Talk:Peter Jensen (psychologist)

Page up for deletion

Note well under the Psychology of Ontario act 1991, only members of the College of Psychology can use the term Psychologist, or any term with Psychologist, in this case Sport Psychologist. This is a serious issue as it carries heavy fines and is a matter of public safety. Furthermore, as this is a living person, you out him at risk of an action being taken against him from both the College of Psychology and the public. This page should really be up for speedily deletion.

See the case against Terry Orlick for reference. http://www.cpo.on.ca/members-of-the-public/index.aspx?id=2650 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillabear10 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct, but he is only violating the law if he isn't registered (which you haven't shown any reason to believe he isn't) and he has to actively be promoting himself to be one and taking on patients. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Canadian reliabkle source so states - Wikipedia uses what the reliable sources say, which means the Toronto Star syndicate article is proper here. Thus we have a valid reason to use the term. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Jensen does not claim to be a psychologist. It is a BLP violation to infer that he does. TFD (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not wirte that he claims to be anything - I wrote that reliable sources say something - and, oddly enough, Wikipedia says we use reliable sources and not what we "know to be the truth." Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Therefore Collect, if I can find enough sources that claim apple can also be spelled aple, everytime apple appears in wiki, I can change it to aple. See how silly your argument is? Hillabear10 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please try to stick to proper discussion. If we have fifty strong reliable sources which use the word "Gnarph" with respect to a person, then it is not up to us to know that "gnarph" will get us in legal trouble - because quite frankly Canadian law has zero applicability to the material on this page. As long as we cite each claim to a propoer WP:RS source, we are doing what the project intends for us to do. What Canadian law does is restrict what the person may call himself - and only that, in Canada. You silly example about changing every usage of a word to a different spelling has absolutely no analog here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

US law also prohibits the use of the title ‘psychologist’. Therefore, under your argument, any Medical Doctor, Dentist, Vet, Social Worker ect ect ect not registered in the US cannot be sited as one on Wiki. Your argument is a two edged knife and clearly sinks. Hillabear10 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

When I was in grade 7, my English teacher told me to read between the lines. Not everything in this world is black in white. Thus what you believe is the intention of the project, might not be the true or factually intention. Do you follow?Hillabear10 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(od) Wikipedia uses the laws of the United States. It is not illegal to use the term "psychologist" about a person - the law prevents themselves from using that for themselves as a job title. Jensen appears to use the specific term "sports psychology trainer" which seems not to have run afoul of the authorities at this point. As for the purpose of Wikipedia? Read the Five Pillars. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply incorrect, he does not call himself a 'sport psychology trainer'. This has already been covered, please provide your sources. Hillabear10 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Hillabear10 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh? [1] damn well says "sport psychology trainer". Next time I will simply write off posting here - my points have been clear and cogent to the best of my ability. When one calls another editor "incorrect" and is shown to be errant, it is customary for that editor to apologize. Collect (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see where he calls himself that. Furthermore, if what you claim is correct, he has put himself at risk. Please note the Terry Orlick case,

On Wednesday December 29, 2010 The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, on consent of the parties, made an ORDER and DECLARATION that: •Terry Orlick violated the Psychology Act, 1991, by holding himself out as a person qualified to practice in Ontario as a psychologist, by being referred to or using the term “Sport Psychologist” or “Sport Psychology Consultant”

The Court further ordered that he:

•cease and desist from holding himself out as a person qualified to practice in Ontario as a psychologist;
•not treat and/ or advise any person with respect to his or her health in circumstances in which it is reasonably forseeable that serious physical harm may result, contrary to s. 30 (1) of the Regulated Health Professions Act;  and
•pay costs in the amount of $1000 be paid to the College of Psychologists of Ontario

Terry Orlick is not a member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario and is not authorized to practice psychology in Ontario. [2] Hillabear10 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

From the cite I gave:

Peter is the founder of one of Canada’s premiere training companies Performance Coaching Inc. He has worked with major companies all over North America and abroad. He has attended seven Olympic Games, worked with over 40 medal winning athletes and their coaches, and is a sport psychology trainer for many of Canada's Olympic athletes. He is also an instructor at Canada’s foremost executive development school, Queen's School of Business.

Which seems like one ought not easily miss it, much less accuse any editor of making it up.

And the law does not apply to Wikipedia for

1. Wikipedia is subject to US law
2. the law does not apply to third parties
3. there is no evidence that "sport psychology trainer" is considered to fall under that law
4. Wikipedia has nothing to do with any possible legal claims made about any subject of a BLP in the first place.
5. If you are a lawyer then act as a lawyer in the proper venue.

Wikipedia is not the place to "play lawyer", really. BTW, if you are not a lawyer and are giving legal advice to anyone, even online, you likely should look up the laws about that <g> Collect (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You said, and I quote, Oh? [1] damn well says "sport psychology trainer". Then you add, Jensen appears to use the specific term "sports psychology trainer... It is in third person. My understanding of English is that if it is in third person, someone else wrote it. Hillabear10 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC) User identified and indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet Collect (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would be worth conserving energy and coming back to this issue in the event that the article is kept. Formerip (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be interesting to note that his first mention as a "psychologist" antedated the 1991 law. Collect (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Article restored to mainspace

Closing admin ItsZippy (talk · contribs) wrote after a request for him to review the article's rewrite:

That seems alright - I would say that the sources you have added mean that the concerns that led to deletion at the AfD have been dealt with, so G4 would not apply (and feel free to link to this discussion when you publish it). Nevertheless, someone else may nominate this for deletion if they do not think the sources are enough (that is not to say that I think it should be deleted, but I would not condone a speedy keep if someone did nominate it). Is that ok? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)