Talk:Theophostic counseling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page looking for an expert! Looks like you deleted a lot of useful and fairly accurate information that someone familiar with the approach took time and effort to contribute from their own experience. The content deleted was not from any book or text about theophostic but was offering an honest explanation. The resulting page doesnt tell you anything, especially considering the vast range of really interesting stuff that theophostic touches on that you will not find elsewhere, I know I looked for years. As a potential 'expert' on TP I doubt if I would contribute, since I would not want my contribution to be slashed and burnt.

The text in the Theophostic page seemed to be merely advertising material for the TPM group, so I have deleted most of it. It needs to be re-written so that it contains substantiated material with references and sources. This is important because some people are of the view that TPM can be dangerous because of its treatment of memories as accurate recordings of historical events. While this may be sometimes be true, it is certainly not always the case. MatthewTStone 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Theophostic definitely does not assume memories as accurate recordings of historical events, so this is an unfair criticism. Indeed specific guidelines are provided in this matter, it values the individual's experience and perception of their experience as most important in leading the individual to understand and resolve their own issues. Theophostic sensibly acknowledges the that the 'therapist' is not typically in a position to verify any facts so making judgements as to the historical accuracy of events is specifically downplayed and considered untenable.

One very common scenario observed is that people may find that they are working through issues using allegorical caricatures of their experiences which serve to cover more issues over broader scope than would be included within single particular memory. This is particularly true of thematic trauma's, that do not have their roots in one off experiences. User:KeithHodges

It certainly appears that someone wrote this from their own experience. However, the place for such writing is in a blog, perhaps. The article, apart from some Biblical references, did not quote any sources. Nor did it present a neutral point of view, or cover any of the many alternative – i.e. highly critical – views of the Theophostic movement and its concepts. That is why I reduced the article down to the basics, so that it can be built upon. MatthewTStone 10:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect to categorize TPM as being part of the Inner Healing Movement, that movement has its roots in evangelical/charismatic christian denominations. Ed Smith is a Southern Baptist and does not have affiliation with the Inner Healing movement. The inner healing movements' published books and teachings are primarily annecdotal. TPM presents clear cause and effect principles which practicioners may apply.

TPM is completely non-directed, TPM does not dig up memories. The recipient is simply asked if they would be willing to allow their mind to connect to the place which is the source of their current distress.

This page really needs re-writing from scratch, but it will be very hard to do TPM justice. Would it be permissable to include a case study? User:KeithHodges

I agree that the page needs a re-write that includes all points of view. I'd say go ahead and include a case study, provided it has been published by a reasonably reliable source. Perhaps summarise it in the text of the article and then provide a link to the original document. MatthewTStone (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it shouldn't include all points of view. An article on Theophostic should be a data point an article on theophostic itself. Alternative points of view should be in separate articles, referencing and referenced from a main article on Theophostic, thats how wiki's work. Alternative points of view should not clutter articles on the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.139.181 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And a reliable source for the data point would be? Do you base your data on propaganda and promotional material released by the organisation? Or do you base it on material from its many critics? Theophostic is highly controversial, and other controversial WP articles generally include multiple points of view from both critics and proponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewTStone (talk • contribs) 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This page has again started to read like an advertisement. I have tagged it as unsourced, without removing anything for the moment. Severe cuts will need to be made however. MatthewTStone (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why make severe cuts when you have failed to collect any material as yet. Traditionally editing is done "after" material is written not before. I base my sources upon first hand experience, i.e. my own. Expecting published sources for every fact is unrealistic at this early stage since all of my own detailed notes are subject to client confidentiality. If you really want an expert, then I can contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.27.56 (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest merging this page with Inner Healing Movement. Both pages are lacking in reliable sources, and the material covered overlaps significantly. Ed Smith has not so far been considered notable enough to justify his own page on WP, and the basic principles behind TPM seem to go back to Agnes Sanford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewTStone (talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources, however in good old wikipedia tradition those who know get edited by those who don't. Finally we have a current page actually explains a bit about the real process. I could contribute volumes of information, but there is no point if some skeptic is just going to edit it away.

TPM is absolutely amazing, I have seen and documented explicitly over 500 healings using this approach. Every single session is effective, and every single mental health practitioner should be willing to crawl on cut glass to get the insights and success that Dr Ed Smith is demonstrating.

It has little relation to the inner healing movement, whose methods are almost entirely anecdotal. TPM in contrast is based upon specific insights and models as to how the mind works, and how Jesus works. User:Keith Hodges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.27.56 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed virtually all unsourced material from this page. Much as we may be unhappy with the way Wikipedia works, it is an encyclopedic resource. It is not a blog, a link farm, a guide to people's websites, a forum for personal experiences, or a place to put forward theories based on anecdotal evidence. Theophostic has been around for some years now, and really if it works, someone is going to have to do the hard slog of putting together a peer-reviewed research document. Even what is now left on the page is lacking in genuine sources, and perhaps the page should be deleted or merged as previously suggested. MatthewTStone (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of verifiable sources

I have recently searched through the online archives of news sources including the New York Times, the London Times, and the Sydney Morning Herald. I cannot find any reference at all to the word 'theophostic'. Neither recent or older articles bring up any kind of search result, and it appears not to have made the mainstream press. The only sources online apppear to be self-published articles and blogs either claiming Theophostic is miraculously beneficial or harmful/unscientific/unbiblical. A lot of the controversy seems to be whether it resembles/doesn't resemble recovered memory therapy, itself one of the most shameful and dishonest episodes in the history of psychology and psychotherapy. The only people claiming benefits for Theophostic are those practicing it. Where are the independent sources? Cutting through the jargon, there appears to be nothing about it that is significantly different to other aspects or practices of the Inner Healing Movement. Ed Smith is running a lucrative publishing empire, and WP should not be used as vehicle to help advance his commercial position. There also are indications that Theophostic and other types of Inner Healing practices are doing harm not just to some individuals, but also to extended families and social networks. MatthewTStone (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like OR to me. It does not appear to meet WP:NOTE standards in addition to WP:V standards. So, if no one can step forward with sources which are not self referential and notability which is external to the experience of the individual editors should the article be changed to a redirect page to Inner Healing Movement or does it need to be nominated for deletion? I would recommend changing to a redirect page. If there is verifiable content it can be included in the target page. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthew, I've spent some time this morning going back into this article's history. I think that you've done a great deal of work on it but in the end its not necessarily an encyclopedic subject. Since I am not a deletionist and am not one of the primary editors I'm not going to nominate it for deletion nor change it to a redirect page myself. But I just can't find any way that its sourcing meets minimum criteria for continuation as an article and I still have misapprehensions about its originality. See WP:DP for further information about deletion policies and the other articles I mentioned above as needed for verification of my rationale for my discussion here. Good luck in your work here.Trilobitealive (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could establish notability for Minister Ed Smith you might write an article about him and find sufficient references to support a section about theophostic ministry in his article? But you'd have to establish notability for him first. This is a difficult proposition for biographies of living people of local but not national prominence. For instance one might have had some difficulty establishing notability for an article on Barack Obama or Sarah Palin five years ago.Trilobitealive (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there is nothing particularly notable about either Ed Smith or Theophostic. There is a tendency amongst its advocates to use jargon to muddy the waters, when really it's just plain old regression wrapped up in quasi-religious clothing. Regression itself has been largely debunked and is mainly a therapeutic tool, as opposed to a guaranteed way to 'replay' real or accurate memories as some people believed years ago. On the religious side of things, it is true that Theophostic has been adopted outside of Baptist ministries and has in some cases been taken up by Catholic and Anglican parishes. However, I have never seen any published statements from senior figures in those denominations supporting it. Nor have I seen any independent Bible scholar come out in support of its Biblical nature. Ed Smith might be well-meaning, or he might be just a guy who is milking it while he can. I will wait awhile for any other editors to see whether anyone can make a case, but am inclined to merge it into the Christian Inner Healing Movement. MatthewTStone (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I now removed the last two self-published sources (1 for and 1 against) and added a reference to a critique of TPM written by a psychologist, David Entwistle. I have made the general language more neutral and deleted any paras written in the style of an advertisement or trying to 'sell' TPM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewTStone (talk • contribs) 07:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Much improved! It appears that you've answered both OR and verifiability questions and have proved it to be at least arguably notable. It is amazing what a dedicated editor with a few references can do to salvage otherwise flawed work. Though I agree with you that it would be more appropriate merged into a section of the inner healing movement article. Good luck and hope to run into you again!Trilobitealive (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's perhaps looking a bit too 'anti' at the moment so in the interests of balance, should have something from independent supporters, i.e. other than Ed Smith and his organisation. However, despite his apparent loads of cash, he hasn't seen fit to commission any independent research. One contender is this article in Christianity Today [[1]], which is enthusiastic but with a few caveats. Not sure if CT is a particularly reliable source though, what do you think? MatthewTStone (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing the overly negative tone, so I've added a few concise references to what Ed Smith actually teaches in his books (and video seminars). (I don't have an account yet, so I edited anonymously.) What I've added is not the "independent support" that you've requested, but it seems only fair that if Smith can be criticized as _teaching_ RMT, he can also be defended as actually _teaching_ something quite different. What some practitioners of TPM end up _doing_ is a significant but separate issue. I do believe that Christianity Today is a pretty reliable publication, though it doesn't bring a lot of academic expertise in psychology. Referencing the article was good, and perhaps quoting one of these sections would be good too:

>> This approach differs from a more directive technique known as "healing of memories." In a common healing-of-memories encounter, the client may be asked to "picture Jesus" or "imagine Jesus speaking." Smith adamantly rejects these methods: "If someone is doing guided imagery, visualization, or any similar technique, they are not doing Theophostic. They may call it that, but it's not Theophostic."

>> "Some people are overly enthusiastic about Theophostic," Garzon says. "Some people think it is of the devil. The truth is probably somewhere in between."

Thanks, -Jon C

I think those are good additions, though independent research is still sorely lacking on TPM. And the problem remains of what people are talking about when they refer to TPM. It's very similar to what was happening in the secular field with practitioners of recovered memory therapy. (Many not only denied practicing it, some even claimed there was no such thing.) Although Smith may be quite sincere, it is very hard to establish precisely what is happening behind the closed doors of people practicing TPM out in the real world. MatthewTStone (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was prepared to contribute to this article, on the basis that I have extensive experience of this method. I have seen this method heal phobias, and vertigo in less than 10 seconds. I work full time with sufferers of DID and they are making a full recovery. There is no point in anyone who knows about TPM contributing to this article DONT BOTHER TRYING YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME. The self appointed editor has no interest in collecting data, but simply removes anything posted. For goodness sake, you cant put a link to the website of the founder of TPM without it being considered biased. Point of order this page is supposed to be about TPM, NOT inner Healing, and it would be useful if the needs of people who can be helped by TPM would be considered. TPM IS THE ONLY KNOWN CURE for all the mental conditions, that conventional people say are incurable. User:Keith Hodges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.25.194 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read [[2]]. Your own personal experience[[3]], no matter how persuasive, is considered 'Original Research'[[4]].The article in its current form may be far from perfect, but all the sources are a) Christian, b) Reasonably independent of the Theophostic organization, and c) published in peer-reviewed publications, e.g. Fernando Garzon, a Christian academic and arguably a supporter of Theophostic; David Entwistle, a Christian academic and a critic; Jan Fletcher a Christian journalist currently working as a missionary in the Middle East; and Maier/Monroe, both Christians who have been critical of TPM's theology. If you have reliable, sourced data to add to these people's work, I suggest you add it. MatthewTStone (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:MatthewTStone about the original research issue but also would like to point out that verifiability means verifiable by second party sources. No one, not even Jimmy Wales is allowed to contribute material about themselves.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope that my edits from today (5/31/09) will help some of the verifiability issues. I've added some text and linked it to 3 links to the www.religioustolerance.org site. If one follows the links they will find an abundance of information. I don't have time to sort through the entire site and it's references today but it appears to be more informative than magazine articles and the like. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The current status of the page starts with negative opinions, with very fluffy and dismissive language. This is not NPOV. NPOV should attempt to make an accurate description of the actual topic first and then put the controversies later. I have attempted to make that accurate description in the past. The actual topic descriptions will be found in the original sources of the author, not in articles by critics. However editors here who do not know anything about the real subject matter, dismiss using any legitimate sources as "biased". Would there be room for an actual case study? Or do I have to publish the case study in a book first? User:Keith Hodges

The Lede is negative, fluffy and dismissive? It describes who developed it, and the specific claims made right up front in the article. The sources throughout the article are mostly independent of the TPM organisation and reflect both pro (Garzon) and con (Entwistle, Fletcher, Maier/Monroe). Very few independent, credible sources are coming out in favour of TPM, and the article reflects this. Any case study would have to be published in an independent publication before being acceptable as a reference. MatthewTStone (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in both Inner Healing and Theophostics and find them vastly different. I do not believe they should be merged! They are 2 completely different subjects.LindeeLind (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)LindeeLind