Talk:Health realization

message: Rather than dump every article and reference in Wiki that discusses well-established principles of mental health treatment just because they are not Freudian or you don't agree with them. Health Realization is an accepted approach in psychotherapy. Banks, Pransky, Richard Carlson, Joseph Bailey and many others are well-read and well-respectede authors and practitioners in this area.
This article has all its information about Health Realization correct...it just needs a good editor to make the syntax more uniform to Wiki standards rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water. Bsteph1 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this well-established other than in the minds of the authors (Mills, Banks, Pransky)? Where are the peer-reviewed articles by the authors? Where are the objective articles covering this? This is not yet suitable to be covered by an encyclopedia by WP's standards. If you can provide such sources, I will withdraw my complaints. But so far the article hasn't gotten better; it's just gotten longer. DCDuring 01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I stand corrected. There is ONE peer-reviewed article that says that the results are as good as a 12-step program. ALL the rest is eye-wash. Pransky or Mills saying in a publication that wasn't peer-reviewed that they conducted a literature survey does not count for anything. DCDuring 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's just edit

message: As the main author of this article, I welcome these comments and I'm working on editing the description/explanation of HR for a more encyclopedia-style presentation.  
The original article was easier to write using first person plural "we" frequently, but I can see how that gets to be too much, so I've changed to third person except where I couldn't figure out a way to do that comfortably.  I've also added "according to HR" and similar changes in a few key places, to make it clear that the article is describing the views of HR rather than giving its own opinions on the topics covered. I believe this reduces whatever "recruitment brochure" quality the article might have.  Let me know if you think I'm moving in the right direction. Also let me know of specific parts you find objectionable.
I did not write the section on Organizational Applications, and I'm afraid that part does sound like advertising at this point. I hope to do some editing there soon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRWayne (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Working on it

message: The entire issue is just whether the material is presented encyclopedically. I don't have the slightest care as to whether it is true or false, effective or ineffective. Well, not entirely true, but basically true. The impartant thing is that it is presented with footnotes from reliable sources (peer-reviewed usually preferred). Wikipedia is already overrun with what read like solicitations from folks pushing their flavor of therapy. When I stumble across something like that I am particularly inclined to be demanding fairly strict compliance to WP standards. Any statement, except the most obvious, in the body of the page ought to be supportable from peer-reviewed journals, newpapers, magazines, etc. Take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:Original Research. DCDuring 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Thanks, I've looked at the WP guidelines and policies.  I will begin to set up a set of specific footnotes/ references to support the statements made in this article.
My main goal in writing this article was to provide an overview of HR, both contents and accomplishments, that people could find on the web. There is no single article like that about HR  available on the web otherwise.  I agree that the article should be neutral and objective, not a marketing tract.  
I don't have good citations for the objections in the Objections to Health Realization section; so far as I'm aware, no one has criticized HR in *published* material, even on the web (except in e-mail list discussions).  As a result I may need to remove this section, unless anyone can suggest another way to handle it that might still allow for consideration of the different view. RRWayne 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Working on Original Research concern

message: The difficulty that you seem to have is that you have cited no articles or books from what seem like "neutral" authors on the subject. As a result we have an exposition of the ideas, but no perspective on them. That means that you have position the whole thing as a great big hypothesis. Articles in what appear to an outsider to be respected peer-reviewed journals count for something, of course. I really wouldn't want you to invest time in taking the article down an unsustainable direction. There are some real tough characters who patrol and might really go to town on something that looks suspect. I'll try to make time to read the parts you've worked on the most. DCDuring 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Thanks for the warning.  Of course the explanation of the model is not generally going to come from neutral authors; it sensibly should come from those who developed the model.  The main place for "neutral" authors on the subject, I guess, will have to be the research section, which I will have to re-write extensively to bring in things like the reports of the outside evaluators of some of the community projects. However, there are now already certain "neutral" citations in the Community Applications section.  I've been steadily working through the article but maybe I'll  jump to the research section and expand that with references, so it will give the article a solid basis.RRWayne 04:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Glancing through the massive and uncontested article on Zen, for comparison, I see no books or articles from authors neutral on the subject--except perhaps the historical accounts--or critical of Zen.  (In all the years Zen has been around, surely someone has taken an objective look at Zen's philosophy and/or its social influence!)  Yet I have no doubt that Zen is a perfectly legitimate subject and that the article is a perfectly legitimate one to have in an encyclopedia. The article ably answers the questions that most readers will turn to Wikipedia to answer, e.g. what is Zen? Who has espoused it? Where has its influence been felt? and so forth.RRWayne 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation

message: I've added a paragraph with a reference from outside the immediate HR world, on funding sources for HR community projects, which seems like one way to establish that HR is more than a fad or cult or flakey hypothesis.  I'm continuing to work on references for the remainder of the article.RRWayne 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in progress

message: OK, I've put in about as many references as I'm currently capable of amassing. Although the great majority of them are from sources inside the HR world, there are some key citations to external sources which, I believe, establish some neutral perspective. I am removing the "original research tag," as I believe it no longer applies.  Please let me know of specifics if you disagree. RRWayne 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completed most referencing

message: I don't know much about writing or editing wikipedia articles, but it seems like you should not be using sources like Mills for your "Objections to Health Realization" section. I am assuming the purpose of those questions being brought in the first place were just so he could disprove them. I have come across this article reprinted from the Vancouver Sun which seems to include some criticisms from Bonnelle Strickling. This would seem like more objective source of criticism. Again as I mentioned before I am not an expert at any of this, but this seems to be more objective. Dvyjns 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation for objective criticism 

message: That's the first such "outside" criticism I've seen in print. I will definitely include it in the article.  If you spot any others, let me know.  The whole reason I used Mills & Spittle for the source to the objections was that I have never seen any objections published anywhere, so I couldn't reference them. My dilemma then was either to not include any objections in the article at all, or to include them with Mills & Spittle as the source. Since the objections that Mills & Spittle cite are pretty much the same one's I've heard informally when I've discussed HR with people myself, I felt the list was pretty fair.  Indeed, Strickland's criticism is actually related to the first objection cited by Mills, though it does take something of a different tack. But if the existing list comes across as biasing the article, I'm willing to remove it, and just put in Strickland's criticism. In any case, HR folks don't really spend much time arguing with critics. Instead, they are fond of "neutral listening" or "deep listening" and treating each person, including critics, with respect. RRWayne 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A welcome bit of objectivity. Certainly not hostile. Now we could use someone to provide perspective by comparing Banks's approach to that of others. The article is useful background for a writer, but can't be included in the article because it would probably be a copyright violation. It can be used and cited. Maybe we can find a link to the newspaper's site. DCDuring 00:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Use the article, but it is not available from the newspaper's site. I am amazed that West Virginia U. allows the posting of scanned copyrighted material. We cannot assume that it will remain on that site. DCDuring 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks for that

message: I cleaned up some things: spaces, italics, capitals. I removed duplicate items from further readings. There are still some items in there that don't belong. I removed most of the external links. Long external links lists attract even more external links of ever-increasing spamminess. This is an encyclopedia, not a website. Some of the links were duplicative of sites that had some material used in notes. I believe that only two studies demonstrate effectiveness (and not conclusively). I think effectiveness is vastly more important than the "objections".
What this doesn't really explain is why this approach is attractive to the institutions that are tryng it out. Is it cheaper? Is the weak evidence in favor of it better than other programs have? Is it simpler? Does it work with a larger portion of the population than other approaches?
I couldn't find anything on the link that supported the statements about all the evaluative research that has been done. That's why there is a cite check tag. This needs more objective evaluative references and neutral articles of any kind. This is written from the point of view of a potential participant rather than, say, a voter or government official trying to understand what good HR might do for their community. DCDuring 04:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What I did

message: Apparently the actual Literature Review that CRC/HRI did is not on the CRC site.  I am guessing that what they are referring to is actually the paper entitled The Understanding behind HR-Documented Outcomes: A Principle Based Psychology -- Summary of Clinical, Prevention and Community Empowerment Applications -- Documented Outcomes 10/01/02, by  Roger C. Mills, Ph.D.,  which is offered for purchase on the HRI site at http://www.healthrealization.com/hri/Resources.shtml#papers. (This page, until just recently, used to be accessible directly from the CSC site).  I will see if I can get clarification from them on whether this is indeed the literature review they are talking about.  RRWayne 14:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal it's not that great. If it's been rejected, that's bad. The fact that it's for sale only from their site is not too encouraging. It is then self-published and not considered a reliable source. DCDuring 03:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on link cited

message: To clarify a misunderstanding above, and to explain some of my recent changes to the article, HR is not a technique, and has no techniques within it. It is a set of understandings arrived at through insight. So when we talk about HR,  we cannot (IMHO) properly characterize HR itself as "effective" or "ineffective" (any more than we could properly talk about Zen or literacy as "effective.")  What people study when they study the "effectiveness of HR" is really the effectiveness of teaching HR as an intervention for some specific problem. A separate, but equally important question, besides the effectiveness of teaching HR, is the value of HR itself for those who respond to the teaching. HR can conceivably be of great value for many people and institutions, and yet teaching HR might not prove to be effective as an intervention for this or that specific issue.
Consider literacy by way of comparison. Literacy may or may not be an especially effective way of solving any given personal or social problem, but it's value to an individual and a community is inestimable. Most enlightened governments promote literacy because of its value, not because of its effectiveness for specific social outcomes. Indeed, I think most people would agree that making decisions about whether or not to teach literacy based on whether or not it reduces juvenile delinquency in peer reviewed studies, for example, would be missing the point of literacy. And I think most people who have benefitted from HR would similarly agree that the value of HR for their lives goes well beyond any effectiveness it might show in achieving any particular social or psychological outcome. (I think I have even heard it called a kind of emotional literacy.) 
Can such broader value be established in a a way that is appropriate to an article in an encyclopedia?  I don't know, but I think this could be the real crux of the difficulty here.  My impression is that, in the context of an encyclopedia, one accepted way to establish value is by a verifiable listing of activities, accomplishments, and awards similar to a resume or bio. That's the kind of thing I have  tried to create in the "community applications" section of the article. RRWayne 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Secular religious (an oxymoron?) phenomena can be a problem in terms of encyclopedic treatment. Perhaps the right approach is to look at articles like Alcoholics Anonymous or the one on MSIA or Getting Things Done. It would seem that the article needs fundamental restructuring to reflect the distinction that you are making. DCDuring 19:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both AA and GTD are heavily invested in technique and focus on specific problems, so I'm doubtful that they are particularly good models to go on for an HR write-up. Zen would be a better parallel, but as I've said above, there is nothing in the Zen article that appears to evaluate Zen or its influence from a neutral or external stance. I'll be thinking about other possibilities. RRWayne 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe the article on "New Age" could be something of a model, though the topic is much more broad.  RRWayne 20:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on "effectiveness" and "technique"

message: I have re-written the section "Objections assuming effectiveness" to better explicate the nature of the objections. I have taken out the responses from Mills & Spittle in the interests of a neutral tone; I may try to incorporate some of what they say back into the earlier sections of the article on the HR model.  I plan to put in a paragraph on Strickling's criticisms next, immediately following the existing list of objections.  RRWayne 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised "Objections"

message: Is it permissible to rely on the referencing in linked WP articles instead of repeating the referencing in this article? For instance, if one clicks on the link for Emmy Werner in the last sentence of the article, it takes one right to a page that has the reference for the statement made. That's why I didn't add a reference there.  Of course, I can always copy out the citation.
:I just saw someone (a bit of a stickler) on WP objecting to such a use, saying that an article's author is supposed to have seen the source material him/herself. If this were merely a 'see also', it wouldn't matter. In this case it is integral to a point. Also WP is not considered a reliable source !!! DCDuring 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about this last point anymore. If rewording is easy.... I often find that I can't remember the details of what was said "above" if above is not on the screen or the same paper page. Sometimes page-up and page-down aren't good enough. I often need side-be-side comparison. Maybe my mind is just getting old. DCDuring 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on citing linked WP articles

message: I don't know what the tag refers to in the article. RRWayne 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please point out "original research"

message: I added citations for the earliest community applications (referencing the SAMSHA page), for Erickson's work and the work of his followers, for SFBT, and for Emmy Werner. 
I reworded a bit in "Support from other approaches..." to reduce/eliminate possible "original research" and clarify. 
I moved the "Research efforts..." section up next to the Evaluations section, out of "objections."
I added cautions about the objections.
I re-capitalized some instances of Mind, Consciousness, and Thought, as this is the convention in HR when speaking of them as principles rather than using them in the usual sense.   RRWayne 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What I did

message: The article now has 24 neutral references (that is references that do not come from authors who are specifically affiliated with HR) not counting the 7 more in the final "Support from other approaches" section.  This seems like enough that the tag for "badly needs more neutral and peer review sources" is probably no longer merited. 
Also, I cannot discern any "original research" or unverified claims (except perhaps those in the section on Organizational applications, all of which are supported by HR affiliates), nor can I discern any non-neutral point of view. The section on objections is fairly extensive and IMO balanced.  RRWayne 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the time to pick over this now, but I am very appreciative of your efforts. I will remove that tag (which really doesn't look good. I look forward to giving it a close read. The one thing that still bothers me is the use of words
like "realize" rather than "believe". I think of believe as a neutral word, not a negative word. I think of realize as putting even the sceptical reader in the position of wondering whether he "didn't get the e-mail" that declared the proposition that is being "realized" as true. For gullible readers, it seems to exert an undue influence on them. DCDuring 01:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the article now

message: I had wikified your citations and now they are not wikified. I'm bored with doing it. DCDuring 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to placing of internal links as implied by the tag on the article? Or are you referring to the formatting style of the citations themselves? If the latter, I'll take over on it if you can direct me to a page that gives me the standard formats. RRWayne 19:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikification needed

message: I didn't trust myself, so I solicited another's views. Fairly positive for you, I think. Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Health_Realization DCDuring 20:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't seem to object to the language in the article, unless that's what he is criticizing when he describes it as resembling a dissertation on how HR works. (If so, I don't see it; or at least I don't see how one could accurately describe what HR is about without it coming out much the way it has.)  But what is the protocol at this point?  Is the NPOV dispute resolution now dependent on satisfying his concerns?  Because I am not in a position to add any more attributed objections to HR to the article--I have not encountered any in examining hundreds of references to HR on the web.  And I don't know how to respond to the non-specific exhortation to make the article "more encyclopedic." RRWayne 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback request and response

message: I've redone the whole  section on "objections to HR," making it simply "criticism" instead (none of it is directed at HR). The listing of unattributed objections apparently raises hackles so I have removed it and merely noted their existence with references for those who want to look them up. Removing this makes it possible to eliminate the paragraph with warnings about the objections. I have removed the section "lack of peer-reviewed evidence of effectiveness" because it is not attributable as a criticism (thus it is essentially "original research").  Also the substance of that section is covered earlier in the article, in Evaluations (where "the only peer-reviewed study" is named), and in "Research efforts on effectiveness," (where it is stated that none of the studies were peer-reviewed, etc.)  I have also removed the discussion of the  "most obvious issues" in regard to HR, as these are again unattributable and constitute "original research."
I have changed two more instances where the wording could have been construed as non-neutral because of using "recognize that". The first now uses "consider that" and the second uses "experience is that" (sounds strange but see it in the context, in section on Psychotherapy.)  If there are others that still seem non-neutral, let me know and I'll try to come up with other ways of phrasing them that retain accuracy of description. RRWayne 15:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More changes

message: I have added as many internal links to other relevant WP articles as I could think of.  I am therefore removing the tag concerning Wikification.  If there is further Wikification that needs to be done, please let me know what you have in mind. RRWayne (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikification

message: This June 1992 Washington Post article has some data that looks like it could be useful for this article.
* "an estimated 50 therapists who use an approach called 'Psychology of Mind' (POM)".  (unfortunately, the article does not explain how that number was discovered nor if it's a worldwide count or a smaller region.)
* "The first book on POM, Sanity, Insanity and Common Sense" (Oddly, this book is not mentioned in the article. It was written in 1982 by Rick Suarez and Roger C. Mills.)
* "Is POM a Cult?" (is a section with criticism. One issue I saw is that, at least in 1992, POM was relatively unknown. It has not been studied in a formal sense meaning there's very little published criticism. The last paragraph of this section shows that there's also no agreement on who coined the phrase "psychology of mind".)
--Marc Kupper|talk 21:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 perspective