Talk:Family Constellations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Someone sounds very pissed off...i.e., the author of most of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.144.131 (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed references to two articles: * Article on Bert Hellinger and his method and Article on the workings of the method. The article about Hellinger should be on the Bert Hellinger page. Hellinger has withdrawn from involvement with the associations of Family Constellations practitioners. Personal criticisms against him are not applicable to this approach. The second article contains false and unsubstantiated inuendo, e.g. "semi-cult." It is not a credible piece of journalism. Dan booth Cohen, April 14, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Booth Cohen (talk • contribs) April 14, 2007.

The first link is not only about Bert Hellinger but about Family Constellations. You think the second link is false and not credible but it is only your opinion, the link represent some people view. In your revert [1] you also remove critics and add another external link. Akkeron 10:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You write, "the first link is not only about Bert Hellinger." Perhaps, but the criticisms are almost exclusively devoted to Hellinger himself, not the method. At the bottom of the article is a statement signed by 150 practitioners of the Systemic Constellation method where they state: "Hellinger has increasingly distanced himself from his original systemic work....Many of his statements and procedures are to be regarded explicitly as incompatible with the fundamental premises of systemic therapy....Constellation work "beyond Hellinger" should be developed further as a therapeutic instrument, but the close connection with his name is not to be maintained any longer today."

The leading professionals in the field of Systemic and Family Constellations have explicitly disavowed their association with Bert Hellinger. He no longer attends professional conferences or training programs devoted to the Family Constellation method.

Therefore, I assert that the criticisms contained in the first linked article are not properly included on this page.

Regarding the second article, the author makes statements such as "a new form of potentially dangerous type of psychotherapy," "semi-cult," and "the method is clandestinely spreading all around the country," However, if you read the body of the article none of these statements are explained or supported. Can you point to anything in the text that substantiates "semi-cult" or "clandestinely?"

DanBoothCohen 21:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)DanBoothCohen

Break

Removed last criticism on the page. Appeared to be based more on supposition rather than any legitimate criticism. And additionally, it was not cited properly. There are plenty of legitimate and recorded instances whereby new and revolutionary sessions of psychotherapy (e.g Logotherapy) can have profound effects in single sessions. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit to the Criticisms section. Is there any basis for the assertion that FC therapy isn't amenable to empirical testing, relative to other modalities like psychoanalysis, CBT, DBT, etc.? MichaelJWood (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in the first section about quantum quackery. The article cited is itself unsourced (other than a link to a definition), and has no cited author. Further, the wording of the sentence indicates clear bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interesting1234 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've given the explanation in my edit summaries, WP:PSCI. The sourced article has an author (Carroll), and is sourced itself. Also see WP:PARITY. vzaak (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The sourced article does not mention an author. http://www.skepdic.com/hellinger.html. Unless you mean the copyright at the bottom? A website called "Skeptics Dictionary," with a tagline "A collection of strange beliefs, amusing depictions, and dangerous delusions" is not a credible, peer-reviewed source. Further, the specific sentence you are citing, "Physicists call this quantum quackery, as there is no good reason to believe that there are quantum effects at the biological level," is not cited (other than linking to a definition). Which physicists? A list of sources at the bottom is not a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interesting1234 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary is cited in WP, especially for obscure fringe topics, e.g. sungazing. Also see WP:PARITY. vzaak (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Carroll's website is published in parallel by Wiley as this book. It's a reliable source for a skeptical view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Break

I see the Systemic Constellations page was taken down. Given that Systemic Constellations is commonly used (often as a synonym) and that this is in essence now the "page" for Systemic Constellations, can we add it to the Page Title in parenthesis (eg. Family Constellations (Systemic Constellations)) as an alternate name? It might also be good to create a redirect to this page for those searching for Systemic Constellations, which some will also spell "Systemic Constellation". I don't know how to do these two actions, or I'd do them myself. Thanks. Snailwiki (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC) ... Update: I think I got a redirect page to work from "Systemic Constellations" to this page. In looking around at formatting, I may be incorrect about alternative names in parenthesis after the Page Title. Snailwiki (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Break

This is looking like edit warring, but not by not the "woo-woo side. By continuing to revert to older versions and not evaluating each edit for their merit you loose credibility as a Wikipedia editor. I made 12 different edits with comments about what and why. To revert to something before them and just say "Back to non-woo version. Sorry if I missed any non-FRINGE edits" (Pinkbeast) is not acceptable and certainly not discerning. I took the time to do some research and do those edits. The least you can do is consider them carefully and collaborate to make the page better. Snailwiki (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's the quick summary of how to handle Fringe material according to Wiki - see WP:FRINGE -, which seems to be the issue here:

"Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear."

Since this is an article about the idea, the first sentence doesn't generally apply. On topics like "morphic fields" it might apply, and I tried to handle this in my edits by showing that there have been other explanations asserted, some more scientific and some more alternative. By adding other references in my edits I was trying to show how this topic does meet notability. By removing them, you bias the evaluation that it isn't notable.

I saw the back and forth, fringe and skeptic, and I understand the viewpoints. I was trying to find a middle ground by adding information, context, and references. And with each edit, purposefully done separately, I explained the purpose. Let's find a mutually agreeable solution here. Snailwiki (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I will begin re-asserting my edits with reasoning explained for each below. Please note that this takes time, so be considerate and collaborative in your responses. Thank you.

1. 1 Added alternate names. Particularly useful since the Systemic Constellations page was removed and redirect to this page. These names are commonly used, as will be seen in edit #2.

Snailwiki (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

1. 2 Added information distinguishing between different names. This explains how the different names are used.

Snailwiki (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If you stop making edits suggesting quackery works, you'll have less trouble. You will find that WP:FRINGE is consistently applied to prohibit edits that say quackery works. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding alternative names (the above edits) does not "suggest quackery works". I am adding information about this topic. As I continue to reintroduce my edits, I will keep you suggestion in mind and not reinforce that "quackery works". I do think it is fine to add information about the topic of this article that fleshes out the topic. As long as the statements about it not being in line with main stream psychology are still in there, I think we've established that this is a FRINGE topic. I'd appreciate it if you take a little more time in assessing my changes, as I am trying to follow the guidelines and add something useful. We don't need to like, approve of, of believe a methodology to add to a Wiki article about something. The information is still valuable and noteworthy.Snailwiki (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I left the alternative names in. Conversely, I see you're back removing "supposedly"s.

I thought "supposedly attempts" is redundant. It either supposedly does something or it attempts to do something. In this case they actually attempt to do something (whether it works or not, which is qualified elsewhere), so I removed "supposedly". Snailwiki (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

All these woo articles get an endless stream of SPAs (this one included) who are desperate to edit the article to suggest that it works. We're not exactly new to this kind of thing, and a series of platitudes about only wanting to improve it is not going to make us not notice when you go back to suggesting it works. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are okay with edits I make that don't asset it works? My second edit above was about alternative names that are used. How does that suggest it works? ... Well, as I write, I see Edward321 has joined in, removing more edits. Rather than waste my time with trying to add more edits, I'll try something else. Snailwiki (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Here are the 12 edits I made on January 17, 2016. Please let me know why each of these is unacceptable to you, or restore them. I really am not trying to convince anyone that this works. I was adding information and improving the quality of the writing as explained below. Let's see where there is common ground with these proposed edits. Thanks.

1. Added Systemic Constellations and Systemic Family Constellations as alternate names.

2. Added a second paragraph about the use of the different names.

3. Moved Cohen reference from 1st paragraph to 1st paragraph in Conceptual basis section where it is more appropriate, and combine sentences in 1st paragraph for better readability to focus first paragraph on the description. Removed "supposedly" as an incorrect or redundant word; they actual do attempt this.

4. Added a third paragraph about the origin from the now gone Systemic Constellations page.

5. Added second sentence in now 4th paragraph with a description of the claimed intended purpose and a reference.

6. Moved "Practioners claim ... & Row.</ref>" up to the section on intended purpose where it fits better, and uncapitalize "Systemic".

7. Added a fifth paragraph about possible effects and included references. Since whether or not it works seems to be an issue for some editors, I was offering some sources for this. It's fine with me if you want to qualify this as "possible effects" or "claimed effects" or whatever, but the information is still accurate (they are claimed) and useful for those wanting to read about the topic.

8. Moved "Positive outcomes ... skeptic.com}}</ref>" to end of 5th paragraph about possible effects as this we where this is being talked about. I prefer writing where each paragraph has a coherent topic or point.

9. Added a new start to 6th paragraph about possible explanations used by various practioners.

10. Modified the "quantum quackery" comment to correct the meaning. In the referred article the "quantum quackery" comment is about the use of physics to explain something at a biological level. It refers to that explanation of how it works not the method.

11. Added a wiki link to "family systems therapy" page.

12. Remove "supposedly" from "Emphasis is placed..." bullet in Method. Here again the word is incorrect or redundant; they actually do aim to do something. Also added information about representative perception and a reference for this.

Snailwiki (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess to reply to; easier with the proposed text. But as a potted summary, the alternative names, who cares? I'm not in favour of removal of "supposedly"; edits from SPAs on this page are always at pains to blur over the fact that it's bogus. More generally, referring to the revert I did, I notice you carefully move the observation that it's quantum quackery down under 5 paragraphs of the lead, which a naive reader might then take as saying that it actually works, given the flood of citations from various other quacks. This is not sensible. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported opinions

Hello Friends,

Some versions of the text is clearly unsupported with a negative bias. "The method has been described by physicists" what physicists and where? Some links were dead and needed update. How is this a problem? Restoring a bias version without reading the balanced text seems like vandalism to me. I am more than happy to engage in constructive improvements to the text. Anupapa (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

From the cited source "Physicists call this quantum quackery". So your objection appears completely without foundation. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Alexbrn, and thank you for your cooperation. The source article provides no support at all about which physicist and where - therefore it is unsupported hearsay. Also the dead links and the general balance of the text was not neutral. I am happy to do more research. My main objection however is the hostile style in any text. The world is a rough enough place why not be a bit more gentle at least here. Anupapa (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

...says the aggressive edit warrior. The text is supported by the source, which is of high quality. Wikipedia reflects what good sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that your assessment of the source's veracity is completely irrelevant. If it is reliable, and it is verifiable, we include it. See WP:VNT. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

I suppose you guys are in fight mode day in and day out. People are the way they are, and maybe there needs to be a measure of unavoidable harshness in your replies. "the source's veracity is completely irrelevant" is a statement that could do with some reflection perhaps. Anupapa (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an element of truth in this, in that yes, Wikipedia is under const ant attack by promoters of quackery and crank ideas. The point remains sound: this is pure quantum flapdoodle. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave careful consideration to my words before I posted them. You may notice a difference between what I said ("Your assessment of the source's accuracy is irrelevant.") versus the way you characterized it ("The source's accuracy is irrelevant."). I also gave you a link to the accepted standard for inclusion of information in WP right after I said it. I know that what I said could be taken to a ridiculous extreme, however it does accurately reflect our standards here. I strongly suggest that you read WP:VNT and familiarize yourself with the 'why' as well as the 'how' of our policy on verifiability. That it, after all, the purpose of the essay I linked. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello All, there could be a little more to this if one wanted to take the trouble and investigate beyond rigid guidelines and trigger happy fingers. Although I am happy to admit sometimes rigid guidelines are a practical way to do business. The deeper issue however is that one's behaviour can influence those in the same room or in the same social orbit, sometimes in amazingly subtle ways. This may have nothing to do with quantum mechanics indeed, yet the effect is fascinating. So harsh, judgemental, impatient - I already know for sure which side is up arrogance may not be the most creative or informative way to communicate. After all the main game is contributing to a more humane and joyful world. Anupapa (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

After all the main game is contributing to a more humane and joyful world. No. In fact, the main game is contributing to a better encyclopedia. Please focus on that in general, and on the accurate (by way of verifiability) portrayal of the subject of this article. Ruminations about the shortcomings of editors who do not agree with you are not appropriate here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed the world is full of people who may miss the forest for the tree. Anupapa (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC) By the way "not caring" and "trying to convince oneself that one does not care" are not the same thing. We do in fact care. Anupapa (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the first part: If you're here to right great wrongs, you're on the wrong website. Regarding the second: Purple. Because aliens don't wear hats. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes my friend I do know that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Anupapa (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Source quality

Dear Alexbrn, please explain your objection to my previous edit about social resonance.Anupapa (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources for health claims like this, and we don't bomb the lede with novel information. The WP:LEDE must summarize the article body. Alexbrn (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Another Family Constellations SPA? What a surprise. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Pinkbeast, no doubt there is some joy to be had in being a fascist dictator so do not be mistaken in believing that I would think you will change your mind just by me explaining what the difference is between "encouraging the subject to accept the factual reality of the past" and "encouraging the subject to encounter and accept the factual reality of the past". For the benefit of those who may wish to know, in better quality constellation sessions the issue of acceptance is preceded by an encounter with representatives of the past. With other words the past is made to kind of come alive, like in a theatre play, to be encountered. (Like someone representing your insane now dead father, who has abused you in the past and you standing there in front of that representative encountering him.) This is a critical difference for without such a step the process of acceptance remains a blend instruction, never penetrating to the visceral level. Best wishes to all. Anupapa (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you just call him a fascist dictator? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel warmly towards Pinkbeast and you guys and appreciate the work you are doing. Anupapa (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

So you say, but you implicitly called another editor a fascist dictator, which is not only a personal attack but also invokes Godwin's law (and Mike Godwin is a former Wikimedia Foundation general counsel). You need to stop trying to "balance" this reality-based article with nonsense. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy, and thanks for the link. Indeed "don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right." True, and it is also fascinating how deep the vein of dictatorial tendencies run in the human spirit John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton. In any case the point is to somehow give justice to and provide good information about this constellation subject. Like you guys I have little time for pseudo-scientific nonsense in a rational discussion. By all means throw out the bathwater but let's see if we can keep the baby. Anupapa (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel warmly towards Pinkbeast and you guys and appreciate the work you are doing. You have a very funny —and possibly sanctionable- way of showing it. Take some advice: accusations of bias are in a fuzzy area between legitimate debate and personal attacks, so they don't often draw much attention. But accusations of fascism (unless a person calls themselves a fascist, or the content being discussed is fascism) are 100% personal attacks. You should knock it off completely and stick to discussing the content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright MjolnirPants I will take the advice. Please tell me what is the problem with "The seeker then either sits down and observes or becomes an active player on the floor." Anupapa (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I never raised an objection to that phrase, nor was that phrase the only thing you changed in the reverted edit. Furthermore, Alexbrn already explained his objections to that edit, both in his edit summary and here. You're being disingenuous. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again MjolnirPants, if it is not my shirt why would I put it on? Therefore I am disregarding the being disingenuous part. So since there is no objection to that phrase I will put it back. Best wishes Anupapa (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that, the page has been admin locked. By the way, I reverted your correction to the sourcing because, as the edit summary says, the sources doesn't support the text. The text said that the original form of this diverged significantly from from conventional forms of therapy. The source said that the original form didn't address the concept of trauma. That's apples and oranges, right there. Now, I have no doubt that the original form diverges significantly from conventional forms of therapy, and I'm not opposed to the article saying so. But it's worth noting that the current form diverges as well, so the original text was the more accurate. Saying only that the original form diverged from normal therapy implies that the current form doesn't diverge, which is false. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)