Talk:Occupational health psychology

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Otherwise they need to be deleted as Wiki in any case cannot have 404 outdated links.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 Wikipedia 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)

NPOV dispute initiated

I try and spread my time on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is on this and a couple of related articles. I'm sorry, but your editing behaviour indicates your purpose is solely as a Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute] 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 [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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)

Mrm, occupational health psychology is the name. In the US the professional society is the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. In Europe the professional society is the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The two leading organizations that between them conduct an international conference every year use the term occupational health psychology. OHP researchers from other continents also belong to those societies.

Regarding the CDC's definition, even if the CDC is located in the US, it is an internationally respected organization that has done a great to protect people's health in and outside the US. The business of using the CDC's definition was settled 7 months ago.

Finally, I remind you Mrm that 6 months ago as a condition for not being barred from Wikipedia on account of your disruptiveness that you desist from editing the OHP entry. Iss246 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I hate to bring up the reality that Atama believed you and your OHP society colleague psyc12 had a COI, given your active promotion of your USA OHP society. All you both seem to do is edit OHP or OB related topics?? and from a USA perspective. I was never barred as you know. I walked away from this coatrack article authored by you both, 4 months ago, so other editors could re-write the article. They never did. You were asked to as well. You refused. You have a personal history relating back to 2007 iss246 with OHP and a raft of other editors. Again, as far back as 2007, you were pushing OHP! and your USA OHP society. I'm sorry but it appears to me that you and psyc12 are here on the project, only for a single purpose. That is to promote OHP! and your US OHP society.

Mrm7171. Please stop with the accusations and personal attacks, and focus on the article itself. I have not deleted anything. I have not touched the article. All I have done is asked you here to provide specific examples of what is biased, which you so far have not done. The issue of defining the field was dealt with last year, and a consensus of several editors resulted in what we have now. It is a definition that fits the field in the US and the rest of the world.

You might have a valid point about including other terms for the field, but I would like to see evidence that those terms are really being used. As Richard Keatinge noted, we need to be careful not to overdo content, so if a term is used only occasionally by a limited group of people, it would not be worth mentioning. If other terms have come into fairly broad use, then yes, they should be added. Psyc12 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Apolgy. I am not an administrator. It was my observation only that you both only seem to ever edit articles related to OHP & OB? and from a USA perspective, rather than a worldwide view?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Further when an entirely independent and experienced editor, InedibleHulk, at the Wikipedia: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 bleeding obvious?

Wow! You even blanked inediblehulk's contribution in the lead today iss246. That was uncalled for. I restored on this editor's behalf, but again, you just delete this editor's work again? I find your behaviour unacceptable to the project iss246. I won't revert again. That was inediblehulk's contribution, not mine. I also won't be dragged into an edit war with you iss246 & psyc12. Please consider restoring inediblehulk's sound contribution based on his independent observation of the article today.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The entry concerns a discipline that is built on research conducted internationally. The international character of the discipline is reflected in the diverse research cited in the entry. The discipline is not the result of the promotion of people in any one country. The European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology was established before the SOHP, contradicting the idea that OHP is a creation of US researchers. Iss246 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I really think you missed editor inediblehulk's correct observation and his contribution to the lead today. I actually believe it should stay as well. Would you please consider restoring this editor's work iss246, rather than just aggressively deleting other independent editor's input into this article, in an attempt to bring it up to standard? I realize you both wrote this article, but it doesn't give you ownership. Can you please restore inediblehulk's contribution to the lead?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You misinterpret what I did. I have no beef with the user's contribution. I want to avoid the idea that people in one country are promoters of the discipline. The discipline is international. Iss246 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously iss246, can you please restore inediblehulk's sound contribution to the lead you just aggressively deleted as a good faith gesture, while we work toward a resolution here and on the NPOV noticeboaard?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, you avoid answering the important question. You provide no evidence that people in one country, the US, are the sole promoters and creators of OHP. As I have written above, that is not true. The OHP entry reflects research conducted internationally. What is the evidence that OHP is the creation of one country? Iss246 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, So you apologize and follow it up with another personal attack/criticism. Please limit your comments to the content of the article itself and avoid giving pejorative personal opinions about other editors' editing. You claim the article is grossly biased. Please give examples rather than just attacking other editors. 131.247.116.101 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Psyc12 (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12, is this your comment? or is it IP 131.247.116.101? Or is it both maybe? as you signed it with your username?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Psyc12: Psyc12 you keeping saying directly above that I don't give examples as to why I believe this article is biased, but the fact is, I have on a number of occassions, And you ignore them. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. At the NPOV noticeboard at the base of the discussion these numerous points/reasons/questions exactly why I believe it is biased are outlined. And you and iss246 ignore them? So please don't keep saying I don't. That's just nonsense. Also, as I said are you IP 131.247.116.101, as well as psyc12?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So let me be sure I understand your point, Mrm7171. The article has an American bias because it cites a Swedish physician and research prior to the 1990s? Is that your claim Mrm7171? And yes, 131.... was me. I forgot the tildas and came back later and added my name. Psyc12 (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The first reference, for the first sentence, which describes the topic, makes it clear that this is NIOSH and ASA's pet project. It's not that a country or its people promotes it, just those particular agencies. At least initially. I'm sure others have been influenced by it in the last 20-odd years. But the lead should attribute its creation, especially when the source is right there. Otherwise, it seems like the field just organically created itself, by itself. That's impossible. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

I've (at least) mentioned that the definition attached to the NIOSH source is NIOSH's definition. That doesn't preclude anyone else from being involved in the promotion, just a matter of fact, which is already sourced. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

My difficulty with "according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health" is that it leads the reader to think that there is some possible other interpretation of the definition of OHP, when this isn't the case. That Occupational Health Psychology is "concerned with the safety, health and well-being of workers" seems to be self evident, as that appears to be inherent in the name of the field. Would this be best rectified by using an alternative source for the definition? - Bilby (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't my first choice for a reason. I still think it's best to mention NIOSH and APA's key involvement in pushing the field upfront, just like we say which author wrote a book, or which network aired a show. Another source for a definition would need to be a less authoritative one, since the one used is the homepage of the topic. So that seems a step backward. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

I agree and there are many other definitions and indeed alternate titles for Occupational health psychology. These need to be included for balance, representative and NPOV. But stating that NIOSH actively promotes OHP in the USA is important. In fact, the USA based website and organization CDC & NIOSH here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/ clearly states "NIOSH has an active interest in promoting the new field of OHP." So I'm confused as to why we can't use this here. We need to for NPOV. And OHP is actually 24 years old now, so not sure how 'new' it is either (a bit misleading to keep calling it new). It looks like some staff at NIOSH are also members of the USA OHP society that iss246 & psyc12 are members. References used in this article are also written by these staff at NIOSH? So...not sure what is going on here, to be honest?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem clear that NOISH have the homepage for the topic - they are certainly active in the field, but the doesn't make them more authoritative than the journals or societies. Work & Stress defined OHP as "the contribution of applied psychology to occupational health". My hassle there is that it is less informative than the one we're using. We should probably have a paragraph in the body discussing defining OHP. I'll see what sources are available that discuss the definition.

I agree that NOISH and APA should be mentioned in the lead. My main issue with the lead, though, is that it is too short to reflect the article as a whole. Once the overall article is stable we will need to rewrite the lead to be a better summary. - Bilby (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the whole USA focus Bilby? Alternate titles, alternate definitions need be given due weight. And currently this article sure aint stable or balanced throughout.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A different source could be used for a definition, but OHP is concerned with worker health, safety, and well-being. This isn't a just a NIOSH perspective, or an just American perspective, but the nature of the field internationally. Psyc12 (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. No you did not give specific examples of what in the article was biased. You complained that there was material from disciplines other than psychology, but I have no idea how that is an American or NIOSH bias. Some of those sources are from Scandinavia, so I don't know how that is an American bias. You have provided no references to support your claims of gross bias in the article. Where are the alternate definitions of the field from other countries that conflict with the NIOSH definition. Show us that in other countries they consider the field to be something other than the NIOSH definition and we can discuss the best way to deal with the definition. To just accuse others of bias is not at all helpful. Psyc12 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12 could you please respond to my questions above. You keep ignoring them, but then muddying the water by accusing me of not outlining my concerns of bias in this article? I pinged you above. But you still have ignored these very clear questions/points outlining exactly why I placed the NPOV dispute tag on the page. You also have ignored those questions on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Proving some direct responses would be helpful here. Also, as I said are you IP 131.247.116.101, as well as psyc12?I just want to know who I am directing my questions to please?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Also I would appreciate you and iss246 not directing your aggression toward me. Inediblehulk has made some excellent points regarding the lead in the last couple of days, for instance. I hope that by shining some further light here we can also get input from other completely independent editors.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What questions? There is so much text, I can't follow it all. Psyc12 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think most of the 'walls of text' have been created by you and iss246.

As I said psyc12 are you IP 131.247.116.101, as well as psyc12?I just want to know who I am directing my questions to please? Also my direct questions remain unansweted right here at the base of the discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Iss246, see here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/ I quote word for word, from your NIOSH/CDC source "Welcome to the Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) Homepage. NIOSH has an active interest in promoting the new field of OHP. On this page you will....Anyway, quotations around it even in the article. It's your USA source, after all? I'm just quoting from it directly.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The two questions: It isn't only psychologists who do OHP research, so it is appropriate to reference researchers from other fields, like Tores Theorell, a physician who is one of the major figures in occupational stress. The field of OHP might have gotten its name in the 90s, but research on occupational health goes back far earlier, so it is appropriate to refer to early research on topics like stress. Psyc12 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12, you have again chosen not to respond to the direct points clearly made at the base and top of the active discussion underway at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 you again blanked inediblehulk's and other editor's good faith contributions. And with no discussion here on talk,? and reverted back to YOUR version, against all other discussion here? That is unhelpful and bordering on vandalism. I will, as a courtesy to inediblehulk, revert these blanket deletions you made. It is disruptive editing to do so. Also please don't remove the correct NPOV dispute tag and other tags placed correctly at the top of page. We are all told to not touch these tags while we are trying to get a resolution. Please respect both Wikipedia's policies and protocol and your fellow editors.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In the true spirit of occupational health disorder, I declare I don't care no more. Work safely, everyone! Remember, wheels of vehicles undergoing repair or adjustment should be chocked to help prevent unintentional movement of the vehicle. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, I answered your two questions 4 paragraphs up. Psyc12 (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Bilby. I took your suggestion and substituted a different definition and reference in the opening of the lede, and added a list of the major areas from the same reference. The extra detail should give a better overview of what the field is concerned with. Not sure if APA/NIOSH should be mentioned in the lede or not. They are important to development of OHP primarily in the U.S. They are mentioned in the history section now. Psyc12 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

noticed my change was deleted. it is important that united states of america is mentioned if you use a united states definition. changed back to OHP an interdisciplinary field at least. would like to discuss why you deleted my other inclusion relating to CDC definition. needs to be clear it is a united states of america definition. too many health articles seem to be only coming at things from a united states perspective which is puzzling.Docsim (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Docsim, I appreciate your concern. You want the international character of OHP to show up in the entry. For the record, the definition in the opening paragraph combines European (Houdmont & Leka) and US (CDC) orientations, and emphasizes the European perspective a bit more than the US perspective. I did a spot check of the entry. Researchers who were cited such as Theorell, Mäntyniemi, Wang, Ford, Parkes, Frese, Carayon, Arnetz, Dormann, Rayner, Andersson, Kainan, Barling, Kelloway, and Hallqvist come from countries in Europe, Canada, and the Middle East. Research in OHP is largely conducted by psychologists but OHP encourages the participation of researchers from allied fields. Of course, the term "psychology," is in the name of the discipline, as it is in the names of important organizations associated with the discipline, the EAOHP and SOHP. The APA, a major psychology organization, has cosponsored the WSH meetings with SOHP and NIOSH. Iss246 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Docsim. Please explain in what way the definition is unique to the U.S.? Authors from different continents might use somewhat different words to describe the field, but that does not mean the definitions are in conflict. Psyc12 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about the united states of america center for disease definition. you also changed the definition to interdisciplinary area of psychology. looks like a multidisciplinary field. can you explain.Docsim (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)