Talk:Gestalt practice

Lack of differentiation between Gestalt therapy and so-called Gestalt practice

This article lacks the differentiation between Gestalt therapy and so-called Gestalt practice. It claims to be a new and different development, but this is not the case. Rather Gestalt practice by Dick Price is a personal style of Gestalt therapy and uses Gestalt therapy methods and exercises, which are not unique Price-creations. If you keep up the claims it is your task to prove it. So, what exactly are the differences? Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.19.136 (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified how far Gestalt Practice is identical with Gestalt Therapy, - and rather a personal style than a new achievement. I have given sources. Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.33.51 (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The new changes in the article by User:Callaban still don't pay tribute to the fact, that "Gestalt practice" by Dick Price is almost completely build on Gestalt therapy! He doesn't simply borrow some techniques, - his Gestalt practice has Gestalt therapy as its foundation. Most of the "sources" are not reliable, objective sources as requested in wikipedia. Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.20.122 (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is a superb job, apparently written by someone with direct first-hand knowledge of the practice. Do not be discouraged by critics. Let me encourage this useful addition to our shared undertaking, for the good of humanity. Psyanalyst (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Psyanalyst. You help to heal the abuse. May we have compassion for critics. May they find the help they need for their anger. May they find wellness. May they find peace... Callaban (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article which has to stick to certain standards and to an adequate style and form. Insisting on this is not an "abuse". It is necessary criticism. Above all reliable, objective sources are requested. Even if the article is written by a fan. So far User:Callaban has neglected the origins of Dick Price's Gestalt Practice, and I have pointed out more explicitly the foundation in Gestalt therapy. User:Callaban blurs the facts about who created what. He does the same in other articles. Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.59.3 (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In the future, perhaps we can all ask ourselves how we can achieve worthy goals without being offensive. Psyanalyst (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I know the subject. This is a really good article. It’s informative, reliable, and well written. I can’t understand why somebody wants to suppress it. Kudos to Callaban! Thank you for all the hard work you have done. Shambalom (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody "wants to suppress it". That's ridiculous. Did you read the contributions? I recommend to read this to get things clear (with mindfulness): Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.42.177 (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Callaban:Introduction/Lemma

It makes sense that you added information about the word "gestalt" etc. And it makes sense that I added information about gestalt psychology etc. The introduction/lemma of an encyclopedia article should provide the reader with a first general introduction to the subject, including definitions, origins etc. So the text should remain as you and I edited it. Considering the importance of the information moving it to a footnote is not adequate. Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.19.60 (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@Callaban: Wikipedia

Your identification with the article is understandable, but this is wikipedia. Every user can write his contributions to the article. It is a collective process based on consensus that must be reached by discussion. Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.48.61 (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Once and again: Callaban, you don't "own" this article. Once you start an article in Wikipedia, every user can contribute to it and shape it. As far as a certain statement is doubted etc. start discussing, give argumetns und refer to reliable, objective sources (which the so-called "Manual of Gestalt Practice in the tradition of Dick Price" is not, as I already mentioned. It doesn't list sources, although the author obviously used other authors' works to write the text. As it is published publically we come to the question of copyright, among others). So stop deleting my contributions without discussing and giving reasons before, and then we will see.

The Gestalt (therapy) part of "Gestalt Practice" is evidently based on Gestalt therapy theory, methodology and practice, and it uses Gestalt therapy exercises and therapeutical tools, attitudes etc., dialogical relationship included. It suffices to have a look at the wikipedia Gestalt therapy article, or see any standard Gestalt therapy book. Just changing the label from Gestalt therapy to "Gestalt Practice" but then reiterating Gestalt therapy theory and practice, doesn't make "Gestalt Practice" a new thing. And I am aware of the fact that there are indeed differences to Gestalt therapy, as far as the emphasis on meditation etc. is concerned. Friedhelm, Germany. --79.228.32.9 (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Callaban

You deserve to be proud. I am sure many people appreciate what you have done. Feel the goodness of it and let that sink in. Enjoy your accomplishment. You have done something positive. Psyanalyst (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding Article

I want to thank the authors of this article. The Manual of Gestalt Practice, attached to the article, is one of the best sources of Gestalt and meditation practice that I've found on the Web. Although I knew about Dick Price from Esalen Institute, I really did not understand the role he played in the development of Gestalt practice. He obviously left us a rich gift. Articles like this really make Wikipedia a worthwhile resource! Heartherapy (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the abusive editing of this article!

I was saddened to learn that is fine article had come under attack, once again, for no good reason. Of course, one of the problems with Wikipedia is that anyone, no matter how misguided and misinformed, can cause almost irreparable damage to a worthy piece of work. I suppose the problem can only be cured by vigilance. So I compliment the authors of this article for their continuing efforts. Let me say that I have personal knowledge about the material in this article, and I can vouch for its accuracy. So...stop the abusive editing of this article! Psyanalyst (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing abusive about removing sources that are not reliable under Wikipedia:Verifiability from the text. And there is nothing abusive about removing external links that link to private websites with commercial interests (offering workshops) under Wikipedia:External links. So relax and change your tone. User Callaban does not discuss and doesn't give reasons. That is not acceptable. --79.228.34.231 (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No reverts of talk page structure

@Callaban. Do not revert the appropriate order of the talk page according to wikipedia (chronology, new contributions below). Mind the rules and conventions. --79.228.24.141 (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We must try to have compassion for this attacker.

This page discloses a pattern of unfounded attacks. The current episode is only the latest example. The External Links section of the article references worthwhile information on the sites of well known Gestalt practitioners. Everybody in the Gestalt Practice community knows who they are. They are each named in Professor Kripal’s book as part of the legacy generation. They are top practitioners with overbooked calendars. So this is not advertising, except in the mind of an attacker who is searching for grievances. That attack is based on fabrication, and it discredits the attacker. For several years now, the Gestalt Practice Manual has been used widely by practitioners and teachers. It is well known in the Gestalt Practice community as a valuable resource. If the attacker doesn’t know about it, then they just show us their ignorance. So the attacker discredits themselves, again. I am not a contributor to this article. As a neutral observer, I have been appalled by the behavior of the attacker. I compliment the authors for withstanding the abuse. In the public domain, it is sometimes difficult to avoid those who engage in abusive behavior. We must use that abusive behavior to discover the goodness in our own hearts. We must work hard to transcend reactivity and have compassion for this attacker. Psyanalyst (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This - shall I call it "argument"? - becomes ridiculous. You are creating a myth of an "abused" article. This is an encyclopedia with certain rules and regulations to ensure quality and neutral point of view. Before you write would you kindly read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Verifiability. You call the argumentation against certain links an "attack". But you do not answer to the arguments, which are: "private websites" of individuals (you call them "practitioners") who offer workshops etc. (which is "commercial"). The encyclopedia is not a place for publication of private websites of "practitioners". There are thousands of them all over the world. And second: do you deny that the "Manual" is also a private website of a single person, wiriting down a text, without listing sources and references which the person obviously must have used? However useful you may find it, it has no place in this encyclopedia. This talk page serves for the discussion of problems of the article. If you want, as a "neutral observer", to express praise or lament, move to the talk page of user Callaban. --79.228.45.123 (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not let this person ruin the Gestalt Practice article.

A colleague called to tell me this person was back trying to ruin the Gestalt Practice article. My people know this kind of person. We have seen their behavior in the past. They like to do harm because of their strange ideas about “discipline.” I didn’t know this kind of thing was allowed to happen on Wikipedia. What other kinds of damage has this person been allowed to do? I work with Gestalt Practice. This article is perfect just the way it is. Nothing should be changed. Do not let this person ruin the Gestalt Practice article! Shambalom (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Myth-building and fan-congregation

Oh, I see! A fan-congregration! What a surprise! No pertinent arguments, but a lot of myth-building about "ruin" or "abuse", and a lot of irrational behaviour. User Callaban was about to start an edit war. I shall not join him. But I maintain my objections against the private website links promoting workshops etc., and the "Manual", the "source" that is not verifiable and thus not reliable according to wikipedia standards. --79.228.39.247 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

The image that was removed was not "significantly and directly related to the article's topic." That is necessary according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images

It also says: "Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate." A taoist symbol does not look like "Gestalt practice". The taoist symbol is not "significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Removing the image was neither "vandalism" nor "ignorance or malice". --79.228.13.127 (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. Mind the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images. The image is misleading. Among the variety of sources of Gestalt Practice mentioned in the article Taoism is a minor influence. The image at the beginning of the article should characterize the topic of the article directly and significantly. --79.228.19.227 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that you have no understanding of Gestalt Practice. The Tao Te Ching was an essential text for the development of the practice. It was perhaps the most influential book for Dick Price. And it continues to be studied by practitioners. Furthermore, the Taoist perspective is essential for open seat practice, and one of the primary features that distinguishes Gestalt Practice from Fritz Perls' hot seat method. The symbol you removed is crucial for communicating an essential quality of the Gestalt Practice tradition. This information is quite basic, and any responsible person would wanted to contribute to this page would have had that knowledge before making any changes. Apparently you do not. Please stop your uninformed vandalism. Callaban (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As the name suggests Gestalt Practice is based on Gestalt therapy as a main source. That is also what the article says (an I DID read it). Using a taoist symbol at the beginning of the article therefore IS misleading. It is not an article about taoism. (Apart from that I have demonstrated nothing, not even "no understanding". And it was not me who removed the image initially.) --79.228.19.227 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Your most recent comment demonstrates clearly that, in fact, you have no understanding of Gestalt Practice. How can you pretend to change an article when you don't know what you are doing? Furthermore, you don't have any understanding of Taoism, or you would recognize the meaning that the symbol communicates. Please stop this pretense. Replace the symbol yourself, so I can return to more important work, instead of having to deal with Wikipedia vandalism. Callaban (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you are becoming impolite. Are you claiming that Taoism ist the main source of Gestalt practice? If not, I would rather leave the article without the taoist symbol. --79.228.19.227 (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, sir. You are impolite, and also officious. You cite the standard of "significantly and directly related." The standard is not what you have concocted to be the "main source." By the true standard there is no doubt that the symbol is warranted. Additionally, Gestalt therapy is merely one source of Gestalt Practice. Eastern practices, such as Taoism, are of equal rank. Once again, anybody who understands Gestalt Practice knows that much. Obviously, you do not. Your comments as self-impeaching. Stop this pattern of behavior. Do the right thing. Correct the damage you have done to this article. Callaban (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That is nice. The image you use now seems much more to be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The taoist symbol was not. This is NOT an article about Taoism, as I have already mentioned. And to conclude this: unfortunately your behaviour is rather questionable, not mine. As "Wikipedia:No personal attacks" says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. (...) As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. --79.228.12.192 (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not attempt to rationalize the damage you have done. You are merely evidence of a larger problem with Wikipedia. You represent the problem that risks making Wikipedia into an untrustworthy resource. Wikipedia allows anybody with a keyboard and a connection to do damage to important academic articles. That is what has happened here. Taoism has a direct connection to Gestalt Practice. The Tao Te Ching is a fundamental resource. You did not know that. And yet it is obvious to anybody who has studied the subject. So you have demonstrated your ignorance of the subject matter, and yet you did not hesitate to do harm. By doing that, you have not only defaced the article, but you have served to compromise the Wikipedia project. The problem is not personal, as demonstrated by your cloak of anonymity. It is the general problem that Wikipedia is exposed to intermeddling by the transient uninformed. Callaban (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow!! That's incredible! Absolutely. All these words. Impressive. You say: "The Tao Te Ching is a fundamental resource." Maybe. It is not relevant for this discussion. It is ONE resource among many others, as is obvious from the article. The taoist symbol does not characterize Gestalt practice. It would, if Gestalt practice was a taoist practice, but Gestalt practice is not a taoist practice. Is it? You don't respond to this argument. And still: "Wikipedia:No personal attacks" says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. (...) As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." --79.228.31.95 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And may I humbly draw your attention to the fact that it was not me who removed the image initially. It was someone else who thought that the image did not "significantly and directly related to the article's topic." So I am not the only one. --79.228.31.95 (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your defacement of this article will remain as demonstrative evidence of your malfeasance. Callaban (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you let an admin decide the matter? I have no problem with that. --79.228.31.95 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested technical request. Any objection within a reasonable time frame should see the move reverted. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Gestalt Practice → Gestalt practice – Suggestion to bring the article more in line with common usage, other types of practices and other Gestalt concepts. An argument could be made that "Gestalt Practice" is a proper name referring to the process developed and implemented by its author, Dick Price at Esalen. However, it seems clear that there are many practitioners developing it beyond and outside the original source material, and in my view, the project would benefit from an article that covers the concept more broadly. This would make it a common compound noun, styled "Gestalt practice" per "avoid unnecessary capitalization" WP:MOS and WP:CAPITALIZATION. Ngrams history shows "Gestalt practice" has generally been the most common styling [1]. Many publications[2] on the subject and practitioners (and the footnotes of this article) write "Gestalt practice", while practitioners closely tied to Price’s institutions (Esalen[3], for example) tend to write "Gestalt Practice". I believe styling the phrase as a common noun also invites contributions of a broader scope without deemphasizing the practice's basic principles. Wow Mollu (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, it may be appropriate to consider again the 2011 suggestion to merge this article with Gestalt therapy. Wow Mollu (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Books by Callahan

The books are questionable. The books do not cite any sources in the actual text, and there is no bibliography of the basic sources that were used.

• Callahan, John F. and Ulrich Flasche. Handbuch der Gestaltpraxis: in der Tradition von Dick Price, Reihe Gestalt-Übungs-Praxis. Sep 7, 2022. ISBN 978-3756817481
• Callahan, John F. (editor). Relational Gestalt Practice: Key Concepts, The Gestalt Legacy Project. April 2014. ISBN 978-1-312-06696-0
• Callahan, John F. (editor). Manual of Gestalt Practice in the Tradition of Dick Price, The Gestalt Legacy Project. September 2009. ISBN 978-1-304-96247-8

2003:E4:174C:B545:A4D4:7F72:30C9:3C3F (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

They are also self-published and have been removed as sources. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)