This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I removed this from the page:
pending verification from a reliable source on Hopi (and Chinese). Ron Kurtz may claim it means this in Hopi, but I see no reason to believe him. -- Alivemajor 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The artcile badly lacks inline refs and footnotes from independent, reliable sources. So far the article is still a fair game for AfD, since it is based solely on the author's Mukadderat 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I love the line in this article how Hakomi is extremely effective therapy, this is nothing more than a promotional. Where is the critique? I believe Hakomi therapy is nothing more than new age nonsense. And a lot of professionals agree. Comparing Hakomi to established psychotherapy is like comparing ancient herbal remedies to modern medicine. One is based on a quasi-religious new age eastern bias and the other is based on hard verifiable science. This article should be deleted from Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 ( talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this page should be removed. It is simply self promotion. None of the articles have demonstrated independent analysis to prove that it works at all. Having been a victim of this technique by one of the founders I ‘m appalled that it is given legitimacy in Wikipedia. Notanon ( talk) 18:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard the word organicity before [ [1]], and I don't know what is meant by mutability or some of the other terms in the context of Hakomi. If the principles are to be listed in the article, they need to be defined. The Hakomi website does offer a definition of these. -- Karinpower ( talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oddly, this article has a number of overlapping structures for its references. "Notes" (with inline citations), "References" (without inline citations), and extensive "Further Reading" (with over 20 entries) divided into subsections by type. Let's work toward having two sections: "References" with inline citations, and "Further Reading" for items that aren't quality sources for citing but still worth including. An example of "Further Reading" would be a primary source (like a book written by a Hakomi practitioner) which isn't an objective reference for the article but does an exemplary job of furthering understanding for a motivated reader. To me, "Further Reading" would ideally have about a half dozen well-curated selections, not an exhaustive list of everything that has been published. I will contact the Hakomi organization and ask for their advice on what to include or cut; I doubt anyone except them will be willing to read them all to evaluate. If others are willing to look through the sources to see what can be used for a citation, that would be very helpful.-- Karinpower ( talk) 21:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the peacock issues have been addressed; the article does not read to me as self promotional. Unless there is any objection, I'd like to remove it. Callunatore ( talk) 08:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I removed this from the page:
pending verification from a reliable source on Hopi (and Chinese). Ron Kurtz may claim it means this in Hopi, but I see no reason to believe him. -- Alivemajor 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The artcile badly lacks inline refs and footnotes from independent, reliable sources. So far the article is still a fair game for AfD, since it is based solely on the author's Mukadderat 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I love the line in this article how Hakomi is extremely effective therapy, this is nothing more than a promotional. Where is the critique? I believe Hakomi therapy is nothing more than new age nonsense. And a lot of professionals agree. Comparing Hakomi to established psychotherapy is like comparing ancient herbal remedies to modern medicine. One is based on a quasi-religious new age eastern bias and the other is based on hard verifiable science. This article should be deleted from Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 ( talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this page should be removed. It is simply self promotion. None of the articles have demonstrated independent analysis to prove that it works at all. Having been a victim of this technique by one of the founders I ‘m appalled that it is given legitimacy in Wikipedia. Notanon ( talk) 18:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard the word organicity before [ [1]], and I don't know what is meant by mutability or some of the other terms in the context of Hakomi. If the principles are to be listed in the article, they need to be defined. The Hakomi website does offer a definition of these. -- Karinpower ( talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oddly, this article has a number of overlapping structures for its references. "Notes" (with inline citations), "References" (without inline citations), and extensive "Further Reading" (with over 20 entries) divided into subsections by type. Let's work toward having two sections: "References" with inline citations, and "Further Reading" for items that aren't quality sources for citing but still worth including. An example of "Further Reading" would be a primary source (like a book written by a Hakomi practitioner) which isn't an objective reference for the article but does an exemplary job of furthering understanding for a motivated reader. To me, "Further Reading" would ideally have about a half dozen well-curated selections, not an exhaustive list of everything that has been published. I will contact the Hakomi organization and ask for their advice on what to include or cut; I doubt anyone except them will be willing to read them all to evaluate. If others are willing to look through the sources to see what can be used for a citation, that would be very helpful.-- Karinpower ( talk) 21:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the peacock issues have been addressed; the article does not read to me as self promotional. Unless there is any objection, I'd like to remove it. Callunatore ( talk) 08:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)