Talk:Co-counselling

message: Currently the article is missing some of the main points of the theory behind Re-Evaluation Counseling, i.e. its distinctive notion of intelligence, a decent explanation of chronic patterns, of balance of attention, etc.  I hope to get to these.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article deficient in theory

message: Mark Thomas, UK:
The problem with the new external links and book references being added is quality not their referral to co-counselling; however, it is also important that the controversy surrounding the claims of CCI people about the origins of RC and CCI get explored and they are not doing here. Also there are typos in the new links and one points to the BBC page that contains many factual errors, for example, it states that Jackins created co-counselling in the 30's, which is nonsense, it was the 50s. Isn't their some sort of onus on Wikipedia editors to maintain quality? Another problem here is the repeated attempts by some to locate co-counselling within Psychotherapy, whereas actually if it is practised and taught correctly, it is pretty much anti-psychotherapy, as the latter attempts to explain things psychologically whereas the former is merely interested in empirical ways of assisting each other to discharge and is unconcerned with analysis.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.40.76 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 February 2006 UTC.
:What part of append posts with four tildes: ~~~~ don't you understand? Hu 11:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for signing your post.  You can always preview such effects by using the Show Preview button below the edit box where you make your edits.  Immediately below is the Edit Summary field which should be used for summarizing the edit, so that your fellow editors can understand sequences of edits.  The Edit Summary field is just above the Save Page button that you must click.  The Show Preview button is just beside the Save Page button that you must click.  They have been positioned this way to encourage you to use them because they are useful and have good purposes, and to make it easy for you to use them.  Hu 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb 2006 

message: I have deleted this suggestion as it is wholly inappropriate.  This article is an overview of co-counselling and covers major and minor co-counselling organisations that exist in addition to RC.  The RC article gives considerable additional information that is specific to RC.John Talbut 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored template. Whilst I agree that you are right, the issue should be discussed and a consensus reached rather than unilaterally removing the template, or at least it should be left in place until others have had a chance to comment. quercus robur 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, though I am not sure about it.  It seems to be a case of Merge tags being overused as discussed in Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers.  The proposal seems to reflect some of the attitudes expressed above.  I would have thought it could be discussed here first is it was a serious NPOV suggestion.  The proposal tag is of no value to the genuine enquirer, the pages are linked where relevant anyway.John Talbut 10:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, give it a couple of days at least. The irony of course is that the Co-counselling article was not so long ago split three different ways to seperate out the stuff on CC, RC and CCI for clarities sake! quercus robur 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if we can assume it was "another attempt by RC to dominate", the request didn't seem to come from one of the usual crowd. I suspect it was more a misunderstanding of the differences. If I can synopsise the issue (1) RC'ers tend to view their movement as authentic co-counselling and wouldn't see a difference between "RC" and "co-counselling", (2) other movements whose founders split from RC don't see it that way, (3) there are also people who seem to have separately developed something analagous to "original" co-counselling and call it that. Between these various groups there are disagreements about the theories of co-counselling and practical implementations. The views are very strongly, sometimes almost religiously held. Therefore it is probably best IMO to have separate pages, as this seems to allow slightly more room to express these views and less space for pointless disputation. Opinions welcomed! MarkThomas 11:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed- no-one has come forward supporting the idea or given a reason why it was added in the first place quercus robur 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merger with RC page

message: Someone anonymously added this link.  It seems to be only superficially similar to co-counselling, there is a charge to join the scheme and once in it seems as if participants would be encouraged to participate in courses.  I suggest the that the link is inappropriate and should be deleted.John Talbut 11:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phone-buddies

message: I realize that this is all clear as day to those involved, but.....as someone who knows nothing about co-counseling or RC, this article doesn't really help me clarify the connection.  Initially, it appears that CC is a technique developed by a group (RC), which has then spread to other groups.  But in some of the later text (e.g. "you must take a 40 hour course") it would appear that I am hearing about the specific stipulations of a particular group.  Can someone clean this up?
I cannot believe the RC/Co-Counselling page doesn't include any criticism! It's a dangerous  CULT, folks! I got caught up in it in the early 1990s and had the sense to see through it and leave. However, people I know who were children in the early 1990s are not so lucky. The devastation and trauma imposed by endless catharsis has been incredibly damaging. Note that the founder of the "hereditary dynasty" of Co-Counselling, Harvey Jackins, was a sexual abuser, and paid out several victims ahead of litigation. Comment by Lindella Lee  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ≈≈≈≈LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Group / Technique Ambiguity

message: The following external link is being deleted by User:MarkThomas on the allegation that it defames living people. No further information is given. This is an easy allegation to make in order to censor critical links. Please provide 3rd party citations to support these allegations. I.e. citations independant of RC. Lumos3 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of external link critical of RC 

message: Mark, please quote your evidence for your assertions that (a) The history of co-counselling including its origins in RC are not taught on most CCI fundamentals classes and (b) that only Some CCI co-counsellors have a benevolent view toward RC.John Talbut 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relations between CCI and RC

message: Mark, could you explain why you think your additions to the paragraph starting "Safety" in the general description section are appropriate?  The information is specific to RC and is duplicated in the RC section, which, I think, is where it belongs.John Talbut 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety paragraph

message: I noticed that this article was assessed on the WikiProject Psychology template. I don't think that I agree with how the article was assessed, so I wanted to discuss the reasons for its assessment. This article has not gone through a GA review or any other peer review. It is well-written but it has very few in-line references. I don't think that it meets the criteria of a Good Article, let alone an A-class article. I think that it deserves a B-class quality assessment at most. As for importance, this doesn't seem like an especially well-known or recognized type of therapy in the field of psychology, especially in comparison to other psychology articles, so I would probabably rate it no higher than Mid-importance. Any comments? —Cswrye 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to support your assessment. This article may be overrated in relation to the other psychology assessments. Rfrisbietalk 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Article quality ratings are based in wikistandards, which are neutral on pro-anti-anything perspectives. If this is A-quality, then ask for a peer review to get it ready for a featured article nomination. Importance should be based on clearly defined perspectives. Obviously, importance will vary based on those perspectives.  If you all come to some resolution on that, it's fine with me. Rfrisbietalk 17:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The best way to work on the quality is to have a peer review. The people there know a lot more about improving articles than I do. I'll be willing to set one up for you if you want me to. —Cswrye 14:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.  I have set up a peer review, I hope I have done it correctly.John Talbut 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: Mark, Sarah, other RC people: please could you add citations where noted that are about RC? John Talbut 07:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 

message: Was looking at this and at Critical friend and thinking that there might be enough similarity to make it worth adding as a "see also" (and perhaps the reverse link as well. I'd see it as helping get other perspectives from similar, but formally unconnected, topics. Or would a link be better under List of counseling topics ? Asimong (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with the concept of a critical friend 

message: Substituted at 11:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Co-counselling. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060204155459/http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/articles/terra/ to http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/articles/terra/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peerlisteners.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Co-counselling. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523080842/http://www.freewebs.com/peerlistening/index.htm to http://www.freewebs.com/peerlistening/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think there needs to be some more support for the theoretical framework for this technique.  Particularly, the second paragraph makes a lot of assumptions and statements that are not backed up with any external sources.  I know this is a fraught topic, but this section reads really biased in favor of co-counseling without evidence of the claims.  (Laying my own background cards on the table, I have a PhD in psychology; I'm not affiliated with RC.)
Clytemnestra42 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more precise about what unreferenced assumptions you are referring to.  The first paragraph is referenced and the second paragraph has a link to the Wikipedia article on transference. John Talbut (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations or support for Theoretical framework and assumptions section