Talk:Oliver James (psychologist)

Unlawful Killing documentary

He also appears in the documentary "Unlawful Killing" IMDB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.205.240.43 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen this, but I can't imagine his part is very big as there are many other contributors. It's not currently mentioned in the article. IMDb is not regarded as WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"factually incorrect" comment

There is inflammatory comment on him being 'factually incorrect". Given the biog is concise, it reads as if the man is a charlatan. He is not. His comment on the genetic aspects on schizoprenia were collected from a review of 40 studies by medics in profession, printed in a peer journal.

This is what science does. People can challenge the ideas of today if they have some evidence based reason.

There is no "factually" right or wrong in almost all health and especially mental health issues.

There are only degrees of likelyhood in most cases.

Would you write in Einstein's biog "factually incorrect in many aspects of physics"? (speak to a physicist, the particle physicists will fill you in)

Just seemed to me to be very negative comment.

ps he does believe the proposition as he wonders why mental health problems have exploded over last 50 years - this cannot be purely genetic. We are not fruit flies able to change genes in 50 years of breeding.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.142.111.181 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Fleet Foxes

The final song on the current Fleet Foxes album is called "Oliver James". Could be a reference to our man, but I don't know how well known he is in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.114.244 (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So that must have been their debut studio album? The article doesn't say, but looking at the lyrics it seems unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Killing spree

I heard Oliver James interviewed today on the BBC's The World Today progamme, in connection with the Winnenden school shooting. When asked whether those who carry out killing sprees were determined to die themselves, he answered:

They've got a death-wish and they've nearly all been horribly maltreated. That leaves them deeply depressed and potentially very violent. Like almost all violent people, they have been the object of violence, so that's the way they express themselves, if they're feeling down.

BBC: So that store of combustible material if you like comes from being from a dysfunctional background, but what is it that actually "lights the fuse" in the end?

Well, I mean, in the case of the man I interviewed in America, who was a rare survivor of spree killing, he actually, what he did was, he was a very decent person basically. He didn't fight back against his brutal parents and family. But eventually he was driven to such extremes that he listended to two radio stations, and one was God's radio station, the other was Satan's. Satan played "Another One Bites the Dust" and that was a message to him, because he by now was getting pretty stir-crazy. And eventually he made a deal with Satan, in which he said, I will kill everyone IF I win the lottery. And, and amazingly, he did really win the lottery. We checked it out, he actually did win it. So he then, you know, went out, and said OK, he went to the gun shop and said "I want to buy the gun that shoots the most bullets as fast as possible. Nobody questioned him about it—this is America, right? And, you know, what flipped him over the edge was that he was moving from a position of wanting to kill himself to a position of deciding that actually he was going to kill his true persecutors. That's true of all of us. We're all in that position, where we feel trapped, we can either, you know, blame ourselves and attack ourselves, or we can lash out outwards.

Does anyone know (from his books) to which killing spree he was referring?

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This was from a man I interviewed for an ITV series broadcast in 1988, Men On Violence. I reproduced much of the interview in one of my books, if you want to know which i could probably dig it out. Singleton4321 (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned here and here (but subscriptions required)? There's another relevant source on James, from 2008, here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Psychologist

If James is no longer accredited by the BPS, nor registered with the Bowlby Centre, what is the justification for using the present tense to describe him as a psychologist? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: see thread immediately below. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources for both registrations have now been provided, although accreditation with the Bowlby Centre is as a therapist. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

In this 2013 interview he says: "I'm Oliver James. I'm a Chartered Clinical Psychologist and psychotherapist registered at the Bowlby Centre. I nowadays primarily write books and I've written quite a number of books in the last 10 years. I also do some journalism and broadcasting." That was 11 years ago. So I think it might be fair to ask whether he is still actively engaged in psychological and psychotherapeutic intervention, or whether this has been largely overtaken by his being an author, journalist and broadcaster. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see there's no sources showing that he's affiliated with any academic institutions or fellowships which suggests to me that the career trajectory is towards the popular psychology side of things. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 15:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

BPS Chartership may be a requirement for employment as a clinical psychologist but, as far as I know, it doesn't necessarily mean that such ongoing employment exists, either with the NHS or privately. But I don't know how the Bowlby Centre works. Perhaps to be registered as a psychotherapist there, someone needs to undertake a minimum number of hours of therapy with clients over the course of the year. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Psychology and psychotherapy are not the same thing, so his active registration with the UK Council for Psychotherapy and Bowlby Centre isn't really relevant.

He has a degree in psychology and practised as a clinical psychologist. One does not become a "former" psychologist even if one stops practising, any more than an economist becomes a "former economist" when they retire. cagliost (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I suspect one can become a "former psychologist" if one is expelled from one's professional body for misconduct, etc. But this does not seem to be relevant here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I also suspect he will continue to describe himself as "a psychotherapist". But we will probably never know if that description is really justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course it is justified. He is listed with the UK Council for Psychotherapy and Bowlby Centre. cagliost (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That said, I think James is a charlatan and a fool, so I'm happy with the current state of the article describing him as a "pop-psychologist". cagliost (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest that his conduct in recent discussions here have made him look very foolish. But a charge of him being "a charlatan" could only really be substantiated by the BPS and/or the Bowlby Centre, and of course his professional work in psychology and psychotherapy would be protected by client confidentiality. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis notwithstanding, his various comments about behavioural genetics, a subject he clearly knows nothing about and understands even less, are charlatanry. cagliost (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You have a point there. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oliver James' registration with professional bodies

The statement 'As of 20 February 2024, James is not registered with either the Bowlby Centre or the BPS.' One wonders if the person making the statement knew perfectly well that the links offered to support this were misleading and utterly bogus.

The link for the Bowlby Centre is to therapists wanting their details to be available to the public, which I did not. It would be a simple matter to contact the Bowlby centre and ask them if i am registered with them, this link is utterly spurious. I have since added myself to the registered therapists list, so if that is proof I am registered then this should be put as a citation for my registration at the Bowlby Centre https://thebowlbycentre.org.uk/locator/

The link supposedly demonstrating that I am not a member of the BPS is to the HCPC website, a regulatory body for clinicians. Whoever put this link there will have known perfectly well that I am not registered there. In fact, it is with the UKCP that I am registered as a clinician, you can find me on their website https://psychotherapy.my.site.com/DirectoryApi__Directory?autonumber=SD-00000003&site=a0d24000001VW3nAAG That citation and my membership of the UKCP should be added to the entries.

My membership of the BPS would never have been verifiable by a link to a wholly different organisation, the HPCP. Verification of my BPS membership is easily achieved by contacting them.

Since I understand that I am not allowed to make these changes, who will do them for me? Singleton4321 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I searched at the UKCP website and I located an "Oliver James". Unfortunately, the profile link it provides does not seem to work for me. So I can't see any other biographical information about you that might validate your identity, i.e. it could be someone else called "Oliver James". Also, there is no mention of the Bowlby Centre? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the link to the Bowbly Centre here, Yes I can now see an entry for Oliver James with a location, telephone number and email. I would be prepared to use that source to support the claim that you are registered with them. But I would appreciate a second editor opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Re BPS membership, we need some kind of source, preferably a secondary one. For any editor to "go and contact BPS" would be WP:OR. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou for finally admitting that I am a member of the Bowlby Centre: why did you accept the false link relating to this before - it was a register of therapists willing to provide their personal details, not of all Bowlby Centre therapists yet you accepted it?

Re UKCP, I will check with them and ensure the profile is working. What will you regard as evidence that I am the Oliver James who is at the Bowlby Centre, did all those tv programmes, all that journalism etc etc?

Re BPS membership, rather than a link to the HCPC which you might have pointed out was a false one for certifying if someone is a CPsychol at the BPS but didn't, you don't have to work very hard to find me on the BPS website, inserting London and James in the relevant boxes to see that I am listed as a CPsychol at https://portal.bps.org.uk/Psychologist-Search/Chartered-Member-List .

Please now correct the attempt to imply that I am fraudulently misrepresenting myself as a paid up member of those institutions by removing the outrageous assertion that I am not registered at the Bowlby Centre or the BPS. Also, please put me in the present tense, not the past tense, as registered with these bodies, with the correct links, which you recently and wholly incorrectly edited to the past tense. Please apologise for this mistake and cease editing the page devoted to me. Singleton4321 (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I already removed the "outrageous assertions". You want me to put them back? What am I apologizing for again? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You've asked me to "please put me in the present tense, not the past tense", and then you've also asked me to "cease editing the page devoted to me"? Which is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Oliver James ordering of article:

I would like to reorder the article, so that it begins with the works and then moves on to the reception of works, that would seem more logical.

In the works section, I would suggest starting with the books, then the television and then a new section on journalism - James wrote columns in 6 national newspapers but this is not mentioned anywhere.

Would these changes in ordering be acceptable, if so, would anyone object if I make them? 86.9.131.66 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Biographical articles for academics usually list publications towards the bottom, e.g. Michael Argyle (psychologist). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

With one exception, these books are not academic by most views, they are popular science. Though it reminds me that my scientific publications have been removed from this website and need to be reintroduced, so, for once, thankyou Martinevans123 for your help. Singleton4321 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, the same article structure applies to all writers e.g. this one. See WP:ORDER. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Oliver James Works: Television

In all, I was the producer (Prod), assistant producer (AP), presenter (Pres) or series consultant of 10 television series and 7 individual documentaries broadcast on British television (ITV, BBC2 and Channel 4), 1982-2006. The present article includes only 3 of my individual docs and one of the series, chosen for reasons that escape me, when you consider the full choice available. I propose that instead of the existing 4 programmes, in accord with the Wikipedia goal of providing neutral, sourced and factual information, the full list is presented.

In 7 cases, I am able to provide a citation to the actual programmes, available on Youtube, where my name and credit is listed in the normal way of a television programme. In all other cases, except three, I provide a citation to the BBC or BFI archives, where the programme and its production staff are listed. In the cases where I have not yet obtained an online citation, I will put 'Citation needed'. Editors, please indicate if you are comfortable with me making this change to the Television section. I would propose to put the following:

'James was the producer (Prod), assistant producer (AP), presenter (Pres) or series consultant of 10 television series and 7 individual documentaries broadcast on British television (ITV, BBC2 and Channel 4), 1982-2006.

Under Fives (1982, ITV, Granada, Parenting advice, 7-parts, AP, Series Consultant) Citation needed.

Sex With Paula (1987, C4, 6-part series, Paula Yates on sex, tx 1995, AP, Prod) Citation needed.

The Man Who Shot John Lennon (1988, ITV, First Tuesday, Yorkshire, AP) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFa4wuY1zgk

Room 113 (1987/8, C4, 22 episodes in each series, part of Network 7, celebrity interviews, Prod-Pres) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Network_7

Men on Violence (1988, ITV, LWT, James interviewing violent men, 7 parts, AP) citation needed.

The Last Day (1990, C4 Short Stories, the Mail on Sunday leaves Fleet St, Prod) https://web.archive.org/web/20220531185626/https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b7aaba6e2

Wot U Lookin At? (1993, BBC2 Horizon, causes of violence, Prod) https://web.archive.org/web/20220531185632/https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b7c8e5aad

Prison HC3970 (1993, BBC2 40 Minutes, Portrait of a psychopath, Prod) https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?q=Prisoner+HC3970#top

Rape (1993, BBC2 40 Minutes, A rapist meets a rape victim, Prod) https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/d13d9111f7c34a55a7265abf5118fdc9

Prozac Diary (1995, BBC2 Late Show, artists take prozac to see how it affects their work, Prod-Pres) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc5Bex6_KXM

The Chair (1997, BBC2, interview series with famous people, Prod-Pres) https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/de0520f35f6445cb95bc751427536865

New Britain on the Couch (1998, C4, 2-part series, Explaining the rise in depression since 1950, Pres) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoDEpw385k4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoDEpw385k4

Affairs of the Heart (1999, C4, infidelity, Pres) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEXZIzd8uXw

Through The Eyes of the Child (2003-6, ITV This Morning, 3 series, parenting programme, Pres) https://studio.youtube.com/video/sBtTgPdyQUE/edit' Singleton4321 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the copyright status of the YouTube videos to which you have linked is not clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How does the copyright status of the programmes on Youtube affect their validity as citations that I did make those programmes with the credits that I claim? Within Wikipedia's rules of epistemology, I am not aware that this is a valid objection. I would prefer that you do not continue to edit this article, MartinEvans123 because you have not apologized for your earlier mistakes and have shown yourself to be very unreliable in relation to this article. Please confirm that you will cease to vandalize the article. Singleton4321 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Please could you list here, with the relevant diffs, all the "mistakes" for which you are seeking an apology. Also any example(s) of where I have been "unreliable". And details of where I have "vandalised" the article. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You take a very close interest in all the changes I propose to the article, might be said to be its main curator at the moment. However, I suspect a Wikipedia administrator would agree with me that when you proposed changing the tense from 'is' to 'was' registered at the Bowlby Centre and the BPS, on the grounds that I was not registered at these institutions, you were negligent in not checking the citations properly. Any neutral observer of your curation of the article would see that you are extremely punctilious in checking everything i propose. Yet in failing to check these citations, you actively promoted a profoundly damaging lie about me: I work as a relational psychotherapist, I am registered as claimed, and you wilfully encouraged the idea that I am a fraud. We shall have to see what a neutral judge of this makes of it (to be organized when I find the time). Singleton4321 (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the reason why I feel it necessary to take a "very close interest" here is that you are the subject of this article. I feel I have become the "main curator" by default. My proposal over tenses was to do with article consistency. If you recall, it was me who added the "better source required" template against the sources, before I then recently removed the claims altogether. Can you provide a source that says you work as "a relational psychotherapist", as I have searched and failed to find one. I'm really not sure what you mean by organizing a "neutral judge". If you feel I have broken any Wikipedia guidelines or rules, with regard to this article, e.g. by "actively promoted a profoundly damaging lie" about you, are welcome to request Admin intervention at WP:AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You only added better source required after I pointed out that this one was false, you should have been pointing that out yourself beforehand, and before you supported the calumny about my qualifications Singleton4321 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the substantive issue of copyright violation, Wikipedia prefers not to host links to material which is in breach of copyright. Of the YouTube links you have provided above, some have been uploaded by entities that do not appear to be the original copyright holders. In some cases these include your own personal YouTube channel. If you can provide evidence that you are indeed the legal copyright holder, there's no problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You have not established that there has been any breach of copyright. Youtube do an automatic check of copyright for all material uploaded, all the uploaded material has been so checked. And anyway, whether or not the links are to material that is copyrighted or not is irrelevant to whether or not you accept the validity of the citation: the citations prove that I was credited as I claim. You should now accept that the television section of the article is a gross misrepresentation of my television career: do you agree that referring to 3 of 7 individual documentaries and 1 of 10 series that I did is so? Yes or no? And can you deny that I did all these programmes? Singleton4321 (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You may want to look at WP:YOUTUBE and raise the matter at WP:Media copyright questions. The onus is on an editor to demonstrate that any material linked to is copyright compliant, not on any challenging editor to demonstrate there is a breach of copyright. I see no reason why all of your television credits should not be listed, provided they can be properly sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the onus is not on the editor to prove copyright compliance, the link you sent me to (using up yet more of my time by sending me to Wiki links) says 'Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows, or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations.' So if you wish to object to my linking to these videos, you need to prove that they are copyright violations, which is indeed what you try to do by pointing out that they are located where they are. The onus is not on my to prove anything about copyright but, in fact, these videos passed the Youtube check on copyright violation and therefore, are not violations - there is your proof, albeit its not me who has to prove it. You are wasting both of our time, I really dont know why, other than I assume you have some motive for wanting this farce of an article to be preserved in order to continue misrepresenting my career. Singleton4321 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123, do you accept that I made 10 series and 7 individual docs as above? Singleton4321 (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

martinevans123 do you accept that the fact that the videos of the programmes I made which are on youtube passed its copyright check, and therefore, that they are acceptable links within the wikipedia epistemology? Singleton4321 (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123 can you offer evidence that the videos I reference on youtube are copyright breaches? Its you who has to prove this, although, as I have pointed out, youtube are satisfied that there is no copyright breach. Singleton4321 (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the copies of these programmes at YouTube are primary sources. They give no indication of the notability of the material. To provide that, Wikipedia generally requires secondary sources, i.e. reliable sources that describe or discuss the material concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The notability of the programmes is not at issue here. I am simply trying to create a section in the article which records what the television career entailed, as a matter of fact: I did 7 documentaries and 10 series. Do you accept that is true or don't you? Do you agree that only mentioning 3 of the docs and one series greatly misrepresents what occured in the TV career? Singleton4321 (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Many biographical articles list only a selection of a person's creative output, which can then be marked e.g. "Selected television output" or whatever. They may be deemed to be the most notable ones, as evidenced by the reports of third party reviewers, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Except that it was not marked 'selected TV output', the implication was that this was all I had done. And by no stretch of the imagination could those programmes be said to be the most notable (The Last Day was half an hour and very obscure, I wonder why it was chosen over The Man Who Shot John Lennon which was shown on PBS in America; but then there is no point in asking such questions of you, you never engage with them). It is surely well within the ambit of the Wikipedia encyclopaedic role to list all the programmes. At the least, the statement should be made that I made 10 series and 7 individual documentaries. Are you prepared to insert that statement? You react immediately I make any changes - do you not have a job or a life or is vandalizing this page your sole interest in life? Singleton4321 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the section heading. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you declared any conflicts of interest you might have in relation to this article? For example, have you any professional involvement in your career with the nature-nurture debate? Singleton4321 (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions against other editors like you have here. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 15:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no "conflicts of interest" in the relation to this article, including the nature-nurture debate. But then I'm not the person who is the subject of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Note, re: Room 113 (1987/8, C4), Network 7 is not a citation, it's just the Wikipedia article for the channel. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The link should be and was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ri4vfZocg Will you put it in or shall I? Singleton4321 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Singleton4321, here's the diff of where I removed your "citation" and added a tag: [1]. It still has that link in the list you've posted above. Your edit summary here "reinstating citation which had been removed" is incorrect. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't know what you are referring me to. I put in the correct citation and you removed it and raised a spurious point about Network 7. Singleton4321 (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry @Singleton4321 but these edit requests have not been presented in a manner congruent with Wikipedia:Edit requests and your accusations of falsehoods contravene the best practices listed at WP:COITALK. Furthermore, another editor has raised a copyright concern and so we must err on the side of caution when citing audio-visual media. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Singleton4321:, accusations of "vandalism" are taken very seriously at Wikipedia and so I'd kindly ask that you now either strike out such accusations against me in this discussion above, or else raise the matter at WP:AN/I, where my behaviour here may be appraised by an independent Administrator. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I do have other things to do with my time than trying to correct your vandalism. When and if I get enough time, don't worry, the case will be made and I hope it leads to your being banned as an editor. Singleton4321 (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism is a big problem on Wikipedia. Removing maintenance templates placed in good-faith like you did here and adding bare URLs like you did in [James (psychologist)&oldid=1250428092 this edit] diverts resources away from addressing actual vandalism. I can imagine that constantly having to argue with and clean up after User:Singleton4321 might become quite tedious after a while. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The vandalism I am referring to is not to do with cleaning up templates. It concerns Martinevans123's support for the preposterous (and probably libellous) claim that I am not registered to work as a psychotherapist. Someone had created false links that did not support my registration. Instead of examining these and replacing them with true ones, Martinevans123 accepted them and proposed that I should no longer be described as someone who is registered with the bodies, therebye giving crednence to a very very serious falsehood: it is extremely serious to accuse someone of falsely presenting themself as a professional when they are not. This is vandalism by all the definitions found in the Wikipedia guidelines and will need to be brought to the authorities attention in due course.

The exchange between Martinevans123 and I (singleton4321) from above was:

The statement 'As of 20 February 2024, James is not registered with either the Bowlby Centre or the BPS.' One wonders if the person making the statement knew perfectly well that the links offered to support this were misleading and utterly bogus.

The link for the Bowlby Centre is to therapists wanting their details to be available to the public, which I did not. It would be a simple matter to contact the Bowlby centre and ask them if i am registered with them, this link is utterly spurious. I have since added myself to the registered therapists list, so if that is proof I am registered then this should be put as a citation for my registration at the Bowlby Centre https://thebowlbycentre.org.uk/locator/

The link supposedly demonstrating that I am not a member of the BPS is to the HCPC website, a regulatory body for clinicians. Whoever put this link there will have known perfectly well that I am not registered there. In fact, it is with the UKCP that I am registered as a clinician, you can find me on their website https://psychotherapy.my.site.com/DirectoryApi__Directory?autonumber=SD-00000003&site=a0d24000001VW3nAAG That citation and my membership of the UKCP should be added to the entries.

My membership of the BPS would never have been verifiable by a link to a wholly different organisation, the HPCP. Verification of my BPS membership is easily achieved by contacting them.

Since I understand that I am not allowed to make these changes, who will do them for me? Singleton4321 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I searched at the UKCP website and I located an "Oliver James". Unfortunately, the profile link it provides does not seem to work for me. So I can't see any other biographical information about you that might validate your identity, i.e. it could be someone else called "Oliver James". Also, there is no mention of the Bowlby Centre? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the link to the Bowbly Centre here, Yes I can now see an entry for Oliver James with a location, telephone number and email. I would be prepared to use that source to support the claim that you are registered with them. But I would appreciate a second editor opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re BPS membership, we need some kind of source, preferably a secondary one. For any editor to "go and contact BPS" would be WP:OR. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for finally admitting that I am a member of the Bowlby Centre: why did you accept the false link relating to this before - it was a register of therapists willing to provide their personal details, not of all Bowlby Centre therapists yet you accepted it?

Re UKCP, I will check with them and ensure the profile is working. What will you regard as evidence that I am the Oliver James who is at the Bowlby Centre, did all those tv programmes, all that journalism etc etc?

Re BPS membership, rather than a link to the HCPC which you might have pointed out was a false one for certifying if someone is a CPsychol at the BPS but didn't, you don't have to work very hard to find me on the BPS website, inserting London and James in the relevant boxes to see that I am listed as a CPsychol at https://portal.bps.org.uk/Psychologist-Search/Chartered-Member-List .

Please now correct the attempt to imply that I am fraudulently misrepresenting myself as a paid up member of those institutions by removing the outrageous assertion that I am not registered at the Bowlby Centre or the BPS. Also, please put me in the present tense, not the past tense, as registered with these bodies, with the correct links, which you recently and wholly incorrectly edited to the past tense. Please apologise for this mistake and cease editing the page devoted to me. Singleton4321 (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC) Singleton4321 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Enough. @Singleton4321 you have already been warned about using language pertaining to legal threats. Please explain what you mean by, "therebye giving crednence to a very very serious falsehood: it is extremely serious to accuse someone of falsely presenting themself as a professional when they are not." I won't tolerate any further disregard for Wikipedia:No legal threats. I'm going to give you a warning on your talk page. Consider it your last warning before WP:ANI. Am I making myself clear? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 15:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not made any legal threats. Why is pointing out that some might regard it as libellous to claim that a professional is not registered a legal threat? I have not at any point threatened anyone with legal proceedings. Who are you to write in this imperious fashion 'enough' or 'I won't tolerate'. On what authority do you make these assertions? What problem can you possibly have in understanding the statement ' giving crednence to a very very serious falsehood: it is extremely serious to accuse someone of falsely presenting themself as a professional when they are not.' I don't know what your profession is, but supposing it was a psychologist and I falsely asserted that you are not registered at the BPS and that you had also falsely claimed to be registered at training body, referring the reader to utterly bogus links as support for this assertion, then how would you feel? That is what Martinevans123 did to me. Will you please acknowledge that it is vandalism on this site to falsely accuse someone of having pretended to qualifications they don't have? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There you go again with the WP:LEGAL THREATS "some might regard it as libelous to claim" is not acceptable here. I advice you to read Wikipedia:List of policies and cease your incivility at once. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 15:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The WP states 'A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia'. Where have I written anything is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia? Singleton4321 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If anyone feels that what I have written makes them feel threatened, I am sorry to hear that. If you can point to something where I have threatened someone, I am happy to withdraw it. Singleton4321 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Singleton4321, you've called me vandal. I've asked you retract that accusation. You've refused. I don't feel threatened, I just feel very disappointed. I'm really not sure what is the point of all this petulant mud-slinging. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You're conflating the (false) accusation that I have threatened you legally with my open and correct assertion that you vandalized when you supported the assertion that I am not registered as a therapist or psychologist. These are two different matters. Singleton4321 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not "vandalised" anything. I've never accused you of "threatening me legally". I've conflated nothing. I'm just telling you how I feel, after your incessant and pointless hounding here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

On what authority do you tell me enough and I won't tolerate - you didnt reply? I not that martinevans has not responded to my request for him to declare whether he has any conflict of interest. Can you answer the question too - do you have any professional involvement in psychology or research where you should declare you are hostile or opposed to my positions? Singleton4321 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Singleton4321, as anyone can see in the thread headed "Psychologist" above, I started with the word "If"... I certainly did not "falsely assert that you are not registered at the BPS". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You certainly did accuse me of not being registered by your switching the 'is' registered to 'was'. We both know the 'if' does not get you off the hook. As an editor, your duty was to question the veracity of the links (as you do with obsessive speed and detail to everything I offer) not to suggest that any registrations must be in the past on the basis of bogus links. Singleton4321 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "does not get you off the hook"? I am guessing you are referring to this edit, where my intention, as reflected in my edit summary, was simply to "restore the stable version", following a series of unexplained deletions. If I was so intent on "accusing" you of anything, why did I then make this edit, with the summary "remove poorly-sourced claim while discussion continues at Talk page"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

And previously added a note to the claim here casting doubt on it's veracity?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am growing tired of @Singleton4321 pugnacious tone and I am starting to question whether their ongoing contributions to this article are helping or hindering this encyclopaedia. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123 you only cast doubt on the veracity of the links after I had pointed them out. If you were acting in good faith and not just looking for an opportunity to support the vandalizing claim that I was not registered, you would have used the same energy and enterprise you display in trying to challenge all my citations, in challenging that of the 'not registered' vandal. Instead, you chose to support this outrageous misrepresentation, and for doing that, I believe, you should be banned from editing (and in due course, I hope, will be). You claim only to be taking such an interest in my article purely because you want to monitor a subject commenting on a page about him. However, the fact that you almost exclusively devote yourself to trying to question and undermine what my contributions rather than also pursuing inquiries to see if my claims are valid and if I am being vandalized eg by the person who wrote ‘'As of 20 February 2024, James is not registered with either the Bowlby Centre or the BPS.". Rather than impugning that person, you continue to try and pick fights with me. Singleton4321 (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You opened the thread above here, at 10.:50 on 4 October. I had added my note to the claim, casting doubt on it's veracity, here, at 17:04 on 27 September. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If you thought the linke doubtful, why did you not put in the true links - it took me no time at all to find them? 86.9.131.66 (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You say: "I believe, you should be banned from editing (and in due course, I hope, will be)." If you want to do this, you will need to make your case at WP:AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If you thought the linke doubtful, why did you not put in the true links - it took me no time at all to find them? Please answer this question Singleton4321 (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: Singleton4321 has now been indefinitely blocked from editing, for continuing to violate their topic ban on user talk. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources

I'm uneasy about the long list of TV shows sourced to uploads on YouTube. It would be better to restrict this section to matters reported in reputable third-party publications. John (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not a fan of BLPs synthesised from primary sources especially where third-party sources exist. Primary sourced bios often end up being bland lists of trivia that aren't particularly engaging to read. Let me know if you need any assistance at any point. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 11:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Likewise. The Youtube page for 'The Man Who Shot John Lennon' has no credits and no credits are in the video. The next three refs link to channels which appear to be Oliver James's and the fifth (Through The Eyes of the Child) goes to a Youtube login page. I'm surprised too at the length of the entries - for more conventional sections, see e.g. Jon Ronson#Filmography, Lucy Thane#Filmography. NebY (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please explain the reason for your unease, likewise Holla and NebY: as I have discussed at length with martinevans123, youtube conduct checks on copyright, so it cannot be that. In what sense is a link to the actual programme disreputable? Why would a third party be more reliable than the actual programme itself? Interestingly, the link to Jon Ronson includes multiple examples of films for which there are no citations: so would you be happy for me to include all my films (there are 10 series and 7 individual docs) although some do not have digital citations. How come that's okay for Ronson but not for me, NebY? Singleton4321 (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is why it would be preferable for you not to edit this article. You seem to have no idea about sourcing (the concept of secondary sources being stronger than primary ones is not unique to Wikipedia) even after editing here for quite a while. And if you really are the subject of the article, you have such huge conflicts of interest that your contributions are unlikely to be helpful to the creation of a neutral article. Finally there's what I may refer to as your "attitude"; you seem to think this article is yours. It is not. John (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would a third party be more reliable than the actual programme itself?

See WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. In short:

• Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.
• A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

Wikipedia values the secondary sources which analyze the primary source precisely because they are more distant from the subject, and less likely to be promotional. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that there is a large collection of primary sources, both video and audio, at the author's website here. The copyright status of many of these is unclear, although every page of the website is footed with a copyright statement from Ebury Publishing, part of The Random House Group Limited, dated 2013. Perhaps they have reached agreement with the BBC for the re-publishing there of the various programmes the BBC originally broadcast? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Trusteeships

Our article stated

James is a patron of Mothers at Home Matter and is also trustee of the Contented Dementia Trust, the National Family and Parenting Institute and Homestart.

The first source, the website of Mothers at Home Matter, lists him as a patron and says "He is also Trustee of The Contented Dementia Trust."[2] The second source, James's profile at thersa.org, says "He is a trustee of two children's charities: the National Family and Parenting Institute and Homestart."[3]

Contented Dementia Trust The charity's webpage listing trustees does not list James as a trustee.[4] Companies House records (it's usual in the UK that a charity is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee, and the directors of the company are the trustees of the charity) show that he was a director from 2001 to 2017 and do not indicate that he has been reappointed.[5] The company's annual accounts filed at Companies House listed him as a trustee for the year ending 31 March 2016 but not the following year. The Charity Commission does not list James among the trustees (they only list current ones).[6] I've removed the Contented Dementia Trust from our article.

National Family and Parenting Institute There is a .org website in the name of the National Family and Parenting Institute[7] but it is somewhat non-specific, providing no information on staff or trustees, and may not relate to any UK organisation. Companies House records indicate that the National Family and Parenting Institute changed its name to Family and Childcare Trust in 2013 and to Coram Family and Childcare Ltd in 2018. They also indicate that Oliver James was a director from 1999 to 2005, but not that he has been reappointed.[8] The Charity Commission also lists those charity names[9] and their list of trustees does not include him.[10] I'll remove the National Family and Parenting Institute from our article.

Homestart Home-Start UK's website explains that it has a board of trustees and that "Additionally, more than 1,200 trustees volunteer their time and skills for free as trustees of local Home-Starts."[11] They list nine trustees of Home-Start UK, not including Oliver James. Companies House records for Home-Start UK indicate that Oliver James was a director from 2006 to 2008, and do not indicate that he has been reappointed.[12] The Charity Commission does not list James as a trustee of Home-Start UK.[13] It is possible that he's a trustee of one of the local Home-Starts but the RSA profile does not indicate that or which one. I'll remove Homestart from our article. NebY (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Companies House provides two home addresses for James. I assume these should not be added as the source is a PRIMARY one and is not widely known. One of his home locations is also easily found is such sources as this and this. But these are also somewhat niche sources and, it might be argued, do not support notability. But I see that this 2007 letter to The Psychologist, which also gives a location, betrays something of a bias against "that well-known fount of truth, Wikipedia." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't include personal addresses, per WP:BLPPRIVACY articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons. FYI, don't assume addresses shown at Companies House are personal ones; they often aren't. Companies House only wants a service address. NebY (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I would certainly not advocate adding any postal addresses or similar. But many WP:BLP articles mention the town or village where that person lives, especially if they have taken an active part in the community life of that location. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, many BLPs make statements which may no longer be true. Our only source for "He lives in Oxfordshire with his wife and two children" also says something which seems to have been correct during 2001–2017, leaving plenty of time for children to grow up and leave home and their parents to downsize, move to Spain, whatever. I appreciate that it's a sourced statement but I would not have included it. NebY (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Arts Festivals mentioned were in 2005 and 2006. The nearby town is mentioned in The Independent article here, but that's also from 2016. Agreed that the Mothers at Home participation dates the fact to that time period. Perhaps it's better to have nothing there, unless a more recent source could be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll pull it. NebY (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I've re-added them as "James ... has been a trustee of ...", supplementing the refs with the Company House refs. I'd rather not be using primary sources like Companies House at all, but I think it's necessary to show why we're using the past tense and not following the initial sources without qualification, and it seems to me that inclusion of charity trusteeships, past or present, is WP:DUE. NebY (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)