Talk:Hakomi

The Word Hakomi
I removed this from the page:
 * 'Hakomi' is a Hopi word meaning "Who are you? - You are, who you are!" or "How do you relate?" There is also a longer version of the Hopi word: 'Where do I stand in relation to these many realms.' In one of the Chinese languages, Hakomi means: Reverent Universal Laughter.

pending verification from a reliable source on Hopi (and Chinese). Ron Kurtz may claim it means this in Hopi, but I see no reason to believe him. --Alivemajor 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't that going overboard with caution into the realm of paranoia? Why would he make this up and publish it widely? To look like a complete and utter fool when the first person bothered to check with a source on the Hopi language? Or do you have any specific reason for believing that Kurtz is basically a fraud that you haven't yet shared with the rest of us? __meco 08:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * People misinterpret or make up stuff like this, or repeat stuff other people have misinterpretted/made up without checking, all the time — not just the founders of alternative forms of psychotherapy. Plenty of people still think, for example, that the Eskimos have hundreds of words for snow, or that the Chinese use the same word for 'crisis' as they do for 'opportunity'. Personally I would dismiss any claim that a three-syllable word in any language had the literal English translation of "How do you stand in relation to these many realms?" out of hand, but a lot of people apparently assume that an arcane language like Hopi actually has words like this. (Assuming it exists, perhaps a more accurate translation is "What nationality are you?") --Alivemajor 09:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well put, Alivemajor, you gave me a chuckle. Just out of curiosity, I tried "hakomi" in this online translator (which seems like it has a limited vocab but if this is a common phrase it should be in there), and got nothing. http://en.glosbe.com/hop/en/hakomi --Karinpower (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

External jodgement missing
The artcile badly lacks inline refs and footnotes from independent, reliable sources. So far the article is still a fair game for AfD, since it is based solely on the author's Mukadderat 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is nothing more than an advertisement
I love the line in this article how Hakomi is extremely effective therapy, this is nothing more than a promotional. Where is the critique? I believe Hakomi therapy is nothing more than new age nonsense. And a lot of professionals agree. Comparing Hakomi to established psychotherapy is like comparing ancient herbal remedies to modern medicine. One is based on a quasi-religious new age eastern bias and the other is based on hard verifiable science. This article should be deleted from Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a need for some Neutral POV editing here (though the bit you mention seems to have been fixed), as well as additional outside sources. However, I do not think that removal would be appropriate as this approach is well-established and I'm confident that credible outside sources exist. That is, sources that would be appropriate for a description; I can't attest to whether there are any WP-MEDRS quality studies showing effectiveness.--Karinpower (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This should be removed
I agree that this page should be removed. It is simply self promotion. None of the articles have demonstrated independent analysis to prove that it works at all. Having been a victim of this technique by one of the founders I ‘m appalled that it is given legitimacy in Wikipedia. Notanon (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitions needed for "seven principles of Hakomi"
I've never heard the word organicity before [], and I don't know what is meant by mutability or some of the other terms in the context of Hakomi. If the principles are to be listed in the article, they need to be defined. The Hakomi website does offer a definition of these. --Karinpower (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

More organized structure for references needed
Oddly, this article has a number of overlapping structures for its references. "Notes" (with inline citations), "References" (without inline citations), and extensive "Further Reading" (with over 20 entries) divided into subsections by type. Let's work toward having two sections: "References" with inline citations, and "Further Reading" for items that aren't quality sources for citing but still worth including. An example of "Further Reading" would be a primary source (like a book written by a Hakomi practitioner) which isn't an objective reference for the article but does an exemplary job of furthering understanding for a motivated reader. To me, "Further Reading" would ideally have about a half dozen well-curated selections, not an exhaustive list of everything that has been published. I will contact the Hakomi organization and ask for their advice on what to include or cut; I doubt anyone except them will be willing to read them all to evaluate. If others are willing to look through the sources to see what can be used for a citation, that would be very helpful.--Karinpower (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of peacock template?
It appears that the peacock issues have been addressed; the article does not read to me as self promotional. Unless there is any objection, I'd like to remove it. Callunatore (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)