Editing Talk:Co-counselling (section)

== 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. [[User:Lumos3|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. [[User:MarkThomas|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 the site contains many historical documents, and a timeline of the organisatons develpment including policy developments;a range of papers, articles, links from different perspectives on the theory and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]])
<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.

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. [[User:Sarah Williams|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 [[User:220.253.45.236|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! [[User:Sarah Williams|Sarah Williams]] 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)