Is there a place for commenting on this on Wikipaedia itself? Or even within
the text?
Otherwise I guess all we can do is just ignore it and keep doing the work.
Barbara
Sent from my iPhone
On 24 Feb 2016, at 11:55, "Alison Fornes maitreya71@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk]" <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
Just checked the wiki entry, and it has reverted back to the skeptical
version.
I did some research about skeptical activism on wikipedia and found this:
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com
On Monday, January 18, 2016, jack blackwell travelerjbjb@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here is the current definition for Family Constellations on Wikipedia:
Family Constellations, also known as Systemic Constellations and Systemic
Family Constellations, is an alternative therapeutic method which attempts
in a single session to reveal a previously unrecognized systemic dynamic
that spans multiple generations in a given family and to resolve the
deleterious effects of that dynamic by encouraging the subject to accept the
factual reality of the past.
While the names are sometimes used interchangeably, Systemic Constellations
is a often used as a broader category which includes family constellations,
organizational constellations and structural constellations, with the
difference mainly being the system to be explored.[1][2][3] While originally
used for family systems, the expansion to use with other systems lead to the
more general term Systemic Constellations.
Many people contributed to the development of the process; however, the
German-born Bert Hellinger (b. 1925) is widely acknowledged as the founder
of the process in its modern form. His first book, published in English as
Love's Hidden Symmetry,[4] became a best seller in Germany and brought
Constellations to public awareness.
Family Constellations diverges significantly from conventional forms of
cognitive, behaviour and psychodynamic psychotherapy. Bert Hellinger wrote
that Family Constellations has the capacity to open up new perspectives and
possible solutions.[5] Practitioners claim that present-day problems and
difficulties may be influenced by traumas suffered in previous generations
of the family, even if those affected now are unaware of the original event
in the past. Hellinger referred to the relation between present and past
problems that are not caused by direct personal experience as Systemic
entanglements, said to occur when unresolved trauma has afflicted a family
through an event such as murder, suicide, death of a mother in childbirth,
early death of a parent or sibling, war, natural disaster, emigration, or
abuse.[6] The psychiatrist Iván Böszörményi-Nagy referred to this phenomenon
as Invisible Loyalties.[7]
Family Constellations appears to have a favorable effect on relationships,
wellbeing, and raising awareness generally.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Positive
outcomes from the therapy have been attributed to conventional explanations
such as suggestion and empathy.[3]
There have been different explanations suggested for how people might be
effected by their ancestors that range from the more scientific, such as
attachment bonding,[14] trans-generational trauma[15] and epigenetics,[16]
to the more alternative, such as shamanic principles[17] and morphic fields.
Hellinger incorporates the pseudoscientific idea of morphic resonance into
his explanation of how the effect might span generations, an explanation
that physicists call quantum quackery, saying "there is no good reason to
believe that there are quantum effects at the biological level."[3]
Jack Blackwell (720) 458-5363
Connecting Spirit & Psychology ~ Creating profound insights and Healing
Family Constellation Workshops & Trainings, Holotropic Breathwork
Visit us at Family-Constellation.com to learn more
From: "Monika Dressler drmdressler@xxxxxxxxx [ConstellationTalk]"
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Changing the description of our work on
Wikipedia.
Hello Everyone,
All in all user "snailwiki" has now again modified the text in a very
balanced and helpful way. Very good quality work I would say. The emerging
power of the constellation community :)
Monika
From: "Alison Fornes maitreya71@xxxxxxxxx [ConstellationTalk]"
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Changing the description of our work on
Wikipedia.
It looks like the "Family Constellations" entry has been recently changed as
well. When I checked last (a week ago?), it was much more balanced and
positive. Now it is back to the "quantum quackery" language.
Ack.
There are numerous books, PhD dissertations and Knowing Field articles that
could be referenced. Feels like a big project - one that I would participate
in if there were a group of us who wanted to get involved.
If that's you, let me know.
It is the courageous heart that loves. It is the loving heart that heals.
alisonfornes.com
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Monika Dressler drmdressler@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I have spent some time with help to look into this Wikipedia issue. It
appears there is only one hard core hostile editor Pinkbeast and one
sceptical editor Alexbrn who insist on restoring the older version and
refuse to consider any reasonable request to re evaluate the text. It is not
hard to restore the more balanced version by 21:47, 14 January 2016 Roxy
the dog
As a community we should be able to prevail over two editors in Wikipedia
but we will need to adhere to the Wikipedia rules. Also additional attempts
to communicate with those two hostile editors may eventually work?
1. generate a user name and password - very easy, but do not try to have two
accounts!
2. login
3. go to Family Constellation - View history
4. undo Pinkbeast version
5. or edit/save the more balanced version by 21:47, 14 January 2016 Roxy
the dog
It is not a large establishment we are up against just two recalcitrant
voluntary editors. I have been banned by them because my son was helping me
through his account, a breach of Wikipedia rules.
Good luck
Monika
From: "anngwyn@xxxxxxx [ConstellationTalk]"
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Changing the description of our work on
Wikipedia.
Hello Everyone,
No surprise, really... censorship by our controllers is on the
rise...perhaps you have noticed this elsewhere in your personal and
professional lives...
Kind regards
Anngwyn
In a message dated 1/15/2016 6:01:42 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Hello all,
In the past few days the following message has gone up on the Systemic
Constellations website. If the individual who changed the Family
Constellations page has the time and energy to change this page with the
same information it would likely benefit the whole constellations community.
It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:
Seems to have minimal sources, reliable or not. Google searches give very
few results, and the term seems to be used by only a few extreme-fringe
groups. Sources for the article do not appear to be either reliable or
notable.
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing,
renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may
remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to
deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to
explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on
the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days,
i.e., after 13:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC).
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider
improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion
policy.
Please consider notifying the author/project: {{subst:proposed deletion
notify|Systemic Constellations|concern=Seems to have minimal sources,
reliable or not. Google searches give very few results, and the term seems
to be used by only a few extreme-fringe groups. Sources for the article do
not appear to be either reliable or notable.}} ~~~~
Timestamp: 20160114130702 13:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Warm regards,
Patricia Robertson
On Jan 15, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Elmar Dornberger
elmar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ConstellationTalk]
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just found this today on the net and thought this might be of interest so
we all understand Wikipedia better.
At 15, Wikipedia Is Finally Finding Its Way to the Truth
Today, Wikipedia celebrates its 15th birthday. In Internet years, that’s
pretty old.
But it’s only just reaching maturity. Read the full story
Yours,
Elmar
On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Barbara Morgan theknowingfield@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No doubt someone with a personal investment in keeping the negative out
there. Must be either someone who has had a negative personal experience
of the work or is in some way in competition. Why else would they come
back so quickly and change it back? Interesting why this is happening now,
in terms of field phenomena. Why this negative field around the work at
this moment in time?
Barbara
On 6 January 2016 at 18:06, jack blackwell travelerjbjb@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Interesting, it has now been changed back to the original
negative description again. Hmmm
--
It is the courageous heart that loves. It is the loving heart that heals.
alisonfornes.com
