Talk:British Psychological Society

Consciousness and Experiential Psychology was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 February 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into British Psychological Society. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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.

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.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom 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.

Untitled

I thought about adding the following sections - comments?

Journals

Subsystems (Sections, Divisions, Special Groups)

Presidents?

Something about the HPC?

Any other ideas?

Hi there, I had just read this article myself, and as with you, thought that something better be added on the Society sub-systems. This could clarify how "Divisions" and "Sections" are to be distinguished. ACEO 19:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think more precision could be used to enter the number of members of the BPS, including the number of members who are Chartered Psychologists. Does any one have data on these?ACEO 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that a lot of people who read this will themselves be in the British Psychological Society. They may like to know that they can now add themselves to the category of "Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society" (I have for some time been the sole member of this category!) ACEO 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing it with the article on the American Psychological Association

I shall be quite honest and state that, despite being based in the United Kingdom, I find the Wikipedia article on the American Psychological Association better than this one. Does any one have any comments? I certainly think it is better presented. ACEOREVIVED 19:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate information on initials must go in article

I was very concerned to see this article making the totally unsourced and dubious claim that members of the BPS can write "MBPS" after their names. To do so would actually be considered a serious offense by the BPS, as it would give the misleading impression that one needed more than a Psychology degree to gain graduate status of the BPS. I have now inserted more accurate information, on how chartered psychologists can write "C. Psychol." after their names. ACEOREVIVED 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User category for discussion (delete)

There's currently a discussion going on at UCFD, that could use some input from those knowledgeable about this society. Whether you think the category is useful or not, I encourage you to contribute to the conversation. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

how come "MBPS" redirects here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.39 (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the thread before last, above. MBPS = Member of the British Psychological Society. But if there are other, equally notable, meanings for the abbreviation, then the redirect should be changed to a disambiguation list. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Banister is current president

Peter Banister is the current president from 2012 to 2013; this is not clarified in the article, so this article now needs an update. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I just made the update myself! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding us. I have also corrected it in the opening section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness & Experiential Psychology Section (CEPS)

Now that the entry for the CEPS has been merged with the main BPS entry, the main article looks seriously unbalanced. The BPS has many member networks of which the CEPS is a very minor one in terms of membership. That it is the only one given any treatment other than a mere mention looks most odd, and could skew readers' understanding of the work of the Society. Either the section on the CEPS needs to be deleted or the main article ought to be populated with corresponding information on all the other member networks. Lissagriffin (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BJP

The British Journal of Psychology currently re-directs to this article. Surely, of all the BPS journals, this one deserves its own article? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping you from creating it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How kind. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (including you!). For more on this see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Your first article. Thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I really am impressed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A note about psychotherapy"

Is it possible to discuss this section, included by longstanding consensus, instead of just edit warring over it inclusion?? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special groups

I added a list of the current special groups as listed on the BPS website including coaching psychology. I propose to add a line or two about the scope of each group or network. Notgain (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Added dot point for the two journals Coaching Psychology and International Coaching Review under the groups section. Notgain (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New section in the page:- Response to the Cass Review

The Cass Review, has made a substantial impact since published In April - not least that puberty blockers in the UK are now prohibited under the NHS or in private practise, outside of clinical research.

It has also prompted bodies such as UKCP to revise their guidelines for working therapeutically with individuals who present with gender dysphoria. Cass_Review#Response_from_other_health_bodies_in_the_United_Kingdom.

So I created a new section in the BPS page to cover their response to Cass, and criticism of it which has emerged.

Those editors with a closer familiarity with the BPS may be able to be find further information on both sides, to flesh this out.Peckedagain (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peckedagain, I've made a few copy edits. Please revert or edit further if you see fit. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Martinevans123, those edits are fine - are 2nd pair of eyes is always good. I may not have made all the same tweaks, but there's no reason your style isn't better than mine. Peckedagain (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]