Talk:Center for Feeling Therapy

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Initial Creation

I've created this article in order to move the extensive material regarding the CFP out of the primal therapy article and into its own article.

The CFP is certainly notable enough to deserve its own article (it caused the largest psychology malpractice suit in California ever). Furthermore, the CFP material in the primal therapy article was growing overlong and was ballooning with information not strictly relevant to primal therapy (for example, Carl Rogers' quotation about it).Twerges (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New material

I added some new sections to the article regarding the organization of the CFT, life at the CFT, and ideological development.

I thought it would be worthwhile to do so, now that the CFT has its own article. Previously, the material dealt exclusively with the relationship of the CFT to primal therapy; however, now that the CFT material is detached from the primal therapy article, we can add material which is not strictly relevant to primal therapy.

Previously, the article did not include a very good description of what went on at the CFT, what they believed, how it was organized, etc. Those things are obviously relevant and important for an article about the CFT. Twerges (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed cults category

I removed the cults category, as I informed Twerges I would. I've also reworded the introduction. In the edit summary, I was trying to say that something shouldn't be called a "cult" in an encyclopedia simply because some people call it one - that's not neutral. There's no problem simply mentioning that some people have used that word to describe the Center, but the article shouldn't identify itself with that point of view. Skoojal (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the cult category. When I examine that category more closely, it appears that there are no groups listed under it, just topics related to cults.

The only reason I added the category in the first place was because I was informed by a bot that the new CFP article was "uncategorized" and I should find some categories to stick it under, so I stuck it under the two categories which seemed most natural to me.

With regard to removing the word "cult" from the introductory paragraphs. I'm not sure I agree with you about that. I realize that the word "cult" is not strictly defined, and different people have different definitions for it. But no matter which definition you use, the CFP seems to meet most or all of the criteria.

Also, there appears to be a consensus among all the sources that the CFP was a cult. I can't think of any expert who would dispute the allegation that it was a cult. I realize that it's their opinion, but if every major source on a topic agree on something, then I think that opinion can be presented in the encyclopedia without qualification.

However I agree that we must tread carefully here.

Twerges (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Corriere

"Riggs" surname was misspelled here as "Corrier", which I have corrected. Hopefully there will soon be a wikipedia page about him, as it seems that he may still be a successful "life coach", which seems sort of amazing given what is alleged by ex members of the Centre for Feeling Therapy... Omgplz (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Riggs is notable enough to warrant his own page. His notable actions are already covered extensively in the CFT and primal therapy articles. I'm aware that he became a "life coach" and published a book after leaving the CFT, however he seems to have faded into obscurity somewhat.Twerges (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Richard Corriere has slithered into obscurity. Although he published a book in 1986 (6 years after the demise of the center) called "Life Zones", in which he preaches many of the same ideas he developed in the CFT, that book did not sell well and was unimportant. After which, he apparently became a "life coach" or something similar in NY, however there is no web page about it, and he maintains no web presence that I can find. Also, he stopped publishing academic papers entirely--everything written by him for a journal was from the 1970s.

For understandable reasons, he has kept a very low profile for the last 27 years. By now, he's old. I don't think he warrants his own page.

Also, the group which he led was not so much about just him as were some of the eastern groups that followed a guru.Twerges (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CFT was a cult according to many sources

I have re-added the "cult" designation to the opening sentences of the article. I wish to explain my reasons.

There are five major sources about the CFT: Mithers' book ("Therapy gone mad"), Ayella's book ("portrait of a psychotherapy cult"), the decision of the judge who ruled against it, a Los Angeles Times investigative piece, and a 5-part CBS miniseries on the group ("Cult of Cruelty").

Every single major source indicates clearly and repeatedly that this group was a cult. Even the judge indicates that the group was a cult. There is absolutely no ambiguity on this point whatsoever, in any of the major sources. In fact, most of the sources refer to the group as a cult in their titles ("cult of cruelty", "portrait of a psychotherapy cult", etc).

We cannot just remove material which is both highly relevant and agreed upon in no uncertain terms by every major source.Twerges (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed new changes

I noticed that someone made some new changes to the article. First, he removed the word abusive. Second, he added claims that the CFT became a cult only in the late 1970s after Joe Hart and Jerry Binder had left the group.

These new changes to the article are not at all consistent with what the sources say. Quite the contrary, the sources claim that the CFT became an abusive cult within the first few years, and that the physical beatings took place within those early years and were discontinued afterward.

...The new changes include referring to the period during the mid-1970s at the CFT as "a period of experimentation". I am not sure that practices like regular severe beatings and enforced physical labor should be referred to as "a period of experimentation". That kind of terminology may be understatement and may conceal the nature of this group.

Whoever made these changes must justify them in discussion, otherwise I'll revert them.

Please feel free to post why you feel these changes are justified. Twerges (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These new changes to the article must be justified. If there is no reason given why the sources are wrong on this point then I'll have to revert the changes.Twerges (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[1] might be useful if anyone has access to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]