Talk:Australian Psychological Society

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Psychological Society is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Refs

Medicare rift splits the ranks: psychologists

192.232.130.71 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

The following conversation was copied from User talk:Nik50382 and User talk:Manticore.

Dear Manticore - instead of continuing to express your views on the APS Wikipage perhaps you should consider setting up your own organisation's page Nik50382 (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a means of promoting the APS, nor the ACPA; with whom I have no affiliation, I might add. The information you are continually removing is not my personal opinion, has been appropriate sourced, and you will be blocked if you continue to remove it. — Manti core 12:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manticore - I don't believe that it is vandalism to be including the factual and verifiable positions of this organisation on its own page. Your are welcome to start a new page on psychology training if you wish but you are appear to be trying misrepresent the APS views in your 'controversy' section and using biased newspaper references some of which were bordering on slander. It is also difficult for me to understand if you are not a member of this new organisation why are promoting it as alternative in the material you keep posting? Why not take a positive step and begin something new on psychology training standards where your views could be discussed on a more appropriate page. Nik50382 Nik50382 (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manticore - I haved removed the controversy section because it is not factual and supported with newspaper references that as previously stated border on slanderous and should not disseminated vai secondary websites. You are trying to use the APS entry to promote another organsation and that is vandalism. The statements that I have placed on the site are the factual positions of the APS. You can edit these statements if you believe they are inaccurate -although I would find it hard to understand how you can do that considering these are public documents. Regards Nik50382Nik50382 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: Okay, here's the deal. Manticore's version should be the one to be used; Nik50382's text is copied verbatim from sources like http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Assessment-of-eligibility-for-Clinical-College-membership.pdf and therefore cannot be used per Wiki's copyright policies. As a side note, use this page for further discussion rather than your talk pages. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate over education and standards could also be covered briefly on the Psychologist#Australia page. I worked on this a while ago but it needs to be updated. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, last warning: Nik50382, the text you're adding is copied verbatim from sources such as http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Assessment-of-eligibility-for-Clinical-College-membership.pdf and http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/APS-position-education-training-standards.pdf. I've warned you multiple times about how this is inappropriate. If you continue to add it, I will report your disruptive editing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page Training and licensing of clinical psychologists which is currently US-centric. It could be updated to reflect the recent and proposed changes in Australia. The current requirement for registration in Australia is 4 years + 2 year supervised practice or 2 years masters program in clinical psychology. The newly formed Clinical College has not been covered. Also it is interesting to note that clinical psychologists who are members of this college get higher medicare rate. As I understand it psychologists can still call themselves clinical psychologists and provide clinical psychology services (e.g. CBT, psychotherapy) without a masters program in clinical psychology. This is what the main dispute was about. Members of the APS with "equivalent experience" of a masters degree have been allowed to join the clinical college. I think we need to cover the debate from neutral sources but I don't think we should be linking to the breakaway clinical psychology association. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 01:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Superstitous123

This was originally written on my talk page. It is in regards to the most set of edits by Superstitous123. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heading has been changed to be more specific to the topic content; ist paragrah significant controvery has been changed to be more specific as it relates to a small number of ex members who wanted to attract media attention to promote their new organisation; 2nd paragraph has had inaccuracies removed that referred to psychologists who were not clinical as not having any practical training which is not correct and supporting reference has been added; sentence has been added to correct statement that inferrred that the APS was effectively lowering standards when it is the psychologicy registrationn boards that sets the standard for who can call themselves a psychologist; Paragraph 3 has been modified to be more specifc as it reads some clincal psychologists when it is only the four people referred to in the referenced newspaper article that be confirmed as holding these views; fourth paragraph has been removed as it promotes an alternative organisation and provides a link to their website.Superstitous123 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note: Some of the information offered above by Superstitious123 is biased towards minimising the level of concern that psychologists have about this issue at present in Australia. There is evidence from recent polls in Australia where hundreds of psychologists have expressed concern about this and other current issues. These figures put the numbers of concerned psychologists at around 500 just for that poll, which is above 80% of the respondents. Clearly, these issues are of great concern to a large amount of psychologists, from quite diverse factions in the profession. This page really shouldn't be used as a promotional brochure by either of these parties, but still, we need to be honest about just how significant these issues are right now. It would not be far off the mark to say that the profession of psychology in Australia is in a state of tension with the current situation. Aside from these parties contesting each other, we have legal threats flying around the place at the moment and even a class action being planned by a large contingent of psychologists in Australia. Let's try to be honest here people. --124.169.75.96 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important response

You have undone all of my contributions yet only responded to one in your posting about levels of concern. While I agree Wikipedia is not about promoting organisations equally it should not be used to misrepresent them either. It's good to see that you would like us to be honest Manticore.Is it really being honest to infer that most people who have undertaken four years of training and two years of supervised practice have no practical training? Is it honest to continue to infer that the APS has lobbied for lowering standards without any evidence other than the opinion of disgruntled ex members in a newspaper article? Is it honest to infer that it is the role of APS to set the standards for the registration of psychologists in Australia when it is the National Registration Board. Lastly if you have no affiliation with the newly established Association for clinical psychologists why do continue to reinstate its website link - now come on be honest!Superstitous123 (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I can promise you that I'm not associated with the APS; hell, I'm not even Australian. The text you're adding, particularly in this edit, is problematic. For one, you removed a whole lot of references and instead replaced them with [4], [5], and so on. They don't go anywhere, so it's not clear what they refer to. You need to read WP:POV and understand that the text you're adding has a skewed point of view. Text like "These same people contend that the APS is effectively lowering national standards by arguing that a 4 year degree plus two years of supervision is adequate to qualify for the title "psychologist". However the APS has stated that is incorrect as these standards are set by the Psychological Registration Bards not the APS which has been advocating for improved standards" is unacceptable: without a huge amount of reliable sources. Further, "These same people" is a little too crude and harsh-sounding for Wiki. And who's to say what "these people contend" without a source? That's juts your own take on things. And on top of all that, that sentence violates the synthesis rule: even if you did have a source for what those people contend, and another source to show what the APS says, combining them together to draw your own new conclusion isn't allowed. Read the policies I've quoted above, take a look at your edits, and then see if the text you're trying to add really can be added. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits

I was reading your response to Supertitious123 and it doesn't explain why you continue to not allow any edits to this contentious piece of work. The reference to the line "A growing number of Clinical Psychologists have reportedly resigned from, or are planning to resign from, the APS in protest" does not provide any evidence that this is the case. This line has been removed. This line is then follwed by the advertisement that "A new non-profit organization called the Australian Clinical Psychology Association (ACPA) is being formed with the mission "to represent, support, and promote those with accredited post-graduate qualifications in clinical psychology, and advance the standards of the profession, in the best interests of the public and the profession" with a link to its website. This is promoting another organisation and has been removed. In the 3rd paragrpah the sentence "These claims have been strongly refuted by the APS" has been added and is reported in the existing reference. I agree with Supertitious that the title would be more accurate to be titled education and training which reflects the content and is less emotive. In the 2nd paragraph it says that "Many APS members have completed only four years of University education" this incorrect as APS members must complete four years of university education plus two years of supervised training to be eligible for associate membership not full membership. The way it is currently written it implies that APS accepts members with only fours years of university training. Nik50382 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These changes by Nik50382 appear sensible. But I think we should mention the new national registration board for psychologists (Psychology Board of Australia; PBA)[1] which comes into effect very soon. Also the recent increase in medicare rebates for members of the clinical college has been driving the recent disputes over minimum training standards. Alternate education routes including a new 5+1 program is also currently being developed by the APS and unnamed universities. It is unclear how long grandfathering of 4+2 members will remain in place. Another point is that the clinical college is just one of many colleges in the APS. The current section titled Education and Training is focused entirely on clinical. We should add more information about colleges of forensic, sports, etc. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 03:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more detail

I agree - I have added information on nine colleges, national registration board and new 5 + 1 pathway as identifiedNik50382 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about professional standards being lower than all other countries needs to be verified. It is certainly lower than America but its about the same as the UK. Is there a reputable source that can confirm or deny this? We should really be using sources from peer-reviewed journals, not newspapers or internal documents of associations. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

For those of you not paying attention to the SPI, it was confirmed that Superstitious123 is Nik50382. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that. I was assuming good faith. Even if we suspect sockpuppets in the future, we should just insist on high quality sources and that everyone adheres to NPOV policies. What changes do you want to suggest now? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 16:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think I need a full hour or two to devote to looking at the changes made by Nik50382 and figure out what should and should not be in. I'm not well versed enough on the topic (well, at all) to just be able to read the text and determine whether or not it's correct. But you're right, it's all about the sourcing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Australian Psychological Society. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Psychological Society. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psychologyboard.gov.au/index.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123024639/https://groups.psychology.org.au/nfpig/2015conference/ to https://groups.psychology.org.au/nfpig/2015conference/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apac.psychology.org.au/

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) 04:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]