Talk:Body psychotherapy

Body Psychotherapy in the article on Psychotherapy

I have taken issue with the fact that Body Psychotherapy isn't at all mentioned in the article about Psychotherapy. I posted a message about this on the talk page of that article. __meco 12:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This article was little more than a list and incomplete at that with broken links and few citations. It doesn't have a hope of being included in an encyclopedic article unless it is improved - I have begun that job, adding mid importance category, related articles including Psychoneuroimmunology for balance. It's taken only a couple of hours to get it up to this beginning level and still more to do - the broken links to named person's is lousy for a wiki reader researching the field. Please contribute in the manner of WP:NPOV. For example, if it's scientific validity is of importance to the article's entry into Psychotherapy, can you find some articles in evidence of that validation? Please fix those broken links if you can, or start pages where the named person does not have one. The Psychotherapy article where you want this one included, itself poorly differentiates from related fields such as counselling and for instance coaching. I have added a few improvements to this page but please see my further recommendations on talk page below some of which can be cut and pasted directly into this one with the citations).-- Ziji  (talk)  01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pasting discussion from Psychotherapy discussion on Body psychotherapy:

I added Body Psychotherapy to the list of main systems of psychotherapy in the article's introduction section, however, this was reverted by another editor who didn't appreciate this as being a major field. I can only point to that article which does in fact list a considerable number of subordinate schools. So I move that this main direction should be re-included in that list, especially as body psychotherapy otherwise would go completely unmentioned in this article, and that would be an omission which I don't see how can be justified. __meco 12:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Other considerable 'subordinate schools' being present in this article does not justify the addition of anything else - if you don't think the others belong, then remove them as you see fit. Do you have any references for Body Psychotherapy that might suggest it is a main school of thought in psychotherapy? JoeSmack ^Talk 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

References: you could start with Pierre Janet, move on to Wilhelm Reich and David Boadella, Ida Pauline Rolf and Jon Kabat-Zinn: . and then go on to the Body Psychotherapy article and take your pick - personally I would take Ron Kurtz and Gerda Boyesen but her page too needs improvement - english citations would help in research. The body psychotherapy page is in need of urgent attention, Rolf and Kabat Zinn were not included, some linked names do not link to an article on the named person eg Ron Kurtz. I have added the mind-body interventions template and put the body psychotherapy page in that template, but much more needs to be done to improve e.g. citations for one. Doing that will increase the authority of a major field position, with which I agree. My earlier comments on the psychotherapy talkpage about distinguishing between counselling and therapy etc also apply between body psychotherapies if you consider the list in the interventions template. Even within a well defined body orientated practice, there are divisions e.g. that in Hakomi between body centred, somatic pychotherapy and experiential psychotherapy. The European Association of Body Psychotherpay is an excellent source to build the case, as is the American Assoc

To widen the authority of the field I suggest going into Alice Miller's work for starters, eg her recent book '', wherein this quote: Ultimately the body will rebel. Even if it can be temporarily pacified with the help of drugs, cigarettes or medicine, it usually has the last word because it is quicker to see through self-deception than the mind. We may ignore or deride the messages of the body, but is rebellion demands to be heeded because its language is the authentic expression of our true selves and of the strength of our vitality.

For a radical bend in the story you could go back to Freud's interest in cocaine (which began on April 24, 1884 and his interest in the nasal reflex neurosis based relationship with Fleiss (who believed that the nose was the centre of all human illness). . I haven't the time to pursue this any further at the moment, but I will come back to it after I deal with the problems at pre- and peri-natal psychology where the body begins its journey

References

--Ziji 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like this is all appropriate on the body psyschology page, and the discussion should primarily be held there and possibly moved there as the page is in need of expansion, it seems to be off topic on this page, as it goes into great detail. As I understand it, body psychology is not generally considered to be a main system of psychotherapy. I am still unclear how to add it to the specific schools and approaches part of the page. The person who does should focus on a short paragraph on what is it that makes body psychology different from the other approaches. I think possibly "embodied" work, that includes spiritual psychotherapy and other forms of transpersonal or embodied approaches might be an appropraite addition. leontes 05:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a list of psychotherapies which I think is appropriate to mention Body psychotherapy and spiritual, etc. I think the big ones however are the only ones that should be touched on here, ones that spawned like a billion others - you don't want to go on and on about a specific model of a specific year of a kind of Mustang on Ford's article, you want that on it's own article (i.e. I agree with Leontes). You also might notice Ford's article has a link to list of Ford vehicles. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC). Pasted by ---- Ziji  (talk)  04:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add the excellent overview by Nick Totton in "Body Psychotherapy: An Introduction", 2003, ISBN 978-0335210398Fbunny (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes 1 and 2

It appears to me that footnotes 1 and 2 are quite redundant at best, if not irrelevant. __meco 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusing introduction

Currently it reads: Body Psychotherapy [1] (also known as Body-oriented psychotherapy or Somatic Psychology) is a branch of Psychotherapy with roots in the history of clinical psychology [2] and in the later work of Pierre Janet and Sigmund Freud. It is altogether unclear what is meant by "the history of clinical psychology" as this is portrayed here as something prior to and distinct from the appearance of Janet and Freud. The second footnote yields a quote that states ""Shock trauma, originally defined by Freud as a breaching of the protective stimulus barrier, can be differentiated from developmental trauma". This is a non-sequitor in my book (or rather a digression). __meco 21:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move, should be uncontroversial, and yes, the category will have to goto CFD. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I request this is moved to Body psychotherapy, per MOS:CAPS which says: "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun"; see also discussion here. Category:Body Psychotherapy should also be moved, but I suppose that's a topic for WP:CFD. /skagedal^talk 14:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just a typo

But I don´t know how to edit the introduction. It says: " Reich worked and trained people in Berlin, Copenhagen and Oslo in the **1930a**." It was probably meant to be "1930´s".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckbeach (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

List of sources that do not appear to be third-party

The following appear to be "sources affiliated with the subject":

• Wilhelm Reich himself.
• Alexander Lowen
• Tree Staunton
• Bernd Eiden

Overly-extensive use of them (and similar sources) should be avoided. The article should be mainly about what the general scientific and medical community thinks of Body psychotherapy, not what Body psychotherapists think about themselves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose Merging with Somatic psychology

It looks like this article and Somatic psychology both deal with the same subject, and should therefore be merged into a single article. Not sure, though, which name should be used. Cgingold (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi - yes I was wondering similarly and would love to work with other editors to generally improve this article and connected ones. I'll try posting a note to the Psychology and Alternative Medicine projects (am new here, but I think that's the idea?) and would appreciate hearing from interested editors. Depthdiver (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Organisations

I just boldly added a bit more factual detail about the professional associations for body psychotherapists. I am thinking it is appropriate to have detail about these organisations even though it is from primary sources because it gives information about the size and longevity of this field of practice and study. I would probably suggest adding information about their conferences also - how many, over what time period etc. Is that a fair call? I also notice there is a separate article for one of the associations and it has a Notability template - maybe the organisations don't deserve their own article, but some simple facts in this article? What do others think? Also I would ideally like parity of information on each one i.e. founding date and member scope but I couldn't find that detail Depthdiver (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Body psychotherapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730052747/http://somaticperspectives.com:80/usabp/ to http://somaticperspectives.com/usabp/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003003905/http://www.usabp.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=9 to http://www.usabp.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)