Talk:Co-counselling

Untitled

Please sign posts on Talk (discussion) pages by appending four tildes ~~~~ for automatic username and time-date stamp. The RC page is often incorrect. I am in RC, and many things on it are untrue and/or contradict with something else in the article. I have been reported for "Vandalizing" the article, when I was correcting untrue things.

Sept, Oct. 2005, Jan. 2006

Someone took out today all of the external links that were not to the official Re-Evaluation Counseling Web site. Although I agree that the point of those links needs to be better integrated into the article, they seem relevant to what a good article on this topic would be. So I reverted the article to the prior version, which contained additional external links. But some of those no longer work, so I took those out. Jeremy J. Shapiro 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the links to CCI and RC-attacking websites because of the unfair and unbalanced portrayal of RC in the main text. I am writing a new version, which will be loaded shortly. In addition, I suggest that CCI and RC have different pages. CCI is a very small organisation and should not be free to colonise the main page for co-counselling in this way, which misportrays it to the wider world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.33.229 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 October 2005 UTC.

Agreed there should be seperate articles on RC and CCI, but this doesn't justify censoring out links you don't agree with. I know very little about CCI or RC and watch this article because I want to learn more about the subject. I don't have any sort of axe to grind with either organisation, but I don't appreciate attempts to block out what others don't want me to read. I am able to make up my own mind. Concentrate on editing the body text to produce an impartial NPOV overveiw of co-counselling rather than acting as a self-appointed censor. quercus robur 21:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just re-read the article, it looks pretty balanced to me as it stands, I don't see any evidence of CCI 'colonisation', as an outsider it seems to reflect the RC & CCI differences of approach quite well, without taking the side of either faction. quercus robur 00:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There aren't "differences" between the "approach" of CCI and RC. RC is fundamentally different, it is a liberation theory for oppressed people to throw off the burden of distress (particularly "internalised oppression" - the inward result of external oppression) so that they can become free to fight against the underlying cause of the oppression. It is based on the concept that all humans are free and equal, that oppression is not needed for good human functioning and that class societies are the root cause of all distresses and human "problems". RC is a worldwide movement based on the above with about 50,000 practising counselors. It is not a therapy and is not fundamentally interested in "self-help" or therapy as a goal; the goal is personal and human liberation. CCI is essentially a small group started in the 70s as a criticism of RC by a therapist, John Heron, who joined with mental health system people and others stung by head on critiques of their role in maintaining the oppressive society to create a distorted and watered down version of the theories of RC, creating another minor "therapy" organisation. The two effectively have nothing in common although they may sound similar. CCI has about 2,500 members worldwide and is in decline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.45.25 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 January 2006 UTC.

Some interesting comments here. I seem to recall the claim that Jackins "invented" co-counseling was challenged some years ago, it was argued that he picked up and adapted dianetic counseling from Scientology. I also recall conversations with people who knew Jackins in the 50s in the West Coast of the US, they felt that at that time it was pretty clear he was the organiser for L Ron Hubbard in Dianetics in that part of the US. Not sure when this stopped exactly. Later on RC was declared "suppressive" (eg, banned) by Scientology. Not that these bans had much effect other than in the minds of Scienos, but this suggests HJ had pretty definitively broken with L Ron. Not sure when this happened, some time in the 60s I think. Jackins was a pretty sharp characted, I met him a few times - he had a good deal of the showman to him, was something of a salesman or huckster but also was a pretty clever guy who could make you think about things in a different way. He was very outspoken and annoyed a lot of people. I think he tended to adopt some ideas from other people and whilst not exactly claim them as his own, kind of left you with the impression he'd invented them, which I found a bit dishonest. Examples would have included his critiques of the mental health system, which he got from RD Laing and others, against class structures (mainly he adapted Marx and Lenin for those), his little books of quotes and such (Mao), very long speeches (Castro) and so forth. He was a kind of a strange mix of new age, Marxist, science-fiction-ist, salesman and therapist. All this was very attractive to some and there was always a cotery of (mainly women) who were big fans. He was kind of unpleasant to guys quite a bit. He published many books, and, like any good Marxist leader, his followers are expected to bulk buy and memorise them. Some claims in them, like those of the origins of RC (HJ claims he stumbled it by accident whilst working as a union activist trying to help fellow members - the truth appears to be that he was a keen Dianeticist who practised Dianetics for a while and, finding it wanting, gradually adapted the techniques) are highly suspect. There also appears to be quite a difference between personal reactions to Jackins and use of the theories of RC, which focus on encouraging discharge (laughing, crying, trembling, yawning, etc) as natural relief mechanisms for stored up painful emotions, leading to mental relief and recapture (re-emergence) of normal intelligent function. The latter seems to be growing in popularity all the time, and I would say was largely "discovered" or "developed" by HJ and his inner circles. Criticisms of Jackins have focused on his veracity and authoritarianism and on his sexual conduct. The first two are easier to test and seem to be true in some cases. The latter is very difficult to establish as factual and most people within the current RC organisation seem to avoid the subject. Fairly strictly applied "no-socialising" rules exist within the current organisation aiming to prevent straying into such relationships. (Derek Davies, London, England.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.45.25 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 January 2006 UTC.

The attitude expressed by supporters of RC towards CCI speak for themselves. CCI does not have a corporate structure and so has no overall opinion about RC or anything else outside the practice of co-counselling sessions. Each member of CCI has their own view, some are quite anti RC but most that I know are well meaning towards RC. I have completed an RC fundamentals course and counselled with RC for a few years as well as having been active in CCI for over 20 years. Most CCI people know about RC and have an understanding of the differences between the two approaches. There is no evidence that CCI is in decline. Since CCI does not have a membership structure it is impossible to know how many members there are. The number of people who come within "A Definition of CCI" must be far higher that the 2,500 figure quoted above. John Talbut 13:59, 23 January 2006 UTC

Having worked in mainstream counselling organisations in the UK, I find the idea that CCI members have no opinion about RC or are postive towards it ridiculous. Many CCI publications are fiercely critical, and meetings I went to basically consisted of one long snipe at RC. All very bizarre really seeing as most had started doing co-counselling in RC and many admitted finding it life-changing, but seemed to reserve the right to attack it. However I've since concluded that the "break-away" of CCI was really about money and ego - John Heron and subsequent "teachers" of "co-counselling" outside of RC didn't want to operate in a regulated and carefully structured way that would limit how much they could charge for classes and how they could claim ownership of it, and, if they wanted to, abuse it. They had very specific disagreements with RC about important areas like the "no-socialising" rule - many CCI counselors do in fact want to be free (very unethically in my opinion) to cross over from co-counselling into sexual and other relationships at will. This disrupts the effectiveness of co-counselling and makes it less anti-distress and causes confusion and childish behaviour. I met Heron a couple of times and was under-impressed - he seemed to me a typical academic rather than a radical counselor, and having read his books, seen his TV programmes and met him, formed the distinct impression that he was mainly interested in tucking co-counseling under his belt as his baby and resenting RC for having thought of it first. (An RC'er in England) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.45.25 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 January 2006 UTC.

Well, there you are. Anyone wishing to to read what some members of CCI actually do believe can look at the CCI web sites.

I have removed the reference to Harvey Jackins basing co-counselling on his experience of personal counselling as this is contested and not a NPOV. I have reworded the paragraphs about the ways of working as the question of who is in charge in a session is an important difference between the two approaches.John Talbut 12:16, 25 January 2006 UTC

The idea that in RC, the client is not in charge of the session, is a complete misrepresentation of, and misunderstanding of, the basic theory of RC, and this is not therefore an "important difference between the two approaches" as John Talbut claims. In RC, the client and counselor both think about the client, and the client is in charge of themselves and decides what to do; the counselor can encourage the client to discharge every way they can think of, but there is no question whatever of the client not being in charge. I have therefore ammended the Talbut corrections. Sarah Williams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarahWilliams (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 January 2006.

Article deficient in theory

Currently the article is missing some of the main points of the theory behind Re-Evaluation Counseling, i.e. its distinctive notion of intelligence, a decent explanation of chronic patterns, of balance of attention, etc. I hope to get to these. Jeremy J. Shapiro 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the CCI people feel they can claim "co-counselling" or "co-counseling" as something belonging to them, whereas the term was originally coined by Harvey Jackins, founder of Re-evaluation Counseling (RC). John Heron (a UK psychotherapist) founded CCI in the 70s and ran it essentially as a sort of reaction or criticism of RC. The people in RC regard the CCI people as splitters and wasters whereas the CCI people regard the RC people as authoritarian. Result is that no sensible discussion between the two appears to be possible. In more recent years a number of RC'ers became upset by their reading of Jackins' "Gay Policy" (actually just a restatement of his view that all sexual distress, including gay distress, should be discharged on and that people did not have to accept a rigid identification or sexual position as intrinsic) and either joined CCI or "gave up" on RC. This led to a fresh wave of Jackins-bashing, but the main RC organisation continues and is much larger and more idea-driven than CCI. Interestingly, the CCI accusations of sexual misconduct directed against Harvey Jackins were never proven and the one case they often point at, a teacher in Seattle in the 70s, later claimed she had made the whole thing up. By contrast, a number of former CCI people I know of have complained of sexual distrust and confusion within CCI arising out of a willingness to cross over from counseling into sexual relationships. Case of the pot calling the kettle I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.45.25 ([[User The kettle is black on sexuality within co-counselling International. The cathartic process of "trembling" to release fears is bogus and very dangerous, as it may cause adrenalin surges in the brain and body- that maybe addictive, as adrenalin is addictive and the cycle of trembling and feeling more fearful, may induce more shaking to try and control the fears. So this corrupt and dangerous cycle of shaking and fear may stay forever with the "client." The adrenalin surges may induce life-long sexual difficulties: one may not have sexual intercourse if fearful. Co-co can create a false sense of freedom that is simply unacceptable in modern society. talk:81.159.45.25|talk]] • contribs) 23:42, 21 January 2006 UTC.

Censorship

There seems to be a concerted effort to censor any mention of co-counselling outside of Re-evaluation counselling by the following unregistered users.

86.135.33.229 (talk · contribs), 81.159.172.242 (talk · contribs) uk, 81.159.168.31 (talk · contribs) uk, 86.135.32.135 (talk · contribs)

The same paragraphs are being repeatedly removed by what look like different people. I have created seperate pages for RC and CCI . The main Co-counselling page must describe both approaches plus any other uses of the term. Lumos3 12:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the word "censorship" is being used here to describe someone who doesn't agree with the views expressed on the "main co-counselling page", which are actually quite subjective and do not accurately describe either the history of co-counselling or it's subsequent development. This page is typical of the problems with Wikipedia in that a particular interest group or viewpoint is taken to be the dominant one provided they get there first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.45.25 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 January 2006 UTC.

Please take an active role in getting the article to a more NPOV form if that is what you think is needed. Lumos3 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what we're seeing here is that a neutral viewpoint to CCI people means rubbishing RC. To RC'ers it means virtually a statement of faith that RC (and Harvey Jackins) created co-counselling and this view is apparently not acceptable to CCI'ers. Against that background I doubt if it is possible to have an NPOV "co-counselling" page. Perhaps each side should just give up and have their own separate pages and agree not to alter each other's? Sarah Williams. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarahWilliams (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 January 2006.

Probably CCI'ers would then start attacking HJ and TJ on their pages, notice this is already happening on the TJ page. Surprised his lawyers don't activate, as their are already false claims on that bit! (Mark, Seattle, USA) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarahWilliams (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 January 2006. Note: this post was made in the same unitary edit as the preceding Sarah Williams one, despite having a putative different name and country of residence. It throws into doubt the posts attributed to "An RC'er in England" and "Derek Davies" and the anonymous ones, above.

Feb 2006

Mark Thomas, UK: The problem with the new external links and book references being added is quality not their referral to co-counselling; however, it is also important that the controversy surrounding the claims of CCI people about the origins of RC and CCI get explored and they are not doing here. Also there are typos in the new links and one points to the BBC page that contains many factual errors, for example, it states that Jackins created co-counselling in the 30's, which is nonsense, it was the 50s. Isn't their some sort of onus on Wikipedia editors to maintain quality? Another problem here is the repeated attempts by some to locate co-counselling within Psychotherapy, whereas actually if it is practised and taught correctly, it is pretty much anti-psychotherapy, as the latter attempts to explain things psychologically whereas the former is merely interested in empirical ways of assisting each other to discharge and is unconcerned with analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.40.76 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 February 2006 UTC.

What part of append posts with four tildes: ~~~~ don't you understand? Hu 11:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the links added to the foot of the page for good reasons. (1) The link to the humanist psychology page by John Rowan, contained the phrase "while the RC communities remain very isolated and disconnected" and was added to this page for that reason. It's actually quite hard to see how that is true when RC is at least 10 times the size of CCI and attends UN NGO conferences and the like whereas CCI is in fact - well - nowhere. (John Heron has even quit co-counseling!) (2) The link to the BBC site was added because of it's knocking copy (written by someone quoted on Hugs4u - contains many factual innacuracies, for example, that Jackins created RC in the 30s. Surely quality of the content being linked to matters on wikipedia? Not sure how to use the tilda signing thing but here goes a try anyway. 81.159.40.76 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for signing your post. You can always preview such effects by using the Show Preview button below the edit box where you make your edits. Immediately below is the Edit Summary field which should be used for summarizing the edit, so that your fellow editors can understand sequences of edits. The Edit Summary field is just above the Save Page button that you must click. The Show Preview button is just beside the Save Page button that you must click. They have been positioned this way to encourage you to use them because they are useful and have good purposes, and to make it easy for you to use them. Hu 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have revised the page with the aims of making it informative, accurate and NPOV. My aim is for the page to give enough infomation for a reader who knows nothing about co-counselling to have a clear description including the key points of difference between the organisation. In general, I think that any more detailed information can be given in the organisations' own wiki pages.John Talbut 15:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Transference

Problem with the word "transference" is that it comes out of Adler Psychoanalysis and is therefore deprecated in RC and anti-psychiatry movement generally. I don't think it's adding balance to use it here; rather it's an attempt to re-introduce a sort of external critique of co-counselling from the so-called independent (actually just another psuodo-scientific) viewpoint of "psychology". So I don't think it should be used in this context. MarkThomas 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The term transference is used in CCI and this article is about Co-counselling in general not just the RC view. see [1] and [2]. The question of how it (whatever name you give it) is addressed should be discussed. Lumos3 23:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the original paragraph referring to transference in the general description section and moved the RC view to the RC section. Transference is a widely recognised term, and not only in psychotherapy. Most people who understand the concept would, I think, expect some reference to transference in a discussion of co-counselling.John Talbut 19:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If they've done it via CCI, yes. Not if they've done it via RC. Basically it seems like John Talbut's aim (and those of some others) is to rewrite history and make co-counselling the way CCI'ers would like it to be; eg, a confused mess of imports from other "therapies". MarkThomas 19:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact the term transference is not used much in CCI, but the article is not written primarily for people who already know about co-counselling. Nor is it for scoring points. The article is for people who know little or nothing about co-counselling, but who may know something about other therapies or approaches to personal development and may know about transference and want to know how co-counsellors address it.

As I have written previously, I have co-counselled with RC as well as CCI and I subscribe to Present Time [3]. The fact that I prefer CCI does not mean that I think it more suitable than RC for everyone or better than RC, just different. I have no interest in denigrating or misrpresenting RC and I frequently direct inquirers to RC.

I am restoring the paragraphs that you deleted under description, Mark. Their aim is to give people who know little or nothing about co-counselling more of an understanding of how it works. As far as I can see, they apply to RC as well as CCI. I appreciate that, for instance, in RC people may not work in a language that the other person does not understand, but I only state that some co-counsellors do this, which is true, and the fact that they can reinforces the points made in the previous sentences, which do, I think, apply to RC. If you think that any of what is written misrepresents RC then do not just delete it, please explain and let us try to come up with mutually acceptable forms of words. John Talbut 08:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merger with RC page

I have deleted this suggestion as it is wholly inappropriate. This article is an overview of co-counselling and covers major and minor co-counselling organisations that exist in addition to RC. The RC article gives considerable additional information that is specific to RC.John Talbut 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Restored template. Whilst I agree that you are right, the issue should be discussed and a consensus reached rather than unilaterally removing the template, or at least it should be left in place until others have had a chance to comment. quercus robur 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, though I am not sure about it. It seems to be a case of Merge tags being overused as discussed in Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers. The proposal seems to reflect some of the attitudes expressed above. I would have thought it could be discussed here first is it was a serious NPOV suggestion. The proposal tag is of no value to the genuine enquirer, the pages are linked where relevant anyway.John Talbut 10:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, give it a couple of days at least. The irony of course is that the Co-counselling article was not so long ago split three different ways to seperate out the stuff on CC, RC and CCI for clarities sake! quercus robur 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Against merger No arguments have been advanced as to why a merger is desirable. The merge suggestion was posted by anon user 141.149.139.164 and looks like another attempt by RC to dominate the topic. Each CC organisation deserves its own article and the public deserve an overview. Wikipedia is not paper, it can give a wide and detailed coverage of all aspects. Lumos3 10:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we can assume it was "another attempt by RC to dominate", the request didn't seem to come from one of the usual crowd. I suspect it was more a misunderstanding of the differences. If I can synopsise the issue (1) RC'ers tend to view their movement as authentic co-counselling and wouldn't see a difference between "RC" and "co-counselling", (2) other movements whose founders split from RC don't see it that way, (3) there are also people who seem to have separately developed something analagous to "original" co-counselling and call it that. Between these various groups there are disagreements about the theories of co-counselling and practical implementations. The views are very strongly, sometimes almost religiously held. Therefore it is probably best IMO to have separate pages, as this seems to allow slightly more room to express these views and less space for pointless disputation. Opinions welcomed! MarkThomas 11:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Against merger just to clarify that I only replaced the merge tag in the spirit of transparency, not because I think its a good idea! quercus robur 11:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Against merger - can the tag be removed now?John Talbut 11:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed- no-one has come forward supporting the idea or given a reason why it was added in the first place quercus robur 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Phone-buddies

Someone anonymously added this link. It seems to be only superficially similar to co-counselling, there is a charge to join the scheme and once in it seems as if participants would be encouraged to participate in courses. I suggest the that the link is inappropriate and should be deleted.John Talbut 11:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur John - it's really just an ad. I've removed it. Thanks for your vigilance! MarkThomas 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Therapeutic Context

John / others, do you feel these two paras are good? I am starting to see them as quite rambling and incoherant - I will propose a rewrite and see what you think. MarkThomas 11:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you say more, or suggest your alterations here, Mark? All 5 sentances seem to be accurate and make relevant, separate points, but maybe the language could be improved.John Talbut 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think John, have I made it worse?! Trying to distinguish the issues, I don't think Humanistic Psychology draws heavily on co-counselling or vica-versa, they arise from different traditions - also do you think we should mention Rogerian counselling? MarkThomas 19:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "broadly similar" understates the case. In [| A Guide to Humanistic Psychology] co-counselling is listed alongside the other humanistic approaches. I used the word "core" firstly, because it meets all the criteria for humanistic approaches and secondly because it provides a sound basis for humanistic practioners own learning/self development (my own belief is that all human development practitioners should be co-counsellors, if not what are they avoiding).

With regard to Rogerian counselling, I sometimes say that co-counselling is the logical extension of this approach - from client centred to client in charge. However, I think mentioning it here may confuse rather than illuminate, especially as the Rogerian approach is, in my view, only partially humanistic as it does not meet all the criteria, particularly around valuing and working with emotions.John Talbut 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I see where you're coming from now. I think my issue then was with the sentence construction, it looked previously (to me) as though you were saying you thought co-counselling had at it's core HP, whereas co-counselling really arose separately to HP and I would say from my understanding of it, RC was one of the influences on HP along with Rogerian and church-inspired groups, and people like RD Laing. I agree about the confusion and think we will get very bogged down though if we go with too much detail. I know HP people often use co-counselling, but to my mind as an RC'er this simply adds to the confusion; if co-co works well, why not offer the skills as widely as possible instead of adopting a "professional" stance? Of course, I realise not all agree with this viewpoint. :-) MarkThomas 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I understand. I have tried a different wording, see what you think. I think that acknowledging a connection between co-counselling and HP does not suggest professionalisation, although some think it does and this objection is acknowledged in the article. HP includes self-help approaches and it was, perhaps, better when it was called the Human Potential Movement. Sheila Ernst and Lucy Dickeson's book "In Our Own Hands" describes how to use some of the main approaches in HP, including co-counselling, in self-help groups (it is subtitled "A Book of Self-Help Therapy").John Talbut 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we improved it, clearer what that means now. Not worried if I personally agree it's a key approach in HP although I'm sure it is! MarkThomas 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Group / Technique Ambiguity

I realize that this is all clear as day to those involved, but.....as someone who knows nothing about co-counseling or RC, this article doesn't really help me clarify the connection. Initially, it appears that CC is a technique developed by a group (RC), which has then spread to other groups. But in some of the later text (e.g. "you must take a 40 hour course") it would appear that I am hearing about the specific stipulations of a particular group. Can someone clean this up?

I cannot believe the RC/Co-Counselling page doesn't include any criticism! It's a dangerous CULT, folks! I got caught up in it in the early 1990s and had the sense to see through it and leave. However, people I know who were children in the early 1990s are not so lucky. The devastation and trauma imposed by endless catharsis has been incredibly damaging. Note that the founder of the "hereditary dynasty" of Co-Counselling, Harvey Jackins, was a sexual abuser, and paid out several victims ahead of litigation. Comment by Lindella Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by ≈≈≈≈LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of external link critical of RC

The following external link is being deleted by User:MarkThomas on the allegation that it defames living people. No further information is given. This is an easy allegation to make in order to censor critical links. Please provide 3rd party citations to support these allegations. I.e. citations independant of RC. Lumos3 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you just need to go and read the site pages Lumos3. I know we've been all round this before so I won't get bogged down in it again. Suffice to say that the site lists damaging personal allegations of a sexual nature which are wholly false and unproven and unsupported by any police or criminal action against a number of living persons, including Tim Jackins and others. Given this, it's extremely POV and anti-Wikipedian to keep re-inserting it here, especially (as pointed out by Sarah in a recent edit) when it is basically making out that the whole of co-counselling is a cult, which is a very strange viewpoint. If you revert this again within the time limit I will report you for breach of WP:3RR. Thanks. MarkThomas 20:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. the site contains many historical documents, and a timeline of the organisatons develpment including policy developments;a range of papers, articles, links from different perspectives on the theory and practice of re-evaluation counseling; testimonies from many people who have participated in the organisation which makes up an important living history; links to discussion groups about issues related to counselling and re-evaluation counselling. sure some are critical of rc,isn't that a good thing? ie a balance of ideas and points of view. The site is not defamatory but educational, and free thinking people should be aware of this broad range of writing and information about rc, and the history it represents. the reason why rcers consider it defamatory is that rc discourages any discussion of itself as a matter or policy (the no attacks policy - attacks being defined as any open discussion of the organisations direction or decisions). the allegations of sexual abuse: - within the organisation everyone knows they are true. Since they formed the basis of a law suit, a television programme, numerous articles, and were the reasons behind the organsation being split and many people leaving to form splinter groups, they merit being included in a documentation of the organisation's history. the discussion of cultism - whether or not rc falls into that category - reputable studies were done in this area which explored the similarities between groups that are called cults and tendencies within rc. again: this is useful information for all to consider when thinking about rc. Dear Mark Thomas: This issue will continue to come up, as it is a widely held belief that the informaton contained on the Re-evaluation Counselling Resources Site (liberaterc) is an essential part of the history of the organisations and needs to be included in any discussion, specifically because it is information that the organisation has and continues to suppress. otherwise the re-evalution counselling site is just an advertisement for rc. That is misleading and dangerous (The above was written by User:Francesannesolomon1) ~~~~.

The site for example contains claims that Tim Jackins and his assistant Diane Shisk (who is a lawyer) are effectively co-conspirators in covering up peadophilic sexual conduct. I think given that this is the case it is sensible not to link to it from Wikipedia. If the site editors (perhaps the contributors above know them?) can change that material it could be added here. At the moment I would say it exposes WP to legal action. On a personal basis I also have good reason to think many of the claims are false, although not perhaps some of those against Harvey Jackins who is of course deceased. Sarah Williams 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is tit-for-tat going on here where the people who want links to the Liberate RC web sites etc keep putting in the links to those sites, with the argument that they provide valid and relevant information and others keep removing them, with the complaint that they defame people in the RC community. It seems to me that the there is a need, in an encyclopaedia where people come looking for information on a topic, to have balanced information on that topic. That means in the case of RC having information about how it was founded and grew, how it works etc and what the therapeutic benefits are claimed to be. It also means having information about what the criticisms of RC are. (I'll say up for that I am a former active participant in the RC community but who left the group because of dissatisfaction with the way things were run and the intolerance of any criticisms of the group leaders). Can I suggest then that the people who have been removing the links to Liberate RC etc say what they would agree to have as links to site which carry criticisms of RC? Ian Smith 220.253.45.236 02:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually both this page and the Harvey Jackins page do already reference individual documents within that site where they are uncontested, eg, on the Dianetics origins of HJ, so it's not that I or other editors are opposed to the use of such material per se, just that the site as a whole contains a lot of very unsupported material and some highly slanderous material against living persons. So I think some thinking needs to be applied to using it. Part of this is a long, long background of the people who created that site trying to raise it on search engines and I think part of what's going on here is "sore loser" behaviour as they realise that these very informative and by no means pro-RC or pro-HJ pages now rank much higher on Google; at least partly because they give a more objective and less ranting approach. Basically what it boils down to is HJ got some people very pissed and for a long time they have been throwing out a wide range of allegations, some quite well supported and others really just a hash of random accusations, growing more and more extreme and slightly ludicrous over time. In the meantime, RC has become slightly more mainstream, going to NGO conferences and the like, and this also pisses them off. So they bring the battle to Wikipedia. Not that these pages shouldn't reflect that and they do, but the Harvey Jackins page is the main place for detailed discussion of the various allegations against him. Tim Jackins is also accused of all sorts of stuff on the site being argued over here, and as he's a living person and well defended by a competent lawyer I suggest WP goes careful! Sarah Williams 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Relations between CCI and RC

Mark, please quote your evidence for your assertions that (a) The history of co-counselling including its origins in RC are not taught on most CCI fundamentals classes and (b) that only Some CCI co-counsellors have a benevolent view toward RC.John Talbut 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please quote yours for the assertion that On the whole the majority of CCI co-counsellors have a benevolent view toward RC, regarding it as as a different, alternative approach to co-counselling. Membership of RC is not a bar to membership of CCI and a few people manage to do both despite the RC ban. I think we're in the realm of opinion here! My source is more than 30 years experience of the British psychotherapy field, numerous conversations and communications with people in both RC and CCI and about 5000 RC meetings (at a guess!). What's yours? MarkThomas 10:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not just my opinion. References: Richard and Rose's manual, which can be viewed at [4] and is referred to in the article, liberally acknowledges Harvey's contribution. In the paper copy there is a chapter detailing the evolution of RC and the development of CCI from it. Other manuals that can be viewed on the same web site have similar information about the history of co-counselling. Indeed, even John Heron's original manual (viewable on the same web site) includes this. See also CCI web sites, [5] is John Heron's version of the story, [6] (OK, the first bit was written by me) and in the list of web sites at [7] you may note that Re-evaluation Counselling comes first!

As regards involvement, I guess that my attendance at RC activities would number only a 100 or so, but my attendance at CCI events runs into thousands, including attendance at every European CCI gathering in the past 20 years. As an example of attitudes within CCI, at the gathering in Hungary this Summer there was a discussion in the business meeting about our relationship with RC. None of the comments were critical of RC, if anything we were critical of ourselves for not being more positive towards RC! I have been active in CCI and RC at the same time (and my RC teacher and others in RC knew this) and I know a few other people who have been active in both.

Is this enough? Can we revert to my version?John Talbut 11:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for the statement 'RC specifically bans membership to people who have participated in CCI groups actively' come from? I have been involved on and off in RC for 30 years, and am currently active and leading in England - I have never heard this nor is it included in the published RC guidelines. I have an RC counsellor who has been involved with CCI in the past - I have never heard any objections to that. The only pre-requisite I know of is that it is part of the RC contract that what is practiced as counsellor is consistent with RC guidelines. TheWoosh (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Safety paragraph

Mark, could you explain why you think your additions to the paragraph starting "Safety" in the general description section are appropriate? The information is specific to RC and is duplicated in the RC section, which, I think, is where it belongs.John Talbut 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah and Liberal/Views, would you please contribute to this discussion rather than simply restoring the paragraph. The general description section has been kept as an introduction that is not specific to any form of co-counselling. The paragraph you keep reinserting is specific to RC. Also the RC "no socialising" rule is covered in the RC section so the re-inserted paragraph merely duplicates this. If you think there is anything not clear about this in the RC section then please amend it there.John Talbut 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

I noticed that this article was assessed on the WikiProject Psychology template. I don't think that I agree with how the article was assessed, so I wanted to discuss the reasons for its assessment. This article has not gone through a GA review or any other peer review. It is well-written but it has very few in-line references. I don't think that it meets the criteria of a Good Article, let alone an A-class article. I think that it deserves a B-class quality assessment at most. As for importance, this doesn't seem like an especially well-known or recognized type of therapy in the field of psychology, especially in comparison to other psychology articles, so I would probabably rate it no higher than Mid-importance. Any comments? —Cswrye 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support your assessment. This article may be overrated in relation to the other psychology assessments. Rfrisbie^talk 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is mistakenly being assessed as part of Psychology, whereas co-counselling in general (and particularly Re-evaluation Counseling) are more part of radical psychotherapy and many practitioners are anti-psychiatry in particular and anti-mainstream psychology in general. Therefore in the Wikipedia context, this is a bit like car ferry operators judging the quality of road tunnels, at least, it would look that way to RC'ers and (some) general co-counsellors. Therefore the issue is really if it should be categorised in that way. If it is, then it perhaps could be "assessed" by people more from a psychotherapy or humanistic psychology background rather than "mainstream" "scientific" psychology, as people in the latter camps I feel are fairly certain to take a jaundiced view of it. I have had separate discussions with Cswrye about this, anticipating there would be some controversy. MarkThomas 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Article quality ratings are based in wikistandards, which are neutral on pro-anti-anything perspectives. If this is A-quality, then ask for a peer review to get it ready for a featured article nomination. Importance should be based on clearly defined perspectives. Obviously, importance will vary based on those perspectives. If you all come to some resolution on that, it's fine with me. Rfrisbie^talk 17:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The importance assessment is frequently misunderstood. Some WikiProjects use the term "priority" rather than "importance", but for practical purposes, they mean the same thing. Importance in this context refers to whether or not the average person would expect to find this topic in an encyclopedia of psychology, or in other terms, how important is this topic to gaining an understanding of psychology. A lower importance assessment doesn't mean that an article isn't important, only that it is less fundamental to the field of psychology as other articles. You can see a definition of the term at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic and the current version of the WikiProject Psychology assessment scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment. —Cswrye 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

With regard to importance, a key question is whether psychotherapy, and hence personal development generally, comes under the scope of psychology which is, strictly, only the study of human personality not the practice of trying to change it. Since Wikipedia follows the common practice of blurring this distinction the argument that co-counselling is part of radical psychotherapy becomes an argument for its inclusion. In the context of psychotherapy being included under psychology I would argue that co-counselling is highly important. It is a mainstream approach within humanistic psychology (see therapeutic context above) while being importantly different from any other approach. It is widely practised (I would guess, for instance, that there are a good deal more people who have practised co-counselling that have practised or been clients of gestalt therapy). I think users of Wikipedia would expect to find an article on co-counselling included. As to quality, I have added some in-line links and I would welcome specific suggestions for other improvements.John Talbut 08:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The best way to work on the quality is to have a peer review. The people there know a lot more about improving articles than I do. I'll be willing to set one up for you if you want me to. —Cswrye 14:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have set up a peer review, I hope I have done it correctly.John Talbut 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but now that the peer review has been archived, I wanted to discuss the next step of the assessment. It's pretty clear from the review that this article is not at good article status, although I think that it might be pretty close. I'm going to recommend that the quality be stepped down to B, at least until it passes a good article review. For the importance, I again want to point out that this is a relative assessment, not just relative to other forms of therapy, but also to all psychology topics. The high-importance rating is generally reserved for broad, general areas of psychology, such as the branches of psychology and major psychological theories. There are virtually no therapies listed as high-importance, and the few that are are really "umbrella" topics that describe types of therapies. Because of this, I'm going to recommend that the importance be changed to Mid. —Cswrye 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the assessment, but feel free to continue with the discussion. If there is additional support for a different assessment, it should be changed to reflect that. —Cswrye 21:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article improvement

Mark, Sarah, other RC people: please could you add citations where noted that are about RC? John Talbut 07:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I dispute-sectioned the piece on RC/CCI - facts are disputed as a whole, and whilst these matters are well-known within some sections of RC and CCI, seeking cites is going to be difficult and the spray-paint approach to cite tags was counter to reading flow. MarkThomas 22:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC) I agree.

Connection with the concept of a critical friend

Was looking at this and at Critical friend and thinking that there might be enough similarity to make it worth adding as a "see also" (and perhaps the reverse link as well. I'd see it as helping get other perspectives from similar, but formally unconnected, topics. Or would a link be better under List of counseling topics ? Asimong (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Co-counseling is the preferred spelling, by @ 53 to 22

Google results Jan. 21, 2013: Co-counseling -- About 53,100,000 results (0.17 seconds)" Co-counselling -- About 22,500,000 results (0.28 seconds)"

The article should be titled and read:

"Co-counseling (spelled co-counselling in British English)"

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Co-counselling/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is an authoritative overview of co-counselling with contributions agreed by active participants in both the main networks of co-counsellors. As a widely practised peer approach it is a highly imprtant contribution to psychotherapy.

Last edited at 15:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 11:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Co-counselling. 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/20060204155459/http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/articles/terra/ to http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/articles/terra/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peerlisteners.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 22:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Co-counselling. 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/20110523080842/http://www.freewebs.com/peerlistening/index.htm to http://www.freewebs.com/peerlistening/index.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 19:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Citations or support for Theoretical framework and assumptions section

I think there needs to be some more support for the theoretical framework for this technique. Particularly, the second paragraph makes a lot of assumptions and statements that are not backed up with any external sources. I know this is a fraught topic, but this section reads really biased in favor of co-counseling without evidence of the claims. (Laying my own background cards on the table, I have a PhD in psychology; I'm not affiliated with RC.) Clytemnestra42 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please be more precise about what unreferenced assumptions you are referring to. The first paragraph is referenced and the second paragraph has a link to the Wikipedia article on transference. John Talbut (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Co-Counselling International

John Talbut, the Co-Counselling International section has zero inline citations and is made up almost entirely of WP:OR. There is nowhere near enough coverage in secondary sources (in fact, there is almost none) for this much information. Too much weight is given to this section of the article. It is also not written in an encyclopedic tone. Since you were obviously an employee of this organization and are actively editing the article — a form of paid editing — you must disclose your COI on this talk page. Please do not readd the content without addressing these issues. Thanks, C F A 💬 03:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am obviously not an employee of Co-Counselling international which is a network of people and groups who qualify as CCI co-counsellors and does not employ anyone. I am a volunteer and receive no money for what I do. I am not anonymous and my biography is publicly available. And, yes, I have done a lot for the network, and I am far from the only one. Clearly the inline reference (8) is adequate, the remainder of the section is to give information about how CCI differs from RC, as described in the previous section. John Talbut (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This is still a conflict of interest that has to be appropriately disclosed. Please see the guidelines for COI editing:

• you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
• you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{edit COI}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer-reviewed;
• you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
• you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;
• you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.
• If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.

The inline reference you are referring to only covers the first paragraph, which is still there. The first paragraph is fine because it is sourced appropriately and has been given due weight. It is also a primary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY:

1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
6. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

The material that was removed is entirely original research and synthesis based on COI editors' personal experiences and primary sources. If you want to write a section about how CCI differs from something else, then you have to base it on a secondary source that explicitly states how it differs from the other thing. Otherwise, you are using your own interpretation and it is original research. Please also read the policy on due weight. This organization has received almost no independent coverage, so a 6-paragraph section is very unnecessary and exists solely to promote the organization. A small paragraph that briefly covers the organization is much more appropriate. You are clearly unaware of how much your COI has influenced your editing. I recommend also reading WP:OWN.

Please do not re-add the content without addressing the issues. I will bring this up at the COI noticeboard if you continue reverting without discussion or addressing the issues. C F A 💬 17:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)