Talk:Holotropic Breathwork/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Merging pages 2 Reversion to NPOV criticism 3 Appropriateness of the term 'controversial' in relation to HB 4 Conflict of Interest 5 Kevin Shepherd reference 6 Academic citations of KRD Shepherd 7 Experiment vs experience 8 Further discussion of criticism section 9 Criticism section too long 10 Comment

Merging pages

This page is almost a direct copy of the About Page on the external link given... what is the license on the source work?

I can see only a superficial resemblence. The article will use the same jargon words and so appear similar.

I agree to he merger of the 2 wikipedia articles Lumos3 15:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have merged the page Holotropic into this page. Take note that there is some discussion on the other page's Talk page that might be of interest. I have also tried to reformulate some of the text so that it won't be seen as making unreferenced claims__meco 10:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversion to NPOV criticism

The criticism section was neutrally worded, but the edit on 21 Sept by Lgib was not. Articles should maintain a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have reverted to the earlier version, and noted the controversy in Line 1.Jedermann 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to NPOV criticism again. The criticism section is fully referenced at present. Lgib's paragraph is not, and appears to be an expression of personal opinion about why Breathwork attracts criticism. Discuss here first. Jedermann 13:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Following the anonymous edit on 20 October, I have reverted to NPOV criticism. More edits to follow in due course. The Communicator 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________

Some proposed references to flesh out the criticism section:

- Grof discusses at some length the way that he believes Holotropic Breathwork challenges traditional understandings of the physiological and psychological effects of the ‘hyperventilation syndrome’ in his article “Physical Manifestations of Emotional Disorders” (‘Exploring Holotropic Breathwork’, 2003, Kylea Taylor, editor, publ: Hanford Mead) see [1] for a summary. Since more than one of the criticisms cite the dangers of hyperventilation, this is a key area.

- The whole mystical experience vs psychosis/breakdown/brain disfunction argument probably needs teasing out in its own section, perhaps looking at Grof’s theory of ‘spiritual emergency’. There’s loads of stuff about this on the internet, but a starting point for NPOV might be ‘‘Spiritual Emergency’ – a useful explanatory model?: A Literature Review and Discussion paper” by Dr. Patte Randal and Dr. Nick Argyle on the royal college of psychiatrist’s website: [2]

- I think the final paragraph of this article is misleading. It appears to be a criticism of a research proposal for the use of MDMA in PTSD, on the basis that it is supported by people who practise Holotropic Breathwork, rather than a criticism of Holotropic Breathwork per se. The study referred to here, which does, indeed, reference Holotropic Breathwork in the research proposal, has been fully approved and is currently underway: see [3] Jablett 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've contextualised this paragraph now --Jablett 10:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

WP wants ascertainable and supported facts - these are provided in the Criticism section. Editors' opinions about critics' motives are at best Original Research, at worst POV: both are non-WP. Jedermann 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated the offending paragraph, in view of the reference to HB as "a potentially dangerous form of severe hyperventilation". I think the reference to MDMA is also relevant, given Grof's own background in LSD and MDMA experimentation (until these were made illegal), and his link with Doblin (as made clear in the quote from Sampson). Given this background, HB should be seen in the context of psychedelic psychotherapy, and criticisms made of the latter may often pertain to the former. The Communicator 15:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the term 'controversial' in relation to HB

The use of the term 'controversial' seems unquestionable in the light of the following:

1. The decision of the Findhorn Foundation to drop HB in the light of the critical report commissioned by the Scottish Charities Office.

2. The negative press reports attendant upon number 1 above.

3. The critical remarks in a number of published books.

4. The evidently controversial way in which my original NPOV critical section has been edited and re-edited.

The Communicator 14:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Constant removal of the 'controversial' tag amounts to vandalism. Jedermann 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

In this instance it is not agreed. The use of the term "controversial" demonstrates one of many flaws in the article, but we can use it as an exemplar:

1)The term 'controversial' was based upon limited examples, some expressing mere differences of personal practice and opinion. In the Findhorn example the writer ignores the fact that the Findhorn Foundation was already at logger-heads with the local Findhorn population before Grof did his workshop there.

That may be, but one of the most strident critics of HB (Kate Thomas) was not a native of Findhorn, and had only recently moved to the area because of the Foundation. Her criticisms had nothing to do with residing in the neighbouring town of Forres, but were based on her own experiences in the field of "metaphysics", as documented in her autobiography. Similarly, the report by Professor Anthony Busuttil had nothing to do with the residents of Findhorn or Forres. The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

2)Many of the critics quoted employ unorthodox practices. Accordingly, the criticism selected seems to reflect more a hidden "power politics" agenda borne by the writer.

Please clarify! What are the "unorthodox practices"? Your reference to power politics on my part is a supposition. The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

3)The term 'controversial' is more suited to use in a newspaper coverage. It is an emotive, parochial, loose term that has too many potential interpretations for good or ill and is on that account not suited to an encyclopaedic article.

See Controversy: "A controversy is a matter of opinion or dispute over which parties actively argue, disagree or debate. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements." As the above article indicates, many Wikipedia entries explicitly employ the term in their titles (e.g. Stem cell controversy). The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

4) The use of the term 'controversial' as bearing a negative bias in this instance becomes apparant in the whole tone of the article. For example, the article claims that Grof admits that HB is "experimental"", but fails to follow the main thrust of his point which is that it is experimental in the context of self-discovery. The article also attempted to make it appear by selective mis-quotation that Grof was privately conducting psychological experiments. This, at best, demonstrated a lack of familiarity with his approach and conflicted with information given elsewhere in the article.

The criticisms address HB on more than one level. From a scientific point of view, HB is experimental, and the context is not relevant. In the context of "self-discovery" HB is criticised by Castro, Shepherd and Thomas (and, by the way, implicitly by Meher Baba in God in a pill? - which strongly criticises the use of psychedelics for "self-discovery", before Grof was forced to switch to hyperventilation). The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The author (UTC?)employs negatively selective examples, misrepresentations and misquotations but does not give reasons, preferring to make it appear as if the article was written neutrally. Possibly, the only way that this can be resolved is to hand over the article to a University. Until then, the article will be replaced. (MAJ)

MAJ, your comments contain a number of inaccuracies (including the unwarranted accusation of misquotation), which I address below, under "Criticism section too long". If you have anything to say, say it here first, rather than vandalising the criticism section. Also, if you feel the article is unbalanced, you can augment the sections before and after the criticism section, most of which were not written by me (with the two exceptions listed below). For all of these reasons, I am reinstating Jablett's version of 29 December, which includes the reference inadvertently removed by you. The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Dear Steve Castro, aka The Communicator. "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion." See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Minehunter 12:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Minehunter, I am not Steve Castro, have not published any books, and therefore can declare that there is no such conflict of interest. Furthermore, I provided my own credentials some time ago (I note that you have not done the same) - I have added to that information today, which I hope will serve to distinguish me from Steve Castro and anyone else cited in the HB article. The Communicator 14:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In which case, Communicator I apologise unreservedly. My credentials, or lack of them, are already posted below. I continue the dialogue below under Kevin Shepherd reference. Minehunter 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Shepherd reference

There is extensive discussion questioning the reputability of Kevin Shepherd's work, which is self published, on the following wikipedia page: [[4]]. I vote that the relevant paragraph and reference be removed.--Jablett 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I imagine that the Steven Castro works are similarly self-published too. Minehunter 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - see below. Thanks for the reference to [[5]], where I have posted the following data. Jedermann 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jedermann, you seem very well versed in this subject. Thank-you for your diligence, although I have not changed my mind - a vanity publication is still a vanity publication, even if it does get picked up elsewhere. Could you throw any light on the interesting co-incidence that Kate Thomas's real surname, so I am informed, is "Shepherd"? Minehunter 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This subject has been dealt with by Shepherd himself in a recent publication (Pointed Observations: Critical Reflections of a Citizen Philosopher on Contemporary Pseudomysticism, Alternative Therapy, David Hume, Spinoza, and Other Subjects, Citizen Initiative, 2005, 210-11). The Communicator 15:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I know no more about HB than any reader of this article can glean - and considerably more since the criticism section was added to the original unreferenced sales pitch. Serious concerns about safety, efficacy, competence to practice, and commercial interests have been raised, and should remain till disproven. Interesting that proponents offer no evidence to counter the concerns, but just remove caveats and criticism. And now they're so desperate they're trying to personalize the issue, instead of debating the evidence. Jedermann 19:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jedermann, For the record I am not a proponent of HB, and I am absolutely in favour of healthy debate, critiques etc. I imagine those who are proponents will seek to counter the critiques as best they can. I assume that some of the genuinely independent criticisms will stand on the page. However, I do have concerns when I suspect that repeated interpolations on an article are from a small self-serving clique of individuals. This does not make the concerns invalid of course, but it is skewing the debate. I can approach any high street bookseller and find either copies of books by S. Grof, or fairly easily order them. I doubt the same can be said of Castro, Thomas and Shepherd. It is not that I am trying to personalise the issue per se, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is becoming hard to believe that we are not witnessing violiations of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and entries that are not far off {db-bio}. I cannot produce evidence of a negative, but I am prepared to state unequivocally that no publication of mine is referred to in any way above or on the article page, nor have I ever published any work on the subject or made any prior Wikipedia edit on it save those above. If you can say the same then I shall continue to assume good faith. Minehunter 11:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Minehunter, please see my reply to you in the 'Conflict of Interest' section above. For the record, I originally undertook to add the criticism section to this article. This was my first Wikipedia edit, and I was not asked by anybody to do it. I have a longstanding interest in the subject. As a measure of my concern I might mention that in 1994 I corresponded directly with Prof. Busuttil and Doctor Watt on the subject, having read about their criticisms. I also corresponded with the Scottish Charities Office at this time, and other medical authorities in 1995. I retain copies of all this correspondence, as well as newspaper articles. There is no conflict of interest regarding my editing of this article, although I am obviously sympathetic to the critics' position. For me, this is an ongoing work. I think that the original article was economical with the facts, either published by Grof himself or by the critics. Since WP is becoming a first point of reference for many people, I thought that these facts needed to be made known. I have recently added some quotes from Grof himself. If there is anything good to be said for HB, let those who would defend it come forward. The Communicator 15:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Communicator (somehow ‘Dear The Communicator’ does not sound right), here is where I think we agree.

1) HB is ‘contoversial’.

2) Those who do support it could assist by providing supplementary information about its merits, and it is (I think we agree) a little surprising that so far they have not done so. Perhaps they are timid souls who are put off by our robust debating style.

3) There are without doubt professional criticisms to be levelled at the practice which deserve an airing in a serious encyclopedia.

Here is where I think we disagree.

a) So far as I know neither Castro nor Thomas are professional clinicians and their thoughts do not, in my view, merit lengthy inclusions in the article. I am not sure what to think about Mr. Shepherd. Whatever his merits it seems a controversial subject in and of itself.

b) As a critic of the practice you may hold views which are antithetical to it. As a contributor to an encyclopedia it should surely be the case that you place those views to one side and seek to create a balanced article. I believe the article is increasingly skewed heavily in one direction. In fairness you have added various quotes from Grof, but nonetheless I hope you take the point.

c) I would be more convinced that these criticisms were worthy of lengthy elaboration if they were recent, more noteworthy or not simply cautionary. All bar one of the critical references are ten years old or more. None are from newspapers, magazines, academic publications, or works offered by mainstream publishers. Even more impressive would be documented cases of actual harm to practitioners of HB, as opposed to the (perhaps quite reasonable) fears of the same.

I really don’t want to get involved in editing pages whose subject matter I am not qualified to discuss, or even especially interested in, but I hope you will bear the above in mind. I am doing my best to provide balance rather than input and potential edit wars, but award myself low marks so far. Minehunter 16:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Minehunter, thank you for your comments. You raise some interesting issues, and I will endeavour to respond in those areas where you find disagreement:

a) I don't think that criticism needs to be limited to "clinical" factors. After all, Grof has made all sorts of claims in connection with HB which are really of a "spiritual" or "metaphysical" nature. Moreover, beliefs of this kind are evidently held by those who choose to undergo HB. The criticisms by Shepherd, Thomas and Castro all address the subject at this level, as well as referring to the reports by clinicians. Thomas claims to have significant experience in this field. Clinical factors are important, of course, since they are scientific and therefore the basis on which bodies such as the Scottish Charities Office make decisions. As for the "length" of the inclusions, who is to say what is of relevance to an audience? WP is not constrained in the manner of a traditional paper publication. I have only written what I believe to be essential (and relevant) in order to do justice to the critics - some readers may appreciate that level of detail. I trust that the ongoing editing of earlier sections will make the overall article look more balanced. Which brings me to ...

b) I agree that the article is skewed, particularly with regard to length of sections. The original article (not created by me) was scanty. The whole thing needs to be expanded, but I have been assuming that this would be done by someone else (perhaps the originator). I have recently considered fleshing out the earlier sections myself, and I could probably do it (I possess a number of Grof's books), but it will take some time.

c) Just as the criticisms need not be limited to clinical factors, so the dates of "metaphysical" criticisms seem less relevant than those of clinical ones. After all, that is in their nature: if HB was spiritually bad ten years ago, then it remains so, and will remain so. For instance, in the 1960s Meher Baba strongly criticised the use of hallucinogenics, even for supposedly "spiritual" purposes. His statements were gathered together in a pamphlet entitled God in a pill? Those criticisms are as relevant today as they were then and, indeed, could be applied to Grof even in his HB phase (since we are basically talking about changes to brain chemistry here). Nevertheless, I do have more recent publications and I will get to them in due course. As yet, I am not aware of more recent clinical studies, but I will look into that.

On a more personal note, since you say that you are "not qualified to discuss, or even especially interested in" the subject, what brings you to this role? I'm not sure what you mean by your "credentials" - I have entered mine under my username.

See also my comments about self-publishing below. The Communicator 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Minehunter, My previous reply answered you before you questioned my good faith: "I know no more about HB than any reader of this article can glean". I would have thought that makes it sufficiently plain that I cannot have published on the subject, nor could I be any of the authors cited here. Nor am I a sock-puppet for The Communicator, who is as unknown to me as I am to him. My previous edits on HB are all listed on the history page, where you will see they are confined to clarifications, and removal of unreferenced opinions about critics and their motives. I have no idea what {db-bio} is, but I am amazed that an editor with ostensibly no editing history can be so confident about WP policy in this area. However, you misrepresent Kevin Shepherd, as he appears to have consistently been involved in self publishing, for reasons clearly stated in his books, not vanity publishing. His titles are easily available from Amazon.co.uk and Blackwells online. I stopped shopping for new books in bookshops long ago, but a phone call to my local Waterstone's revealed they do not have Grof in stock. Instead of worrying about the "reputability" of Kevin Shepherd, and a non-existent "self-serving clique" in this article, you need to consider the objectivity and connexions of aggressive attempts to prevent access to any and all historically-grounded, well-articulated scholarly criticism of highly controversial subjects, such as Sathya Sai Baba. Jedermann 11:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jedermann, I accept your statements about yourself without reservation. On the other hand, I think the distinction you make between self and vanity publishing is not especially relevant. (Wikipedia itself states "Self-publishing is sometimes difficult to differentiate from "vanity publishing""). I find it hard to imagine that you are seriously suggesting that the works of Grof and Shepherd have a similar profile in the world at large.

I also draw your attention to WP:RS which says.

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book.

Minehunter, this is a complex matter. First, "difficult to differentiate" does not equate to "the same thing". Furthermore, having worked in bookselling and publishing for a number of years, I am well aware of the factors involved in publishing and marketing books. It is a commercial exercise, even in the case of academic publications. I am not denying that there is a level of professionalism associated with major publishing houses, but here, as elsewhere, a critical attitude needs to be maintained. WP notes some very good reasons for self-publishing, including the retention of editorial control. Returning to the authors in question, whether self-published or not, it is clear when they are expressing their own opinions, and equally clear when they are citing others. As far as I am aware, none of them claims to be an "expert" and, indeed, they all appear to be quite humble with regard to their abilities. Shepherd's books are unusual in content and I can well imagine how difficult it would be for publishers and booksellers to classify them. On the other hand, books about the tarot, the I Ching, astrology, UFOs, kundalini, etc. appear to have no problem finding large publishing houses, and large markets. Does that make them reputable? I don't think so. I can understand the reason for caution in WP, but it seems to me that some flexibility is required with regard to interpretation of the rules here. The Communicator 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Communicator I entirely agree, and should have been more specific by referring to the Motives paragraph in Self-publishing, which underlines the need for the flexibility that you ask for:

"Publishers must be confident of sales of several thousand copies to take on a book. An otherwise worthy book may not have this potential for any number of reasons ...". Jedermann 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{db-bio} is simply a speedy delete tag reserved for articles which are “about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject.” This, as you can see above, approximates my view on the series of references to Castro, Thomas and perhaps also Shepherd.

I am not going to deny that I have edited WP before with another user name. This is not ideal, but I take refuge in this policy. I fear you suspect that I may have been involved in some other controversy regarding Sathya Sai Baba. That is perhaps understandable in the circumstances, but I assure you I have not.

So, my apologies to you both if you feel you have been on the receiving end of unmerited ad hominem arguments. I suggest we try to proceed on the basis of continuing good faith. Minehunter 09:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I look forward to reading an account of the origins and development of HB, and a summary of the clinical research. Jedermann 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Academic citations of KRD Shepherd

Google Book search, 22 Nov 06

The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi - Page 53 by Antonio Rigopoulos - 1993 "Kevin Shepherd refers Sai Baba's birth-date to circa 1850; ..."

Images of Women in Maharashtrian Society - Page 264 by Anne (EDT) Feldhaus - 1998 "... a Sufi who died in 1931 and whose tomb in the Pune Cantonment is still very popular as a religious center, is described by Kevin Shepherd in A Sufi ..."

Theologische Realenzyklopädie - Page 547 by Horst Robert Balz, Gerhard Müller - Religion - 2003 "Kevin Shepherd, A Sufi Matriarch. Hazrat Babajan, Cambridge 1985. ..."

It is clear that Kevin Shepherd's work is in good repute with academic researchers in Comparative Religion. Note that Google Book search can only search books that have been digitized by Google, and this list is therefore not comprehensive or definitive. Jedermann 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Experiment vs experience

Can we come up with a more accurate title for the section: "The experimental nature of Holotropic Breathwork"? HB has apparently not been researched using any experimental design in the scientific sense (correct me if I'm wrong). The colloquial use of 'experimental' (meaning, roughly, 'unresearched', 'unverified' or 'crudely empirical') can be confusing in a clinical context. Jedermann 13:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jedermann, I think I was following Grof in the use of that term (see the quote in the relevant section). Also, some of the critics have used it pejoratively. But I take your point: to some readers it may connote the technical sense of the word. I'm not sure if there's a better alternative. "Open-ended" (also used by Grof) doesn't seem to capture the critical sense of "experimental". Roget's Thesaurus suggests "tentative" or "trial": the former also seems to lack a critical edge; perhaps the latter is the best alternative. I'm open to suggestions. The Communicator 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Grof's own words are "ongoing research project and psychological experiment", perhaps the section could be called one of the following (including the quotation marks):

* Holotropic Breathwork as an "ongoing research project and psychological experiment"

* Holotropic Breathwork as an ongoing "psychological experiment"

* Holotropic Breathwork as an ongoing "experiment"

The Communicator 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest 'Relationship of Holotropic Breathwork to Research'. That way you could include the Grof 'experimental' comments, a summary of the research that comes up by typing 'holotropic breathing' into scholar.google.com (does anyone contributing to this page read Russian ?!), the use of the holotropic breathwork model in the psychedelic research protocol (which is referred to in the criticism section) and proposed research into holotropic breathwork and alcoholism (see http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/projects)Jablett 17:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

'Research in HB' is probably enough to encompass (a) HB becoming a trademarked therapy without formal research into its safety and efficacy, and (b) recent attempts to investigate it experimentally.

A crude search on PubMed for 'holotropic' found:

1: Andritzky W. Holotropic respiration therapy: new ways in psychologic pain therapy. Pflege Z. 2000 Apr;53(4):243-5. German. No abstract available.

2: Zaritskii MG. A combined treatment method for alcoholic patients using medikhronal, microwave resonance therapy and holotropic breathing. Lik Sprava. 1998 Oct-Nov;(7):126-32. Russian.

3: Grof S. Human nature and the nature of reality: conceptual challenges from consciousness research. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1998 Oct-Dec;30(4):343-57. Review.

4: Quinn J. Janet Quinn, RN, PhD. Therapeutic touch and a healing way. Interview by Bonnie Horrigan. Altern Ther Health Med. 1996 Jul;2(4):69-75.

5: Zaritskii MG. The use of holotropic breathing in the treatment of chronic alcoholism. Lik Sprava. 1996 Mar-Apr;(3-4):134-6. Russian.

6: Spivak LI, Kropotov IuD, Spivak DL, Sevost'ianov AV. Evoked potentials in holotropic breathing Fiziol Cheloveka. 1994 Jan-Feb;20(1):44-8. Russian. No abstract available.

7: Spivak LI. Altered states of consciousness during treatment of neurotic disorders (attempt to use holotropic breathing methods). Fiziol Cheloveka. 1992 Mar-Apr;18(2):22-6. Russian. No abstract available.

There will be other papers inevitably, since a properly devised search strategy would include many more search terms and databases, but the only research to come up on PubMed has been published in Russian or German (1,2, 5-7). 3 looks like a theoretical paper, and 4 is an interview about Therapeutic Touch. Jedermann 10:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I inserted a research reference on 29 December that was removed, I assume accidentally, as part of a reversion by MAJ on the same date. I believe it's unrelated to the section in dispute and I don't think there was anything controversial about it, so I have reinstated it. Jablett 10:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that 'the adventure of self discovery' bit added by MAJ was removed by Communicator. It's the title of his book, so I've put it in quotes to make it clear that it's not POV. The word 'admits' originally used in this section is critically loaded, so I've replaced it with 'described'.Jablett 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reinserted again. I'm assuming this has been accidentally deleted again (?) - if there's a problem with it, please let me know. As far as I'm aware it's the only research in English that specifically looks to compare the effectiveness of HB with psychotherapy. I have no expertise to be able to evaluate its validity as research Jablett 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been removed again, and this time it seems to be deliberate. I have no desire to get into an edit war. The text is as follows: "Research by Holmes et al (1996) concluded that holotropic breathwork led to “significant reductions in death anxiety and increases in self-esteem” relative to traditional verbally oriented psychotherapy.", with the accompanying reference: "Holmes, S. W., Morris, R, Clance, P. R, Putney, R. T., “Holotropic Breathwork : An Experiential Approach To Psychotherapy”, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol. 33(1), Spring 1996. pp. 114-120. 1996". Please discuss with me what the issue is here, and perhaps we can resolve it. Otherwise, I will reinstate again in due course. Jablett 10:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jablett, I have not deliberately removed text or reference. Indeed, in my reversion of 30 December I noted your comment and deliberately reverted to your version with the following editorial note: "Reversion to Jablett's edit of 29 December, including reference added by him". Today, I noticed that my reference to Curry had been removed (perhaps inadvertently), but I reinstated this by copying the text rather than reverting, so this should not have had an impact on your own editing. The Communicator 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Communicator - I did note your careful editing. Thank you, I appreciated that. I think it was the anonymous editor that removed my reference. I'll give chance to respond and put it back in later. I can't shed any light on your Curry reference removal, I'm afraid. Will you be referring to it in the text - it looks interesting ? Jablett 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have only come across the title so far, and I haven't found an online version. I will attempt to get a copy and add it to the text if relevant. The Communicator 12:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion of criticism section

In relation to comments above, I think the criticism section is becoming so unwieldy that sorting it out remains a priority for this page. I'm concerned about the way that it is organised, and would like to propose a number of ways to break it down.

1. We could group the Findhorn controversy quotes into their own section, with an introductory paragraph. There's clearly enough material for this.

2. We could group remaining criticisms by type (hyperventilation, psychosis vulnerability etc.), so that those who want to add alternative views can do so.

and/or 

3. Group by author.

At the moment, there is no obvious order and it looks as though we've simply artificially multiplied bullet points in order to strengthen the case against. What do other people think ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jablett (talk • contribs) 10:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Thank you HagermanBot - my mistake. not deliberate Jablett 10:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious order, which is chronological, although you appear to have been unaware of this when you inserted a paragraph on 16 December! As for that paragraph, it amounts to a response to criticism by a Findhorn Foundation partisan, rather than criticism per se. As such, perhaps it should be put, along with other responses, in a 'Responses to criticism' section. Having said that, as a response it doesn't seem to add much to the debate. First, none of the criticisms actually refers to HB being "banned". Second, it speculates about the motives of two Foundation critics, rather than addressing the substance of the criticisms of HB.

As for the unwieldiness of the criticism section, I would only say that there is a lack of balance overall. This need not, however, affect the criticism section as it currently stands. Rather, I intend to expand the earlier sections, providing much more on the background to HB. This will create balance, as well as providing some context for the criticisms. The Communicator 14:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I will consider reorganizing the criticism section along thematic lines at a later date, as long as it doesn't interfere with the substance of the criticisms as they currently stand. For the moment, however, I'm content with the organization, and I will be adding material from more recent publications in due course. The Communicator 15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I was genuinely unaware of the chronological order - sorry if I caused offence. Given that I think it's unwieldy anyway, the idea of the section continuing to expand as each passing year goes by wasn't my first thought!

The paragraph I inserted doesn't address the criticisms, as you say. It merely implies that Shaw thought that HB may have been made a scapegoat for Findhorn Foundation politics, which I thought was relevant. However, I agree with Lumos3 (below), so I've removed it as my contribution towards shortening this section, and also transferred the Grof medical response to a 'Responses to criticism' section as per your suggestion. Jablett 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jablett, no offence was taken! As far as I can see, the only issue is one of proportion, rather than overall length. I am unaware of any WP limitation on overall length of articles. Presumably other articles contain lengthy critical sections, where the subject is controversial (e.g. Sathya Sai Baba) - the difference being the relative length of the critical section. I possess seven books by Grof, which should be enough to complete the necessary task of expanding the earlier sections of the HB article. There is plenty of scope there for further information. Although I have some more recent critical material, I will endeavour to limit it to statements which offer original criticism, rather than repeating the substance of earlier remarks. Therefore, I don't expect it to get too much longer! If, after all that, the criticism section still appears out of proportion, then I will edit it myself. The Communicator 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Editing policy which says:

Perfection not required It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged. However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible. One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional perspectives. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more neutral point of view. Another person might have facts and figures or a graphic to include, and yet another might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits. As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten... and so on. During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we don't have to like it; we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however.

The Communicator 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section too long

Way too much space is given to the Criticism section in this article. Word counts at 18 Dec are 739 on Holotropic Breathwork and 1554 on criticism of it. This violates Wikipedia Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. I think it should be edited down quite a bit to around 300 words . Even that is a high proportion of criticism for a balanced Wikipedia article. Lumos3 10:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Lumos3, as I have written in several places above, it is my intention to expand the earlier sections of the article, thereby achieving the desired result of balance. The original article was also very unbalanced. Not only did it not tell us much about HB, but there was no reference to the controversy surrounding the subject. I initiated and am mainly responsible for the criticism section, plus two of the earlier sections ('Reactions and contraindications' and 'Research in Holotropic Breathwork'). It is not my fault if others have not expanded the main article or countered the criticisms. However, I have enough material to do the former myself - it is simply a question of time. Therefore, my suggestion is to leave the criticism section as it stands - the other sections will be expanded. The Communicator 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See also my reply to Jablett above. The Communicator 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re The Communicator's remarks :"It is not my fault if others have not expanded the main article or countered the criticisms." It is however your choice to spend most of your time pushing a critical POV which has created an absurd imbalance in the article. I look forward to this being remedied. In the meantime I have removed a portion of the criticism. Minehunter 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

An anon editor made quite a few changes. Communicator, I see that you're online. Take a look, a lot of the stuff is pretty POV. I changed things, but there was an edit conflict. I think the whole article needs references and a POV-check. xCentaur |  talk  14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To say that something is "pretty POV" (i.e. pretty point of view) does not seem to say much. Everyone naturally has a point of view. I created the non-existent criticism section (and two other sections), expressing myself in as neutral and scholarly way as I could, including full references. Since that time, it has been subject to amendments, by myself and others, and has evolved to its recent state. There has been much discussion, and I have accepted the most recent shortening of the criticism section (by Minehunter) in the interests of fairness, and pending my own revision of earlier sections of the article. All of this has been discussed. In view of this, I do not accept the edits of 28 December. If anything, they reveal a partisan POV which is hostile to my neutrally worded sections. The Communicator 15:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your tone. I meant that the recent anonymous edits were biased. The discussions above are visible to everyone, and I'm not blind. Don't dismiss someone's comments just because to you they "do not seem to say much". I was just trying to help out by suggesting that someone who knew abou the subject could weed out anything biased that anon-editor had put in. Good luck, good bye. xCentaur |  talk  15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

xCentaur, I apologise if my tone was harsh. I actually misunderstood your comments, and I thank you for them. I was assuming that you had simply negated my first reversion, and were perhaps the editor of 28 December. I haven't checked yet to see what changes you made to the edits of 28th. Still, I think my reversion was justified. I would be interested to see any informative amendments you make to that. The Communicator 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I sent the above response to xCentaur via Wikipedia email, and received the following reply on 30 December 2006:

"No problem, Communicator.

Stumbled across the page while patrolling for vandalism... it interested me because the concept of alternate conciousness fascinates me. Whether hallucinogen induced (ecstasy is a pill away) or self-controlled (lucid dreaming and the like) its always something I've wanted to understand better...

I see that the faulty edits have already been reverted. You've done a great job with the article, and for something thats had its share of controversy, its fantastic how its shaped up... Keep up the good work!

Cheers!

-xC"

The Communicator 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the edit on 28 December. It appears as if the HB article had been written by someone who had a conflict of interest. The criticism section was the longest I have encountered in a wiki article and reflected strong bias. It also looked as though the writer was struggling for examples. The writer also failed to balance these with discussion and counter-examples in an appropriate context. The use of selected quotations taken out of context, and manicured examples also suggested bias. The intention of the article was to create an aura of danger; for example, the use of the term 'controversial', and a carefully chosen selection of so-called 'reactions' (indicating a medical bias) to HB which made an obvious play of the most vigorous of experiences and ignored the greatest range of physical experiences encountered in HB. See my comments on the term 'controversy'. The unbalanced nature of the article was apparant.

The article I substituted kept the format of the original and removed the many attempts to shock or persuade by inappropriate use of language. MAJ

My view, for what it's worth, is that I agree with MAJ's analysis in these pages of the criticism section, but I feel the rewrite displays overcompensation. Is there a reference available for "technique itself is taken up by a wide range of people in the healing professions, doctors, nurses, and therapists" ? - this is an important point, and maybe belongs in the main body of the article. "Notwithstanding that here, as elsewhere, criticisms have been isolated" may be accurate, but probably unneccessary, given the 'limited criticism' qualifier in the first sentence. "Holotropic Breathwork finds itself in a vulnerable position in that it is poised between the medical model and the more 'new-age' practices that have emerged in the last quarter century" is interesting, and could perhaps be fleshed out with examples(?). "inevitably incurred the wrath of a minority of the stalwarts of the mainstream medical view" is not neutrally worded at all, and should probably be removed. "While experiences can intrude into daily life, the context is not one of 'breakdown', but rather of personal growth" - this is presented as POV, but I suspect could be rewritten referencing Grof. Jablett 11:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

MAJ's comments contain a number of inaccuracies:

1. The article has not been written by one person, but at least two. I came across the original, which did not have a critical section. Since I have had a long-standing interest in the subject, which included correspondence with several of the parties involved, and was also a visitor to the Findhorn Foundation in the early 1990s, I added that section. Later I added "Reactions and contraindications" and "The experimental nature of Holotropic Breathwork" (which was changed to "Research in Holotropic Breathwork" after discussion).

2. I did not add the word "controversial". I believe Jederman did.

3. There is absolutely NO misquotation in anything I have written. I have all of the books and articles in my possession. As my biographical information (under username) indicates, I am a scholar with several years of editorial experience. I do not misquote. Perhaps MAJ would care to point out where he thinks I have misquoted.

4. Regarding the issue of the length of the criticism section, this has been much discussed, and I had accepted a shortening by Minehunter on 22 December, pending my own expansion of the main article. This is a work in progress, and I do not appreciate the wholesale re-editing of 28 December, without prior discussion, when all of this had been made clear on this Talk page. (I have generally accepted Minehunter's and Jablett's more moderate edits.)

5. As for balancing the criticisms "with discussion and counter-examples", that is not necessarily my role. Jablett created the 'Responses to criticism' section, and interested parties can use that to address criticisms.

6. Several of MAJ's comments reflect personal bias and mere supposition: "the writer was struggling for examples"; "manicured examples"; "intention of the article was to create an aura of danger".

As I have said above, in the section devoted to the term "controversial", for all of these reasons, I am reinstating Jablett's version of 29 December, which includes the reference inadvertently removed by MAJ. The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

MAJ

I had better announce my credentials as a writer on HB. Although it is not my wish to write the HB article, the HB article as it stands appears as HB advert supplemented by over-stated inaccurate criticism. The article fails professionally on both counts. I am a chemistry graduate, and currently a mature student writing a post-grad dissertation in analytic philosophy. I have experience of breathwork and have spoken privately, and at length, to Grof on a few occasions. I have extensive knowledge of the pro's and cons of HB and have never been afraid to announce these. Although there are pertinent points in the criticisms, such as the need for an awareness of the occurence of unresolved issues in post-session periods, they have not been examined and we are left with the limited rationale of a truncated quote, occasionally overplayed and poorly contextualised. As such they are not really suitable in that form for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

There are some inaccuracies concerning my comments. It is obvious that the 'controversial' article on the whole is not for the most part written with a concern to present an 'encyclopaedic' article, or an awareness of the textual demands required by this format. My minimal changes, prior to a complete re-write attempted to redress the most obvious, and uninformed instances of bias. The article remains, in spite of that, deeply unsatisfactory and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. These errors stem mainly from textual inclusions from both pro- and ant- agonists of HB:

1) It seems obvious that the HB people have included their own material in the article which occasionally appears to promote breathwork, and that Wiki is being used as an advert for HB. This is not acceptable for an encyclopaedic article. These sections have been left largely untouched by the HB critic. This is possibly because that author has little knowledge of breathwork beyond pulling quotes from various sources, or that their removal would leave little of knowledgeable worth in the article. Although it struck me immediately that sections of the breathwork article had been written by somebody who wished to present HB as it is advertised in its literature, this presentation is rarely overplayed or inaccurate, but it fails to place HB in a social context, or any context at all. Perhaps it was this that prompted the author/critic to redress the balance, unfortunately by offering contextless criticism, when in fact what was needed was removal of the 'adverts' and a knowledgeable re-write. I will do this if I have time.

2) One of the writers appears to be concerned to present the leading impression through some lurid descriptions of HB. The pretext for the use of the term 'controversial'- taken for the most part from individual sources and 'manicured' quotes (- selective and taken out of context) - is one example of how a vague sense of concern, even danger, is being built up to counter the unprofessional excesses of the HB protaganists in using Wiki as an advert. Other instances include

a) "vomiting" and violent shaking are given prominent positions in the physical manifestations of breathwork, but this is more the case with LSD catharsis. Holotropic breathwork 'experiences' (the term 'reactions' does not entirely reflect the philosophy of HB)rarely include vomiting, and the majority of physical manifestations include simply lying still, and sometimes rolling, or dancing if there is space.

b) The author/critic misrepresented Grofs philosophy and approach. Grof's idea of 'experimental' is not so much the curiously forced idea that he is conducting unprofessional and technically suspect experiments in his workshops, but that the 'experimental' nature should be read in the context of an adventure of self-discovery. This makes all the difference. I can quote Grof here, talking in the context of holonomic integration '..in general self-exploration and personality transformation should be the primary concern as the critical and most easily available aspect of any therapeutic program' (Grof, Beyond the Brain, State University New York Press, p.380). 'In general' refers to the approach and philosophy of HB, and the exceptions refer to the occasional need to address a persons lifestyle and social position.

c) The criticism MUST be placed in a context. To do this the author must have knowledge of the models of psychotherapy, and of those models used by the critics, and be able to compare them with the medical model that is currently implemented in mainstream medicine. Without these attempts, or something like them, the criticism is merely a favoured selection of floating opinion, despite being sourced. It looks, and is, unprofessional.

d) The criticism is not balanced by counter-examples. It fails to note (or be aware of) the fact that doctors and nurses have been, and are, training as HB facilitators (Dr. Michael Weir former head of the Bristol Cancer Help Centre, Dr. Yahir Kabil, ENT, who introduced HB to the middle east, were two people I became acquainted with, there are many more. Some workshops consisted almost entirely of people in the clinical professions). Authors and scientists such as Karl Pribram and Rupert Sheldrake are indebted to Grof's work, and vice versa, and regularly quote him. I do not need to go on here, examples are numerous.

d) I was present at Grof's Findhorn visit. While the Findhorn community were happy to have Grof there, it was the continuing precarious relationship with the local Findhorn population (I had some personal experience of this)that caused them to withdraw any further invitations to Grof. This followed criticisms aimed against the Findhorn community that they were promoting LSD-type experiences.

I cannot let the article pass as it is. There is much I have not had time to consider here. Please make further changes, but I have had too much critical involvement with HB not to be aware of the articles excesses. The article I have substituted is merely a toned-down version of the current version. It retains the criticisms, despite the lack of context, and also retains the HB 'adverts', which while they are not excessive in tone are still not acceptable. Without these little would be left regarding content.

I suggest that the article should be removed altogether. It looks bad for Wiki as it stands, even after my limited alterations, but I think I have already taken what many may consider to be an undue liberty in making changes. That these changes address, albeit in a limited fashion, unprofessional bias and various excesses, will, I hope, not go unnoticed. I also make changes to my own grammatical excesses. I refer to the charge of overstatement in my reference to the antipathy expressed by many of the clinicians of the mainstream medical model to HB. Yet, while this antipathy is evident it is certainly not widespread enough to make it 'controversial'.

MAJ, good to have you on board. I hope you'll stay around and contribute to the debate long term. Like Xcentaur (below) I think it's worth perservering with. Please can you look at my comments above under "Experiment vs Experience" ?. I'm a cautious editor, only adding or modifying the odd sentence here and there, so I'd like to be certain whether or not my edit was removed because it was one of the 'unacceptable' comments you refer to above, or simply an innocent casualty of the wider edit. Jablett 18:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Why would you want to remove the article altogether when it is definitely notable? The very fact that this discussion is taking place indicates that there are editors that genuinely do wish to improve it. Your changes do make a difference. I'd like to request you to create a user account, otherwise possibly someone who doesn't know the history of the page might revert them. I'm sure we can reach a consensus here, please don't remove the article. Sincerely, xCentaur |  talk  22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY DISPUTED I am disputing the neutrality of this article, given that the original text appears to be no more than an advertisement for HB, and that the subsequent rewording of several new sections (including the criticism one) by MAJ (a HB writer and practitioner, who has had personal contact with Grof) has imparted a decidedly sympathetic tone to the subject matter (e.g. that HB "finds itself in a vulnerable position"). I will maintain the "neutrality disputed" banner until the entire article has been rewritten with NPOV, whether by myself (see my updated credentials under my username) or collectively. The Communicator 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The opening criticism paragraph has reinstated an earlier version that was deleted because it tried to undermine criticism in advance, and contains unreferenced interpretations of why HB may attract criticism. It was deleted earlier for those reasons. See WP:OR. I've included an internal link to kundalini, also regarded as controversial - see the discussion archive there. And added a link to a (pro-HB) website that is informative about procedures and contraindications. [6] Jedermann 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

NEUTRALITY OF ARTICLE

MAJ

At the very least I am not convinced by UTC's neutral intentions here. UTC claims I am a writer of HB. Is UTC guessing or setting an unprofessional tone? This is my first outing as a writer of HB. UTC also repeats some of my own claims about the neutrality of the article (ref. 'advert') as UTC's own ideas, without acknowledging my contribution. This strikes me also as a little dishonest.

Elsewhere, I can only make these further observations:

By presenting a list of contextless quotes of criticisms, doubt regarding their source could persuade readers into thinking that these represented a groundswell of clinical and New Age opinion against HB. This was the rationale behind UTC's consideration that HB was 'controversial'. This strikes me as a journalistic ploy. UTC also fails to mention that HB is practiced by many clinicians and that some theoretical aspects of HB have entered into clinical psychotherapeutic methodology. I would like to know why, as the relative degree and nature of criticism needs to be assessed in the whole scheme and not left floating.

If UTC was at Findhorn why didn't UTC explain or have knowledge of Findhorn community's relationship with the local population and how that affected the outcome with Grof's workshops? Why did UTC not mention this in his criticisms of HB section? Was UTC at Findhorn? I am also concerned that his credentials have been 'updated'.

It is UTC's suggestion that to know something about HB is to disqualify a person from writing about it! I do not think that UTC is able to write knowledgeably about HB, he has offered no discussions related to the criticism section and seems concerned only to cast a controversial light on the project.

I suggested that UTC had misquoted. His quotes have been truncated or not been placed in context, and are without discussion or assessment, and sometimes placed in the wrong context. This amounts to misquoting.

Why did UTC place as a list of physical manifestations of HB the most lurid in prominent position? UTC seems to be attempting to persuade with the idea that frequency of occurrence of physical manifestations is mirrored by their order of appearance in UTC's text. UTC is misrepresenting physical manifestations of HB. Not least that some of them such as 'violent' shaking and vomiting are generally concommitants of LSD abreaction and comparitively rare in HB.

For these reasons, I think that UTC has been writing with hostility and some dishonesty. Writers do not need to be professional writers here, as long as they adhere to professional and ethical codes of conduct and writing. While there may be lapses that can be amended, I do not think that UTC is attempting to adhere to these standards. The neutrality of the article will be disputed as long as he is a contributor here, and as long as he is here I do not think that there will be a neutral article.

MAJ, you appear to be confused about some things. In the first place, UTC is not a username here, but rather refers to the "high-precision atomic time standard" employed by Wikipedia to log all edits. You will notice that the letters UTC occur in parentheses after the time, date and username of registered Wikipedia editors. Registered editors are asked to finish their comments with four tildas - these are converted into the username and UTC by software. For more on this (including an explanation of the order of the abbreviated letters), see Coordinated Universal Time. I notice that xCentaur requested that you "create a user account" (for your own benefit). If you did this, then (apart from being able to sign your comments properly) your edits of articles would be properly attributed to you, i.e. logged under your username, rather than an IP address (as at present). By the way, my username is The Communicator, and other regular contributors to this article have been Jablett, Jedermann and Minehunter.

I would also recommend that you check the history of the Talk (i.e. "discussion") page each time you intend to add comments, if you do not already do so, as you will then be able to see who has most recently added comments, and to which section(s), before you add your own. Forgive me if you are already aware of this, but I notice that you have not addressed my (30 December) responses to your points in the "Appropriateness of the term 'controversial' in relation to HB" section (e.g. my request for clarification of "unorthodox practices").

Turning to the points you have most recently raised, my description of you as a "writer of HB" was based on your own statement of 30 December (deduced from Talk page history) in "Criticism section too long". You opened your comments with the following: "I had better announce my credentials as a writer on HB". I had interpreted that as your saying that you were a writer on HB. That appears to have been a mistaken interpretation, but it is based on an ambiguity in your words. An understandable mistake, I think.

I don't think that it was necessary for me to attribute the 'advert' claim to you for two reasons. First, this claim had already been made by Jedermann on 23 November (in "Kevin Shepherd reference") when he referred to the "original unreferenced sales pitch". Second, anyone who reads the discussion carefully can see who has said what. There is no dishonesty here.

In the same passage Jedermann notes that it is interesting "that proponents offer no evidence to counter the concerns, but just remove caveats and criticism", a comment which I believe also applies to your recent editing. When I added my sections, I did not delete a single word of the existing article. Although this led to an imbalance, this has been well noted and commented upon. But did you read the discussion before you waded in and (anonymously) made such wholesale changes? Despite your rhetoric of neutrality, you have not improved the NPOV of the article, which now bears your own bias, as noted by xCentaur on 29 December: "An anon editor made quite a few changes. Communicator, I see that you're online. Take a look, a lot of the stuff is pretty POV. I changed things, but there was an edit conflict. I think the whole article needs references and a POV-check" (the "edit conflict" refers to the fact that he and I were both editing at the same time). Even Jablett (who is sympathetic to you) has expressed reservations about your editing (on 30 December), including that your "rewrite displays overcompensation". Also, you did not reply to his queries concerning references and examples. In the same passage, he pointed out that some of your wording was far from neutral. On 2 January, Jedermann edited accordingly (as he had done with another editor on 27 September and 4 October - see his comments near the top of the discussion page, under "Reversion to NPOV criticism"). I believe these comments also apply to your edits.

Your comments about contextualizing Grof's words are fair enough, although my quotes are accurate and properly referenced (whereas your editorial additions have not been backed up with any supporting references or examples, as noted by Jablett). I have now contextualized the references to reactions in the relevant section, and removed your unreferenced material. That section is now NPOV.

Your reference to "New Age opinion" above implies a gross misunderstanding of the critics I have quoted, a familiarity with the works of whom would reveal a vehemently anti-New Age stance. As I have pointed out before (e.g. my reply of 30 December to your fourth point in "Appropriateness of the term 'controversial' in relation to HB"), there are two levels to the criticisms: medical and spiritual. Thomas writes from personal experience, painstakingly documented in the 1000-page third volume of her autobiography. Shepherd, who has published several books on subjects in the history of religions, is highly critical of Grof's (generalizing and unsupported) claims about the spiritual background for the use of psychoactive substances and techniques. What is at issue here is precisely the "context of an adventure of self-discovery" to which you refer. Such approaches to self-discovery were strongly condemned by no less a figure than Meher Baba, whose transcribed statements on the subject were collected in the booklet ironically entitled God in a pill? As for medical opinion, that may be divided, as you say, but once I again I have provided authoritative quotes and references. You have not.

Turning to the next point, I did "have knowledge of Findhorn community's relationship with the local population" but that was definitely not relevant here. The Foundation suspended its HB sessions because of the report of an Edinburgh doctor (a Regius Professor, no less). That report was commissioned by the Scottish Charities Office, following a letter from Kate Thomas (who had only recently moved to the area, and whose criticisms had nothing to do with being a local resident, but rather with her concern about the nature of the HB process, based on her personal experience). Thomas had tried to deal directly with the Foundation on this matter, but with no success.

You needn't be concerned that I "updated" my credentials. That merely means that I added further relevant information to that already existing on my user page. There is nothing underhand about that. The history of the additions to my user page is available for all to see!

It is not my suggestion "that to know something about HB is to disqualify a person from writing about it". In fact, you were the one who said "the only way that this can be resolved is to hand over the article to a University"! Anyone can contribute to this article, but they should do so in a NPOV - that is what was at issue in my comment. In spite of all your "neutral" rhetoric, I believe that you have made the article less NPOV, a fact which has been noted by others, even when they are sympathetic to your position. That is why I added the banner disputing the neutrality, having tried to revert a couple of times after your heavy-handed editing. I have already declared my sympathy to the position held by the critics. That should be no obstacle to a NPOV, any more than being sympathetic to Grof's position. You said that you were writing a "post-grad dissertation in analytic philosophy", which might mean that you are unaware of the hermeneutic tradition in continental European philosophy (Gadamer and Ricoeur, for instance). From the perspective of such a tradition, a "conflict of interpretations" is a normal consequence of our situatedness in the world. But we also have a duty to expand our horizons and attempt to elicit the truth, to the best of our ability. What we have here is a conflict between two positions: that of the HB proponents, on the one hand, and that of the critics, on the other. The original article completely neglected the latter. I have been redressing that imbalance.

As for casting "a controversial light on the project", I have already pointed out that it was Jedermann who added the word "controversial" to the first sentence (see my reply to you of 30 December, in "Appropriateness of the term 'controversial' in relation to HB"). I defended him in this, when another editor removed it, and gave my reasons on the Talk page. Minehunter (who appears to be sympathetic to HB) subsequently agreed that the subject was controversial (see his comments of 27 November in "Kevin Shepherd reference"). You appear to be outnumbered!

I disagree with your defintion of "misquoting", which implies that I attributed to someone something that they did not say. I have accepted your more accurate comment about the context for quotation, and have started to remedy that.

The order in which I listed "physical manifestations" was the order in which Grof listed them, as indicated by the quotation marks. Perhaps you assume that I changed Grof's words. I do not do things like that.

The Communicator 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

To readers here, I will attend to protocol ref username. Apols for confusion in that regard. MAJ

As far as I can see your decision to banner the article as 'neutrality disputed' was not based on anticipation of the criticisms held in the quotes by the use of the opening term "controversial" (controversial to whom and in what context?), nor by your extensive criticism section, nor by your unexamined (contextless) quoted criticisms, nor by the cynically presented selection of physical manifestations (where did you get them from?), but primarily by my use of the word 'inevitably'.

Why don't you remove the word? but note that 'inevitably' there will be criticism of HB because of its position in psychotherapeutic practices. This is not to say that they are necessarily without some foundation as I indicated. Criticism befalls all practices, but the decision to persuade that HB is worthy of the title 'controversial' was promoted by excessive, unbalanced, contextless criticism. This was your intention. Despite some amendments in that regard, suspicion remains. NB Your Findhorn assessment is still flawed for reasons I have already given..

I think that you came into this topic knowing little about it, but saw an opportunity to practice your skills at writing and to advance the affections you held toward other psychotherapeutic practices and spiritual outlooks, such as it seems those of Meher Baba. You were not subtle about it and I noticed. That the HB article appeared in part as if it was an advert, you took as the green light to make vigorous edits and make it not so much a source of knowledge, but make another advert and counter-foil against HB. You could not do otherwise, for you have limited resources in this topic.

You have to know about a topic before you can present quotes or write about it. Your earlier critical contributions seemed to indicate cherry-picking of the available literature with no attempted overview as to what degree these criticisms represented the totality of views. Accordingly, the criticisms you presented were anecdotal despite being sourced. I am also concerned that you think that HB is dangerous and that you have promoted this view in one way or another.

Because the 'controversial' status of HB has been questioned you now want to claim that the article itself is controversial yet you still contribute to it. I suspect that you are content to leave this article as 'neutrality disputed' if you cannot claim that HB is controversial. I am deeply concerned as to your motives here.

It's not my role to allay your concerns or suspicions about my motives. My role is to communicate information about a topic in which I have had a longstanding interest, and about which I possess considerable documentation (including ten of Grof's books). The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So far I have seen little evidence of your intention to provide neutral information. Your personal views are strongly, vigorously, anti-HB as you have admitted. You present anecdotal quotes void of context; the Reactions and Contradictions section simply seems to be verbatim quote, again without understanding or context. MAJ.

In this context, "neutral" is your word, not mine. Philosophically speaking, I'm not sure that any information is neutral. The information in the critical section is certainly not neutral - it is critical. However, it is NPOV, in the Wikipedia sense, i.e. I have quoted and stated things factually, without putting my own spin on them. I'm not sure what you mean by "anecdotal". The quotes are from Grof, the originator and chief theorist of HB. You or others may add more context, if you think it necessary, and I won't interfere with it, so long as it is properly referenced and NPOV. However, your own speculations and interpretations of motives are not acceptable. (BTW, it's "Reactions and contraindications" rather than "contradictions".) The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This information may be of interest to readers of the article, whether they be HB practitioners, would-be psychotherapeutic patients, spiritual seekers, scholars of religion, psychologists, sociologists, or whomever. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In what context of 'interest'? You declare that "If there is anything good to be said for HB, let those who would defend it come forward. The Communicator 15:08, 24 November" MAJ.

There could be many contexts of interest. If I was a student of psychotherapy, researching HB, then I would want to know about the criticisms. If I was a prospective patient, I would want to know, not only about the criticisms, but also about the possible reactions and the contraindications, and for very practical reasons. And so on. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I will accept valid criticisms of my editing and rectify the latter when the opportunity arises. I will attempt to improve the article by rectifying the poor editing of others, using skills I have acquired as a scholar and professional editor, and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to speculation. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In what context 'improve'? Is this disingenuity?

No, it is not. The article was improved when Jedermann reverted (on 2 January) from your non-NPOV editing. I also improved it on 4 January, when I removed your unreferenced material from the "Reactions and contraindications" section. There is plenty of scope for further improvements. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I already gave my reasons for supporting the use of the word "controversial", and Jedermann and Minehunter agreed with me. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason did not reach the standard of your own definition; and Jederman is taking your lead about HB. I use your own definition: "A controversy is a matter of opinion or dispute over which parties actively argue, disagree or debate. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements." There is certainly no large-scale disagreement about HB as you well know. You are mis-interpreting the definition by applying the parochial aspect to the global aspect. Why? MAJ.

I am not misinterpreting it - you are! You focussed on the "large scale" side of that dyad. I think that the dispute over HB falls very well within the scope of that definition. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My decision to dispute the neutrality of the article was entirely based on the non-NPOV which your editing imparted to it. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more the case that you had been found out that your hostile intentions to HB were being expressed through the article. Your neutrality disputed banner was a desperate manoevure. MAJ

Speculation about motives is just that: speculation. I am, like other readers, interested only in the facts. I will leave it to others to draw their own conclusions about your motives. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary that any of us BE neutral (which would, in any case, be impossible), only that we use a NPOV when we contribute to articles. As I am tired of pointing out, my initial editing was just a start. It was at least fully referenced, unlike your non-NPOV speculations about the motives of critics. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your references were anecdotal and misleading. Without the context that I gave them they could be construed as a groundswell of critical opinion - which they were not. The fact that you wanted others to believe they were suggests you are working to an agenda. MAJ

Again that use of "anecdotal" - are Grof's own words anecdotal? Your "context" (such as it was) was completely unreferenced, and therefore amounted to an interpretation. By all means, add context, as long as you can back it up, as I did when I fleshed out the "Reactions and contraindications" section on 4 January. For instance, I could point out in the article that HB is entirely commercial and, from what I hear, very lucrative. But that wouldn't be NPOV. To create a section entitled "Costs of training", providing figures, would be NPOV. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not obsessed by your use of the word "inevitably". Nor did I remove it. As you can see from the history of edits to the article, Jedermann made this change on 2 January, with the comment "rv POV distraction" (which I take to mean "reverted the POV distraction" - i.e. the non-NPOV created by your editing of the criticism section). The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat - why don't you remove it? Is it because you need evidence for 'neutrality disputed'? MAJ

Quite simply because it hasn't been in the article since Jedermann removed it on 2 January, as I just pointed out! The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your reference to a "cynically presented selection of physical manifestations", followed by "where did you get them from?" I answered this in the very last paragraph of my comments of 4 January (where I was replying to your earlier query on this same theme). This is not a good sign for your prospects as a "post-grad ... in analytic philosophy" or for your familiarity with Grof and HB! The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you again refer to my academic background? And what is the source of your claim that I am a HB practitioner? MAJ

My reference to your academic background was an ironic gesture on my part - I have a weakness for that mode of expression. My source for that claim is your comment of 30 December (as deduced from the history log): "I have experience of breathwork". Perhaps you could elaborate on that experience, so we all know precisely what you mean. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, the selection is not mine but Grof's, as indicated by the quotation marks, and all of my quotations are fully referenced. Just to spell it out further: those are the "physical manifestations" as given, in that order, by Grof, on page 196 of his 1988 The Adventure of Self-Discovery, a book which I have in my possession, and which I have read. In addition, I have now provided a broader context for the "manifestations". The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my earlier comments about the irrelevance of the Findhorn Foundation's relations with residents of Findhorn and Forres, when it comes to criticisms of HB. I believe YOUR assessment is flawed for the reasons I have given. Perhaps you could be more specific about your reasons for rejecting the reasons I have given for the irrelevance. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You still fail to note, and another author in the discussion has already indicated, that Findhorn withdrew Grof because they were subjected to pressures from the Forres community and the press. MAJ.

I assume you are referring to Jablett. Let's have a look at the facts.

On 16 December Jablett added the following to the criticism section: "In an interview in the Forres Gazette (2002), Michael Shaw, a Findhorn Foundation director, responds to concerns about Holotropic Breathwork arising from the Findhorn controversy. He says that 'Holotropic breathwork has not been banned anywhere. It was merely withdrawn from courses held at the Findhorn Foundation after it was used as a battering ram by people who held anti-Foundation views, such as the late Sir Michael Joughin and the author Steven Castro.'"

On 17 December I commented as follows on the Talk page: "it amounts to a response to criticism by a Findhorn Foundation partisan, rather than criticism per se. As such, perhaps it should be put, along with other responses, in a 'Responses to criticism' section. Having said that, as a response it doesn't seem to add much to the debate. First, none of the criticisms actually refers to HB being 'banned'. Second, it speculates about the motives of two Foundation critics, rather than addressing the substance of the criticisms of HB."

On 18 December Jablett replied: "The paragraph I inserted doesn't address the criticisms, as you say. It merely implies that Shaw thought that HB may have been made a scapegoat for Findhorn Foundation politics, which I thought was relevant. However, I agree with Lumos3 (below), so I've removed it as my contribution towards shortening this section, and also transferred the Grof medical response to a 'Responses to criticism' section as per your suggestion."

Now, elsewhere you have written: "I was present at Grof's Findhorn visit. While the Findhorn community were happy to have Grof there, it was the continuing precarious relationship with the local Findhorn population (I had some personal experience of this) that caused them to withdraw any further invitations to Grof. This followed criticisms aimed against the Findhorn community that they were promoting LSD-type experiences."

Where is the evidence for your interpretation? You are saying that Busuttil's SCO-sponsored report was not the deciding factor. Here is the evidence for my interpretation, all taken from contemporary newspaper cuttings and books in my possession: "A spokesman for the Foundation's administration department confirmed that they had requested temporary suspension of the breathing workshops following a report produced in the last few months by an Edinburgh forensic doctor into the effects of hyperventilation ... It was also confirmed that questions had been asked about the workshops by the Scottish Charities Office." (Elizabeth Taylor, "Sessions draw the last breath", The Forres Gazette, 13 October 1993). "A New Age community in Moray has cancelled a meditation course after psychiatrists and local doctors expressed alarm about potential dangers to participants ... The week-long course in so-called holotropic breathwork was to have started on 23 October in a mansion belonging to the Findhorn Foundation ... but the foundation's administrators decided to cancel when the Scottish Charities Office began an inquiry. It is understood that the SCO commissioned a report into breathwork which has expressed strong criticism. Meanwhile a consultant psychiatrist, given breathwork literature by The Scotsman, has expressed alarm." (Alan Forbes, "New Age meditation course cancelled on medical advice", The Scotsman, 14 October 1993). "... when the Findhorn Foundation made an appeal to the SCO in 1995 to resume the controversial hyperventilation practice - it was rejected" (Stephen Castro, Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation: Towards a Sociology of a New Age Community, New Media Books, 1996, page 102). These documents appear to support my interpretation. Can you provide any evidence to support yours, apart from hearsay? If you speculate that the tense relationship with local residents was the real reason for the withdrawal, then I could speculate that FF officials may have said that to cover up the embarrassing fact of the medical report. But that would just be speculation, wouldn't it! The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ What is your interpretation? I am not impressed by extensive quotes when I can see that the quotes are selected to support the interpretations of someone who is radically hostile to HB. Your deceit is evident. Michael Shaw attended Grof's workshops. How would that amount to a rejection of HB by the Findhorn community which your article implied? Your claim that you are leaving out material or 'shortening' is your licence to removal material unfavourable to your fixed position.

Moving on to your speculations about my "limited resources in this topic", I would only point out to other (hopefully more objective) readers of this paragraph, that you have no way of knowing what my resources are. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ If I have access to texts that I know little or nothing about then my personal resources are limited.

I have seen what you have written. Either you conveniently ignore context because of lack of knowledge or because it suits your aims. I don't have a reason for not thinking that it is in fact, both, because your later contributions appear laboured and are practically drawn verbatim with little or no context.

The evidence suggests that I have greater resources than you, as I can lay my hands on books, letters and newspaper articles at a moment's notice, and use them to support my editing. I have not seen much evidence of your resources. In addition, what I have written so far is a fraction of what I intend to write. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ. That response is not effective. Also, it is my intention to follow this article.

As for my thinking that "HB is dangerous", that is accurate. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am citing that as indicative of a possible cause of a conflict of interest. MAJ.

Why would that be any more a conflict of interest than believing it to be safe, in the face of controversial books, articles, and a medical report? What about your conflict of interest, as someone with "experience of breathwork" who has "spoken privately, and at length, to Grof on a few occasions"? The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ Who or what says that HB is safe? Have I said that HB is safe? Also, you may quote a medical report against HB, but you turn a blind eye to the fact that the report was opinion and anecdotal. You know that doctors have, and are using HB but to mention or acknowledge this is bad for your position. Are you saying that the medical profession is divided? The fact that an opinion is recorded does not make it any less an opinion. But you call it evidence. Your contributions work to journalese standards and are unprofessional.

MAJ You again suggest that anyone who has knowledge of HB should not write an article on it.

Others evidently think so too, including reputable doctors and those writing from a "spiritual" angle. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You have mentioned merely a few. What percentage do these represent of those that actually practice HB? are you saying that more doctors are against HB than for it? Where is your evidence? MAJ.

I did not say that. I simply don't know. Do you? Please provide evidence. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ If you don't know the extent or even the presence of the division in the medical community to HB then how can you claim that HB is controversial? But you are aware of this. I should not have to be pointing this out to you.

Hyperventilation is an extreme phenomenon, medically or spiritually (see Hyperventilation). As a self-confessed HB practitioner, perhaps you should reserve your concern for yourself! The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Where have I "confessed"? Where have I "confessed" this? What is "extreme" and in what way does hyperventilation display it? MAJ.

To repeat what I said above: my source for that claim is your comment of 30 December (as deduced from the history log): "I have experience of breathwork". Perhaps you could elaborate on that experience, so we all know precisely what you mean. The word "extreme" is defined by Merriam-Webster online as "1 a : existing in a very high degree <extreme poverty> b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : RADICAL <went on an extreme diet> c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <extreme weather conditions>". The Wikipedia article on hyperventilation describes the letter as follows: "In medicine, hyperventilation (or hyperpnea) is the state of breathing faster or deeper (hyper) than necessary, and thereby reducing the carbon dioxide concentration of the blood below normal. This causes various symptoms such as numbness or tingling in the hands, feet and lips, lightheadedness, dizziness, headache, chest pain, slurred speech and sometimes fainting." The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ Then I shall ask you again. How did you substantiate your claim that I am a HB practitioner? You are struggling in your definition of 'extreme' in the way that you used the word. It would be easier for you to admit that the term is emotive, and that this is precisely the way in which you meant to use it. Your attempted 'chemical' argument is circular. Hyperventilation has symptoms because hyperventilation is an (extreme) condition, and it is an (extreme) condition because hyperventilating has symptoms.

I continue to contribute to the article for the reasons given above, even if I disputed the neutrality for reasons also given above. I could easily reinsert the word "controversial" (which was not originally added by me), as could others. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You have given no reasons why you are contributing to the article that are conceivable given your contributions here. Are you promoting your affections to the principles of Meher Baba? MAJ.

I stand by the reasons I gave. I quoted Meher Baba because he has made relevant comments. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ Should you not add, as you added before "no less a person than Meher Baba ..." You do strongly adhere to his teachings against Grof and others like him, do you not? You have very strong feelings against people practising pschotherapeutic practices like HB do you not?

But that appears relatively minor compared with the substantial editing which needs to be done. For the moment I am content that readers can now see that HB is controversial and has been subject to criticism. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Which readers? I am not one them. And why is it important? There have been criticisms of your contributions before I came along. See below. MAJ.

Any readers. Hopefully literate ones! The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ I asked you which readers?

Your intentions, Communicator, are hostile, not merely biased, which can be rectified. I allege you have at least a conflict of interest. What are your affiliations to Meher Baba? They certainly seem more than accidental. I draw attention to the following:

"If there is anything good to be said for HB, let those who would defend it come forward. The Communicator 15:08, 24 November 2006"

"if HB was spiritually bad ten years ago, then it remains so, and will remain so. For instance, in the 1960s Meher Baba strongly criticised the use of hallucinogenics. The Communicator 17:18, 28 November 2006"

"Such approaches to self-discovery were strongly condemned by no less a figure than Meher Baba, As for my thinking that 'HB is dangerous', that is accurate. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007"

"It is not my fault if others have not expanded the main article or countered the criticisms." It is however your choice to spend most of your time pushing a critical POV which has created an absurd imbalance in the article. I look forward to this being remedied. In the meantime I have removed a portion of the criticism. Minehunter 12:52, 22 December 2006"

sosmd.

Just to add 2 cents worth here from the ground up, so to speak. I am an MD, and a psychotherapits. My training has included classical Freudian psychoanalysis, behaviour modification, Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, Addiction counselling, and I am certified in Holotropc Breathwork by Stan and Christina Grof.

The first stage of any scientific endevor is the simple gathering of observational data. This is fundamentally the stage HBW is at ast the moment. HBW sufferes from the same lack of scientific validation as many if not all forms of psychotherapy. However, it has been demonstrated that pshcyotherapy is beneficial, at least as beneficial as drugs for mild and mderate depressions, and that the principal determinanat of outcome is tralationship, or fit, between client and therapist. So to say HBW lacks scientific validation is accurate, but merely describes its present stage in the sceintific continuum.

With regard to HBW being dangerous, I have practised HBW for over fifteen years. In our groups, an unfortuante physical outcome has never occured. This is because there are clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteriae established by Grof, and we follow them. If a practitioner does not, then that is because that practitioner is incompetent, not because the technique or its indications/contraindicateions are invalid.

One woman, with whom we worked very early on in our HBW career, did go into an unexpected Kindalini opening. In retrospect, I would perhaps not offer her HBW today, based on her initial interview and my accumulated experiecne. That eror is mine, not the technique's. Although her procedss has not been easy in the subsequent years, she has done well. It is however empahatically ubntrue that I was not properly trained by Grof to deal with a Kundalini opening. Thos familar witht eh history of breath work will be aware that Christina Grof has written exgtensiveley about her own Kundalini expereicences, and this writinf is am important part of the curriculum of HBW.

The rest of the client population with whom we have dealt over the past years, have done extremely well, and some have achieved recoveries from such things as personality disorders, addictions, major depressions etc. As an experienced psychotehrapist, I would classify HBW as by far the most effective technique among my armamentarium. It is not for everybody, but simply because it uses a technique which seems to the uninitiated to be outlandish, is not a reason not to investigate or employ it. After all, when Freud first had people lay on a couch and free associate, the technique was discussed in much the same language which is being used here about HBW.

I am unsure as to why HBW seems to elicit such a vitriolic assault from some of its critics, many of whom seem to beselectively informed or speaking largely from thepretical considerations, such as the notion that hyperventilation because it is hyperventialtion, must be 'bad'. Be that as it may, the technique is beloved by both practitioners and clients, and clients seem to keep to want to come come back. And it's not because HBW is fun. It is fun, but it is laos very hard work.

Kind regqards,

Sosmd64.231.92.12 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I have rephrased the beginning. As it is, it reads as though HB is still an adjunct of LSD therapy when in fact it is autonomous. IvorJ

There wasn't much information about either holotropic breathing or rebirthing in the section of that name,so I've renamed it 'professional practice', which was the bulk of that paragraph, and transferred the other stray sentences into the introduction where they can be amended, removed, or reallocated as appropriate. Jablett 18:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)