Talk:Re-evaluation counseling/Archive 1

Archive 1

What is understood by 'policy' in RC

Much of the article in general, when referring to RC policy, seems to miss the point of what RC policy is about (or for). The leadership goes to great pains to remind over and over that RC policy is never meant as a 'statement of truth' but as an 'edge thinking' point of view whose main purpose is to be discharged on (as well as guide).

It is generally recognized that "the truth" is a chimera as RC is based on the scientific model - testing theories out by constant practice. Where the 'practice' in the case for eg. of genetics might be carried out in laboratories with microscopes as primary tools, in RC the laboratories are close human relationships and a primary tool is the discharge process, which (in some ways very much like a microscope) brings into view things not normally seen with the 'naked eye' (everyday and patterned consciousness).

The point of view expressed in a policy (a kind of proposed 'lens' through which to try out looking at a subject) is inevitably challenging in terms of the cultural standard, having been arrived at by people who have steadily discharged on the subject in question.

Members are discouraged from looking to RC as a religion on or in any way to take its teachings on as dogma (recognized as a common tendency where frozen needs eg. around not having had 'perfect parenting' have not come up to consciousness: one of the many 'installed tendencies' RC is designed to change for flexible intelligent thinking). The phrase 'do your own thinking' (and discharge) is repeatedly heard in classes, workshops, conferences, etc.

By this quite different (but I would also say scientifically-based and experiencial) and continuous, dynamic process around policy (than in many other organizations) actually policies are getting revised all the time (again, where the article gives the opinion "It is difficult in RC to get a policy revised" (ref. Ex-Gay title below)- 'difficult' for whom? Again, not my (22yrs of 'light' membership in RC) experience.

Additionally (another big difference with many other organizations with policies) all levels of the membership are actively encouraged to actively engage with policy by dicharge, thinking in small groups and reporting back findings (re-evaluations). --StephenStu (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)StephenStu

Regarding "Policies," particularly the policy on sexuality:

I basically agree with the above, but I want to state it in more common language; the jargon of RC is clunky and misleading when it comes to hot-button issues like sexuality, when read by one unfamiliar with it. I thought I should clarify what the organization is like. I am challenged to make this encyclopedic on short notice, so I didn't post it to the entry. But I thought it would be good to get it out there.

My background: I have been an active participant in this movement for more than 15 years, though not a leader. I am heterosexual. I have neither the responsibility nor the authority within the organization, to represent its position. I am merely a witness, widely read in their literature. Over the years I have accumulated piles of specific disagreements with the way they communicate things. Although the leadership carefully guards the message and ways and means of the organization, a careful decade and a half of watching the goings-on reveals that there is ample room for misunderstanding, or appending one's own cultural views to the RC-specific material. Any "authoritarianism" that may exist is only over the way RC is represented in print and in classes, and not over the personal lives of the members, except the "no socializing rule." In any event it is not sufficient to prevent the cultures of local communities from being very different from one another, and seeing the theory in different lights.

This fact underlies some of the trouble around "Policy." I obviously feel it has been worthwhile to practice their art, and I suspect that the many people who feel it is "creepy" or "authoritarian" or "cultish" or "totalitarian," from within or without, feel so because of the troubling language, and don't hang around to watch for what it means in practice. Unfortunately, there are some in the community who joined because they were attracted to the appearance of a uniform ideology and comprehensive belief system and act as if there were one, doing no favors for RC's reputation. Both these things sadden me.

So there is a lack of clarity within RC regarding the meaning of "Policy." The highest leadership is fairly clear on it. In RC, a "Policy," as well as just about anything else they publish that resembles factual information or information about the position of the movement, is formulated to further members' ability to counsel or client effectively, rather than to prescribe a point of view for normal use. In the case of a "Policy," this means that it is calculated to arouse emotional responses that are common with respect to the subject of the policy. In a session, the more intensely the client can experience their emotions around an issue, and express them freely, the more progress they make in weakening the hold those emotions have over them.

A Policy is one of many tools we wield to draw out the emotion, and the other ingredients are the attention and contradiction of the counselor. The attention is to offer a loving witness to the client, and to welcome their emotions, necessary to "contradict" the general prohibition on emotional expression that we learn as children. The "contradiction" is offering, by whatever means, some kind of demonstration that the thing the client has feelings about can be seen in a less distressing light, offering hope. Merely contradicting the client in a normal sense is not effective. The counselor must herself be the contradiction, which is another topic. The moment a contradiction is successful, the client will be able to feel all the emotion of the original hurt, express it, and their burden will be reduced, which is the purpose of the whole organization.

The Policy on sexuality uses language that juxtaposes invalidating words like "distress" and identity groups like "Homosexual" and "Heterosexual." If read normally this is not at all attractive to a homosexual (or heterosexual) person looking for a sympathetic witness. But it is not to be read that way. It is only a counseling tool, to elicit emotion, so the client can express it. The core claim of fact underlying the policy on sexuality is this: irrespective of one's sexual preference, the way we see anything sexual is diseased because it was formed in emotional trauma- embarrassment, shame, humiliation, terror, pain, abuse. It would clarify matters to note that even an event as common as a parent fearfully or angrily yelling for a little girl to "cover that up" may be experienced as traumatic, an event that made her feel that part of her body was shameful. This counts as an early sexual memory for the purposes of RC. That's why we see childhood trauma as so common. Although we are all sexual beings and this expresses in many different ways, nothing commonly understood about sexuality is untainted by the strong feelings we have about it. We would all do well to heal from these wounds.

Policy is often not explicitly stated to be just a counseling tool. My best guess is that leadership is all but silent on this because it would allow clients to take it less seriously in session, diminishing the power of the policy to bring up distress. This allows many counselors to understand Policy as dogma. But they are not wielding Policy as intended when they do this.

To further clarify the practical meaning of "Policy," I should describe how things actually go for homosexuals in RC, as I have witnessed for around 15 years. In practice, homosexuals are entirely welcome, and are dear to the community. They are right in there with us, and many occupy roles in the highest leadership positions. It is understood that only they may out themselves, and any time they congregate to counsel as homosexuals they do so under assumed names, whose true identities are never spoken, though their closest co-counselors know. This may seem quaint, but it comes from a time when being outed as gay in the wide world could destroy a life, so we stick to it.

As they discharge emotional hurts around their sexuality, they think better and better about sexuality, and feel better about themselves, just like anyone else who does the work. No attempt is made to convince homosexuals to engage in a special project to "cure" themselves of their sexual preference, only to heal from their distressed sexual identity, same as anyone else. It is understood that this work might result in a person changing their sexual preference, but this result is not common and nobody is sitting around drumming their fingers on the table waiting for homosexuals to be "cured." For this reason, putting the RC Communities in a category with organizations who promote the "curing" of homosexuality is inappropriate. Homosexuals are trusted, loved, and particularly useful in counseling heterosexuals about sexual issues, because they are not distressed the same way, and it is therefore easier for them to be good counselors around heterosexual issues. This is why the community values all kinds of diversity- it makes the community a much better resource for itself.

Homophobia is a big word to the community, and we understand it to mean, basically, any feelings that keep one from being in a completely close, loving friendship with a homosexual person. Our understanding of the term is such that to claim one is free of homophobia is absurd. We assume that we do have feelings that can stand between us and homosexuals, and we work to uncover and discharge them in session, along with all the other feelings. In other words, the community sees itself in an eternal struggle to rid itself of any distress that would make it less than completely warm, inclusive and supportive to homosexuals, or for that matter any race, religion, ethnicity, class, gender expression, or other identity. This liberation work around identities is the single most important direction of our work.

That is hopefully a more accessible picture of where RC's at, and how Policies fit in. I know it is in a form that is too personal now, I welcome suggestions from more experienced hands, as to how to package it for the entry.

Epistemystic (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of critical links

I have re-inserted a critical link to the article. This is on the grounds that the two reasons offered for deleting the links,

1: There was an agreement between CCI people and RC people not to criticise each other.

2: The articles linked are unsubstantiated

are either irrelevant in the case of 1 (and this should be obvious) or false in the case of 2 as some of the articles have been published previously, and cite references in a scholarly way.

So before tampering with the links section please explain what policy of Wikipedia's they violate. Alternatively I will re-insert the links each time I come on line and you can delete them the following day. JBennett 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

Re:

I have removed the links to sites attacking RC, since there was a previous agreement on the co-counselling page that CCI people would not edit the RC page and vica-versa. The link to a page linking to the Tournish article on "Rc as a cult" is discussed on the Harvey Jackins page and a second-hand link to an article which itself casts doubt on the status of RC as a cult is not good quality wikipedia. I would ask CCI people to stop adding links to this page just as a closet way of attacking RC; if they want to dismiss RC, please do it on your own CCI page. Alternatively I will get close up and personal on CCI and John Heron, something that they probably wouldn't want to happen. Thanks! Mark Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.40.76 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thanks for explaining. Regardless of what agreements your rival enterprises have off-Wikipedia, I am afraid that it cannot supercede Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. I assume that, at some point, this article will expand beyond its current state, and that expansion will include some criticism of this organization. Removing links that can be used to reference such an expansion (either complementary or critical) is not helpful to future editors. That said, if the link is a pointer to a site that has no value in terms of providing encyclopedic information, feel free to remove that link, but make sure to explain what you are doing either here on this Talk page or by using a descriptive edit summary. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood, will try to be more consistent in raising discussion points. I think this page is starting to take shape, but needs more material that isn't just duplicated from the Harvey Jackins and co-counseling pages, so am working on something for that. Have also done some tidying of the text today and added internal links. Mark Thomas. 81.159.40.76 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with J Kelly. The link should stay and any collusion between you and the co-counseling authors is irrelevant. The comment about threats to criticise co-counseling unless the criticisms of RC are removed says it all really JBennett 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

I wonder whether the author of the RC article is in RC or not? I ask this because the links to the only scholarly articles on RC have been removed, and it is only from within RC, that criticism of RC is stifled For instance:

Attacks on any member or leader are not attempts at correcting mistakes but rather dramatizations of distress. These are not acceptable behaviours within the RC community. [Guidelines for the Re-evaluation Counselling Communities p.68]

There isn't just one author, "whoever-you-are", there are lots. However, I think there is considerable doubt about the "scholarship" of the articles you refer to, I recall most were from RC-bashing websites, which hardly qualifies as "scholarly". If you want to suggest a few, we can include them. Please add your comments here and use the four tildas after your comment to say who you are. Thanks! MarkThomas 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Premise₁ If an opinion says the theory or pratice of RC is incorrect, then that opinion is false (is a distress recording) according to the theory of RC.
Conclusion: Therefore, the theory and practice of RC is correct.
I am an unnamed student of philosophy of science, and of deductive and inductive logic, and I want to say that the above argument clearly commits the fallacies of circular reasoning and poisoning the well. The argument MarkThomas mentioned takes the form of the above argument and thus is subjected to the same fallacies. Here is what MarkThomas said: "Attacks on any member or leader are not attempts at correcting mistakes but rather dramatizations of distress." Whaaism (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi: Here are two of the articles that the mental health foundation [1] deem scholarly enough to put on their website (Despite protests from those within RC).

http://www.ex-iwp.org/docs/Cults/Sex%20and%20Re-Evaluation%20Counseling.htm [I am the author of this article]

http://www.cocowebs.com/liberaterc/psychol.htm [This one is written by DR Dennis Tourish]

There are other articles that are written in a scholarly way

http://www.cocowebs.com/liberaterc/sexlies.htm [This one was scholarly enought to be printed in a men's activist journal]

This does not demote the other articles, which are worth reading, and focus on the personal experience of being in RC. However, such personal testimony seems only valid for supporting the claims of RC as when the authors write :"Practitioners of RC view the methods of RC as more effective than those of therapy groups at healing emotional hurts and increasing effectiveness, enjoyment of living, etc"

In the interests of representing a balanced perspective of RC and adhering to some of Wikipidea's policies I would recommend that the authors of the article also allow voices critical of RC to be heard. The official RC website does not allow articles that criticise it, but this is not the official RC website.

On an issue related to the articles veracity I noticed that the authors of the article write that "It is very difficult to assess the claims of RC in an objective way" and then that "academics studying the value of different types of therapy have not had access to RC."

This phrasing is false and misleading.

It is false because academics have had access to RC. The Belgium study group did a study on RC from within RC, and most of the articles at the liberate RC website were written by those with considerable experience in RC. I was in RC for 2 years before writing my article.

It is misleading in the sense that it generates the impression that the claims of RC are somehow legitimate claims that are simply difficult to assess because they need to be assessed from within RC. To focus on one particular example: RC claims that most adults have been subject to sexual abuse during childhood. [Jackin's "Early Sexual Memories" by rational island publications]

This claim can be assessed but it need not be assessed from within RC. We can look at the objective evidence that most of the population have been subject to childhood abuse in order to find such a claim completely unconvincing. The objective evidence would consist in the known effects of child abuse.

82.3.23.80 21:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

I should add that the Tourish article discusses RC and its methods so it would be appropriate to link it to the article on RC.

This has been discussed a fair bit before, the Harvey Jackins page makes reference for example to the Tourish article. Personally I would hardly regard either as masterworks of scholarship, they read as the reflections of people who tried RC for a bit and objected to it, fair enough, but they don't seem to me to hold great merit as independent sources. Also the claim that the "Belgium study group" did a study of RC from within RC is unlikely to be very relevant; Belgium bless it is a backwater in RC terms and something from the US or the UK would be interesting. Also they cannot possibly (knowing what we know of RC!) have had any kind of "permission" from the "leadership" to carry out such a "study" so this begs the question of how they were able to carry out trials, sample data, etc. Of course, this is baloney and a close reading shows the usual hostility from gay rights activists, etc. Not that I personally disagree but we need to attempt objectivity as to both sources and statements on WP. I don't mind seeing references so long as they are of reasonable quality and not just inserted for point scoring purposes. Something more sinister might be afoot here - Google searches on RC have tended to drop the co-cowebs site in favour of Wikipedia links in recent times - is re-inserting the links here an attempt to promote on Google? That sort of gaming is frowned on by the editors. MarkThomas 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You comments suggest that you have not even read the articles.No one has claimed to have carried out double blind trials on RC's theories. People have described the processes that go on within RC and what is being taught. The only thing sinister here is your bias. JBennett 10:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)J Bennett—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.23.80 (talk • contribs)

Not so! I've read them a number of times, and in depth. I was even thinking of opening a new website specifically to debunk them, as they are full of specious claims, half-baked rumor-mongering, inconsistent illogicality, hidden bias, etc, etc, and they get cited on Steve Hassan's cultwatch site as living proof that RC is a cult, so it might be worth it, and if you provoke people enough, maybe that's what should happen! But in the meantime, we are all welcome to our opinions and you unsigned little user devil you, will note that I haven't said don't edit here - just pointing out to those interested where the cocowebs site is coming from. MarkThomas 18:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Why don't you start by explaining how almost every woman was a victim of sexual abuse in early childhood, but does not remember the event because it has been repressed by her unconscious. I am sure it would make interesting reading in the journal of psychology and human sexuality

T]hat almost every woman, that almost every woman in our society, has been sexually abused as a small child, and that a very large proportion of all men have been abused sexually as small children. [Harvey Jackins:A Rational Theory of Sexuality p.14] 82.3.23.80 18:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

After your edits, please use four tildas to show who you are on talk pages. You can also benefit from signing on as a Wikipedia user. On the point of your comments, if you feel there is something you want to edit into the RC or Harvey Jackins page from that, you are free to try and do so. I don't have strong opinions about the points you make, which seem a bit unrelated to the previous discussion, but I think as an observer of the therapy field in general, you may be confusing terminologies or alternatively not getting something significant in HJ's theory. When he spoke of such abuses, my understanding of his perspective would be that these would often be perceived to others as very slight matters, such as unaware touching by adults or whatever. (in some cases worse) He based this on clients comments in sessions. There is such large hysteria surrounding this issue in wider society that the reporting of such apparently "minor" abuse incidents would attract opprobrium or anger. Any other comments on this from other readers welcomed! I think this is bogged down in other areas you mention such as what RC'ers would regard as "mainstream psychology" because they try to scientically categorise, and attempt to "define" "abuse" - RC would only be interested in this in so far as if clients reported it, the counselor would attempt to listen well, contradict, etc, until the client "healed" from it in whatever way seemed best. Don't know if this helps as I suspect you are coming at this from the angle of critiquing RC outright rather than objective analysis of it's theories, but if some report those theories as questionable, that can certainly be reported on these Wikipedia pages. I would suggest reading the Harvey Jackins page, the Tim Jackins page, the co-counselling page and the United to End Racism page as well before editing either one as they form a group of related stuff. Thanks. MarkThomas 18:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here: The first is how does unaware touching by adults constitute sexual abuse? And remember we are talking about the relationship between parents and children here. The second is whether Harvey intended to use the term "sexual abuse" to mean "unaware touching by adults". What evidence is there for this? Your reference to "hysteria" about reporting child abuse is besides the point and in addition it would be inaccurate to take a current concern and apply it to the time of Harvey's writings when there was a different cultural atmosphere.

Finally if by "objective analysis of RC's theories" then I am all for that. But if you hold that any objective analysis *must* exclude crticism or must avoid portraying RC in a negative light then I must disagree.

I still think that the link to the articles on the liberate RC website should be included and have linked it again. They contain references to the benefits and dangers of RC and are a useful source of information to those interested in the organisation as is the official RC website. If you want me (others) to stop doing this then you will need to provide some cogent reasons. Simply saying that the articles are not scholarly without explaining in what way they are not scholarly will not do. The scientology page contains links to sites that are critical of scientology and the same standards that apply to that page should apply here.

P.S. I added some comments and deleted the comment saying that academics have not had access to alternative movements as it was incorrect. There are many references full of such research in "Cults and New Religious Movements: A reader, Blackwell. ISBN1-4051-0181-4"

Thanks JBennett 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

You still have given no cogent reasons for removing the links so I have re-inserted it. 82.3.23.80 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

Sorry, didn't realise it was you as there was no sign-in on that edit. Anyway, it isn't true that no reasons have been given, there has been very considerable discussion on both this and the talk:co-counselling pages and the basics of it are that (1) there was a fierce battle between pro- and anti-RC people for critical placement, so in an attempt to neutralise and balance, we split the pages between co-counselling, CCI and RC and determined that each would try not to be too negative about the other and (2) the site and material in it are already extensively referenced on the Harvey Jackins page. I also personally believe that this link is repeatedly placed in these pages to try to raise it's profile on Google (it used to be top - now way down below these pages) and that is a factor. You've really ignored all these previous discussions and arguments and instead just repasted the link, which is clearly a very POVist act. MarkThomas 13:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

JBennett 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC) I replied to your first point (1) see above supporting the view of J Kelly. You have not responded to that point. This is clearly a POVist act. The second point about the site referenced on the Jackins page would be relevant only if the site dealt with issues connected with Jackins rather than peoples experiences of RC in general. As for the motivation for the link it is simple - I think people should have access to a wide variety of information and be able to decide for themselves - not that information should be censored. Your censorship looks like a very Orwellian act to me.

The four tildas go at the end of the article JBennett. Wikipedia is not a centre for unrestrained free speech, each article tries to accurately reflect a balanced account of the subject and give useful references. As I've said before, I don't have really strong objections to the link and it certainly is not censorship if that term was relevant to WP, which unfortunately perhaps it isn't. However, I fear that it will not stay put and whilst I won't remove it myself, I'm sure others will, as it is not really a suitable reference, pointing as it does to an unobjective POVist site full of rumor and unsubstantiated claims. This article and other related ones are an attempt to explore the issues of RC objectively, not to engage in tittle tattle or slurs. Good luck! MarkThomas 18:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this article an attempt to explore the issues of RC objectively? You say that it is impossible to explore RC objectively in the article! It seems that all we can do is describe what people who have been in RC say and since the RC website eliminates dissenting voices there is a need for the link in order for those voices to be heard. It is only your claim that these articles are full of rumour and unsubstantiated claims etc that is unsubstantiated. 82.3.23.80 22:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)JBennett

JBennett I think you need to read up a bit more on what Wikipedia is and is not. It isn't a replacement for any difficulties you've had with an external organisation, it isn't a noticeboard for your outfit and it isn't a noticeboard for RC and it isn't a sounding board for a particular group of disatisfied or angry people and it isn't a place to get even with some perceived wrong and it isn't 1984 and it isn't a free scribbling zone. I suggest a good starting point is Reliability of Wikipedia and in particular the second para of it, and then also Wikipedia:Replies to common objections, Partisans and then come back and make your accusations. Thanks. MarkThomas 22:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have read the links and can't see that it adds anything new. In fact it defends the right to have divergent viewpoints which is a strength of Wikipedia. Personally, I didn't have any problem with RC (but thanks for the ad hominem). JBennett 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

403 error?

I tried to take a look at the wesbite under discussion for inclusion in the article, cocowebs.com, but was returned a 403 error, both on that directory and at the top index page. Jkelly 17:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand from RC'ers that the site is currently the cause of legal action against some particularly defamatory remarks on it, so that may be why - that's also why I keep removing it from here. Some material in it is excellent and I have used it in citations from the Harvey Jackins page for example; I will have to take a look at those references. MarkThomas 17:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A: The reasons why user MarkThomas keeps removing the link have been made explicit in the preceding discussion above. They have not included the threat of legal action or 'defamatory remarks' (aka criticisms of RC). Although these would make very useful post hoc justifications. The last I heard was that the site owners were considering moving to another host, and so may be in the process of doing so. Although it would be interesting to hear if there was a scientology style attempt to shut down dissenting voices.I will see if I can find out anything more substantial. JBennett 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Stop misimpuning my actions John. I have always cited that as a reason; I think you must be confusing me with other editors. As to the site you are talking about, I'm surprised you equate the actions of RC with Scientology; that site claims amongst other things that Tim Jackins is a serial sexual abuser of young girls and that Diane Shisk helps him cover it up. Are you saying that's true? If it is true, why haven't the police been involved? Now if I saw a site saying that about me I would reach for my lawyers. Would that make me guilty of a "Scientology style attempt to shut down dissenting views"? Or would it make me simply after not having those lies told about me? RC has no connection with Scientology and although HJ did in the early 50s, it's a prehistoric connection. I think you keep repeating this stuff as a deliberate smear and I think you have a confusion about what RC is. You're welcome to your views of course but this page is about what RC is, not about what John Talbut's views on what it is. MarkThomas 22:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1: There is no threat of legal action. The site is temporarily down due to being re-hosted. Hence the mythical story looks like another attempt to jusify YOUR continual removal of the link.

An obvious troll. I am saying that some RC people have told me there is legal action. You then regard this as proof that RC is suppressing dissent, even when that "dissent" would consist of false allegations of sexual abuse by living persons. You then announce that this is not the case. So it's proof that I am justifying removal of the link! Tee hee. MarkThomas 12:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

2: There are no articles saying that Tim Jackins is a serial sex abuser. This looks like Another fabrication to justify removal of the link.

And I am J Bennett not John Talbot JBennett 10:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry J Bennett, getting the rants confused there. Of course there are articles claiming just that and you know it - sadly, as the site has currently been taken down after legal threats, none of us can check. I suspect they are busy weeding those pieces out and I don't have copies of them. Oh well, ho hum. MarkThomas 11:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you have your rants before coming to Wikpidea? JBennett 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I of course meant your rants, but not to worry. By the way, I think it's a hoot that you complained on Scientology Talk about my alleged attempts to control this page - compare your contribs list, which is entirely 100% on RC and mine, which is widespread across Wikipedia and I think any dispassionate editor will get an idea who is most POV-pushing and controlling on this page. In fact, once we set aside the differences, this is becoming quite a good balanced article and largely reflects a combination of your and my thinking, so I think Sarah is right and we should stop fighting. At least until you post some more POV. :-) MarkThomas 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Excessive Control is not about how many pages that you edit but the way in which a person tries to control other peoples' edits. The complaint was due to your editing the page without discussion or responding to objections e.g. with the link etc. WA more objective approach would be to disuss what we wanted to edit first in a 'rational' manner. JBennett 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect JB, I think you are in fact misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. It is not "controlling people's edits" to go in and counter-edit or change what someone else writes if you think it's wrong. In turn, they can try the same. There are rules to prevent vandalism and repeat unexplained counter-reverts that are against the rules. But so far I have done nothing on this page that exceeds those rules and neither, as far as I can tell, have you. I do think however that you repeatedly use weasel words which is against WP rules - you try to imply all sorts of anti-RC smears by stealth. In fact, I have written things into this and other RC-related pages that official RC would hate, but I haven't done it by stealth - I've given the facts as I see them. You used similar stealth in appealing for help on Talk:Scientology - something that is an implied smear right away, as you are evidently trying to connect current RC with Scientology, which isn't accurate in any way; and then you used weasel words there to imply that I was "controlling" as you put it, which is nonsense - as I've said before, this page incorporates many people's thinking, not just mine. But I will revert your weasel words whenever you weasel; and frankly this is the end of the "discussion" with you as a user, because all we get out of you appears to be silly little trolls and disgusting smear by innuendo. You really do need to just say outright what you have against RC and get it off your chest; then you might be capable of some objectivity! Adios. MarkThomas 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Tone it down Mark. You are becoming abusive. JBennett 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Mark is inclined to go on too much and JBennett is inclined to use stealthy ways of editing and do little covert smears. I think it really would be best for this page if you both took a deep breath and backed down for a bit - how about we don't get any edits out of either of you for the next week? Try it. Sarah Williams 14:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have discussed the reasons for most of my edits on this page so they can hardly be covert or stealthy. My reasons for defending the links to the articles critical of RC are given above. Historically they have been removed without discussion (see history of article). I offer discussion of my edits and am open to their revision. I recommend other users do the same. Is this really so objectionable?? JBennett 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a cult, just benignly cultish. Vonnenook (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

New page

Several people didn't think the previous page did justice to RC, so after quite a bit of thinking I have added my humble effort at a more comprehensive view. This I am sure still requires more thought and ammendment. I have tried as well as I can to reflect areas of controversy like the question of Dianetics influence on HJ and early RC (being examined more objectively and in better detail than I have seen elsewhere on the web right now at the Wikipedia Scientology Project organised by Antaeus Felspar) and the question "is RC a cult?" which seems to haunt discussion of RC from outside RC, sometimes excessively and unfairly IME; also to some extent I hope this and the Harvey Jackins and Tim Jackins pages will prove informative to RC "members" seeking quality information from outside RC to balance the perhaps slightly over-inflated internal claims of the organisation. Please do add comments here if you disagree with what I have said, or have useful information. Mark Thomas, London, England. MarkThomas 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Trade union activist?

I removed "trade union activists" from the intorduction as this is uncited, and even in the Harvey Jackins article it says "He reportedly was a labor organizer in Seattle, Washington, during the 1940s" -- I have not been able to find any independent verification of this either. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is with the HJ page phrasing, "reportedly" sounds ambiguous, but there is actually no controversy on this point, as for example HJ was persecuted by HUAC precisely because of his role as an (allegedly) communist union organiser in the Seattle docks. I will find a reference for this, but the HJ page will need correcting as well.MarkThomas 12:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientology connections

An editor of the Scientology Wiki pages here. Perhaps you should make clear that Dianetics was never a cult, such allegations have only been made about its successor the Church of Scientology.

It is possible (in my view likely) that the lack of acknowledgement of any connection with Dianetics by Jackins was because the Church regarded all squirrel groups as a threat and attacked them.

Since the RC leadership does not admit to any connection with Scientology and if most RC followers don't know about one RC cannot be part of the Freezone, which only includes those outside the Church who claim to be scientologists or who at least acknowledge Scientology as a primary influence. RC from what little I know about it seems to have been quite different from Dianetics/Scientology from the start.--Hartley Patterson 21:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hartley, I'm not sure the article says that, although feel free to edit it - it says he is tainted because of the association with Dianetics, which given that this is one of the usual foci of attacks, seems worth mentioning. Bit puzzled though by your outright dismissal of Dianetics-as-cult - wasn't there some sort of Dianetics organisation before Scientology, a Board of Dianetics or some such, with quite a lot of internal machination and lies going on? May not have been a "cult" as such (whatever exactly that is - I believe it's difficult to agree on precise definitions - by the common ones, the Roman Catholic Church and Microsoft are cults) but Harvey Jackins founder of RC was on the Board and a key buddy of LRH in the early days. I think that's worth letting people know about. MarkThomas 06:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ex-gay

Regarding the 'is mostly ignored' opinion in this section: "The idea in Re-evaluation Counseling that gay people are only gay because of a past hurt, while not having been officially revised, is mostly ignored, since most people in the organization, including most leaders, either don't agree with it or see the question of whether same-gender sex is "rational" as trivial. (Sex isn't "rational" most of the time, anyway, so who cares?) It is difficult in RC to get a policy revised, but ignoring it effectively gets rid of it, so that works pretty well. This "policy" is currently unimportant to RC and is not really being used."

In my experience the policy is not 'ignored' and it is also untrue that it it 'not really being used' (surely this is inevitably very subjective?: not really used by whom? I have used it plenty, over many years and with many other people who also use it - my POV). The most interesting use of this policy has been (for me) heterosexual people discharging on why they are heterosexual (makes for some hilarious sessions), which they are encouraged to do because otherwise how can they effectively be allies to lesbian, gay and bisexual people? Any actual use (for discharge) of the policy soon gets one to wonder whether it is also true that "heterosexual people are only heterosexual because of a past hurts". This doesn't in any way invalidate the gay policy, it simply highlights it´s great usefulness as a practical tool (heterosexual people would probably never have got to seriously discharge on their sexuality were it not for this gay policy, and the strong feelings it raised - in my experience). --StephenStu (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)StephenStu

I'm re-adding the ex-gay link in the See Also section, although reparative therapy is another option. MarkThomas (talk • contribs) has removed it twice, saying that it isn't relevant and "slanderous [sic]". I disagree. It is clear from this article and the linked reference that Re-evaluation Counseling considers homosexuality something "broken" within the person that can be fixed. It's not explicitly stated that after this "distress" has been dealt with, whether the person's homosexual feelings will go away, but that seems the obvious inference. As such, it's pretty clearly an ex-gay group. Not one based in fundamentalist Christianity, but not all of them are. eaolson 23:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If we're coming to this conclusion ourselves, we are in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. We need to find a reliable source that makes this connection, and cite it. Jkelly 23:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I can't make much of the linked policy because it's so jargon-laden. This link refers to the policy [2] as "Sets out RC views on the curability of homosexuality." eaolson 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ho hum. Circular reference - answers.com and experts.com just rehash old Wikipedia articles and in this case the latter is a cut and paste job from an RC-bashing site that was in turn cut-and-pasted onto a very old WP version of this page! Anyway, it's helpful to know that Harvey Jackins infuriated a segment of gay opinion with his view that homosexual sex is distress and therefore something that can be discharged, but this is different to the ex-gay movement in that the primary driver of ex-Gay belief is that homosexuality is sinful. RC does not think so and does not condemn gay sex to be really specific. It simply believes that it causes harm to the people concerned and that they deserve a chance to work on it. I agree that to some this may seem a fine line but it's actually quite a big difference. Thanks for raising a discussion about it rather than just willy-nilly pasting the link in anyway. MarkThomas 07:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The ex-gay movement is not limited to Christian organizations. See, for example NARTH and Ex-gay#Positive_Alternatives_to_Homosexuality. Since, as you say, RC believes gay people can stop being so, it is also an ex-gay organization, and the link is relevant. As such, I'm re-adding it. eaolson 23:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, RC does not say that, it says that the hurts associated with it can be discharged and that it is hurtful to the people who practise same-partner sex, which is actually different. Also I think (as I've said elsewhere) that you take a very sweeping view of Ex-Gay - most people think of it as part of the Christian Right, and I think you are running a deliberate POVist smear against RC by re-inserting it. I feel sure it will be removed again if you do anyway. Sarah Williams 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

RC policy on sexuality

I wanted to add something to the RC policy on sexuality since the current policy only deals with homosexuality but this view fits into the wider policy on sexuality in general in that all sexual feelings that arise unbidden are the result of distress, and that such distress patterns are deemed to be most likely due to early childhood abuse. [By 1977 H JAckins had deemed the majority of the population to have suffered some form of early childhood sexual abuse. Women in particular were thought to have suffered from this.

Here is what I propose to post:

The RC policy on sexuality is such that all strong sexual feelings for another (regardless of sex) are not to be acted on. Instead such feelings are seen as being due to restimulation of past distress.

  Unless you calmly and deliberately decide to feel sexual because it  
  is the optimum rational behaviour in a particular situation, and  
  you decide to do it before you feel sexual, any sexual feelings 
  mean you are the victim of restimulation.
  [H,Jackins 1977, A Rational Theory of Sexuality:12, Rational Island 
   Publications]

The origin of our past distress concerning sexual feelings results from the majority of the population having been the victims of sexual abuse during early childhood. Women are more likely than men to have been the victims of sexual abuse and those that do not have any memory of such sexual abuse taking place are deemed to have repressed the memory (due to it being too painful to recall).

  [T]hat almost every woman, that almost every woman in our society, 
  has been sexually abused as a small child, and that a very large 
  proportion of all men have been abused sexually as small children.
  [H,Jackins 1977, A Rational Theory of Sexuality p.14, Rational  
  Island Publications]

I thought the comments on the policy concerning homosexuality could then follow this introduction. Any objections? JBennett 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

I deleted the cocowebs link again John - this has been removed (as stated many times before, something you repeatedly ignore) because it contains highly defamatory accusations against living persons. If you add it again I will report you for vandalism and this time no more messing around - I'm pretty fed up with this issue. It certainly is not censorship on my part, as you can see with a quick review of my edits, I have posted a great deal of material that would be construed as out of line with RC. The problem here is something different and if you took a minute away from this to think about it, I think you would realise that the protection of Wikipedia comes above your efforts to Google-promote the cocowebs site. :-)

No objection to the above at all other than your own POV editorialising; for example "RC policy on sexuality is such that all strong sexual feelings for another (regardless of sex) are not to be acted on." is not quite an accurate description of RC views. A more accurate way to say it would be RC policy on sexuality is that all strong sexual feelings for another (regardless of sex) are not to be immediately acted on, but first to be discharged on, thought about and only then act. This I'm afraid, like many of your other insertions, is a fairly simple and basic misunderstanding of RC. MarkThomas 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the qualification, but the policy on sexuality clearly states that strong feelings of sexuality are not to be acted on. Yes, they are to be discharged on, but the intended consequence of discharge is that the intensity of the feeling is lost, if it wasn't then you would be expected to re go the process of discharge. Anyhow I am happy to put the fuller explanation in as it does not change any essential feature of what I said. JBennett 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

With regards to the link I would like to know why you have continually changed your reasons for objecting to the link? JBennett 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

Looking at the policy on sexuality section I thought the bit on homosexuality could be condensed a bit with more emphasis on the actual quotes from Jackins. I find that a long quote in italics does not make for easy reading. So I will have a bash at editing (you can always revert it back) so long as the author does not mind? JBennett 09:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

I have edited the bit about Jackins thinking that cases of sexual abuse would be seen as a trivial matter in society. I am happy to re-insert it if you can provide a reference for it. As far as I can tell the policy on sexuality developed in the 70's doesn't mention anything about this being a trival matter, and it is incongruent with the view that cases of early sexual abuse have been repressed because they are too painful to remember. JBennett 11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving the position as it is now; clearly some of the ancient views of RC or HJ are being used here as an attempt to smear, but (deeep breath!) attempting to disregard that for a minute, there is nothing contradictory about this. The sentence about "trivial" or "accidental" sexual restimulation states clearly that this is about how society regards such things. Obviously RC takes the view that society is wrong to regard them so lightly. HJ and RC have repeatedly stated that what is termed "abuse" or "oppressive sexual mistreatment" in RC is, in many contexts and cultures, regarded as "normal" or at least "to be ignored". This latter set of reactions of course then adds to the store of distress surrounding the initial incidents. I suspect though from your writings John that you don't accept any of this and in fact believe RC is wrong - why not just say that's your position? This page is about RC, not your personal views on it.... MarkThomas 16:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is currently about your control of information and those who challenge that. What I asked for was a reference to explain the comment about sexual abuse being regarded as normal or trivial. Your edit in the article does not explain the context of this comment and you fail to reference it. As for my position - I haven't been indoctrinated to believe that the majority of men and women have been sexually abused, and think this is false, but I don't state this because this article is not about me but is meant to be about RC [doh] or did you forget that?. JBennett 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)J Bennett

This is a polite request for user MarkThomas to stop editing the RC page without discussion. The point about Jackins thinking that sexual abuse is treated as minor is

a: a seperate issue from the issue over whether the majority of the population have been sexually abused and it does not occur in Jackins writings on early sexual memories.

b: I can't find a reference where he says it (I am not disputing the point that he said this) and would like you to provide one.

So I would suggest that if you are going to insert this, then you do so as a seperate point and that you reference it! JBennett 10:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, I will seek references. My POV by the way so that none of us are confused as to motives here is not unthinking pro-RC. I am trying to build an accurate reflection of what RC says it is and what it is critized for, and not to use weasel words to POV it or smear it, which various editors repeatedly attempt on this page. MarkThomas 11:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The last edit by SarahWilliams claims that RC policy has been revised and that most RCers do not believe that the majority of the population have been the victim of sexual abuse. Whilst I appreciate the latter point, I can't find anything about a revision of the policy on sexuality. In addition the booklets on sexuality in which the policy I describe are still being published and sold to RCer's. So I would like to delete the comment that RC theory of sexuality has been revised until a reference can be found (whilst retaining the other comment). Is that acceptable?? If not please say here first before editing. Many thanks JBennett 13:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Francesannesolomon1

I have recently taken the step of auto-RVing edits by this newly created user who does not enter into discussions or even leave edit summaries, and who makes all sorts of POVist and uncited assertions. A quick look at User:Francesannesolomon1 contributions shows only RC, HJ and co-counselling pages attract their bile. I suggest this is a sockpuppet. Sarah Williams 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The changes that I carefully suggested have been made many times in the past by many many other people. They are not new. Please see the talk pages of re-evaluation counseling, co-counselling, harvey jackins for the history of these ongoing discussions. Basicaly the rc community doesnt want anything negative said about this organisation, and has a history of suppressing dissent. So certain individuals have been sytematically removing any critical references to rc, thus censoring the entry.This isn't fair to the average reader, or those intersted in finding out about this organisation. The only difference here is that user sarah williams has decided to distract from the important core issues at stake here, by making this extremely personal, running smears against me personally. They aren't founded, it's not right. She has a history of doing this. The emphasis should be on the issues, and how to reach a neutral rounded profile for the wiki records. I have a right to contribute to Wikipedia and this entry, and I do not appreciate the personal smear. Below: my reply to Sarah Williams. Frances-Anne Solomon

Hello Sarah, I don't know what a sockpuppet is. My name is Frances-Anne Solomon, as reflected in my user name. I have been leaving edit summaries, am happy to engage in discussion, and believe my edits to be always in the interest of balance, for the benefit of all who are in RC, or may be interested in getting involved. They deserve to have a full picture, not a partial one. I am sorry that you don't agree. Please explain to me what right you have to automatically reverse my careful edits? They took alot of time to write, and were motivated by a genuine concern for fairness. I am not a member of an anti-RC group, but a concerned individual. I do believe that RC demands alot of its members in terms of trust, time, commitment and vulnerability. I consider that the organisation should offer accountability and transparency in return, at the very least, so that people know and can judge for themselves whether they want to make such a huge investment. However as a matter of documented fact, RC is insular, authoritarian (with no checks and balances inside or out) and covert in the way it presents itself to its members and to the world. RC's own literature is extremely POV. That is why its important for the information available here to be rigourously balanced, even if that means sentence by sentence presenting the alternative view. I also believe that the link to the Re-evaluation Counseling Resources Site should be included and available to readers. Some of the content may be "POV", but there are also historical documents, academic papers, a timeline of events and some very valuable first hand testimony from people who participated in RC over a long period of time. It serves to balance the "POV" publications of the organisation itself. I genuinely dont understand what the objection is to this being available here.I know many people who have benefitted alot from having access to the broad perpspectives it provides (myself included). Please, I would like you to consider: if your child, or someone you cared about was thinking of joining an uncertified organisation (one that refuses to be certified by any mainstream measures or standards), wouldn't you want to be able to research and have access to information about it in order to make up your mind? If you were joining - a school, a bank, a hospital... or taking a new job, hiring an employee, or a caretaker for your child or elderly relative, ... would you not want to check history and references, have access to all the information, to be able to question the organisations leaders and so undertand fully and make an informed decision? Isn't this the purpose of Wikipedia - to provide access to all the information? Any way - thats my aim - nothing else. Yours Frances-Anne Solomon 20:33, 15 October 2006

User:Sarah Williams

I have recently taken the step of lodging a complaint re vandalism against this user who does not enter into discussions, makes all sorts of POVist assertions, and unilaterally deletes and "auto-RV's" other users work. A quick look at Sarah Williams shows that this user is in the habit of taking a very polarised rather than collaborative approach to editing on Wiki, and makes personal attacks consistently.Frances-Anne Solomon 08:35, 14 October 2006

Ho hum. Anyone in doubt can simply check the page history which shows repeated edits in the last few days from this brand new user, all totally uncommented, most raising baseless and smearing assertions and all totally unsupported by citations, references or source material of any kind. The sole purpose being an extremely POVist smear campaign against RC and co-counselling in general. Good luck with the complaint! In the meantime, perhaps you can try sourcing your comments and explaining your changes as other WP editors do, whoever you are, or whichever editor you belong to! Sarah Williams 17:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah, for your elegant response, which proves my point. Please read the guidelines for Wiki, the first of which is "assume good faith", be respectful. Your comments above are anything but. What you consider POVist is only because you don't agree with what's being said. And that's typical of RC. Sad really. Luckily the information that is being so vociferously censored on these pages is widely available not only on these talk pages, but also on other sites. Best wishes to you. Frances-Anne Solomon 08:35, 15 October 2006

Nice twist and attempt to smear me as a censor, but not true! I have allowed sensible and informative changes of yours to stay, even when critical of RC, as you are aware, since more recent edits of yours take this into account. What I have removed is pure POV. Sarah Williams 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The issues involved here are not personal to me, but have been made by many users in the past, see above for a history of this ongoing discussion. Frances-Anne Solomon 08:35, 15 October 2006

OR

I tagged it OR as it appears to have large OR-ish or unsourced sections. --Justanother 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Article's existence

The text of this article appears to be advertising or brochure copy for a particular organization. The point of view is clearly biased in favor of the listed organization. From reading the talk below, it's clear that economic rivals have bickered over the content of their respective pages.

It seems impossible for a neutral POV to prevail on such a page. Someone is going to make a slippery claim like "world's leading something-or-other" which is never supportable on strictly factual grounds. Someone else will proclaim the opposite, which is equally unsupportable.

In short, this page and the pages like it are fundamentally inconsistent with Wikipedia's apparent goals and mission. I think it is better to simply ban such pages, or relegate them to a wiki-self-promotion project. Kjosib 15:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kjosib, I see that you are a new user and therefore may not be familiar with all of Wikipedias policies. Clearly Re-evaluation Counseling is notable enough to merit an article and the material here is not just advertising, nor does it consist of rival commercial claims; it attempts to give a thorough survey of different views and knowledge about Re-evaluation Counseling, although like all articles on Wikipedia, it could be improved and you are welcome to attempt to improve it. Thanks. MarkThomas 15:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the same impression as Kjosib, that it is written as an advertising puff for Re-Evaluation Counseling, with any critical comments quickly removed. Marshall46 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of citations

This article needs more citations from reliable sources. They are difficult to find because Re-evaluation Counseling shuns publicity, dislikes scrutiny and has made many enemies. Most sources are either statements by RC itself or comments by hostile critics. However, there are a few articles in academic publications, and some of the critics provide useful sources for their comments. I have made some edits and have tried to made use of the sources avaliable, removing waffle and ureferenced speculation. Any editors with access to sources for this article is invited to add citations, especially linking statements about the ideas and practices of RC to citations from RC literature.

I have tagged some of the unsupported statements with . If there are no citations for these statement after a reasonable period of time, I will go through the article and edit or remove them.

I am posting a similar comment on the Harvey Jackins talk page. Marshall46 (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more references added. Marshall46 (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have increased the number of references from 4 to 38 54. Several of the citations are to RC's own website, but, as they are for statements about what RC believes, I think that's acceptable. However, there are still some unreferenced statements. Marshall46 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed. Marshall46 (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)