Talk:NIOSH Education and Research Centers

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

I undid the edit by Mrm7171 because it is incorrect. The NIOSH source lists the specific disciplines, including occupational safety and NOT occupational health and safety. There is no ERC that has I/O psychology as a field. If that is to be added to this article a reliable reference must be provided to show it. Psyc12 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want an edit war psyc12 so won't revert just yet. Lets discuss before just deleting my good faith addition. The ERC is in the I/O psychology program? Therefore I/O psychology needs to be in this Wiki article. Which OHP course are you talking about?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modified sentence as a compromise. "I/O psychology doctorate, with subjects in occupational health psychology."Mrm7171 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ERCs that have a psychology component. Both describe it as OHP. Neither describes it as I/O. Sunshine ERC at the University of South Florida: http://health.usf.edu/publichealth/erc/training.htm lists industrial hygiene, occupational medicine, occupational health nursing, occupational safety and OHP. The Mountain and Plains ERC at Colorado State University http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/PublicHealth/research/centers/maperc/Pages/default.aspx lists ergonomics, industrial hygiene, health physics and OHP. It does not mention I/O psychology. Furthermore, their OHP is affiliated with 5 of their psychology graduate programs: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Psychology/ohp/

If you want to say that I/O is an ERC program, you need to find a reliable source that says exactly that. You cannot rely on your own opinion, as that is not appropriate for Wikipedia.Psyc12 (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reliable source from the university of Florida. http://psychology.usf.edu/grad/io/oh/. Need to be accurate in articles. The OHP subjects are clearly within the I/O psych program. We also need to put in OHP as subjects only, 'within' the postgraduate programs at these 2 universities, so as not to mislead readers they are actual programs when they are not. Will adejust sentence again to reflect these facts.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The website you mentioned does not say that the I/O program is part of the ERC. It says "Our OHP program is part of the USF Sunshine Education and Training Center (ERC) in our College of Public Health." Psyc12 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my good faith editing attempt again psyc12, after I provided the reliable source, and while I thought we were trying to discuss here? Can you revert that again please. I don't want an edit war with you over this.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also you referred to my edit as a "wrong edit". No, it is an accurate edit with a reliable source. Please consider reverting your deletion of my reliably sourced edits rather than just delete it and while we are in the middle of trying to discuss this.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why you are incorrect, i.e., the ERCs clearly say that OHP is one of their programs, and they do not mention I/O. Psyc12 (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RS I provided also includes reference to ERCs, but it clearly shows readers how OHP is just a specialization within the I/O psychology program. I also included reference & RS to the other postgrad programs in other areas of psych you mentioned. Hope this compromise works.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is now in the article is factually correct, but why only give this detail on OHP and not epidemiology or ergonomics or all the other programs across all the ERCs? Why not list the other areas of psychology at CSU? Why only I/O psychology? The way it is now, the article is very unbalanced, and clearly shows a bias towards I/O psychology and suggests a POV. Psyc12 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It is factually correct." as you say. I agree. I'm happy to work on getting the balance right. A suggestion may be for us to not include subjects like OHP or ergonomics at all, maybe just the actual Doctorates or Masters programs themselves? I'm open to all suggestions to achieve NPOV here. The article is short, so we could concisely include all relevant information for sure.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is about ERCs, what should be listed are the names of the graduate programs that the ERCs support or recognize, e.g., industrial hygiene, occupational health nursing, and yes, OHP. These are the names you will find on the individual ERC websites. To do that would require going to all of the ERC websites and list all the programs. This might be a table of ERC by the programs they list. If you want to go deeper and mention programs/departments that feed or are affiliated with the ERC programs, you could do that, but it would take some work to run that down, as I don't think you will find an easy source that says it. The easy alternative is to go back to how it was originally, and just list a few examples of programs. It doesn't matter to me how it is done as long as it is balanced. Psyc12 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just need to consider NPOV, that's my only point, when describing the 'actual' programs, not just subjects like OHP or ergonomics or whatever, that are 'within' the actual programs. I also think it can be done concisely to achieve balance for all programs.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you only want to include 'OHP' even though it is only a subject in the I/O psychology Doctorate. Can't we give a 'balanced view' instead to either all, or none, of the programs, not just focus on 'OHP' in this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution. Include either 'all' programs or 'none' of the programs/subjects?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Mrm7171. I added all the ERC programs so the list is now complete and unbiased. I got them from the ERC reports themselves from the NIOSH website (the link to in the article). Psyc12 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it. The article's much more representative now with a NPOV rather than focusing on subjects in 'OHP' for some reason before.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think it is better this way too.Psyc12 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I'm here to do an evaluation for my wiki-education project. I am basing my evaluation on the prompt: "Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?". 4/5 citations are broken (likely last updated in 2014) and I think most of the ERC's could use a link to their official page. Looks like I have some work to do, will likely fix these within the next couple months. --Mtibbs (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]