Talk:Primal therapy/Archive 3

Neurological supported theory impression - removal of BLP sentence

Eldereft removed the following sentence:

Much of the research cited in Janov's books in recent years is neurological research unrelated to primal therapy which he nonetheless sees as supporting his ideas.

That's okay, I understand and agree why he did it. But what would be good to include in the article is something that communicates the fact that the neurological research Janov cites:

1. Is done by neurologists who are not connected to primal therapy. They may never have heard or it, or they almost certainly don't endorse it.

2. The neurological research he cites could be interpreted and used in any psycho-pseudoscience. In other words it could be explained with Freudian, Jungian or many other theories. Just because it is explained in terms of a certain psychoanalysis does not mean it lends any evidential support for that concept/ theory.

Is there any way of putting this in a simple sentence, as it is the impression to a young impressionable reader is that neurological research supports Janov's theory. It does not at all in actuality. How can we change this impression? Zonbalance (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I almost just fact-tagged it instead of removing outright, but WP:BLP is pretty clear on this sort of issue - source it or toss it. Saying 'Janov thinks this, but is wrong' is the bad bit, I think we probably could say something along the lines that he cites mainstream neuropsychological research to claim support for his decidedly non-mainstream ideas. Or maybe just 'Primal Theory continues to be irrelevant to mainstream neuropsychological research interests.', with ideally a citation, though the point should be abundantly clear in the article already. Simple, neutral, and to the point. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we have to find a neutral way of saying it, and sourced some how, can't think of one right now though. Thanks for the suggestions. Zonbalance (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Theories

I would just like to point out that on the fringe theories wiki notice board it states:

"Wikipedia articles dealing with academic topics aim to reflect both the consensus and the diversity of mainstream academia."

So I ask for consideration of this fact when editing this article. Mainstream psychogical science's view of primal therapy would more resemble the article in the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (see criticism section on primal therapy wiki page). That article is the mainstream scientific view, it is not an allegation, not defamation and not to be treated as deviant. It is not an extreme position, and therefore the reality does not lie somewhere between the scientific consensus and the miraculous testimony of Janov's patients. Please bear this in mind before editing this article, because it takes a lot of time to edit primal-fans additions or deletions. Aussiewikilady (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

The following sentence appears to be under dispute:

"(Primal theory strictly speaking is not a scientific theory, although we use the word here for consistency)."

...The sentence should definitely not be placed in the paragraph where it was found. Its presence there violates the flow of the article. Furthermore, it's not relevant to the paragraph.

If the text should be anywhere, it should be in the paragraph which reads "The absence of independent peer-reviewed outcome studies..." Also, the sentence should have the parentheses removed. Also, the sentence should be changed so that it doesn't seem so random; the sentence discusses "primal theory," but the term "primal theory" hadn't even been used in the article yet.

Perhaps the sentence should say something like "primal therapy lacks scientific verification..."

Phrasing it that way would help to avoid an additional problem. It would avoid the ambiguity in saying "primal theory is not a scientific theory". When we say "not a scientific theory," do we mean that primal therapy lacks scientific validation, or that it's a theory which is unfalsifiable and couldn't even be decided by science? We should state which. If the latter, then some source would have to be provided which demonstrates a professional consensus that Primal Therapy couldn't even be decided by science.

Please respond without any personal attacks or insinuations about my motives. Thanks.Twerges (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

...I looked up Karl Popper in wikipedia, and he defined a scientific theory as follows:

"a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable."

If that's the case, then Primal Therapy is scientific, but it lacks scientific validation. The difficulty with saying "not a scientific theory" is that it could be taken to mean a theory which could not be tested even in principle.

Furthermore, something must be done to improve the prose of that sentence before it's placed in the article. But we must have some consensus about what precisely it should say, before we do that. I propose that it should say that Primal Therapy lacks scientific validation.Twerges (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I added another sentence which I think might convey the same idea but without the aforementioned ambiguity. Furthermore, I placed the sentence in what I think is a better place.Twerges (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More intellectual abuse. You have to go back to school instead of teaching yourself, because you are missing and avoiding lots of evidence that do not support your position. Primal Therapy or theory is not falsifiable in any possible way given the attitude and writings of Janov that block or explain any attempts to falsify or any troublesome evidence. Falsifiability is just one of the necessary elements of science. Even if we don't use falsifiability as a demarcation for science, all other ways to define science would also lead to a conclusion that primal theory is not science. Your ascertion that primal therapy is falsifiable is reminiscent of Janov: one just has to say something and it makes it so. Zonbalance (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that primal THEORY is unfalsifiable in a similar way to most parts of Freudian theory, but I actually consider it to be worse than Freudian theory for various reasons. Twerges proposed replacement sentence is not actually too bad because this idea that PTheory is unfalsifiable (although it is) does not seem to come up in peer reviewed writings consistently enough. I propose a small addition to twerges sentence that says something like "although...(his sentence),.. we use the word "theory" for continuity. Or something similar, it doesn't have to sound negative. Psychmajor902 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about removing the word "theory" from the sentence entirely? How about something like "Primal Therapy has no experimental evidence to support it and therefore is considered not to be scientifically validated." If the word "theory" is problematic then perhaps we should just remove it.Twerges (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to describe Primal therapy (as "scientific" or "no scientific", "falsable" or "unfalsable", "validated" or "unvalidated") using only verbatim words used by valid sources.

For instance: "Such source described Primal Therapy as being scientific/unfalsable/validable but unvalidated..." whatever.

IMHO, sticking to what valid sources say is the way to avoid fruitless discussions here Randroide (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

WP:PSCI policy indicates that topics "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" may be so categorized. The Primal therapy entry in the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology indicates that "primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. ... A recent survey of the opinions of 300 clinicians and researchers regarding psychotherapeutic techniques revealed that primal therapy was the technique whose soundness was most often questioned." I have accordingly restored the category link. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone else feel like commenting here, or is the edit war still working fine for everyone? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eldereft, and should add that there are other sources too. Even if there is some debate, the link should stay so that the reader has at least the chance to make up there own mind. Psychmajor902 (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Restoring introduction text

Skoojal, I re-added the text to the introduction about Primal Therapy having fallen out of favor with mainstream Psychology due to lack of experimental evidence. Although the text does not have a citation, I know offhand that there was a poll conducted of clinical Psychologists in which Primal Therapy ranked near the bottom of acceptance. Also, I know offhand of several critical papers about Primal Therapy which criticize it for precisely the reason listed in the introduction (lack of clinical trials). Although I could find these citations, I don't think it's necessary since Primal Therapy is obviously not accepted among Psychologists, and there is no need (in my opinion) to provide citations for an encyclopedia in cases where the fact is relatively clear even without citations, due to the abundance of informal evidence. Twerges (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that assertions in encyclopedias should be supported with citations, precisely because everyone has their own ideas about what 'obviously' is true and what isn't. As for there being no experimental evidence in support of Janov's claims, I don't think that this is quite true. See for instance Janov's The New Primal Scream, which mentions studies conducted with scientist Steven Rose (pages 250 and 253). Note that I'm not necessarily saying that the evidence is convincing or proves Janov's claims - only that there is some evidence. Skoojal (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I can provide a citation for the introductory text if necessary.

I wouldn't mind if we changed the text to say that Primal Therapy has "little" experimental evidence to support it.

Would that be OK?

Twerges (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the dust jacket of The New Primal Scream, '...Primal Therapy has been scrutinized carefully for the past two decades by leading research centers throughout the world. Brain research at Rutgers University and the UCLA Brain Research Lab, bio-chemical research at the Open University, and immune system and stress research at St. Bartholemew's Hospital in England all confirm that lower heart rates and other improved vital signs (key factors in prolonging life expectancy) are clearly evident in Primal Therapy patients.' Are you saying that this is untrue, and that Janov, or whoever wrote the dustjacket of that particular book, was just making that up? Can you prove this?

Steven Rose says in his book Lifelines that Janov's patients showed signs of improvement, measured in terms of brain chemistry and immune response. This supports at least one of Janov's claims, so the 'no evidence' claim shouldn't be there. Even saying that Primal Therapy has little evidence to support it rather than none might be stretching things. Terms like 'little' are somewhat subjective and can be taken to mean different things. It would probably violate the neutral point of view rule. Skoojal (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the dustjacket of New Primal Scream is untrue. However the dustjacket only lists about 4 studies on Primal Therapy. Pubmed also only about lists a few studies done on Primal Therapy, over the last 3 decades. I realize the word "little" leaves room for interpretation, but I think that only 4 studies constitutes definitely falls within the "little research" category since other approaches have thousands of studies.

I think it's accurate and basically agreed upon in the field that there is little research on the subject.Twerges (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs to mention different points of view to be properly balanced. I removed the little evidence claim from the article, along with the source supporting it, but only because it wasn't presented neutrally. I'd see no problem with it if it were presented as one point of view, a critical one. Skoojal (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed quotation

I removed a quotation from the criticism section, because the quotation was inserted by one of the edit warriors and it included his own opinions and observations about primal therapy. Therefore the quotation violated wikipedia policies (IMO) relating to verifcation, not posting original research, and not using wikipedia as a soapbox. I realize that the point of view contained in the quotation may not have been completely original insofar as the author also placed it on his self-published website beforehand; however self-published websites do not meet wikipedia's standards for sources, and the quotation has never been published in a journal or other high-quality source, thus it constitutes "original research."

Please note that I am not disputing that the author is a graduate student in Psychology. His qualifications are not the issue. Even if he were a world-renowned Psychologist, it would still violate policies to have his original, unverifiable claims inserted by himself into the encyclopedia.

By removing the quotation, I'm not suggesting that the website from which it's taken should also be removed from the criticism section. I believe the reference should stay; I have no problem with linking to external advocacy sites. However I believe it violates wikipedia policies for the author to insert his own opinions about the desirability of primal therapy into the text of encyclopedia itself.Twerges (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We disagree on this twerges. That source has demonstrated he is at the very least an eyewitness. Even non-expert sources (and I am not saying he is not an expert, but if he were) are valid if they are direct eyewitness accounts, and that includes opinions so long as they are clearly identified as such.

With regard to other edits by skoolgal, there have been discussions about these sort of things previously - and repeating past arguments every time a pro-primal editor vandalises the article is not always possible. So I refer the right honorable gentleman to arguments made some time ago. Zonbalance (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Zonbalance, but endless assertions that you are right don't prove that you are right. Also, please learn to spell my name correctly. Skoojal (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the author was an eyewitness. I'm not disputing that. However, even eyewitness testimony violates wikipedia's policy of no original research. Here is a quote from the wiki page on that policy: "This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences (emphasis mine)."

Note that it does not matter if the eyewitness account is true. Eyewitness accounts by individuals can't be included on the page unless they are testimony from court cases or are found in some other verified, scholarly place.

Thanks for being civil in your response.Twerges (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My changes have been undone (this time with no discussion), and the disputed quotation has been re-added to the page.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the quotation is in clear violation of wikipedia policy regarding no original research. The policy of no original research clearly indicates that "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own ... experiences". But the quotation is quite clearly the author's own experiences; it says "in my observation..." and was written by one of the edit warriors.

Someone argued that the author was indeed an eyewitness; but eyewitness testimony is precisely what's forbidden by no original research.

Also, the quotation clearly violates WP:verifiability. The quotation in question is clearly taken from an unreliable source according to wikipedia standards. The reliable sources policy does not treat self-published websites as reliable ("self-published ... personal websites ... are largely not acceptable") and specifically disallows self-published websites which make anonymous claims, which are contentious, and which make claims about 3rd parties. By these criteria, the source for the quotation is clearly not a reliable source by wikipedia standards. However the WP:verifiability policy requires that quotations come only from reliable sources: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations." Since the source of this quotation is clearly not reliable, the quotation is disallowed according to WP:verifiability.

In my opinion, the quotation is in violation of two wikipedia policies: no original research and WP:verifiability. Furthermore, the quotation in question violates those policies in very clear and unambiguous ways. Furthermore, the two policies violated by the quotation are "core content" policies meaning they are pivotal and mandatory.

In short, the quotation clearly violates two out of three of the core wikipedia policies. Unless some argument can be made that the quotation is consistent with those wikipedia policies, it should be removed.Twerges (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the link and reinserted the quotation. I do not agree it is in violation of wiki policies, it is debatable. It is not original research because there is no evidence that it was done specifically and exclusively on the wiki site for the wiki site. It is verifiable since there is the proof given on the website of actual attendence at the primal center in the form of signed receipts, although this is not the only way it is verified. Janov's claims could also be considered as original research, and also violate wiki verifiability rules. So I agree with zonbalance that the quote should stay. I beleive that it is possible that this quote is being removed because there is an attempt to remove critical information by some editors. Aussiewikilady (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Some editors may well want to remove the quotation because it is critical of PT. Some editors evidently want to keep it for exactly the same reason. But the reason it is unacceptable has nothing to do with the motivation of editors. It is because of the policy on reliable sources. It is a personal website with no editorial control, written by someone with no accedited expertise. We have to rely on faith in the sincerity and insights of the website creator, and we can't do that. To say that i is unreliable by WP standards is not to cast aspersions on the actual website manager. He may be absolutely honest and totally accurate. Let's say I witness a crime and write aboyut what I saw on my blog. That won't be acceptable as a source even if what I say is completely correct, simply because we have no way of knowing that it is. Paul B (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the debunking site to the bottom of the criticism link, so that in print criticisms (which are more useful to researchers) can be seen first. Aussiewikilady (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good move, Aussiewikilady. I think that the quotation from that website should be removed, due to the fact that we do not know who is the author and we have no references about his/her notability.

To link the website is OK (it is an informative and well done website), to quote the author of the website is not, IMHO. I must add that I appreciate the effort of the author of the website, but here, as a Wikipedia editor, I must remember that we must abide by WP:SOAP despite how much I sympathize with the offwiki activities of someone.Randroide (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with aussiwikilady in that the quote should be allowed. Not only does it meet RS and verifiability wiki policy as she suggested , It also seems to sum up what the criticism is in essence. Otherwise the reader will not be aware what the actually criticism is without taking the lengthy time necessary to investigate. If someone can find another way to sum up the main criticisms, in quotation form or not, maybe that would be an alternative. Twerges has seemed to want to eliminate summations or quotations of what the criticisms actually are; not only from this source, but also from other critical sources in the past. Psychmajor902 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The website plainly does not meet the criteria for WP:RS. The website is self-published, which is clearly forbidden by WP:RS. And there are other wikipedia policies which the website violates (verifiability, no orig research, not a soapbox). This issue has been documented and discussed already.

Not only does it meet ... policy as she suggested

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Thus far, you've only given us an assertion.

Twerges has seemed to want to eliminate summations or quotations of what the criticisms actually are; not only from this source, but also from other critical sources in the past.

Nope. I once suggested replacing quotations with summaries for very minor sources. I have never suggested "eliminating" summaries from the criticism section.Twerges (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have 18 quotations at "criticism". Those quotations are A-OK because the sources are not self-published. debunkingprimaltherapy.com is self published. Just linking the site is a good idea, because the site is (IMO) scholar in tone and well done. Quoting the author of the website is -IMO- going too far. Randroide (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

By not quoting the site, it in effect hides the criticism on the wiki site. Note that the wiki article does not say "primal therapy is iatrogenic" and then reference that source. In this case, it is being presented as an opinion of a valid eye-witness, and the sections on "introduction" and "verifiability" on that website deal with the reliable source policy. I conclude it meets RS policy in the context it is presented here. Twerges, by labelling those who you have managed to convince as "neutral editors", you have indirectly suggested that those wanting the quote to remain as biased. On the contrary, I think I am being quite restrained and balanced, and have reluctantly allowed some perpetuation of the lies, scams and myths of primal therapy to remain in the wiki article, in a compromise with people like Twerges and Skoojal, and we have been restrained from introducing much more controversial material. I believe based on past performance if left alone, such editors would convert the page into cult recruitment literature. Zonbalance (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The website remains self-published and anonymous, which violates WP:RS. Nothing in the verifiability section of the website addresses this issue.

an opinion of a valid eye-witness

Opinions of anonymous eyewitness cannot be added to the page as per WP:RS.

Twerges, by labelling those who you have managed to convince as "neutral editors", you have indirectly suggested that those wanting the quote to remain as biased.

I have not suggested anything of the sort. I have suggested that editors here must follow wikipedia policies, and must abide by the consensus of neutral editors.

I think I am being quite restrained and balanced, and have reluctantly allowed some perpetuation of the lies, scams and myths...

Heh. ;-).

I believe based on past performance if left alone, such editors would convert the page into cult recruitment literature.

I have never added "cult recruitment literature" to the article. If you look at my editing history, you will find that I have added references to the criticisms section, while deleting no references from it; that I recently restored the text about primal therapy lacking scientific validation, etc. Do those edits seriously constitute "cult recruitment literature?" Which do? The accusation is inaccurate.

I suppose I could remind you to assume good faith once again, but you have already been reminded many, many times, with no alteration of your behavior.

Seriously, Zonbalance, make an effort not to make accusations, and not to offer speculations about the motives of the other editors.Twerges (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Zonbalance: Twerges did not convince me, and I am rather a strong critic of Janov and his work (please review article history since january 2007 to check this fact). Anyway: I think that quoting the disputed quote from a one man operation website is going too far. If we would know who that man is, and if he would be notable (i.e., talked about by other sources) then it would be proper to cite him.

If you think that there´s properly sourced material to be added to the article (critical on PT or otherwise), please let me know.

I suggest asking a third opinion. What do you think? Randroide (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Randroide, you may not be aware that this issue was already discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, and that 4 neutral editors have already reached the conclusion that the page does not meet WP:RS. Three of them commented on it, and one came here to remove the quotation. They reached that conclusion unanimously after they read the arguments of both sides.

The recent reversions have been in defiance of that consensus.Twerges (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link me to the noticeborad resolution? Randroide (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have commented there, as a outside observer--having, by the way, not the least sympathy at all with this method of "therapy": "The entire section "Debunking Primal Therapy is a website set up by a former primal therapist trainee, and addresses such issues as peer review, falsifiability, bias, justification and other social psychological effects behind primal therapy. In the section on cohort observations of the early 2000s the author writes about his admittedly non-experimental observations:" as well as the following quote is unacceptable. this is not a RS for criticism, in the absence of some specific evidence that the author is a recognized expert, and recognized as such by neutral parties. Not is it acceptable as an external link, for the same reason. And it isn't needed, there';s enough other criticism from better sources. I can't imagine how anyone would think any of this personal experience stuff can be seriously defended as content. DGG (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

I understand DGG it may look like that at first, but I put the link back because it is more comprehensive than the rest, and only a small part of it is personal experience. However that personal experience is valuable testimonials type evidence. Some have tried to explain why it meets RS, verifiability, and the arguments have been ignored. There is content in this link not available anywhere else in this section. Neutral parties have not agreed on this at all, unless you define neutral parties as any one thinks it should be removed. Psychmajor902 (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PsychMajor, the arguments have not been "ignored." There were two arguments presented: that the author is an eyewitness, and that he has receipts. Those arguments are not even conceivably relevant to WP:RS or to the points which were raised, since the existence of an eyewitness, or of receipts, has no bearing whatsoever on whether the website is self-published and therefore violates WP:RS. Even though the arguments had no conceivable relevance, they were addressed, not ignored.

As for the definition of the word "neutral". We define the word "neutral" as: "someone who is not party to the debate." In this case, the neutral editors were from the RS noticeboard, and therefore were not previously parties to the debate. Therefore, they are neutral. That is the definition of the word "neutral", which was obvious from its usage.

PsychMajor, your arguments are not just wrong but flagrantly irrational. If you react to a consensus of neutral editors against you, not by considering the evidence but by questioning the word "neutral", then you have erected and impregnable fortress in your mind.Twerges (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Accidental reversion

I accidentally reverted the removal of the pseudoscience tag. All I meant to revert was the re-insertion of the quotation which obviously violates several core wikipedia policies. So I re-inserted the pseudoscience tag, not because I necessarily support it being there, but because I reverted it accidentally and I have no opinion about it.

You guys can fight it out over the pseudoscience tag; I don't care.Twerges (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Just started browsing some of the criticism links...

The first goes to a paragraph from Skeptical Enquirer... another to a brief complaint that some brain readings were apparently inaccurate (not incorrect!)... another to some drivel about what science is and is not ("if a physicist starts doing astrology instead of astronomy, he or she is no longer doing science", "My Personality Psychology lecturer told me..." and so on)... several others are from popular media such as non-peer-reviewed magazines and newspapers (eg Los Angeles Times).

I don't know what scientific authority these links are supposed to have, but as criticisms of Primal Theory they are ludicrous. Anyone could say anything about anything - but unless the criticisms themselves are scientific, they are so much waffle and have no place in an encyclopedia.

To me the whole section smacks of over-keenness to persuade readers that Primal Theory is bogus - for reasons I won't try and fathom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.49.109 (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

actually, I agree about some of the additions being unnnecessary, and have shortened some of the statements. I think it's overkill. DGG (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the recent removal of criticisms from the section. It is not overkill, there is actually that breadth of criticism out there, and more, much more. Psychmajor902 (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

that's not the standard/. The standard is proportional weight and balance. Any more would be clear overweight.My opinion, and that's my opinion. In fact, I think there are still too many, and I plan to look at it again. As mentioned by another editor above, any number of opinions might be collected, but that's not encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

any number of opinions might be collected, but that's not encyclopedic content

Excuse me: The rest of the article is basically the opinion of Arthur Janov about his own therapy. I do not understand why the opinion of Arthur Janov is A-OK and the opinions of othrs are not. Randroide (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the criticism section could be condensed a bit, in parts, by abbreviating the lengthy quotations when the source of a quotation is minor or obscure. I don't think it's necessary to quote at length from every single source, even when the source is a web page from someone who is not at all notable and who discusses primal therapy only in passing.

Of course, there are some criticisms which are substantial or important, and which should be treated at length. There are at least 5 critical sources which are highly significant, for example, the poll of Psychologists, or Martin Gardner's article. Those citations are important and should be discussed at length.

However, not every source should be covered at such length. At present, there are several critical sources which are obscure and which don't even devote a full sentence to primal therapy, but which have everything they say about primal therapy reprinted in full in the encyclopedia. It seems unnecessary to me.Twerges (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above comment--it is a good guideline for improving that section. DGG (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Randroide,

I do not understand why the opinion of Arthur Janov is A-OK and the opinions of othrs are not.

Critical opinions are important and necessary for the article. Nobody disputes that. The only disagreement I have is that I don't think we should have extensive quotations of every minor source. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide concise summaries, not to string together lengthy quotations, or to repeat everything various obscure people ever said about a topic.

I think we should delete the quotation from "Psychoanalytic Psychology" because the quotation mostly deals with forms of psychotherapy other than primal therapy. The only part of the quotation which deals with primal therapy specifically already has its essential point conveyed in the summary following the citation, so the quotation is entirely redundant.

I think we should delete the 2 or so quotations from minor sources where the quotation does not even mention primal therapy specifically. Those quotations should be replaced by brief summaries that summarize what the sources say about primal therapy and not what they say about oddball therapy generally.

The quotation from "Addiction Counseling Strategies magazine" should be deleted because it says nothing that wasn't already said in the summary following the source, and so is completely redundant. Anyway it comes from a minor source that mentions primal therapy only in passing.

Something must be done to shorten the Los Angeles Times book review. The quotations from that source are quite long and still do not adequately convey what the author was trying to say about the book.

Several of the other minor sources should have their extensive quotations replaced with brief summaries.Twerges (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

...The worst quotation is the one from Psychobabble. That quotation is about how one of Janov's sentences was reminiscent ofthe language in Dianetics. However the book is not about that. Dianetics is mentioned exactly once in 40+ pages on primal therapy, and the author does not assert any significant relationship between Dianetics and primal therapy. However, the book DOES heavily criticize primal therapy as being a glib quick-fix which is shallow, trendy, and potentially very dangerous. THAT is the point of the chapter dealing with primal therapy, but you wouldn't know it from the quotation. The quotation seems to be taken at random from the book, and ignores the 50+ pages of serious criticism.

That is why we should provide summaries, not quotations. We obviously can't quote the entire 50 pages of Psychobabble, and no single sentence will adequately convey the essence of the book. We should replace the quotation with a summary that says something like: "Psychobabble strongly criticizes primal therapy as being glib, trendy, shallow, and potentially very dangerous.Twerges (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually think quotations are preferable to summaries, that way you get the actual words use. Further, I disagree with the removal of some of the criticisms recently, particularly the debunking site that I moved to the bottom, but I didn't want it deleted. I disagree that the criticism section should be reduced in size, UNLESS those criticisms are incorporated into the main article. IMO primal therapy approaches medical fraud and pseudoscience, and it is given far too much leeway in the main article. The Primal Scream article is even worse: a reprinting of recruitment material - a nightmare given the history of primal therapy. Aussiewikilady (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Using the actual words might lead to less argumentation about it. Using the actual words would be preferable if the author of them has created some kind of brief summary of his own work (perhaps in a "conclusion" section). What I was objecting to was including a quotation from the text somewhere which makes the article even longer, and which may not convey the essence of the article.Twerges (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've a few comments and suggestions about the article, in particular the "Criticism" section. Some of these echo comments made above.

1. The list format (please excuse my blatant hypocrisy!) is difficult to read. It would be better if it were converted to prose.
2. Some of the sources are web-only sources (eg., [1]), which may not be sufficiently reliable for inclusion.
3. Other entries seem rather pointless, for example: "An early 1975 criticism of Janov within the Primal framework: Beyond Janov [4], by Herman Weiner, Ph.D.". Well, what did Weiner say? Worse, "Le Dico des sectes" lists PT as a sect? It was a phase in Lennon's life? These aren't substantial criticism, they're passing mention of the subject in a negative light.
4. Much of the text is dedicated to material that would fit better in a footnote. For example, "Primal therapy is cited in the book The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. (2000) Donald A. Eisner ISBN 0275964132. In that book Eisner writes" could be replaced with two words ("Eisner writes") and a footnote, which of course would create more space for description.
5. I understand the difficulty involved in summarising controversial material, but generally it's easier to read narrative than quotes. Remember that the footnote system ({{cite book}} etc). does have the facility to include quotes.
6. At the time of writing, there are 27 sources cited. Are all of these strictly needed? As a reader who knows relatively little about the subject, I have to say that I don't find it particularly persuasive, and when reading the material it feels rather like someone is trying to list every single criticism ever made. As a reader, I don't want to be machine-gunned with criticism; I want to know about the important stuff. I would be more easily persuaded by detailed description of the analyses in a smaller number of more solid sources.
7. Ideally, it would be better to avoid a "criticism" section, and instead incorporate the material into the body of the article. See: WP:CRITICISM#Criticism in a "Criticism" section. I don't think this is urgent, however.

Just my thoughts, anyway. I hope they're useful in some way. Jakew (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, your thoughts were rational and well-composed. However I disagree with the last one; I don't really mind having a criticism seciton. But I agree with your other points.Twerges (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Aussiewikilady wrote: "Further, I disagree with the removal of some of the criticisms recently, particularly the debunking site that I moved to the bottom, but I didn't want it deleted"

I agree. The site should be linked, just linked (along with the "reply" site, of course) Randroide (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not se how either of them meet the requirements of WP:EL. DGG (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, the criticism section reflects the wide range of criticisms of primal therapy, and represents a vast improvement in information on primal therapy for potential. Those cited ARE solid sources, and you would be advised to check some of them because they say much more than in said in this article (some of which I think should be incorporated into it). The trouble with using narrative rather than quotation is that some people have a tendency to neutralize the criticism and hide information by doing so (read Psychobabble, then read twerges narrative and you will see what I mean). I want to second the other editors argument that scientics and the debunking sites are NOT BLOGS (what ever blog means). It is a shame twerges has managed to persuade others that they are unreliable, because they are rock-solid sources. Psychmajor902 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello PsychMajor.

You clearly believe that your website is reliable. But the editors need more than your word here. They fear that the website does not meet the criteria of WP:RS and other wikipedia policies, which specify that sources cannot be self-published, anonymous, etc. What's important here are the wikipedia criteria of reliable sources.

The editors have already raised that exact point, quite often. Your response has been to ignore their arguments and to repeat your unsupported assertion that it is reliable, over and over again, and then to press "undo" repeatedly despite the consensus against you. Thus far, you have not raised even a single logical point which is relevant to WP:RS and its requirements. Please, answer why you feel the website meets the wikipedia criteria for reliability--specifically its prohibition against self-published websites.

It is a shame twerges has managed to persuade others that they are unreliable, because they are rock-solid sources.

Don't assume that I am responsible for their opinions on this matter. If you recall, I didn't even request that your website be removed, only that your quotations of yourself should be removed. The administrators here removed the reference to your website, of their own volition, after they gave arguments for doing so which you have not addressed! Don't blame me!

The trouble with using narrative rather than quotation is that some people have a tendency to neutralize the criticism and hide information

The words I used to describe primal therapy were "trendy, simplistic, glib, and potentially very dangerous". You think that's an attempt to hide critical information? Those words contain a more wide-ranging criticism than the quotation they replaced.

The point of the book was to argue against "quick fix" and simplistic cures which promised to cure all your troubles. In fact, if I recall the book's subtitle was: "fast talk in an era of quick cures" or something like that. That was the book's main point. However the book also included a story of a young disturbed woman who went to primal therapy, then left and did her own primal therapy, then ended up committing suicide; thus I included the words "potentially very dangerous".

If you feel I have ignored major criticisms from the book, why don't you point them out? We could add some words to the summary. The book could never be adequately summarized by any single quotation from it.Twerges (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with twerges in that a couple of critical quotations from the source would be preferable to his narrative. And your interpretation of Psychobabble is deeply disturbing twerges- there is no evidence that that woman was as disturbed before she read the primal scream as she became during and after therapy. Aussiewikilady (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Randroide that the rest of the article contains alot of Janov's own assessment of his own therapy, and there is a kind of group delusion to the whole thing. That is why the criticism section is so important, and why the actual criticisms should be quoted and presented in some way as well as the links to the them. There seems to be a problem in psychology in that they mostly ignore primal therapy because it is ridiculous (like scientology) - so we should not throw out any valid criticism or evidence when someone does find the courage to criticize it or expose primal therapy. Aussiewikilady (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something, Aussiewikilady. I'm not suggesting that we should exclude criticism — far from it, in fact. Inclusion of criticism is essential if we're to retain a neutral point of view. What I am saying is that there's no reason why this criticism must be partitioned off into a separate section. I'd prefer to see the criticism integrated into the rest of the article, so that readers are introduced to the ideas of those for and against PT at the same time, and can understand these ideas in the appropriate context. Jakew (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jakew, I also would like to see some of the criticisms integrated into the main article, as long as none of them are lost or neutralized. Thanks for your efforts. Aussiewikilady (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me putting the criticism section in chronological order? I can't discern any specific order to the current entries. Reinderien^{talk/contribs} 07:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been done. It's only by year, but it makes more sense than it did before. Reinderien^{talk/contribs} 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "The book Le Dico des sectes (which means "Dictionary of Sects" Edited by Annick Drogou, Toulouse, France: Editions Milan, 1998) lists Janov's primal therapy as a sect [3]" will be remove for the following reason : - Saying it is a dictionnary is misleading the writer. It is nothing of an official dictionnary. It's a books and "dico des sectes" is a title only. It's not an official dictionnary. - Primal Therapy is not listed in the annual report on cults conducted for the french parlement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titinu (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "In the book Soul Snatchers: The Mechanics of Cults (December 1999, ISBN 978-1-892941-04-6, Algora Publishing), French psychiatrist and cult expert Dr. Jean-Marie Abgrall discusses primal therapy on pages 168-169. Abgrall wrote that "primal therapy, which was invented by Arthur Janov, has been all but abandoned, especially due to a lack of evidence that it actually works." will be remove for the following reason : - it is incomplete as the end of the sentence is : and also due to the disappearance of it's creator Even if Jonov left France where he practiced at a time, he did not diseapear. That can show that Mister Abgrall doesn't seems to be well informed when he speaks about primal therapy. - Another quote of Abgrall "Le but recherché est la création d'un vécu délirant communautaire réintégré comme expérience initiatique dans l'histoire de la secte. L'échec de l'expérience y est interdit car il est appréhendé comme une immaturité initiatique où une rébellion inacceptable devant le récit communautaire de l'expérience" show how he is uninform about primal therapy. By titinu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titinu (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "In 1996, Starker and Pankratz published in Psychological reports a study of 300 randomly-sampled psychologists. Participants were asked for their views about the soundness of methods of mental health treatment. Primal therapy was identified as one of the approaches "most in question as to soundness". will be removed for the following reason: - the writer did skip the line "The 139 psychologists responding expressed " that is giving a lower importance to the poll. for what reason ?. Maybe the 161 psychologists who did not answer had a totally different point of view. - Any math teacher could tell that A poll conducted in a sample of 139 psychologist among thousands has no representativity. By titinu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titinu (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

in the section :" * In the Primal Therapy section from the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 2001, Timothy Moore challenges and criticizes primal therapy in a number of ways, including: "Truth be known, primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. This is not surprising considering its questionable theoretical rationale." Once again the writer decided to take random line and to exclude what is not going in his direction. Why the sentence "Primal therapy remains essentially unaltered from what it was 30 years ago-a creative theory and an interesting approach to therapy" has not been taken from the link ? This reference has to be removed. by titinu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titinu (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Titnu, I do not agree with your reasons for the removal of those citations.

I wouldn't protest the removal of the "Dico de Sects" citation and "Soul Snatchers" since those sources are not notable at all, nor are they scholarly.

I do. I protest. Let the reader decide about the scholarship or lack of it of a source. Janov´s fame came from publishing unreviewed books of the same category that the disputed books. I support those sources in the article. Randroide (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

However, the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology must remain in the article. If you feel that the quotation taken from it is selective or out-of-context or misinterprets the article, then we can discuss whether a different quotation would be more appropriate. In this case, it seems like the best approach would just be to add the material that "primal therapy remains..a creative and interesting approach...", in addition to having the critical material.

I concur with adding the laudatory quotation from "Gale". Randroide (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the citation from Psychological Reports. I have written a new section about that. Although I'm not sure I agree with your reason for removal, I found some other information which might be relevant to that discussion.Twerges (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

source problem

Barbara Bryan's "article" where was it published? Or can she be shown by objective outside sources to be a notable authority of such a repute that even here personal website is reliable? I will remove the reference unless there can be some support for it here. DGG (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I have no idea where Barbara Bryan's article was published. If someone wanted to find out, it should be possible to ask Bryan, though I hesitate to do that myself. Maybe removing the link would be the right thing to do. Skoojal (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

done. I wish you could find a source, for it does seem usable otherwise as a summary. DGG (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Even with a source it is not a balanced article because it advocates for primaling as a way to change the world- this is cult material. Aussiewikilady (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

other source problems. I have removed 3 websites with unpublished reviws (The Byrd et al paper on one is apparently unpublished, just posted on a university website). There are still over a dozen negative reviews left. DGG (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Using scientific critical thinking to evaluate and summarize sources like Insane Therapy, Therapy Gone Mad, Psychobabble, and other

Because I have been critical of the way Twerges interpreted both Therapy Gone Mad (the Center of Feeling Therapy), Psychobabble and other critical sources, I thought I might explain it a bit more because wiki is supposed to give the scientific consensus- and I assume use a scientific type of critical thinking (as opposed to an artistic-anything goes type). I have been disappointed at the approach of some editors that treat the subject like a persuasive public speech or a persuasive English Literature essay -where you can find appealing arguments for almost any incorrect position- without having to test the position, actively look at disconfirming evidence, learn the whole field of psychology specifically (rather than self selecting appealing articles) or to use scientific critical thinking.

Let's take Twerges summary of Psychobabble first: You first have to ask yourself: Okay, think back in time, imagine you are setting up an experiment to test the hypothesis of the primal pool of pain and primal therapy: what did the Primal Scream predict would happen if someone did a lot of Primalling? Remember Janov used his theories to predict that not only could it cure neurosis and psychosis, but also that husbands could help wives, and families could sit for each other. At this point, you have to forget about the ad hoc additions to the theory that came later, because those only help dismiss all the disconfirming evidence (a hallmark of a pseudoscience). Then you consider the important (but only testimonial I admit) case evidence of the woman (and others) in Psychobabble, and it is clear disconfirming evidence of primal therapy. So now you have testimonial evidence of iatrogenic effects- so what do you do as a scientist? Well, you use that evidence to set up an hypothesis- and then you test that- something that was never done in primal therapy because ALL the many cases of disconfiming testimonial evidence was dismissed with ad hoc additions to the theory. So, that is why people refer to Psychobabble, because it contains disconfirming evidence. It even contains some evidence of induced false memories- something that is now better understood. So can we find a way to put this evidence into the part about Psychobabble?, because at the moment it just looks like Rosen may have dismissed primal therapy on a whim- not true- he did ALOT of research.

On a similar subjest: Twerges interpretation of Therapy Gone Mad (in the wiki article) is good, but again it fails to mention the disconfirming evidence contained in Mither's excellent research. Again, you put yourself back in time to 1970, and imagine it is an experiment, and what does Janov's theories in The Primal Scream predict? All the therapists who formed The Center of Feeling Therapy had ALOT of primal therapy and feelings in Janov's own Institute - okay- what would you then predict in 1970 would happen- again ignoring the convoluted ad hoc additions to the theory that came later? One of the therapists had even wrote a testimonial in the primal scream. Well according to Janov- those who went through primal therapy would not get sick, would be naturally ethical (without need for an external ethics code), would not exploit others, would not need to be rich, etc etc. These are predictions that all turned out to be false. Is there anyway that when we look at evidence like this, we don't dismiss it as not being anything to do with primal therapy- is there anyway that Twerges can find not to neutralize the evidence (he emphasized that The Center for Feeling Therapy was different from primal therapy by finding quotations that reinforced this - thus allowing the reader to dismiss the evidence as not being about primal therapy)- but to present it straight? They did go through primal therapy - and they had some choice words about it, that in of themselves is disconfirming evidence for The Primal Scream, and the behavior of many post-primal people outlined in that book (and many other sources) is further strong disconfirming evidence. Aussiewikilady (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey AussieWikiLady. Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.

The reason I summarized Rosen's book is because I'm concerned with concision.

There are some things on the page at present which I believe are not concise. What I'm talking about here is the inclusion of verbatim sections of text from many critical sources; the inclusion of excessive detail concerning the cover of The Primal Scream and the painting on it; the inclusion of all the chapter titles from The Primal Scream; the repetition of the entire debate surrounding primal therapy on every page having anything to do with it, including the repetition of pro- and anti-primal links; the repetition of a journal title when it is not the title which is important but the content, and when the title is already repeated in the reference; and so on.

It appears to me that many people are trying to get some point across to the reader using the wiki, and in doing so they forget the very purpose of an encyclopedia article, which is to provide concise summaries. Please note that providing concise summaries in an encyclopedia is not some kind of suppression or neutralization. In almost every encyclopedia, there are concise summaries, and not verbatim repetitions or excessive recountings of cover art. The reason is not because they're trying to suppress criticism (or to suppress cover art!), but because they're cognizant of the need for concision.

With regard to your comments regarding disconfirming evidence. Your opinion is well-founded that PsychoBabble and other sources have examples of disconfirming evidence. And we can certainly summarize that disconfirming evidence. However we should avoid placing our own interpretation of that evidence into the page, even if our interpretation is scientific and correct. I agree with your comments regarding science, however the purpose of an encyclopedia editor is not to practice science and to report his findings through encyclopedia articles, but rather to summarize the scientific findings of researchers in the field.

However, if you feel that any major content from a source has been omitted, then we should add something. I'm certainly not meaning to imply that my initial summary of PsychoBabble is all that can be said about it.Twerges (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Please put new sections above this one.

References & Notes

Primal therapy a pseudo-science? Surely not

This article contains a large section about criticism of primal therapy, but it's not clear to me how its contents are supposed to show that primal therapy is a 'pseudo-science.' The very idea of 'pseudo-science' does not seem to apply here; a pseudo-science is presumably something that is held to be science but is not. It's not clear that primal therapy is generally held by its practioners to be 'science', even if it has occasionally been called that. Science is a way of trying to find out the truth or determine facts; primal therapy is a way of trying to help people overcome psychological difficulties. It may be held to be based on facts determined by science, but it isn't itself a way of determining facts. Skoojal (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that this issue has been raised before; one of the previous justifications for the pseudo-science label, was that 'The Primal therapy entry in the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology indicates that "primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. ... A recent survey of the opinions of 300 clinicians and researchers regarding psychotherapeutic techniques revealed that primal therapy was the technique whose soundness was most often questioned."' To ask the obvious question: how does the fact that the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology says something show that this is what the 'scientific community' in general thinks? Ditto about the survey. And remember that questioning the soundness of a therapy's technique isn't the same as saying that it's a pseudo-science. Skoojal (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

it isn't proof, but I dont think you will find any serious contention otherwise. Personally, I don't see the point of arguing about this one way or the other--such contention on similar topics in the past have proven extraordinarily divisive & unpleasant for all concerned. DGG (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I'm not going to remove the pseudo-science category immediately, but I think it is worth asking what justification there is for its use. I doubt that Primal Therapy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", since the scientific community generally probably hasn't the least interest in or awareness of the subject. If the opinion of the scientific community is the standard to be used, the case for labelling psychoanalysis a pseudo-science might be as strong as the case for labelling primal therapy a pseudo-science, yet psychoanalysis is not so labelled. Skoojal (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is the classic example of pseudoscience and should be listed as such.

On the Psychoanalysis page, there are claims that it's pseudoscience.Twerges (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It has indeed been called such, and such statements need to be discussed. I don't think there is sufficient consensus to the effect--especially because it has other aspects than as a medical therapy. Labelling the article that way would seem a little pointy. That's not the way to deal with minority views that still have strong, widespread, responsible academic defense & taught by multiple orthodox institutions. This on the other hand is much more fringy. But thinking further, I'd have no objection to removing the tag. I've never been happy with the implications of "pseudo" in this context. DGG (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not rushing into this, but I have every intention of removing the pseudo-science category eventually. As an alternative, I might consider having the pseudo-science category abolished entirely; I don't think it has any clear meaning. Skoojal (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Two proposed removals

I wish to remove two things because of questionable relevance or importance.

First: I wish to remove the section relating to the Atlantis commune. I added that sub-section because someone mentioned we should have some info about spin-offs, particularly the atlantis commune. However, after I added the stub, no further information has been added. At present it contains nothing of interest, and now that I think about it, the atlantis commune is of little importance. Unless someone feels that the Atlantis commune was important, and wishes to add text to the sub-section indicating something important, then we should remove it.

Second: I wish to remove the quotation from Carl Rogers about the Center for Feeling Therapy. I realize this issue has been debated before, however there is already too much quotation in the article, and I cannot see the relevance of quoting someone who has nothing to do with primal therapy at all about his opinions of a spin-off. Unless someone can argue that Rogers' opinion is somehow relevant to primal therapy, then we should remove the quotation.Twerges (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Twerges.

First: I favor not removing, but moving. It is true that Atlantis was not related with Janov, so, what´s the point in having their history told in this article?.

Second: Ditto. I suggest to move to a new article all references about the Center for Feeling Therapy. Removing the Carl Rogers quote would be a bad idea, because what Carl Rogers said is relevant. If Rogers said something about a Primal spin off, then lets create a specific article abou that spin off. Randroide (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the atlantis commune, there isn't really much material to move, and I don't think it was notable enough to warrant an article in itself.

With regard to Rogers' quote: I definitely agree that Rogers' quote should be included in a separate article about the CFP. Rogers' quote is clearly relevant to that.Twerges (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "The absence of independent peer-reviewed outcome studies (or experimental clinical trials) to substantiate these claims led to the therapy falling out of favor in academic and psychotherapeutic circles." is inacurate. No one can clearly say that it is because of the absence of peer-reviewed studies that caused primal therapy to fall out of favor.... this is the personnal point of view of the writer. In many fields (science, architecture, etc.) some original finding or creations are rejected by the peoples in place, just because they want to keep their place in the establishement. by titinu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titinu (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed movement of "Center for Feeling Therapy" section

I feel that we should place the section called "Center for Feeling Therapy" in its own article. This article should reference that article and should contain a very brief discussion, like "The center for feeling therapy was founded by therapists and interns from Janov's center, who started their own clinic, abandoned Janov's theory, became very abusive", etc. Of course I'm not saying that that should be the actual text. But the actual text should be followed by a link to the article on the CFP; and the article on the CFP should be identical to the section as it now stands.

I propose this because the article now is overlong and contains too much ancillary material. At present, there is more than a page worth of text about the Center for Feeling therapy in this article. Unfortunately, it was necessary to add full quotations to that text, rather than summaries, in order to avoid accusations of "CULTIC MANIPULATION" etc. Unfortunately, there were accusations made anyway, even though the text was quoted verbatim from the source.

After the CFP practitioners abandoned Janov's theory and started doing unrelated things (dream theory, "personal power", etc), their activities had a less direct connection to primal therapy.

Besides, the CFP was quite notable in its own right and deserves its own page. IIRC it was the largest malpractice lawsuit against mental health practitioners in california history.

I don't know how many people are still paying attention to this page. However, if there are people still watching, then I'd kindly like to remind everyone to WP:Assume_good_faith.Twerges (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Good idea. Randroide (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll let this issue simmer for a few days in case anyone else wishes to respond. Barring any objections, I'll go ahead and create the new article.Twerges (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this statement justified?

In response to the lack of scientific validation, Arthur Janov wrote that primal therapy is an experiential psychotherapy and that:

Does Janov state in the text that the reason he made that remark was to respond to a lack of scientific validation? Perhaps we should remove the "In response..." part of that sentence? The sentence appears to be attributing a motive to Janov for making a remark.Twerges (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)