Talk:Process-oriented psychology

Process-Oriented Psychology & Process Psychology?

It is my understanding that there are two schools of psychology with similar names, "Process-Oriented Psychology" developed by the Mindels which is derived from Jungian Psychology and "Process Psychology" which is founded on Whitehead's Process Philosophy. I don't have the expertise to contribute an entry but wish to acknowledge the distinction. LAWinans (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

why all the BOLDING in this article? This seems like shouting, and not appropriate to articles here. Clocke (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - please be bold, and fix it. Ben MacDui 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Arnold Mindell or one of his followers/students have created this entire page. It gives the false impression that this subject is other than entirely the self-published and self-promoted product of one man. He also has a long term and close association with the Findhorn Foundation which has been the subject of a number of controversies and criticisms. Findhorn is an organization of 126 centers with a vision and reputation for doing some impressive things in the world. They are a holistic center and leader in many areas. Any organization of this size will have controversies, this is a weak point.Snowsearch (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Could there be an added controversies and criticisms section? See for example: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-285-dream_academy.html

Also Process oriented psychology is probably not referred to using the full title in the US because Arnold Mindell is not licensed in Oregon so it wouldn't be lawful to use that title or description there because it includes "psychology" which is a restricted title.

Audegon (one of the references) is involved in RSPOPUK, one of Mindell's organisations.

NotMindell (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is usuful context for strangers of world work. Greenstart (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutral editing policy reminder

Due to the recent POV editing I will be keeping a close eye on this article to ensure that it conforms to the NPOV and related policies. Afterwriting (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Jim Stillwell and I am the Director of Administration of the Process Work Institute (PWI) located in Portland Oregon. Here at PWI we teach Process Oriented Psychology and we are mentioned in this article. I obviously have a conflict of interst and will not be editing the article directly. I want to ensure that the article contains neutral, objective facts and reliable sources about the Institute and Processwork. I appreciate recent efforts to expand this page, thanks!, but I have noticed some recent editing by 64.20.12.142 that is not accurate. There seems to be some improper use of references here. The Office of Degree Authorization(ODA) did indeed investigate allegations but at no time has the organization been out of compliance with the ODA. In fact, the ODA authorizes our Masters program and we are fully supported by ODA. You may check the accuracy of this by visiting the ODA website where it lists approved schools in the state of Oregon: http://oregonstudentaid.gov/oda-degree-authorization-academic-programs-approved.aspx We have over 80 graduates working around the globe in this respected field of Psychology. The MA degress offered at PWI are in no way "useless". Can I ask that another editor please adjust this article to represent a balanced and up-to-date perspective. Jamesstillwell (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Jamesstillwell - I will look at the Controversy section for WP:NPOV issues. Depthdiver (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced and unreliably sourced material

As I commented at WP:BLPN, this article is based almost exclusively on Mindell himself. The few secondary sources apparently don't even support the material or they are tangential to the topic. A large amount of material is not sourced at all. All of this has been tagged for 1-2 years. Unless someone has a good reason - and I can't think of any - of letting this remain, I will stub the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The material is almost exclusively primary sourced and very dubious, as a result I have stubified it, if content is restored note that the Burden of duty is on you the restorer per WP:BURDEN. I think I could have tagged it with speedy deletion since it was unambiguously promotional. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

These issues now exist in the linked page 'Process Oriented Coma Work' Lierooreil (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I’m going to have a go at expanding this mind-body stub - looks like notability was unclear as it had all primary sources, also NPOV, NOR issues. Have done some work and found secondary sources (peer reviewed journal articles, newspaper pieces, secondary source books), and I think it meets our principles and will satisfy WP:BURDEN - I’m going to add a new lead and an ‘origins and reception’ section (including criticism) and see what other editors think. If that works out, I was thinking of maybe short sections on ‘core concepts’ and ‘applications’ - there are a few notable new ideas described by the secondary sources. Also wondering if it deserves a separate brief article for the founder as he is an author of 20plus books, multiple translations?? Depthdiver (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So, following up my comment above I’ve been researching and worked up this stub to address the clean up tags - I found and added multiple reliable secondary sources that I think establish notability and so it no longer relies on primary or self-published sources. It obviously needs work to move from a stub to a decent article but unless someone disagrees I’ll go ahead and remove the current issue tags, cause I think they’ve been addressed. Depthdiver (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That was quick - so quick as to suggest non-neutral editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicitatious (talk • contribs) 14:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. I find it difficult to believe that within hours of someone who has a vested interest posting to this talk page someone who is neutral could have had the time or inclination to reverse the stubbing of the page and remove all the tags. The issue remains that the page is promotional. It seems far too coincidental that someone should happen by on the exact same day and comprehensively restore the page making sure that every item of controversy is rebutted within the same sentence. It looks very much as if someone from the PWI has done it in collusion with the comments above, purely on the timing. Felicitatious (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Felicitatious thanks for weighing in on this article - Recently I’ve been the main editor working on it and welcome your input. I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying exactly but WP:AGF and I hope we can work together to improve the article. I responded to the complaint from user Jamesstillwell above because I thought he had a fair point. It was great someone created a controversy section but the original edit was badly written and poorly sourced. If you have issues with my edits, let’s discuss - I would love to collaborate on including reliable criticisms and getting a good encyclopaedic tone etc. Cheers Depthdiver (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The section about the controversies is biased because it mentions the issues while immediately countering them with misleading information. For example, in the controversy about the Process Work Institute, while it is technically true that the ODA has approved the degree, you neglect to mention two things, namely, that the degree remains unaccredited (and therefore cannot be used as a credential in many jobs and licensing or even as an entry requirement for further study at a legitimate university) and that this nothing to address the other serious allegations or sexual exploitation of students, of bullying and breaches of psychotherapy ethics (breach of confidentiality and sexual exploitation). Your intervention was therefore misleading and I have added to it to make that clearer, since you obviously want to tell the whole truth. Felicitatious (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to point out that the complaint from James Stillwell that you mention is not a complaint from a user as much as from an interested party. This is their wikipedia advertising page and of course they want it to be favourable to their organisation to keep the money rolling in to their business. That conflict of interest has been openly acknowledged but a few people have objected and tried to clean up this blatantly promotional page before and those people do not have a direct financial interest in the success of the PWI and the other offshoot institutes but are ordinary wikipedia users concerned with the accuracy and proper use of wikipedia as an encyclopedia not an advertising hording. He doesn't have a fair point because they were investigated for serious complaints, they are not accredited and the degree is of very little value in terms of getting a job, using it as a professional credential or for further study so that was a fair criticism backed up by evidence. Adding that they remain 'approved' without mentioning that the degree is unaccredited and not legal to use in a range of situations is unbalanced and it is dishonest by implication because it suggests that the allegations were disproved when there is no evidence of this. Felicitatious (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have tagged a sentence in the first paragraph of the controversy section as citation needed. The last sentence is fallacious and should be removed. It reports that a newspaper contacted an organisation who confirmed to them that Mindell is 'known'. It did not say 'recognised' and there is no citation as to who Mindell is recognised by. 'Known' and 'recognised' are two very different things. He speaks 'internationally' at events run by his own organisation. This is therefore misleading and tends to exaggerate his notability. Felicitatious (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Just working through the article slowly. The second paragraph of the controversy section is also illogical. It attempts to answer the objection that Process Work is not academically recognised by giving the credentials of Mindell obtained elsewhere. Mindell does not have an accredited credential in Process Work because none exists. The PWI provides a degree that does not qualify the graduate for anything. This is not addressed by Mindell's qualification from Switzerland. As it is therefore an irrelevant consideration it should be removed. It is misleading in that it attempts to lend the subject of the article (Process Work) credibility by a false association with another person (Jung) and organisation (the C J Jung Institute). There is also no citation to back up the claim that Mindell is a graduate of the C J Jung Institute. I have added a citation needed tag. This sentence seems to be relying on a secondhand report from the newspaper that someone told them that Mindell was qualified. I could not find any reference to the C J Jung Institute in this newspaper report, only that the person reported said that Mindell had been interviewed on the radio so once again, the citation doesn't support the sentence it's attached to. It also fails to mention that the person who spoke to the newspaper said they were not familiar with Mindell's work. I will add that for you.Felicitatious (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong article but I cannot find the reference to Mindell's qualifications. Is it this:

Born in Schenectady, N.Y., in 1940, Arnold Mindell had earned three degrees by the age of 24, including a master's degree in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He moved from MIT to Switzerland, where he studied at the C.G. Jung Institute in Kusnacht, receiving his analyst's diploma in 1970 and continuing on at the institute as a training analyst.

Unfortunately this is unsourced, but a couple of points: again this does not change the fact that Process Work is not academically recognised and that the degree from the PWI is unaccredited. Secondly, Mindell's qualifications are a separate issue but really, so what if he has three degrees? I have three degrees. Lots of people do. It doesn't add any credence to the subject of Process Work and so I really don't know why it is included in the controversy section and I propose to remove it as irrelevant. Felicitatious (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have changed the sentence which brings up 'a complaint about educational ethics' because this is misleading. There were multiple complaints ranging in seriousness so I have added a bit more detail here for you because I'm sure you don't want to minimise such serious issues. The article quotes the investigator confirming that the allegations were substantially correct and include questions about professional conduct in relationships with students so I think that describing it under the umbrella of educational ethics is unsuitable. It's as though the criticism has been removed from the criticism section so I have put it back. I think if you want to defend the PWI you need to produce the documents relating to the investigation and publish those. Perhaps the person above who works there will be willing to publish these if they exonerate the PWI? Felicitatious (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Felicitatious (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again,

I've added a further brief paragraph to the controversy section from a mind control expert which criticises Process Oriented Psychology as part of the 'mind business'. I still feel that the whole tone of this article remains promotional and one sided and that there should be more balance throughout, not just in a criticism section and that this article is essentially advertising for a commercial outfit.

Felicitatious (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Felicitatious And felicitations for the new year :-) Great to have a companion here - it has been a little quiet. Definitely good to deepen the criticism section - I’ve been looking for stuff too (actually found a rigorous critique of dreambody, but am not sure it is useable in Wikipedia as it is self-published. It is good academic quality though - maybe you could review it and we can discuss http://www.academia.edu/5050338/Review_of_Arnold_Mindells_Dreambody).

Thanks for your comments and edits, much to appreciate but also some things to dispute.

I definitely have concerns with the new source you introduced. It is a very poor article and I’m not sure it even really qualifies under WP: RS - it is an interview that is verging on incoherence - perhaps you understand what “they try to program conversion of recognition using recognition abnormality” means - but I am struggling and the rest of the interview is equally opaque. The quoted reference to process oriented psychology shows none of the signs I’d expect from quality scholarship. Checking out the author turns out he is renowned for some pretty interesting claims that look a lot like the commercial exploitation he criticises … pot calling the kettle black?? http://skepticdetective.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/bigger-breasts-are-not-this-easyi/ Anyway, regardless, I do see there might be an argument for citing it as a viewpoint on process oriented psychology but it does need to be appropriately used and not given Undue Weight. It’s important that we are careful about WP:NPOV - check out WP:RSUW. I think more appropriate is a single sentence summary. If the claim of PW as a technique of ‘mind control’ were significant then I would expect it to appear elsewhere in the literature but so far as I can see, it does not. I also note that in your quoting you omit the sentence ‘Those programs are not substantively dangerous’ in favour of an opposite meaning phrase from the next paragraph - using elision to make it appear as if it is one sentence and changing the meaning. This should be avoided, no?

Also I definitely disagree with your claim about ‘fallacious’ statements - the material you removed was referenced accurately as reported and should therefore be returned to the article. If you want to argue that the newspaper reports are not a Reliable Source, then we cannot use them to represent the controversy. In the absence of better sources, I think these are reasonable and we can assume that their facts are checked. Here is the newspaper text: 'Eugene Baker of Portland, head of the Oregon Psychological Association confirmed that Mindell's work is known internationally. Baker says he is not familar with Mindell's work, but knows that he has published books and has been interviewed on National Public Radio.' p.4A 'Ruggert and other city officials eventually learned that Mindell is an internationally known psychologist - not some off-the-wall nut.' p.4A Depthdiver (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, happy new year.

I do agree that the criticism section needs to be deepened. I still think that the rest of the article is very biased and is practically an advertisement for their company rather than an encyclopedia entry.

I will read the critique you mention.

The new source I brought in appears poorly written because it’s in translation and I think that you need to allow that therefore the syntax may not be perfect. The person being interviewed is notable and has a reputable academic background. I don’t think it’s up to us to agree or disagree with it though because Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. It's a translated transcript of an oral interview and not an academic paper. The importance of it is that it’s one of the very few references to Process Oriented Psychology in academic circles rather than via Mindell’s organisations where the vast majority of writing on Process Oriented Psychology is found. The pot-calling-kettle-black comment is misplaced because the source I added is from an international academic and not from an organisation that award their own unaccredited degrees. I have found some information about this organisation's branch in the UK so I will try to find time to add that. I'm refering to this article as about an organisation because I think as it stands the article is misleading on that question. I think it needs to be spelled out clearly in the first paragraph that this is a business that has developed this theory internally and that side needs to be stressed much more in this article for balance. The fact is that this is overwhelmingly one organisation or group of associated organisations and it will probably be possible to track the different links and accounts and to include those here to support that and that shows people that it's not a general theory within psychology so much as a niche business idea, which they need to know so as not to be mislead.

Returning to the source I added, I think if you have such high standards about what is considered reliable then most of this article wouldn’t qualify. I agree that it is a viewpoint on Process Oriented Psychology and should be there for that reason and I also think it’s important because it’s from someone who has been involved in the aftermath of the cult that poisoned people with sarin gas on an underground system, which is a notable event covered elsewhere on Wikipedia so some links can go in there. I'll try to do that now. The key point is that this is an international expert on mind control and cults talking about Process Oriented Psychology in the same breath as other mind control systems and applying some of that knowledge to categorise and place Process Oriented Psychology in relation to other ideas and systems and to contextualise it from an independent point of view and for that reason I think it’s a valuable addition. Maybe it needs further exploration and supporting with some other sources as well and perhaps then some of that information can then be included outside of the controversy section, but for now I think it’s fair to include it within the controversy section without further support, especially as it’s still more notable and reputable than most of the rest of the article’s sources which are close to self-published in the main.

The problem with talking about what else appears in ‘the literature’ is that most of ‘the literature’ is generated by the PWI or it’s offshoots and graduates and students, plus the virtually self-published books. As far as my editing of the sentence I included, I retained the overall meaning of the article which is about how these programs are dangerous, but without adding a confusing qualification that could be misleading outside of the context of the whole interview. It doesn’t change the meaning because the meaning of the whole is that these programmes are a form of mind control and are dangerous to varying degrees in relation to each other. Not, in relation to other non-coercive practices. So that sentence should stay as it is. I do wonder why you want to erase any criticism - in the criticism section. I still have strong doubts as to the neutrality of your editing for that reason and, as I said before, it seems very coincidental that you happened along immediately after the page was restored after someone else had stubbed it following years of various people tagging it as promotional. Leaving that aside though, my argument about the fallaciousness of your defence of Process Oriented Psychology against the newspaper reports of their disreputable and abusive behaviour is not that the newspaper is unreliable but that the quotation you used does not support the argument because it’s indirect. The newspaper reports that someone else says they don’t know Mindell’s work but have heard that he’s been on the radio. I don’t read that as any kind of authoritative endorsement that proves that Mindell or Process Oriented Psychology is ‘recognised’ and it’s misleading to say that the source (the newspaper) says that they are internationally recognized (by who?), which implies some kind of credential or peer review or qualification or achievement (such as an award), when actually all they’re saying is they asked someone who should know (a recognised authority) and the said they were not familiar with this work but had heard that Mindell had appeared on the radio. This is not the same as being internationally recognised so the source does not support that argument. The sentence I removed was completely irrelevant and was a false appeal to authority (Mindell’s degrees) to defend the criticism that the PWI degree is unaccredited and worthless. The fact remains that the degree is unaccredited no matter how many degrees Mindell might have and no matter if he appeared on the radio (woo). That is an irrelevant appeal to authority to counter a completely valid and supported criticism which is that the degree is not very useful as it's unaccredited and therefore can't be used to get a lot of jobs or practice as a psychologist. Both the newspaper sources about Mindell’s reputation are in any case second hand, all the article says is that they spoke to someone who said they'd heard of him. If anything it sounds like they are covering themselves in case of libel action which newspapers always do. It doesn't invalidate the criticism or diminish it in any way.

I suggest therefore that if you want to improve this article the focus needs to be less on trying to counter any criticism in the criticism section but instead on the rest of the article which remains promotional and one-sided. I would like to go through the rest with a fine tooth comb and check how many of those references come from PWI graduates. Felicitatious (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Felicitatious - woah - feeling a little under attack here. Can you steady up a little. You have a strong negative view on this topic and it is a little upsetting cause I’d done quite a lot of work on it :-( Not to be precious about it - Wikipedia belongs to everyone, but just saying, please be friendly and respectful of my efforts.

I found this page as a stub with a just a sentence or two, and a sad page history - obviously created by editors not familiar with Wikipedia. I’ve done a bunch of work to bring it up to what I hope is a better standard at least to the best of my ability and capacities. I hope you and others can build and refine it. I found well over the three reliable independent sources with significant coverage that we use as a rule of thumb for notability. I think the article has its place in providing an encyclopaedic picture of modern alternative psychology/spiritualities. Actually IMHO I think that the founder also should have a page, and if I can, I’ll try to get to that at some point.

The thing is, I think I’m feeling attacked because you clearly have a very strong negative opinion about the article topic - and you proposed it for deletion recently. I respect your right to your viewpoint and I’m sorry if I misjudged your mind-control source - but you have to admit the language is very difficult to follow, and the way in which it refers to our topic is very flippant for such a strong accusation. Anyone can cast accusations around - but I would hope a serious academic would take the time to make an engaged and grounded case. And thanks for your further explanation but I still feel your elision distorts the quotation in such a way to advance a negative viewpoint on the topic and this is to be avoided for the integrity of wikipedia.

About the ethics complaint stuff - you obviously feel passionate about this and seem to be very focused on that school PWI and it’s accreditation status etc. I can leave it be if you want to quote in detail - the ethics controversy I think it is worth representing for sure - but I didn’t think all that detail was relevant, as again like the mind-control it seems an anomaly to me - if those claims were held up, I don’t see how the school is still running and authorised ten years later - so I’m concerned about giving it Undue Weight. The way I see it, the article is about process oriented psychology in general, which is a theory and practice - not about any particular school - but maybe you want to create a special section about schools and accreditation? I do remember that one of the newspaper sources from the UK mentioned the accrediting body in that country - so that could be mentioned. Perhaps there is more out there.

Finally, I am sorry but I really don’t understand your point about it being a business - you are saying that as if that were an important criticism and I don’t get what you mean. It isn’t the impression I get from the sources - it seems pretty clearly to be an alternative psychology/philosophy theory and practice. But I mean most things in today’s world operate in the market. I assume process oriented psychology practitioners provide services … isn’t that just normal? Also I would assume that people who graduated from one of the schools would publish about the topic - isn’t that also normal? These references shouldn’t be the basis of demonstrating notability for sure, but if they publish in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal or if they complete a doctoral dissertation, then this work is exposed to the highest level of academic scrutiny and it might well be worthy of inclusion as a source. To be judged on a case by case basis I would assume. Anyway the literature I found is definitely beyond these kind of sources at least from what I can judge. Depthdiver (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't have a negative view on this topic, other than I don't think it's encyclopaedia material for all the reasons I and others have stated and problems of unreliable and self-serving sources remain, but I hope those can be fixed by removing the non-encyclopedia worthy material and adding more independent sources, to the extent that they exist. There is no need to take it personally. In my opinion the page was better stubbed and would be better deleted, as you know, and I formed that opinion before you decided to restore the page so it's nothing personal. The idea of giving Mindell a page is questionable in my opinion and if there were a Mindell page I would argue for it to be merged with this page. I think you hit the nail on the head though referring to psychology/spiritualities because this page as it stands is within the scope of Psychology on Wikipedia. Maybe it should be moved to the Sprirituality project? When you Felicitatious refer to others, who are you referring to? I read the entire history and you seem to be able to know what others have criticize in the past that is not in the talk history, suggesting you have been attacking this article for a long time.Snowsearch (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The language in the source that I added discussing NLP and similar controversial subjects is difficult because it's in translation. I don't see it as making "an accusation" however, because this is an international expert in cults talking about different forms of mind control, which is his speciality. Criticism surrounding this subject and how it's viewed in different fields needs to be covered in a neutral encyclopaedia entry. The back story of controversy and serious complaints needs to be included in sufficient detail to balance the promotional nature of the rest of the article. I'm not advancing any particular viewpoint; I do think that there are still serious issues with this page that have been raised by others in the past. Where I disagree with you though is that the issue is confined to the PWI and its lack of accreditation because I disagree that the article is about Process Oriented Psychology "in general". There appears to be only one Process Oriented Psychology originating from this one source and organisation. We can't make any assumptions about the outcome of the investigation unless we could access the report or finding that was made so I don't think it's our place to assume that the fact that the PWI still exists means anything in relation to that, we can only convey the facts. The point about the business is really about the wikipedia policy on publishing self-serving material that is basically advertising. As for PhDs, you need to look at the source of the PhD and don't just take it on face value.

sorry, wasn't logged in... Felicitatious (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Felicitatious - thanks for your response and explanation. I feel pretty satisfied that the sources stack up on notability - actually a lot more than many other pages I’ve worked on. Anyway, let’s keep discussing and get some other opinions. I am still concerned about the way you deleted my edits and the selective omissions in the way you quote - I’m not reverting or direct editing because I’d like us to reach a consensus here. I like your idea about adding the spirituality project - a few sources put it in that category and a recent book of Mindell’s was ‘User’s guide to connecting with the mind of god’ so that seems a place it belongs - I’ll check out how to do that. Am I understanding you that the psychology category bothers you? But it’s definitely in that category from what I can see - it developed from Jungian analysis - and Grof called Mindell a pioneer in transpersonal psychology. On the merge - I am fine with the idea about merging the coma article - I checked it out - it’s a bit of a mess and I agree the sources probably don’t support a standalone article on process oriented coma work as such. I've already mentioned the coma work in this article cause the ideas inspired a UK theatre production. There’s some interesting general stuff in the existing coma article though - a shame to lose it - maybe it could be renamed and converted to a stub on communication with people in comas more broadly. Depthdiver (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:alanrichardson140 seems that merging the coma page maybe useful I also see a need to separate Mindell from the this psychology page. This may help with the promotional concerns and issues of qualifications and licencing. Also process oriented psychology is taught as a psychotherapeutic modality and as per gestalt even process psychology both belong here.Alanrichardson140 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:alanrichardson140 thanks for joining the discussion about the merge and about the separate founder article.

And hi Felicitatious see my comments about the merge and I'm also waiting to hear back from you on the content dispute as per discussion above - we seem to be a little stuck and might need to bring in an uninvolved editor for a third opinion. What do you think? Depthdiver (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Process Oriented Coma Work be merged into Process Oriented Psychology.

The Process Oriented Coma Work page and the Process Oriented Psychology page both have similar issues relating to questions of non-notability, promotional material, unreliable sources and self-published sources. The Process Oriented Coma Work currently links from the Process Oriented Psychology page. There is duplication, shared sources and overlap in the two pages. The two pages are not sufficiently distinct to justify separate pages. The coma page is relatively short and can easily be moved into the slightly broader Process Oriented Psychology page without becoming unwieldy. It will help with the editing of both pages.

Felicitatious (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I think I’m going to take action on this merge since no one has objected over many months, and myself and another editor supported the proposal (see above). I just reviewed the Coma work page and found it largely comprised of speculative, unreferenced opinion either pro or against the technique and then some poorly linked studies that do not seem to be directly related. Once the non-encyclopaedic content is removed, I don’t really find anything worth including in this main article. Hope that isn’t too harsh – and certainly another editor may want salvage more. No doubt some more research could fill out more detail, but I will leave that for future editing. At this point, I think the existing Process oriented psychology article already has an adequate and fair representation of reliable sources on the topic of what is called Process oriented coma work. So, I'll boldly go ahead and do an "extreme" selective merge. Depthdiver (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

I raised concerns about this section [1] [2](see above) more than a month ago, and in the absence of a response, I’m going to boldly start addressing some of the issues to try and improve the encyclopaedic tone. Main thing I’m seeing is a set of edits that advance a POV which seeks to discredit the topic - this includes reverts of neutral presentation of the material, selective quoting, commentary without encyclopaedic tone, giving undue weight WP:UNDUE to marginal/questionable sources, and original research/speculation/ WP:SYN. Depthdiver (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced criticism

HI I'm new here. Reading through some things on Processwork which I have had some connection with. I'm concerned at the lack of balance in the criticism section. I came here to read about Process-oriented psychology and it is primarily about the Portland, Oregon group called Process Work Institute. Sounds very US focused. Process-oriented psychology has about 20 centers throughout the world, some accredited (Switzerland, Poland) and some not, and so the criticism section should be about Process-oriented psychology not a 1991 authorization of one of the many centers. The criticism section starts on talking about a planning permit in Yachats Oregon and sensationalized reference to the Bagwan Rajneesh. This has nothing to do with Process-oriented psychology. It was an "initial apprehension" from a very small town planning committee that had been burned by the Baghwan group but has nothing to do with the Process-oriented psychology group except timing that they came right after the Bagwhan had been there. I'm not really sure how this works and I suppose since I have attended some training with Process work people I am an insider and too close. But there is a sense of balance and fairness that seems really important in wikipedia and I hope someone will get to this. Snowsearch (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I decided to seek how many training centers there are in Process-oriented psychology. There are 26 international training centers, + affiliates. http://www.iapop.com/centers/

Thus to focus so exclusively on criticisms of one US training center seems factually inaccurate and out of balance. Again the article is about Process-oriented psychology, not a single US organization.Snowsearch (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that the criticism should cover a larger area, it is limited by verifiable sources. If the only references found are criticizing a center in the U.S., then that is the only criticism that will appear in the article. If you find additional verifiable sources containing criticism, then please feel free to add those in. Thanks! Greedo8 05:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC

Thank you Greedo8Snowsearch (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my name is James Stillwell and I am the Director of Administration of Process Work Institute in Portland Oregon. Thanks for raising these issues and I understand that we need verifiable sources. I want to contribute some facts from the public record. PWI is one of 27 organizations that teach Process-oriented psychology. A number of the international schools are regionally accredited. (For example, in the UK and in Switzerland) The original school was in Zurich, Switzerland. Arnold Mindell is not formally affiliated with any schools of process-oriented psychology and was not part of the administration or a member of the board of directors in 2001 during this complaint alleged against PWI. (The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization can confrim this statement) All schools are run independently of Dr. Mindell. One school in Poland is translated as the International School of Process Work in honor of Arnold Mindell but this school has no formal affiliation with Arnold Mindell.Jamesstillwell (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there User:Snowsearch and User:Greedo I’ve been working on this article. Yes, I can see your points about the problem with balance – I was concerned about some POV use of sources also (see above Talk section) and have done some copyediting to get an encyclopaedic tone. I also want the criticism section to be improved, it does seem to rely a bit too much on just two sensational newspaper articles – and I do see that both these sources are small local newspapers. Whereas to be fair process oriented psychology has been discussed in a range of peer reviewed journal articles and reputably published books, so really it does seem WP:Undue Weight to focus the criticism on those two newspaper articles, both more than decade old, and not include the other stuff. So I wonder if some restructuring would help – there are more substantive criticisms of the topic embedded in the sections above, so maybe this could be moved and consolidated into the criticism section? – I also pointed out above to another editor, another substantive academic criticism article I found, that we might use above http://www.academia.edu/5050338/Review_of_Arnold_Mindells_Dreambody – I’ve seen academia articles used elsewhere in Wikipedia - does anyone have any thoughts?

And thanks James Stillwell for bringing those facts, though we need reliable secondary sources. Hmmm, actually, I recall there is a mention of the UK school in one of the sources, I can hunt that down. Not sure where that goes - maybe there could be a section on the organisations that are associated with the topic. Depthdiver (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading through this the criticisms pointed out in this talk page by Felictitatious they are so similar to those in the Willamette Week article, as is the knowledge felictatious has about detailed subjects such as school authorization. If Felicitatious is the same user/student written about in the Willamette Week story then Felictatious you are writing about yourself as a original source and should state this or withdraw from the article. I have brought this article and requested help from the tea room and found some agreement the criticism section is not balanced. I also wonder if Felecitatious is the same use as user nonmindell? If so these are suggestive of unfair play. I hope others will look at this and alter edits they do not see as reasonable.Snowsearch (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)