like and whom I don't like.

You also reduced the SOHP and the EAOHP to mere clubs. ICOH-WOPS is a club. None is a scientific society.

You impugned the president of EAOHP because he is a medical doctor and not a psychologist.

Naturally, I suspect you of bad faith.

I contradict on the following too. I do not make the claim to have a monopoly on knowledge of psychology that you think I claim. There are a great many people with knowledge of psychology. Interestingly, the only person with whom I have had disputes on the health psychology page and on the OHP page is you. I feel that a lot of what motivates you, and your edits on this page and on the OHP page, is that you harbor a great deal of animosity toward OHP, an animosity which you amply demonstrated (e.g., the club claim, the claim against Sergio Iavicoli, MD, sockpuppetry claim, Tom Cox's doctorate etc.). Iss246 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Off you go again. Accusing me of bad faith. Accusing me of this. Personalizing that. Can you not simply focus on editing? Do you need to personalize everything and make it about you? Can you stop attacking and defaming me personally. You also do not focus on the questions at hand. That need an answer. That is, editing only. I don't know what will stop you!? Instead you just wrote this..." is that you harbor a great deal of animosity toward OHP,....." No, I don't. Stop accusing. Stop personalizing, again and again. Just focus on editing please.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's review.
You Mrm7171 called SOHP and EAOHP, which are learned societies, "clubs."
You operated under four different names on Wikipedia: Mrm7717, Psych999, Mattbrown69, and 121.91.164.65 on different occasions but your aim was the same, namely, to undermine OHP. This included swooping in and deleting large chunks of text.
Instead of conversing with me on my talk page in an equal exchange, you lectured me by writing walls of text on my talk page and needled me with admonitions to act "calmly." My response was to ask you never to write on my talk page again.
You questioned whether ICOH-WOPS had anything to do with OHP. Of course you could have looked at old programs covering the ICOH-WOPS meetings to see that they largely cover OHP, but you did not. It is easier to sling accusations than to check.
You impugned the president of EAOHP because he is a physician! Shocking.
You ignored the fact that Tom Cox earned a doctorate in behavioral pharmacology, and not i/o. As if that somehow lessened his contribution to i/o psychology or to OHP. Of course, it didn't. In psychology, people move from one discipline to another often enough, and bring fresh perspectives.
You accused me a sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry as if I somehow had mind control over Psyc12. I recently underlined for you that Psyc12 and I have different views regarding whether the section you placed in health psychology on its relation with i/o. Psyc12 supports its deletion. I don't. At least not now. You insist that we are in a deep conspiracy against you. The only reason we often have similar views regarding your edits is that your edits are often destructive.
Because I objected to using a blog as a source in Wikipedia, you accused me of not liking Tom Cox, as if you could know whom I like and whom I don't like.
You accused me at one time or another of being a professor and of not being a professor.
You accused me of not having a doctorate and having a doctorate.
For the record, I believe that what matters most in Wikipedia is the quality of one's contributions. Not one's degrees. Not one's profession. Of course, having expertise in a field is helpful when contributing to Wikipedia. But still the quality of the contribution matters most.
You accused OHP of being a subdiscipline of i/o psychology.
Now you accuse OHP of being a subdiscipline of health psychology.
When one avenue for denigrating OHP closes, you look for another avenue. So now, you turn to trying to make OHP a subdiscipline of health psychology, an avenue you hadn't previously pursued. The reason you pursued this avenue is one sentence in the article by Everly, an article you had allegedly read but only pursued this new avenue after I quoted from the article in detail.
I anticipate that when this new avenue for denigrating OHP closes, you will look for a different avenue for denigrating OHP. No wonder I suspect bad faith on your part.Iss246 (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)