Talk:Health psychology

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006160053/http://www.uk.sagepub.com/books/Book233714?contribId=516262& to http://www.uk.sagepub.com/books/Book233714?contribId=516262&
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006160053/http://www.uk.sagepub.com/books/Book233714?contribId=516262& to http://www.uk.sagepub.com/books/Book233714?contribId=516262&
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121210125314/http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/ to http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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.. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Related field to health psychology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External help

message: 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)
replies: text: Responded to your revert here. Jonahloci (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request