Talk:Grinberg Method

Controversies 1
Hi, I'm new in commenting but it seems to me this section is not balanced because it gives only one side of the controversy. It reads more as pure allegations and doesn't say anything about the response to them or if they have any basis. Also the first sentence says there were controversies for years but doesn't add sources to show this. Does anyone know how to add a tag or reference to it?--Saulmor (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

These recent additions by anonymous users are clearly slanderous, unsourced, partly off topic. I have reestablished the old version for now, having seen that Sionk did the same in the morning. I do not want to start any back-and-forth editing, though, and hope those users will look at their talk pages and the reasons why their contributions were deleted.Ldt wiki (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Counter arguments to Controversies section
I found this section to be quite misleading as well as seemingly intent on making defamatory statements, rather than being based on fact. Having been involved with the Grinberg Method since 1992, first as a client and then as a practitioner, I cannot corroborate with anything that was stated in this section. To state that the Grinberg Method has continued to generate controversy is one-sided, as one can only point to the television program cited, which itself has been presented as libelous and slanderous and was based solely on heresay from a few individuals, who are devoted to undermining the GM work and, more specifically, its founders. As Saulmor states in earlier comments, there are no references to support this claim of "continued controversy," and this language makes a broad assumption as if it were fact.

In all the marketing information about this method, which has been made available to the public since it's incorporation, there is no reference to leaders. This wording itself has a definitive slant, as you will not find this reference anywhere else when talking about the schools and training of the Grinberg Method. Rather you will see terms such as founders, teachers, trainers, Academic supervisory boards and the Committee for Continuous Professional and Personal Development. This is standard language for any methodology that focuses on teaching, offering a professional training, complete with supervisions, certifications and graduations requirements.

While in essence, the section seems quite intent on suggesting involvement on sexual, financial and family levels, if you review the official website, that of the international association, those of current GM professionals and the various printed materials which offer different activities and sessions, you will find no reference of any such involvement on this level. Instead it sounds like very general comments, with no factual basis, used to make strong and untrue, but potentially damaging statements. Heresay.

In the final paragraph, the statement put in quotations is entirely libelous. You can review the specifics of the curriculum of the 3 years of professional studies, as well as the Student Handbook (all are found on the official site which has been online since 2008) to learn about what is involved in the extensive professional training. You can also review the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (Ref #44), which ensures that this statement is simply not taught or assumed.

It appears that most, if not all, of this section was based on heresay and the gathering of input in a very slanted and one-sided manner. It is highly offset by the informative and balanced nature of the rest of the entry.Costymw (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Costy

Controversies section
As for the controversies section I have checked all the sources I could find about the Grinberg Method and I saw that none of them, besides those two which are in french, don't mention this subject. There is one source I have found that talks about this subject and claims that it was an attempt to revenge made by a former employee -

http://yallafinance.com/2012/09/03/ethics-of-swiss-french-tv-channel-questioned/

It looks like a minority view and overstated and therefore I would like to take it off the main page.--Shulas (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversies 2
Dude, learn French and then you'll judge if the sources are reliable. You found one article from some Jordanian guy, who obviously has an agenda here and who basically dismissed the whole thing over his personal feeling on the subject and some friend in France. Apparently, from what I read here, people tend to judge this on their personal belief rather than on facts. You are perfectly allowed to believe that this is some kind of revenge, but it remains beliefs and not facts. As a matter of fact a number of person have elevated concerns regarding the Grinberg Method, which justifies the existence of a controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dulume (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Update - Controversies section
I have looked and checked the subject more thoroughly. I Am adding some more information to make this section more complete. --Shulas (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The controversies section doesn't make much sense yet. Parts are a literal translation of the UNADFI page - a summary (if anything) would be better. I can't see anything in the sources about the Grinberg Method rejecting the accusations ...and it's not clear how a 'method' could issue statements! Sionk (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * An IP editor (178.199.222.194) has reinstated that very poorly sourced information, and I copy the warning I left them here:"Yes. If you continue to make negative and improperly sourced edits like this one or insert commentary like this, you will be blocked and, if needs be, the article will be semi-protected to prevent further disruption." This article can not be a ball bounced back and forth between detractors and promoters. Recent edits (this is the last fifty edits) have improved the article greatly (thank you, , , , ), and we can not let this return to the bloated bag of praise and detail with appended negative information it was before. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV violation
If there is any controversy or criticism found in RS, it must be mentioned. Right now this looks like a sales brochure and a hagiography. That's not right. It's okay elsewhere, but Wikipedia requires that other POV are documented. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You should have seen it before. But negative information needs to be very carefully sourced, and that simply wasn't the case. If you have any, with RS, by all means add it. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I'm just voicing a principle concern over an existing NPOV violation. Right now we have a method which has been criticized, but the article mentions nothing. It just needs to be added in the proper manner. I don't know enough about it or French to really help much, and hope that editors here will seek to remedy this because we don't allow hagiographies here. Search for criticisms in RS and add them. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversies
Hi, I am Massimo and I think that the TSR broadcast is just a Gossip as it is the UNADFI's article. I have been to several Grinberg Therapist and I found that each has his own style and his own way to communicate whit my body. Looking at the TSR broadcast my body told me that this is a fabrication concerted between some ex-Grinberg's Members and a Journalist that had to fill up 18min and 49sec (from 12.37 to 31.26 see the broadcast). I say this because the identy and the story of the ex-GM is not told, you don't know what they are doing now and what exactly pushed them to go out the association. Than if they really have been subject to coercion why they didn't went to the tribunal?

And what about Wikipedia? I thought you are publishing reliable References or at least controlling also the point of view of the publisher of the "wikipedia voice"

I hope you as Wikipedia publisher will check again these References (20 and 21) and will give a chance to Avi Grinberg, the main person accused, and the Grinberg Method Association, indirectly hit by that broadcast, and all the Members that are still leaving from this method, directly hit by that broadcast but who had enough courage to stand ethically answering the questions.

thanks for reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.7.10 (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A Reflection on the Controversies Discussion
It's 4 years later. I'm here as a newcomer. Looking into it just a little bit, my assessment is this. I think the Grinberg method is legitimate and that the overall training and institution is above board. What probably happened is that there was one, or some, sketchy practitioners. In the same way, there have been sketchy psychologists who made inappropriate sexual advances with their patients. The latter case does not tarnish the whole profession of psychology, and similarly, the whole endeavor of the Grinberg method should not be thrown into disrepute. That would be a real loss. But it does suggest that a person should take good care that they are working with safe, good, and decent practitioners! Certifying institutions can do some of that work, but they can't do all of it! Whether we are talking about doctors, lawyers, chiropractors, financial advisors, individual professionals need to earn trust!

I want to emphasize something. Please notice a discrepancy. Broadly, the Grinberg Method is about reconnecting a person to their own body, their own emotions, and their own ability to heal. But the rogue practitioners described in the Controversy section seemed to be about alienating the person from their feelings and intuition. Even a short investigation suggests that that is not what the Grinberg Method is about when sincerely carried out.

Pigkeeper (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

False statement in the article + a little too much propaganda here
Hello guys,

I came back to complete my comment (this one) with sources and info at the end. Last edit the 28th of May 2018. I also changed its form quite a few times to make it more easy to read. I segmented it as it is long. So here it goes:

Topics:

1)Pointing at a wrong statement in article and propaganda hidden behind unverifiable information and opinions

2)about Wikipedia

3)A correction I did to the article

and verified infos on ASDFI

4)The TV broadcasts

5)Sources and links

1) The info telling that Asdfi would be conservative catholic is false and not sourced.

Wikipedia isn't meaned to be a propaganda support for any method. Let's try to work on it as a free encyclopedia : please keep as much as possible the information formal, neutral, and sourced while writing in the article. And when you write on the Talk page try to keep your comment as much as possible fact based. It is how it is but at least we should try. Thank you.

We can share thoughts to improve the article but please be clear between what are your own beliefs/opinions and what are reliable source based informations. Defending on this page the method from some journalistic investigation by giving your opinions, does not give any facts to improve the wikipedia article in my point of view ?

The controversial section is there because the Method has also generated some questions, worries and victims.

As an online source, they speak about it in one of the TV broadcasts :

Danièle Muller (which works with ASDFI and FECRIS) said in the broadcast from 2012 that she has not often seen a so small group/movement makes as much damage. She also said that of course people can quit the Method but it should be seen how they come out of it and with which traumas. A psychiatrist also speaks about the method. In one of the broascasts the journalists also interviews a traditional medicine specialist about a practice.

The section is now clean from the false statement about ASDFI (hopefully no one will change it again with small trials to influence people and switch from information to desinformation or opinions).

I see some comments here seeming more like propoaganda than anything else but in another hand this Talk gives information about the vocabulary used/taught in the Method ("my body told me" in the comment of Massimo. You can say that, if you want to. But perhaps you should acknowledge it is a language coming from the beliefs of the Method. I am sorry but your "body" as you say it (or in a more pragmatic language I would say: simply an imagination based on your feelings; some interpretations of your feelings ; your opinion/belief influenced by your own feelings which could be influenced by whatever) is not a recognised public source neither a reliable source to change any Wikipedia article.)

2) From what I know Wikipedia is the result of everyone's hard work. It is opensource. Anyone can contribute following some general guidelines. (Which I am learning too being also new.) So I encourage you who are reading this to always check the sources and read the articles knowing that. Research where you have doubts until you are satisfied.

3) By regarding to ASDFI website (not UNADFI as linked in the article sources but ASDFI which is the Swiss association), by contacting them or by regarding the information which can be found on Internet about it elsewhere, the statement that it would be a conservative catholic associaton is false. So I removed that description. I don't know who wrote it/which source he/she had. Actually it twisted pretty much the information in the controversy section.

So be careful while reading the article. There may be some other details that twist the informations. I really haven't gone through it all. But as a reminder again this page is not meaned to be a propaganda page for the Method. Neither a place to spat at it without any source. So thank you for keeping it as facual as you can too.

Asdfi is an association which defends families and individuals. They present themselves as politically independent and religously neutral. Several countries have one. Their website says at now in French:

"(...) a pour vocation d'informer et de soutenir les victimes ainsi que les familles des victimes de groupes, mouvements et organisations à caractère sectaire qui portent atteinte aux Droits de l'Homme et aux libertés fondamentales tels que définis dans la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'homme de 1948."

And also their status says:

"(...)L'association est opposée aux méthodes qui ne respectent pas la liberté de l'individu, notamment aux méthodes de déprogrammation. L'association est politiquement indépendante et confessionnellement neutre."

So to translate that in English the association is in opposition to methods which don't respect the individual freedom, for example methods of "deprogrammation" I am not sure of what it would be in English: disordering? Breaking down? Unprogramming? I tried to find translations on Internet.

ASDFI seems to inform about sects/abusing methods and help victims (and their families) from any groups/movements/organisations with sectarian caracteristics which are harmful to Human Rights and fundamental liberties.

Some other websites speak about ASDFI too and you can find some information elsewhere on and from Daniele Muller. A quick research in search engines gives results such as interviews, articles (I have taken only the basical sources for this comment but with a quick search you can find that yourself too).

I haven't found any website (neither even an odd chronic blog) where it would be said that the association is catholic. They deny it as well if asked.

ASDFI is a member of the European FECRIS which writes on their website the following:

"The essential basis of reflection and action of the member associations of FECRIS is listening to the victims of abusive or presumed abusive activities. The objectives and the methods of this research and analysis are particularly valuable because of the direct contact with affected individuals.  Sectarian deviations are not static phenomena. Their outward signs are constantly evolving. We base our arguments on verified and up-to-date material.   Our analysis is based on the evidence derived from the behaviour of organisations. It is important to resist the pressure to place cultic behaviour on the safe ground of belief and religion. The discussion is a false one based on a superficial approach to the issues and incompatible with scientific analysis.   We focus on a cult or a guru when the organisation or the individual “trades” in beliefs and in destructive techniques with mind control as a tool. Our conclusions are considered and prudent. They take into account possible misrepresentations and the sorrow and destruction of the victims and their families. We denounce the uninformed enrolment of individuals into certain thought reform systems and the potentially damaging results to our social, democratic and family structures. This essential concept having been highlighted, the members of FECRIS agree to co-operate according to the following principles: Respect of religious, philosophical and political pluralism; Objectivity and pragmatism whilst keeping in mind the complexity of situations. Discretion, respect of the professional secrecy. Continually question. Never forget that the sectarian phenomenon is constantly evolving. (...)"

4) From what I researched : The journalist behind the TV show seemed to win the juridic process Avi Grinberg did against the TV show.

You can watch the TV broadcasts (there was more than one) in the sources and ask RTS if wanted too. It is always good to get your own info/recheck by yourself things in general in the given sources and others you may find.

RTS is one main TV channel in Switzerland so they should be enough professional to answer you any question about the broadcasts.

5) Few links/sources I picked up while doing my researches:

www.asdfi.ch

www.asdfi.ch/page-nos-statuts

https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/4039115-d-anciens-praticiens-de-la-methode-grinberg-denoncent-des-derives-dans-l-organisation.html

https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/le-journal-du-dimanche/video/ge-un-ex-eleve-de-la-methode-grinberg-porte-plainte-contre-son-ancienne-enseignante?id=4110947&station=a9e7621504c6959e35c3ecbe7f6bed0446cdf8da

https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/le-journal-du-dimanche/video/methode-grinberg-entretien-avec-daniele-muller-presidente-de-lassociation-pour-la-defense-de-la-famille?id=4110938&station=a9e7621504c6959e35c3ecbe7f6bed0446cdf8da

http://fecris.org/members/

http://www.prevensectes.com/informer.htm

The CIC in Switzerland has also speaked about the beliefs in Grinberg Method.

In a discussion in 2014 around a petition against sectarian derivals, a swiss politic used Grinberg method as an example of how sectarian derivating could concern everyone. See page 10:

https://www.rts.ch/emissions/religion/faut-pas-croire/6191373.html/BINARY/P%C3%A9tition%20contre%20les%20d%C3%A9rives%20sectaires%20.pdf

Also: http://ge.ch/grandconseil/data/texte/P01890B.pdf

Best regards.125.162.158.116 (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 36.84.63.3 (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC) 36.84.63.8 (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Controverses - Another correction
Well. I come back already as I needed to change a way of formulating things which slightly twisted the info in the controverses section.

So. That is how it goes now that I have changed it (hopefully right) :

"A psychiatrist who deals with the treatment of victims of sectarian derivals has worked with several former members and according to her at Grinberg this is what is taught (...)"

Before my correction it was written :

"(...) and according to her they told that at Grinberg this is what is taught (...)".

It seems a small mistake but as some people here in the Talk were trying to make the broadcast sound like a gossip it might make a difference. The old version supported more their opinions. But it was not what can be watched in the broadcast.

I hope it is now a small little bit better reported from the broadcast which is in French.

In the broadcast the psychiatrist is presented as being specialised in the treatment of victims of sectarian derivals and knowing well the mechanisms which were at work in Grinberg. She talks about things in Grinberg. So the statement seems more of an analysis of some practices, a description of a logic in Grinberg (wether it is hidden or clear). It is not some "repeated words" such as: "she said that they said that (...)". To resume : if I put things back in the context, she speaks about some mechanics in Grinberg (at least at that time). Not about what former members or people said about it.

For her it is demolition of any possibilty to keep a private sphere and there is no possibility of keeping a safe distance between the therapist and the patient (or in the language used in Grinberg : the so called client and practicioner.)

Sources of this comment: the broadcast (do refer yourself to the link in the article or the sources in my comment above which was about another correction and some propaganda seen around here)

Regards.36.75.112.217 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)36.84.63.3 (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)