Talk:Re-evaluation counseling

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

correct 'Re-evalulation' to 'Re-evaluation'

In the fourth paragraph of the 'Ideas' section, change 'Re-evalulation' to 'Re-evaluation'. (I can't do it as the page is locked) Dccu-anna (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Re-evaluation Counseling (organization). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Re-evaluation Counseling (organization). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2018

Replace the Re-evaluation Counseling Glossary link in the External Links section at the end of the article with the following link from the official Re-evaluation Counseling organization website: 

  https://www.rc.org/page/publication/guidelines/glossary Bluewater02 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

Change URL for Reference #12 to point to the actual Guidelines at: https://www.rc.org/publication/guidelines_2017/contents Bluewater02 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sam Sailor 17:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

Change URL for Reference #11 to the actual RC Theory description at: https://www.rc.org/publication/theory/about Bluewater02 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sam Sailor 17:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

Remove reference #1 which is a dead link. No other link to this document is available. Bluewater02 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Works fine for me. Sam Sailor 17:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2018

The last sentence in the History section should read as follows:

After Jackins' death in 1999, his son, Tim Jackins, was chosen at the World Conference of RC leaders, to assume the role as International Reference Person. Bluewater02 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

Please disregard the proposed change form 2018 Jun 23, and replace with the following.


Change the last line of the History section: "After Jackins' death in 1999, his son, Tim Jackins, was chosen at a conference, attended by leaders in the RC communities worldwide, to take over the role of International Liberation Reference Person, the title given to the leader(s) of RC."

to:

"After Jackins' death in 1999, his son, Tim Jackins, the Alternate International Reference Person, assumed the role of International Liberation Reference Person." Bluewater02 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LeoFrank  Talk 18:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent bias in article

I haven't read all the talk on this article, but it seems to me that there's something odd about starting the History section with accusations of plagiarism. Would it be possible to reframe those opening paragraphs so that Jackins's version of the beginnings of the organisation came first, with criticism of it, including the references to Dianetics, coming later. Scientology's longstanding hostility to Re-evaluation Counseling make it seem even odder to put the historic connection front and centre.

A quick look at the references in these first paragraphs shows that it is mostly disgruntled former members of the organisation who are sources. Is this sound practice.

Can someone advise me what course of action I might take, given that this is a semi-protected page, and it seems that almost any change provokes controversy. (Shawjonathan (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

§

Mr. Shaw, I cannot advise you on what course of action to take since I am new to wikipedia editing myself, but I do agree that this rendition of the rc organization is distorted in the ways you mention and also is too abridged in terms of it's other representations, such as omitting the NGO Sustaining All Life. Are you concerned that making changes in the face of controversy would turn into a personal time sink? I know I do not have unlimited time to parse out such objections, myself. Preston.stanke (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§

I would have to agree with Mr. Shaw regarding the slant of the article. Although this is a semi-protected article, I expect edits with attention to this discussion would be a good starting point. Bluewater02 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§

I would agree with Mr Shaw. I am a former participant in RC which I found beneficial. I am not disgruntled.Szczels (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Please remove the link at the bottom of the page to Cherie Brown and the National Coalition Building Institute (NCBI). NCBI is inaccurately described as a project of Reevaluation Counseling. It is not. For verification, see www.ncbi.org. You may also contact the NCBI Board of Directors at info@ncbi.org. Lincoln319 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

I would like to add a reference in the "criticism" section, but I can't edit the text, even if I am connected. Please add this if you want, after correcting it in good English: "In 2022, a critical text was written in French by a former RC participant, who continues to transmit the co-counseling independently. This text includes an almost exhaustive review of all the critical texts of RC available on the net, all written in English." And the link: https://unecoecoute.fr/le-salon/les-articles/retours-sur-mon-experience-a-rc/quelques-elements-critiques-de-lorganisation-re-evaluation-counseling-rc/

Thank you very much. Adriane Gerdsen (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits using unverifiable and self-published sources, integrity of intro paragraph

Recent edits reference citations of unverifiable and self-published sources. What is the author's intention with respect to this article? As per Wikipedia guidelines, criticisms should go in that section, and only reputable and published sources should be used. The edits should probably be reverted.

Bluewater02 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bluewater02 that the author's intentions need to be questioned. Some of the language is prejudicial and inflammatory, even including allegations of criminal conduct. I followed up one or two of the references, and found they don't bear out the point that the revision is making. I agree that these edits should probably be reverted and Wikiwriter43103840 be asked to try again with more attention to objectivity and the use of reputable sources Shawjonathan (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits need discussion

Today's edits by Wikiwriter43103840 appear to simply reinstate those which I recently remoived. I gave general reasons for my changes. In reinstating them, Wikiwriter43103840 simply said that my changes had violated community policies. Edits that rely on blogs, that misrepresent organisational relationships, and repeat unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conduct have been challenged in the talk on this Wikipedia page over years now. I will ask for third party opinion. Shawjonathan (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Describing changes I have made: removed language like 'cult' and 'pseudoscientific' from first para and replaced them with neutral language.
I replaced the language about Dianetics with language that reflects the reference cited
I reinstated the brief paragraph sketching the development of RC since the 1950s, and added a reference.
I removed te paragraph about 'owned and operated', for which there is no reference, and from other references cited, seems to be incorrect.
I reinstated the word 'resourced', as the sentence didn't make sense without it. As with the death of Harvey Jackins, there is no reference, but I can probably find one if need nbe. Shawjonathan (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your assistance with helping this conform to wikipedia guidelines, I really appreciate it. I do think some of the items you removed, however, tilt the article back towards being biased in favor of Re-evaluation Counseling, especially because of removing references to the well documented shared origins with Dianetics as well as the central focus of RC on espousing it's liberation theory. I maintain that the world cult is an accurate and neutral description, but I can see how others would view this differently. I wonder what the correct way is to account for the organizations autocratic structure and intensive in-group beliefs?
Also, concern was raised about edits by disgruntled former members, which is fair, but ought we not also be concerned about edits made by current members who would have a similar thought opposite bias? Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this dialog. In fact Wikipedia guidelines insist on a 'neutral point of view' when making edits, and providing verifiable and reliable sources for entries. Unfortunately that has not always been the case. In particular, in reviewing many of the sources previously cited, there were personal blogs and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, both of which are considered by Wikipedia as questionable sources.
Lastly Wikipedia is not looking for balance between biased opinions; rather statements of facts about the topic. Bluewater02 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph based on faulty sources

Removed paragraph describing RC as a cult for a number of reasons: 1) Wikipedia itself defines a cult as, "usually a pejorative term... [it] is controversial and weakly defined...[and] an ongoing source of contention among scholars...."Cult 2) sources cited for this designation are largely personal webpages as opposed to authoritative sources, and many decades old having little to do with the entity as it exists today, and 3) appears to be used in this context as a way to denigrate this organization rather than inform readers.


I think there are other similar examples in this article that need to be re-examined and edited according to Wikipedia standards. Bluewater02 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias / References

Article not written from an objective point of view. Multiple arguements without reference. Lack of comparison to other counseling methods, e.g. Gestalt. Doodus (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted a lot of the self-sourced parts of the article

Article was largely promotional and sourced exclusively to the organization itself; still lacks information not presented by RC, but has less direct quotes. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Re-evaluation_counseling"