Jump to content

Talk:Primal therapy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Serious error in reference[edit]

Current text: According to Psychology Today [Primal Therapy] It is one of the most heavily researched private psychotherapies extant in the world[57]

Please look at the "cited" origin, and note that the statement was made by Arthur Janov (!) during the interview with him, not by "Psychology Today" or even the Author of this specific article.

The structure of the article can be understood here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/201001/the-ten-coolest-therapy-interventions-introduction "Click through to each full post and interview:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danizobin (talkcontribs) 23:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Honey. You are right. I made this mistake. I am going to correct it right now. Thank you for noticing and writing. In a similar circumstance I encourage you to be bold (WP:BOLD) and correct it yourself, just to avoid the sad circumstance of having incorrect information online. Thank you again Randroide (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEW EDIT There is a major error in footnote 60, where it is implied Alice Miller took issue with Primal Therapy. This is incorrect. Alice Miller took issue against STETTBACHER, a rogue therpast, ostensibly practicing an unlicensed version of primal therapy. A correct reading of the footnote 60s web page shows Miller revokes her endersment of Stettbacher, not primal therapy. In fact Miller explicitely says that of all the therapies she would recommend she MIGHT endores primal therapy, SO LONG as an emphatic therapist is present "The therapies you mentioned are mostly not interested at all in exploring the histories of childhoods except maybe the primal therapy of janov":

The article at present seems heavily biased against primal therapy. For example, the History and Notebale patients section can be mostly read as an extension of the criticism section.

Again, on the subject of history, I would like to see a reference to modern attachment theory and Bowlby, to whom Janov is clearly relevant.

Also, in what way is reductionism an issue with the therapy? I think thats a ludicrous critique, considering the neurological reduction ism common today.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it true though, that Alice Miller entirely disagrees with Janov's classification of homosexuality as a neurosis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuckwitt (talkcontribs) 12:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"History" section[edit]

I really feel that your edits are not improving the article, Randroide. The "history" section reads more like a highly fragmentary timeline than a useful history - and again you seem to be inserting contentious material that is also presented out of context. This article seems to be getting worse instead of better. Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "history" section reads more like a highly fragmentary timeline...
My writing habilities in English can not do better. Please "defragment" the section up to your higher standards if you think it is "fragmentary".
...again you seem to be inserting contentious material that is also presented out of context
The "contentious" material is well sourced. Please take into account the fact that Primal therapy is a contentious therapy. That´s the reason a good, complete, NPOV article about PT must include contentious material.
Please add the context you miss. To my knowledge the section has all the "context" required. My ignorance prevents me to perceive that "missing context" you see so clearly. Please add that "context" and/or tell me where that "context" can be found.
IMHO the article is much, much, much better than a month ago. Please tell me what is better: "Out of context" and "Fragmentary" pieces of information or no information at all??? Randroide (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a minor correction, looks like somebody else already corrected something else I was concerned about.
I'm not saying that some of the content you have added is not valid and informative, it's just that it's not well integrated into the rest of the article and reads like a random collection of facts (as do several other sections). So I definitely think there is room for improvement. I'm still hoping to come and do some more work on this article, but I don't have the wherewithal right now, hopefully a few weeks from now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also moved the "history" section to a lower spot in the article, as it's obviously a less important section than the section about the theory, methodology and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh. As a general rule I think that "history" should be the first section in any article. "History" provides the reader with a mental framework to integrate the rest of the material. The first question I make myself confronted with new material (whatever the new material may be, for instance Ak_47#History, Chrysler_building#History or Jehovah's_Witnesses#History. Please note that "history" is always the first section in Wikipedia) is "when did this happened"
Anyway, I can grudgrinly accept the temporary relocation of "history" from the proper place where (IMHO) it belongs for as long as you need to "contextualize" and "defrag" its contents.
Unless -of course- you know any WikiRule/Suggestion/Whatever or any rationale about the issue I ignore. If so, please tell me.
Your corrections are OK. If you have time/interest I beg you to review my edits, because I am fallible and because English is a second language for me.
Of course there is room for improvement, Gatoclass. But OTOH I think that there is slightly less room for improvement now than a month ago. IMHO a month ago the article lacked a lot of whos, wheres and whens. CU! Randroide (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that as a general rule it's appropriate for history sections to come early in the piece, but not in every case. In this case particularly, the "history" section as I said is pretty much a random collection of facts that provide a few interesting details but not really a comprehensive picture. So I think it more appropriate to have the section near the bottom. Most people who read this article will, after all, be wanting to know about the therapy itself, not about its "history". Gatoclass (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "history" section should be at the beginning of the article. I think it's best where it is. That way, readers encounter the introduction and concept sections first, so they have a conceptual framework to understand the history they're reading. Otherwise, they'd be reading history about something when they don't even know what it is.
For example, the "history" section opens with this: "In 1967 [72][73] Janov had his pivotal session with Danny Wilson (pseudonym),". Would readers know who "Danny Wilson" is? Or why that session was pivotal?
Granted, the "history" section does come first in some other articles. For example, it comes first in the article about the Chrysler building, as randroide pointed out. However, in that case, the readers already know what the Chyrsler building is, because they're already familiar with the concept of a big building. In that case, they already understand the terminology before reading the history about it. In this case, they would be reading history without knowing what they are reading history about.Twerges (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see reasons to revert this edit[edit]


1. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Synonyms_for_say

2. The sources do NOT say that the "defectors" were "trainees". They say they were "leaders", "therapists" and that they "trained" with Janov. The word "trainees" appears nowhere.

Any reasons I am unaware of for this edit?.

OTOH. Could you please advance the "context" you plan to add to "history"?. Thank you Randroide (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made that alteration from memory. Didn't Janov himself say they were unqualified? As for context - no I can't really expand on that ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about what Janov said about their qualifications. Obviously a reference about this issue would be an excelent addition. OTOH I can not understand how an editor with your experience (12000 edits are a lot of edits) can make an edit "from memory". I am being extra-cautious dealing with your edits because I suppose that en editor with your experience must have very good reasons (sometimes maybe beyond my inmediate grasp) to make an edit.
If the "defectors" worked as therapists at the Primal Institute (and that is what sources say) it is very unlikely that Janov claimed they were unqualified. It would be like Janov claiming that unqualified therapists worked at TPI.
We could and should (in light of what happened after) certainly add that they were disavowed by Janov [2]. I missed this detail.
Could you then please briefly mention which contents do you miss at "history". I would like to add those contents. To be honest: To have "history" at the bottom of an article (any article) is -in my view- a disgrace. Randroide (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some articles do indeed have the history section at or near the end - the Transcendental Meditation article is one that comes to mind. Many articles on buildings have the history section last. It's really not that unusual at all, where the "history" section is best situated depends on a number of factors. In this case, the "history" section is hardly a history section at all, it's just a jumble of random facts that is almost certainly of secondary interest to the great majority of people who come here seeking to find out about primal therapy. Gatoclass (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out-denting) Hello, everyone. I've been away for awhile.

The edit is correct--Hart and Corriere were trainees at the PI, not primal therapists.

Of the seven people who left the PI to form the Center for Feeling Therapy, two of them (Jerry Binder and Steve Gold) were full-fledged primal therapists. The remainder were trainees, including the two founders of the CFT (Hart and Corriere). One other, Lee Woldenberg, was a trainee, but also held the additional title of "medical director" or something similar, because of his medical background (he had an M.D. in neurology or radiology; I can't remember which).

When Riggs confronted Janov on that fateful day, Janov claimed at the time that Riggs was a trainee only, that he was a sociopath who was only interested in power, that he would never have been made a primal therapist, and so on.

This information is available in Therapy Gone Mad by Mithers. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy available at present, so I can't provide a page reference.Twerges (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the claim from the history section that Corriere and Hart were "leaders" at the Primal Institute. That claim is untrue and is not substantiated by the source provided.
Here is the relevant text from the source:
Among the defendants are center founders and leaders Richard J.Corriere, now practicing in Aspen, CO, and New York City, and Joseph T. Hart, Jr., now director of counseling at California State Polytechnic University
That text does not claim that Hart and Corriere were leaders at the PI. Instead, it claims that they were leaders of the Center for Feeling Therapy, which is quite different.Twerges (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for clarifying that Twerges :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
....However, that LA Times article is a great historical reference and would make a good addition to the article about the CFT.Twerges (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions to Gatoclass[edit]

Question 1: Regarding this edit [3]. Could you please tell me where is the wiki police stating that "the word "claim" is appropriate in some circumstances - such as when a statement is completely unsubstantiated and patently self-serving"?

Question 2: Regarding this edit [4], could you please present the source/s naming Hart and Corriere as "trainee primal therapists"?. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't expect wiki policy to cover every nuance of use for every word in the dictionary. WP:WORDS cautions against using words like "claim", but that doesn't mean the word should never be used. In this case, we have a patently self-serving and completely unsubstantiated statement by a therapist who was subsequently discredited and banned from practice. The statements by such a person in such a circumstance are obviously dubious, and therefore "claim" is an appropriate term in this instance.
As for the "trainee" bit - as I said I made that edit from memory based on my previous reading of the sources, but since I haven't gone back to confirm it you can remove it until further notice if you prefer. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand WP:WORDS your use of "claim" is a flagrant breach of a crystal clear wiki policie, no matter what we could think about the issue (please do not waste your valuable time arguing your position because I agree partially with you on this point, but the rules are the rules, we like them or not). I see a RfC in our future on this point. Maybe I am too rigid following the rules, I do not know. The RfC about this issue will be good for me. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I beg you to add the source with the word trainee once you have time. Who really were those men at the PI is an important issue. IMHO that trainee piece of information is worth our time and effort. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The article reads: "Primal therapy is a trauma-based psychotherapy", and yet the abstract of a journal article produced in part by the chairman of the German Society for Psychotherapy reads: "The authors examined the available literature and then came to the conclusion that primal therapy is not a valid therapeutic technique." How on earth can this article as it currently stands be reconciled with WP:FRINGE? WilliamH (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was invented by a qualified psychologist and is practiced by professionals qualified in the field. The fact that it is not a popular psychotherapy does not mean it is tantamount to quackery. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't mean anything. I can think of something else that was established by a qualified historian and isd still practiced by 'professsionals' qualified in the field, but yet when a large national body states that something is not what it claims to be, Wikipedia presents that accordingly. Why is this any different? WilliamH (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps you could be a little more specific in your criticisms. Is there something in particular you find objectionable? Gatoclass (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main contention is that this is presented as an actual form of psychotherapy, when according to a very reliable source, it isn't. WilliamH (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case at all. You have one 30-year-old study carried out by two people in one particular country who came to that conclusion. There is no basis whatever for presenting the therapy from that one POV. Yes, it has declined hugely in popularity since its heyday, leading some to dismiss it as a passing therapeutic fad, but it had plenty of support at one time and still has proponents with qualifications in the field. Gatoclass (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out-denting) WilliamH, you claim that the article as it stands cannot be reconciled with WP:FRINGE.

WP:FRINGE states that "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea".

Nothing like that is happening within this article. Primal therapy is not being presented as a mainstream idea, nor is it being given any weight whatsoever in any article about mainstream ideas.

You wrote: "The article reads: "Primal therapy is a trauma-based psychotherapy", and yet the abstract of a journal article produced in part by the chairman of the German Society for Psychotherapy reads: "...primal therapy is not a valid therapeutic technique."

Those claims don't contradict each other. One says that primal therapy is a trauma-based psychotherapy (which obviously it is), and the other is a statement about its validity.

You wrote: "when a large national body states that (holocaust denial) is not what it claims to be, Wikipedia presents that accordingly. Why is this any different?"

That is not analogous at all, for several different reasons. First, you are conflating a large national body (an historical society), with an individual member of such a body. Second, you are conflating an official position statement issued by a large body, with a single study by one of it's members that has not been endorsed by the other members. Third, the sole invidividual member you've found, has not even contradicted anything in the article at present. He's not denying that primal therapy is a psychotherapy; rather, he's denying that it's a valid or effective one.

You wrote: "My main contention is that this is presented as an actual form of psychotherapy, when according to a very reliable source, it isn't."

The source you cited doesn't claim that primal therapy isn't an actual form of psychotherapy or that the word "psychotherapy" shouldn't be used to describe it.

I've quickly gone through the main sources of the criticism section. None of them claims that primal therapy is not even a psychotherapy or should not be described using that term. None of them call it a "non-therapy." Even the most negative descriptions still acknowledge that it's a psychotherapy, and almost all of them call it such.Twerges (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article[edit]

I have checked out this article several times over the past 4 years, and have been amazed at the massive changes each time I looked. -such as 'Janov's daughter died at 13 in a horse-riding accident' 'Janov's daughter died aged 30-something in a house-fire started by an angry ex-patient' 'no mention at all of children' etc While I consider the main facts about Primal Therapy and Primal Theory to be well written and their complexities very well explained, and thus this article worthy of an award of higher status by Wikipedia, the enduring problem is the veritability of anything outside of the subject of his own published books. I am quite aware that this is Wikipedia, and not fact or truth, however much we all try, I suppose like everyone else coming here I just wish for comprehensive, concrete, useable information.

I will add that the 'criticisms' section, which has been massively reduced, should be massively expanded again, pertaining to very significant and relevant issues, such as:

1 -Janov's French operation and it's closure

2 -Janov's Danish collaboration and it's fate

3 -Janov's claims in the 60's that John and Yoko could be practising Primal Therapy just as effectively as himself, in stark contrast to his later warnings.

4 -Janov's involvement with Dr. Michael Holden, a co-author of one book, who later became a Christian of some sort, claiming that the 'Holy Ghost' descended into him from the sky as a bright light, continued to endorse Primal Therapy, but denounced Janov's denial of 'God', and died prematurely.

5 -The continued operation of the denounced therapy centre run by Janov's first wife, also a co-author of many books, and the implications of that to the content of the early 'Primal Therapy' books.

6 -Critiscism of Janov by first-hand witnesses such as ex-patients.

Discussion of the above is eagerly awaited. Fuckwitt (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuckwitt. I haven't been editing this page in many years and I notice your comment is over 8 years old now, and nobody responded. I thought I would add just a few paragraphs in response now that I see it.
You will have trouble finding reliable sources for any of those things, except number 4 which has reliable sources. The French operation has nothing more than a few sentences devoted to it in a single source. The Danish operation is unmentioned and you'll probably never find sources for it. The continued operation of the Institute is again something for which there are probably no sources. As for first-hand witnesses, we cannot allow things like forum posts, hearsay, self-published websites or books, blogs, and so on, as they are not reliable sources.
However, there IS a reliable source for number 4. Dr Holden co-write Janov's third or fourth book. It was called Primal Man--The New Consciousness or something similar. Holden was listed as a co-author. He subsequently developed unconventional religious views and died of cancer shortly thereafter. This is in stark contrast to Janov's claims that primal people would not be religious or get sick. Holden wrote an essay which was available on the web and which you could probably find on archive.org. In it he discussed primal therapy as it related to his new religious opinions. I wouldn't mind if you added a couple sentences to the "history" section about it. Twerges (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the material about Janov's daughter requires special mention. I believe she died in a house fire. A number of years later, the institute was burned down in an act of arson. They were two separate incidents which were being conflated, it appears. I suppose that shows the need for reliable sources. I don't know where the material came from that she died in a horse riding accident. In my opinion, the arson stuff could be included in the article but anything about Art Janov's children should be moved to his biography page as it's not about primal therapy specifically.Twerges (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems there is a massive gap in the history of Primal Therapy; I see the claims that it's popularity exploded in the 60's due to Lennon's fame, but then what? How was it reduced to it's current status of popular unawareness and professional loathing? Was there some great controversy that I am missing? I wasn't alive at the time and to be honest I can't be bothered to research through 40,000 old newspapers. Information gladly recieved! Fuckwitt (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuckwitt,
Insofar as I can tell, nothing specific happened. Primal Therapy has just been gradually fading away since its heyday in 1970. The initial book, The Primal Scream, was quite a sensation and sold millions of copies. Janov got a cash advance of $800,000 (in 1971) for his second book. Since that time, Primal Therapy has been fading exponentially, meaning dramatic declines at first and then very gradual declines thereafter. There was never a specific incident.Twerges (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The final, and perhaps most important issue to be discussed is Janov's own neurosis and probable unresolved pains, and the effect of that on Primal Theory, how Primal Therapy is practised, and Janov's engagement with the mainstream scientific community. tildetildtildetilde Fuckwitt (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuckwitt,
There is no way we can add material like that to the article. It involves the editor's own speculation and psychoanalysis of a person. Such material cannot be published on wikipedia. Furthermore, it assumes the truth of primal theory ("unresolved early pains") whereas we cannot assume anything like that here. It might be an interesting topic, but you'd have to publish it on a blog or something similar.Twerges (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is terrible and not marked as such so I'm just commenting here hoping someone who knows how Wikipedia stuff works will flag this. User: MarkMM 22:58, 3 September 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Hi MarkMM,
You need to be a lot more specific. What do you think is terrible about it? What would you change?
Personally, I do not think the article is terrible. It could use improvement but it's basically fine. Twerges (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and Not Objective[edit]

The amount of criticism in the article far outweighs the description of Primal Therapy or even the claims. This means that the reader of the article gets a biased and critical "report" and not an actual article about Primal Therapy.

It is my experience that because the therapy is not easy, because some people cannot experience true Primals, they don't get started or they don't continue. Without a study of those who were able to have real Primals and were able to continue, the "results" are not actual results. It would be the same if some people took a pill for three years and got well but some people stopped taking the pill. The same problem exists for an objective study of the 12-Step Program. Daviddaniel37 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daviddaniely37,
Perhaps the criticism section could be shortened somewhat. However, the first four paragraphs, and paragraph number six, must stay. We must state clearly that primal therapy is not accepted by the mainstream psychology community and must include the two journal articles about it, especially the one surveying 300 psychologists for their opinions about it. We must also include all the references in the first four paragraphs.
The criticism section might be overlong. It's that way because of two editors who showed up previously and who were EXTREMELY opposed to primal therapy and were also extremely paranoid, and claimed that any attempt to shorten the criticism section was actually a cult plot. As a result, the section includes a few unnecessary references in order to avoid provoking them. They were subsequently warned or banned.
I certainly don't mind if you remove the two paragraphs about Insane Therapy and The Death of Psychtherapy. Those two sources are not notable and do not require entire paragraphs devoted to them. The Death of Psychotherapy is not referring to primal therapy specifically and is claiming that all psychotherapies are ineffective. It appears that the Insane Therapy quotation is a tangential reference in which the author mentions primal therapy in passing without having done any real research about it ("what I think happens in primal therapy..."). I wouldn't mind if those two sources were removed.Twerges (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I removed the reference to The Death of Psychotherapy.Twerges (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Twerges: the cutting down of the criticism section was incorrect and in effect robs the public, potential clients, and futere therapists from knowing the very many criticisms from lots of sources. Because of the age of the therapy, these criticisms can be easily lost, difficult to find, and very valuable to keep. Could you please restore all of the former items in the criticism section
No one agreed to their removal. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AcademicSkeptic9,
You said:
No one agreed to their removal.
Some of the criticisms were removed by administrators of wikipedia. Two administrators said they thought the criticism section was overkill (this was years ago). After which, the above editor (Daviddaniel37) said he thought the criticism section was overlong and overkill. As a result, I agreed to remove two paragraphs.
Perhaps not very many people agreed to it, but it was the consensus at the time.
I subsequently removed a great deal of material from the article altogether. This was part of an attempt to convert the article into a good article. I since gave up. The article as a whole was greatly shortened, including the sections about John Lennon, Reports, and Criticism.
Could you please restore all of the former items in the criticism section
No, in my opinion. We need to follow ordinary encyclopedic prose. We cannot have long, discursive sections with long quotations from extremely obscure sources, entire paragraphs with long quotations for each such obscure source, excrutiating and not notable details of Janov's 3-week visit to England in 1971 from self-published sources, and so on. The article was littered with that. In my opinion, we need to follow standard, concise encyclopedic prose here.
If you have any additional serious, scholarly or reliable sources which you think could be added as a source in the normal format ("[14][15]..."), I'd agree with it. If you have an additional serious or notable claim missing from the criticism section, and have reliable sources for it, then we could certainly add another paragraph.
Of course this is just my $0.02. I certainly don't own the article.
Twerges (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I have read through some of your other edits recently on wikipedia. I have an article which I think might be interesting to you, called "The Sleep of Reason" (https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/nagel.html). You may enjoy it. I would put it on your personal talk page but it appears you have been banned and your account deleted.
Twerges (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


With regard to the Arson thing mentioned in the History section... I was told by someone who was there at the time, that the Institute had an extremely angry patient. He came in one day and threatened to burn down the Institute. He then returned that evening and set it on fire. The fire department showed up and put out the fire, and part of the Institute was left undamaged. The angry patient returned later and burned down the rest of it. I believe there are actually some reliable sources about this. I think the whole thing is an interesting anecdote for the History section and if anyone wants to look into it, such material could be added.Twerges (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening the criticism section[edit]

I deleted a few of the paragraphs from the criticism section. They were deleted because they simply repeat the same things which have already been said over and over again, and because they came from sources that are not notable. There is already enough material in the criticism section, and it's not necessary to repeat the same basic points over and over. Twerges (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any criticism which comes from a notable source and says something significant should be included and dealt with extensively.

However, it is not necessary to have a full paragraph devoted to each and every obscure source, which just repeats material already found in this section.Twerges (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is unacceptable and was not agreed upon. Please can you restore all the items. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination[edit]

I'm going to nominate this article for Good Article status. Twerges (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with this nomination. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reviewer said he does not want a separate criticism section at all. He wanted it to be merged into the history section. Probably none of the the material you want would be retained.
However, I gave up on the good article nomination. I did the things he suggested which were fairly easy to do, but subsequently gave up. I think the good article nomination has expired or something.
Twerges (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving defensive claim and reference[edit]

I moved the reference and claim defending primal therapy out of the introduction, and to the end of the criticism section. I think it belongs there. The introduction should be kept as concise as possible, IMO.

Furthermore, the new text says "In response to claims that primal therapy is discredited and harmful", however such claims have not been made yet in the article, so the text is referring to something which has not been mentioned yet.Twerges (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page not an essay[edit]

Someone added the "essay-like" tag to the top of the page. However, I don't see how this page resembles an essay at all. It does not contain any opinions or feelings from any of the editors. I don't see even a single opinion from an editor in the page. All of the major claims are factual and referenced.

Could you be more specific? Which part do you think resembles an essay, and why? Which part of the article do you feel is one of the editor's opinions? Where do you see an editor's feelings inserted into the article?

Thanks, Twerges (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New material claiming Janov was vindicated[edit]

A great deal of material was added this morning to the article. While I welcome contributions to the article, any such material must be sourced using reliable sources. The author of these most recent edits must find reliable sources indicating that Arthur Janov was eventually vindicated.

Even if there are such sources, it should be added to the "reports" section further down in the article. At most a few sentences should be added to the introduction.

Thanks, Twerges (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]