Talk:Primal therapy/Archive 5

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

Primal therapy in the early 1970s

I'm considering adding the following paragraph to the introduction:

Primal therapy was popular and influential during the early 1970s. During that time, it had a significant impact on both psychotherapy and popular culture. It's influence on psychotherapy consisted of hundreds of spin-off groups and derivative therapies. It's influence on popular culture was felt in both music and media. In music, it inspired several bestselling bands and musicians such as: Tears for Fears, Primal Scream, Motley Crue, Celine Dion, and John Lennon of The Beatles. In media, it attracted numerous high-profile celebrities, like James Earl Jones and Dyan Cannon. Its popularity also propelled Janov on to major talk shows such as The Tonight Show to promote it.

I think it's important to add text like that because primal therapy was a major cultural force for a few years, and the article says nothing about that. I feel it's a major omission.

Twerges (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's properly sourced, I don't see a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cult/Pseudoscience?

I started reading this article and a related one, and two things hit me about it. The claims by the creator that the statistics don't matter, only the feelings, and that only approved (by the creator) practitioners can do the therapy. This screamed cult at me, but the word barely appears in the article.

After reading the talk here, I see there was some discussion, and the word was removed even though many sources apparently call it that. If the sources say that, I think it should be discussed within the article.

Also, if the claims are correct that the creator said statistics don't matter, I think it should also be category pseudoscience. If he was just saying the evidence isn't in yet, and more studies are needed, I would go for protoscience, but it doesn't appear that is the case, it looks like he is writing off scientific studies.

I understand there have been quite a few disputes already, so I would like people to discuss this here.

Jinniuop (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jinniuop. Welcome to wikipedia.
You wrote: This [indifference to statistics] screamed cult at me, but the word barely appears in the article.
Since the charge of "cult" is very serious, we must tread carefully here. We cannot add our suspicions, impressions, or opinions to the article. We cannot label primal therapy as a cult unless it obviously meets the criteria of that word and is commonly understood to be one, or unless there is a consensus of experts which says that it is one. Since primal therapy is not commonly understood to be a cult and is not labelled as such by a consensus of experts, we cannot call it that in the article.
We cannot describe primal therapy as a cult in the article just because we noticed Janov's aversion to statistics or his statements about training, and then suspected it might be one on those grounds. Not only would it be a logical leap, but it would also be adding our own conclusions and suspicions to the article, if we added the cult label and presented it as fact on those grounds.
After reading the talk here, I see there was some discussion, and the word was removed even though many sources apparently call it that.
Among the reliable sources we have, none of them says "primal therapy is a cult" or anything similar. The only source which says that was removed by administrators because it was not a reliable source by wikipedia standards.
There was also a "dictionary of sects" which listed primal therapy among terms which are related to cults. However, it was not at all clear that the source was calling primal therapy a cult.
Also, if the claims are correct that the creator said statistics don't matter, I think it should also be category pseudoscience.
IIRC, there was an unfinished debate about the pseudoscience tag.
There does seem to be some support for the pseudoscience notion among the sources we have. For example, I believe that Martin Gardner claims something like that in his essay which is already referenced in the criticism section. Since Martin Gardner is a notable figure, his views belong in the criticism section.
If you can find text from Gardner's essay (or from any other reliable and significant source you find) which says that primal therapy is pseudoscience, then you can add text to the criticism section. However, please remember to be concise. Thanks.
Twerges (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
---
Oops, forgot one. There is a source ("Insane Therapy") in which the author says the following: "what Frank describes as healing cults more closely resembles what I think occurs in Primal Therapy than does Janov's description".
That claim is already reprinted in full in the criticism section.Twerges (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding text to introduction about historical significance

Somebody pointed out that we should add a section which describes the tremendous cultural influence exerted by primal therapy during the early 1970s. I agree that we should add something about that. I think it's deplorable that the article doesn't mention the tremendous influence primal therapy exerted during that period.

To that end, I intend to add text to the introduction explaining the historical importance of primal therapy. I will add something like this:

Primal therapy was a major cultural phenomenon during the early 1970s. It achieved worldwide fame after the publication of Janov's first book, The Primal Scream, which was a bestseller. During its brief period of popularity, primal therapy was extremely influential. It attracted numerous high-profile celebrities like John Lennon; it attracted hundreds of thousands of applicants to Janov's tiny institute in Los Angeles, California, most of whom were rejected because of the limited space available for new patients; it inspired dozens of spin-off clinics worldwide; it provoked hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, either praising or condemning it; and it formed the inspiration for numerous popular cultural icons like the bands Tears for Fears and Primal Scream. The popularity of Janov's first book rapidly propelled him to international fame, during which Janov appeared on popular television shows like The Tonight Show to promote primal therapy.
Since that time, primal therapy has faded into obscurity, in part because Janov never produced the outcome studies needed to demonstrate its effectiveness. Nevertheless, Janov continues promoting the therapy and providing it at his clinic in Santa Monica, California.

I have references for those claims which I will add to the final version when I place it in the article itself.

I thought I would add that text to discussion first, because I haven't edited it yet and I thought I could solicit opinions regarding prose style, etc. Twerges (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable reference in criticism section

There is a reference in the criticism section called The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions.

The criticism section at present includes this quotation from the book:

Since there is no relevant research, Primal Therapy could simply be chalked up as a placebo and the excessive demand characteristics of the extreme rituals and procedures as well as group pressures.

...However, the book claims that all psychotherapy relies on group pressure and placebo effects. That is the point of the book. The book is not criticizing primal therapy specifically. It goes through all therapies (including cognitive behavioral) and claims they are not effective.

Here is the product description provided by the publisher on Amazon:

Psychologist-attorney Eisner puts psychotherapy on trial by critically examining its effectiveness through the lens of the scientific method. From psychoanalysis to cognitive-behavior therapy as well as the 500 or so other psychotherapies, there is not a single experimental study that supports the effectiveness of psychotherapy over a placebo or religious healing. Using both case examples and clinical research, this book challenges the conclusion that there is empirical support for the notion that psychotherapy is effective.

It is extremely misleading to suggest that the book criticizes primal therapy specifically, as if it holds primal therapy to be uniquely discredited. It is also very misleading to include this criticism in the primal therapy article specifically, rather than the article about psychotherapy generally, since the criticism is not directed to primal therapy specifically.

I will change text in that criticism, to clarify the matter. We should also consider removing the criticism outright and placing it on a page which deals with psychotherapy effectiveness more generally. This criticism no more belongs here than in the article dealing with cognitive behavioral therapy. In fact, it belongs here less than on the page with CBT since CBT is explicitly mentioned in the inset and presumably is criticized at greater length.

We must also carefully go through every single critical reference which has not been vetted. I have read some of the critical references which were added. Many of those critical references were severely misquoted and used terms such as "malpsychian nightmare" and so on which were not used in the actual sources at all to describe primal therapy. Twerges (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Twerges wrote:

The criticism section at present includes this quotation from the book:" Since there is no relevant research, Primal Therapy could simply be chalked up as a placebo and the excessive demand characteristics of the extreme rituals and procedures as well as group pressures".... The book is not criticizing primal therapy specifically.

Excuse me, Twerges. Did you notes that you wrote a self-contradictory piece of text?. If that quote is from that book, it is obvious that the book is ctiticizing PT. Randroide (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not write a self-contradictory piece of text. Read carefully what I wrote. I wrote: "the book is not criticizing primal therapy specifically". The book criticizes PT for relying on placebo effect, but it claims that all psychotherapies rely on placebo effect, so the criticism is not directed to PT specifically.

Twerges (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

undid revision

I undid a revision which removed the word "extremely" and which changed the wording regarding popular cultural icons.

The sources we have suggest that primal therapy was very influential during 1970-1972. According to Mithers, there was a primal therapy craze sweeping the country, and Janov got more than 3500 applications per week at his tiny clinic--people who were willing to uproot themselves and move to Los Angeles. Janov sold millions of copies of various books, and there were apparently full-page spreads in the NY Times and elsewhere advertising his newer books. Janov repeatedly showed up on the Tonight Show and elsewhere to promote it. In my native San Francisco Bay Area, there were more than 12 spin-off clinics, and there were many spin-off clinics in the New York area and in various places of Europe. There were also many amateur "primal screaming" clubs across the country.

Maybe "extremely" isn't exactly the right word here, but I think we should convey that primal therapy was briefly a very significant phenomenon.

I also undid the changes regarding cultural icons. The revised text listed only two cultural icons (Lennon and Tears for Fears), and it removed mention that primal therapy was the inspiration for many others.

When I wrote the original text, which claimed that primal therapy was the inspiration for many popular cultural icons, I gave John Lennon and Tears for Fears as examples. That does not mean those were the only pop culture icons which were inspired by it. There were also quite a few others: Celine Dion, the band Primal Scream, the movie Ordinary People (which won best picture), and others. I don't wish to list them all in the introduction, because that would be tedious. Perhaps we should list them in the body of the article, in a section regarding history and cultural influence of primal therapy; however nobody has gotten around to writing that yet.

Primal therapy was briefly a cultural phenomenon with considerable cultural influence. We cannot just remove all mention of that from the encyclopedia. That is not trivial detail. We cannot just say "it influenced these two bands" and leave it at that.

Also, the revised text claims that primal therapy inspired "lyrics" in the band Tears for Fears. Again, that omits most of the important information. It inspired the whole purpose of the band including (obviously) its name, its musical style, the titles of its albums ("screamadelica"), and so on. The original text was briefer and more accurate.

I realize this material doesn't have references yet, because I just added the material a few days ago and haven't put the references in yet. So I'll add a "citation needed" for the time being. Twerges (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Partial cleanup

I have removed many repetitions of the word "claim" in the article, per WP:CLAIM, and substituted more NPOV alternatives. There are still considerable problems with this article though, so I have restored the POV tag until they can be addressed. Gatoclass (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite and expansion

I have rearranged and rewritten some of the latter sections, which not only had POV problems but were quite disorganized. Also added some new sections about post-Janovian developments etc.

I actually wrote most of this nearly a year ago but decided not to post it at the time, and eventually the project just fell off the radar. Having recently revisited this page and seen how bad it still is, I decided it would be better to include the material even though it arguably still needs some work. To that end I have given it another rewrite before posting it.

The new material contains most of the old refs and so on, but rearranged in such a way as to provide more information and in a more structured manner. It also includes some new refs. However, there are still some missing references and some more material that could probably be added, so I've left the citation tag on the article while removing the POV tag. I will try to fix some of the remaining problems over the next few days. Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I had to revert this [1] edit you made because:

  • You made an extremely complex edit in a highly disputed article.
  • You deleted facts, sources and wikilinks (for instance to Martin Gardner, for instance the details of the Videgard study).
  • You introduced unsourced chunks of text.
  • You introduced lenghty digressions about issues with no direct relation with PT.

I am trying to reintroduce the (IMHO) valid contributions you made. I beg your help. Randroide (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I give up. I am "lost" with some sources you pasted, Gatoclass. You made a extremely complex controversial edit, where you deleted lots of sourced data and also added lots of data and sources.
I am so sorry about this issue, because now I know that you worked a lot to improve the article.
Why can´t you please add sourced info to the article? (in step-by-step edits, please, to facilitate supervision and discussion by other editors). I am never going to object to the addition of sourced information.
Please help us to integrate those great sources/data you added. Today I give up trying to restore manually all what you added. Sorry but your edit was too complex.
Please note that you also added unsourced text (lots of it) and enormous chunks of text about non-Janovian "Primal Therapy". Unsourced text does not belong in Wikipedia (much les in controversial articles), and non-Janovian PT should be -IMO- located in a different article. AFAIK this article is for the PT as created by Arthur Janov
I am sorry for having to revert such a laborious edit as the one you did. I would like to help as much as I can to integrate that material if sourced. Some of it in a different article Randroide (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I first raised the problems with this article almost a year ago. Nothing has been done to improve the article or fix the problems since then. But when someone finally makes the effort to do so, suddenly you pop up again to revert to the manifestly inadequate and POV version. You could have at least started by discussing specific changes you think might have been necessary, but instead you've simply made a wholesale revert of everything. That doesn't seem to me to be a constructive approach.
However, to take your criticisms one by one.
You deleted facts, sources and wikilinks
While as I said I wrote most of this material many months ago, as I recall I deleted no more than two or three sources, and that was mainly because (a) they weren't very good, and (b) because they were just repeating what other sources already said. The most important sources were not only kept, but considerably expanded upon in the article.
for instance the details of the Videgard study
The Videgard study was still there, I just moved it to a more logical place.
You introduced unsourced chunks of text
I already said in my post above that I hadn't had time to add all the cites, and that I would fix that over coming days.
You introduced lenghty digressions about issues with no direct relation with PT
I attempted to add some information placing PT in its historical and social context. That's a perfectly valid object. Every worthwhile article includes contextual information.
you also added unsourced text (lots of it) and enormous chunks of text about non-Janovian "Primal Therapy".
The term "Primal Therapy" is not owned by Janov. He lost a case over that many years ago. Other primal therapists employ the same term, or use a variant of the term to distinguish their practice from classical primal therapy. This is the "primal therapy" article, not the "Janovian primal therapy" article. Gatoclass (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Randroide, it appears to me that Gatoclass added far more information than he deleted. He added information regarding many things to the article, like historical antecedents, non-Janovian approaches, early splits regarding birth trauma, and so on. Furthermore, he added information which was new to the article, and which was not the endless repetition of the same points over and over, which has characterized the article so far.
It's my opinion that, on balance, gatoclass' edits were a huge improvement to the article. I do not agree with everything he did. However I definitely believe his changes made the article look far more professional. I vote that we use gatoclass' latest revision as a point of departure for further debate. If we wish to add more critical material, then that's fine, but I don't think we should revert gatoclass' edits.
I understand your concern that gatoclass did too much at once. But I think gatoclass might have been concerned with preserving a flow to the text, which can only be accomplished by writing a larger amount.
I suspect the reason gatoclass added all that text at once, was so it could have a coherent structure and flow. I see his point. The point of an encyclopedia article is not to have a disjointed list of references, but to have a concise explanation of a topic, with references. That is what gatoclass has provided. I vote we keep it.Twerges (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)



Sorry Twerges but we can not use Gatoclass version as a point of departure because:

  • Gatoclass deleted sourced information. Lots of it.
  • Gatoclass introduced unsourced text. A lot of it.

IMO what we should do is to add to the current article the valid sourced information that Gatoclass added.

If the structure of the article is so wrong as it is currently, I am open to discuss here the necessary changes.

Gatoclass made good and bad edits in one big, complex edit. I do not "buy" "package deals". Plase break up the package and I shall "buy" all the good things Gatoclass made to the article Randroide (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

break 1

I comment Gatoclass contributions:

I first raised the problems with this article almost a year ago. Nothing has been done to improve the article or fix the problems since then.

The article is OK with me as it is. Maybe is my fault to fail to see how bad it is as it is, maybe it is the fact that I wrote a substancial part of that article. I see nothing fundamentally wrong with it as it is.

But when someone finally makes the effort to do so, suddenly you pop up again to revert to the manifestly inadequate and POV version. You could have at least started by discussing specific changes you think might have been necessary, but instead you've simply made a wholesale revert of everything. That doesn't seem to me to be a constructive approach.

If you improve the article avoiding the deletion of sourced data I never going top revert you en masse. I have never done such a thing in my 3500 edits at this Wikipedia.

While as I said I wrote most of this material many months ago, as I recall I deleted no more than two or three sources, and that was mainly because (a) they weren't very good, and (b) because they were just repeating what other sources already said. The most important sources were not only kept, but considerably expanded upon in the article.

"Two or three sources"?. Are you sure?. I count 18 blanked sources in this edit you made [2].

Those sources are:

a) A-OK according to WP:RS.

b) Repeating what other sources say. Yes: You have a point here. They repeat a lot. But please note that the same assertions uttered by a lot of sources are STRONGER than the same statement uttered by a few sources.

To illustrate my point: If the Euro NCAP, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tell us that this or that car sucks in case of crash, we do not leave only the Euro NCAP in the article (I quote now your words verbatim) "because they were just repeating what other sources already said".

Of course that they are repeating, and OF COURSE that repetition from different sources add a lot of credibility to what are they saying.

The Videgard study was still there, I just moved it to a more logical place.

You deleted the details of the study. A bad, bad, bad edit, given the fact that Videgards is the ONLY independent study about PT.

What the article said before your edit [3]:

In an early account of the results of primal therapy (published in book form, only in Sweden in English), Tomas Videgård[1] reported on a study of a sample of 32 patients who entered therapy at The Primal Institute in 1975 and 1976.
The outcome evaluation for the patients was 4 Very Good, 9 Good, 8 Medium, 6 Bad (including one suicide), 5 Unavailable for post-testing. Patients who did not finish the therapy were excluded. (See Duration above.) Patients in the sample had been in therapy for between 15 and 32 months.
Videgård himself went through the therapy. The evaluation was based on patients' answers to questions and some projective tests that require interpretation by the tester (Videgård himself). There was no control group.
Videgård concluded that therapy at The Primal Institute was marginally better than the Tavistock Clinic and markedly better than the Menninger Foundation--the two psychotherapy clinics which he used for comparison

After your edit:

A slightly larger study of 26 patients was carried out at Janov's Primal Institute by Tomas Videgård in 1984. As with the earlier study, Videgård surveyed patients both before entering therapy and some twenty months later. Videgård concluded that the therapy had an overall success rate of 40 percent. He observed that patients who developed a good relationship with one or more therapists had much better results than those who did not, leading him to conclude that the patient-therapist relationship was much more important to the success of the therapy than Janov had realized

You even introduced incorrect data, for G*ds sake!: Videgard started the study in December 1975 (Videgard, Page 6). He published the study in 1984. To make things worse you deleted the ISBN of the Videgard´s study, and "cited" it only trough another source.

I hadn't had time to add all the cites.

Plase read Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you "have no time", I beg you to wait till you have the source to introduce the fact. You can create an Atelier in you user space for the sake of convenience.

The term "Primal Therapy" is not owned by Janov. He lost a case over that many years ago. Other primal therapists employ the same term, or use a variant of the term to distinguish their practice from classical primal therapy. This is the "primal therapy" article, not the "Janovian primal therapy" article.

OK, you have a point here.

Gatoclass: You worked a lot, and a lot of that work would be an extraordinary addition to the article. Could you please just add those sourced facts you collected?. I am not going to object to that.

If you want to improve the structure of the article, we should dicuss the issue first here. Thank you Randroide (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to just "add" to the existing criticism section, because that section is irredeemably POV in my opinion. What I will do, since you've raised these objections, is take another look at the sources I left out (I do believe there are only a handful) and see if there's anything there worthy of reinclusion. And we can take it from there.
As for improving the structure, I don't think there was anything terribly radical about my changes, they just organized the same basic information into a more logical sequence. To break down the changes I made to the existing material, I simply took three existing sections, the totally random "Janov's warning" section, the "Reports" section (which was a total mess and uninformative to boot) and the "Criticism" section, and dovetailed them all under an "Evaluation" header, which was basically divided up into two subsections, a "Views" subsection and a "Studies" subsection. I can't see that there could be any reasonable objection to that.
In regards to your earlier objection about too many changes at once, I can accept that and agree to work on one section (or group of sections as above) at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain why do you think that the "criticism" section is POV?. IMO it is sourced -well sourced- down to the commas.
I am not opposed at all to a new structure as long as we do not delete valid sources/pieces of information.
I also think that it would be much better if the new structure separates clearly (i.e. structurally) the Janovian PT from the non-Janovian PT.
Thank you for accepting my "no too complex edits" contention. Randroide (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Just being "well sourced" does not mean a text is NPOV. Much depends upon the presentation. NPOV means facts have to be presented in a neutral way, not angled in such a way as to lead the reader to a predigested conclusion. Without going into details, the current criticism section violates NPOV by repetition of the same or similar material, by presenting criticisms out of context, and by presenting an almost totally negative picture of the therapy while almost entirely omitting positive information. The information is also presented in a random and haphazard manner which is very unhelpful. That's why I consider it to be irredeemable in its current form. However, as I said I have taken on board your criticism that some sources were left out in the rewrite, and I'm considering the possibility of reincluding at least some of that material where appropriate, but it's going to require a rethink so I can't promise to get it done right away. Gatoclass (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
What is not "neutral" in the present text?. Could you please provide some examples?. To be honest: I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please tell me?.
Repetition of similar material from different sources is perfectly NPOV. Please read (for instance) Dodge_Neon#Safety. There you have five (count them, five!) differente sources telling us basically that the humble Neon is a deathtrap. Do you really think there is a NPOV problem at the Neon page?. OTOH you are right if you say that duplicated references to sources should be deleted.
If criticisms are presented out of context, then we should add that context. Please review this example: This editor added the context [4] [5] to a section at Mini I wrote a long time ago: Mini#Safety. Look at the extensive context for references 68 and 69. A fine work contextualizing my original text. If you think more "context" is needed, please add that context. Of course that I am not going to oppose that sensible move.
Yes, the "Criticism" section presents (your words) "an almost totally negative picture of the therapy". What a curious contention you made. What do you want?. The section is not called "Criticism" for no reason. OTOH if (important if) the critics said something like "PT is bad for reasons A and B and C...OTOH it must also said that PT is good for reasons Y and Z" we should quote them telling us "reasons Y and Z" for PT not being so bad after all. I am not going (of course) to oppose the introduction of "reasons Y and Z".
Obviously, I would neither oppose an "Endorsement" section quoting this and that author saying good things about PT.
The information is also presented in a random and haphazard manner: I am not going to oppose any reorganization in the presentation as long as there is no loss of valid information. Randroide (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting)

What is not "neutral" in the present text?.

To begin with, the opening two paragraphs in the "crit" section contain a grab-bag of decontextualized criticisms presented in a highly POV manner. The most obvious example being the repetition of the phrase "it has also been criticized for ..." Repetition of this kind is a classic rhetorical device employed to hammer home a point, it's about as far from encyclopedic presentation as one could possibly get. How anyone could possibly miss this transparently POV construction, quite frankly I can scarcely imagine.

Repetition of similar material from different sources is perfectly NPOV.

Again, it depends on context and presentation. One methodology of POV-pushers that I've identified during my time on this project is that of providing a long list of cites behind a statement they wish to emphasize, which not only highlights the statement but also gives it a patina of authority. The reader can hardly help but look at such a list of cite numbers and think, "oh golly, if all those people think so, it must be true!" But a closer inspection might reveal that many of the cites do not say what they are alleged to say, or that they are from unreliable or dubious sources, or that they are from sources already cited. This will not be at all evident to the average reader of course.

Yes, the "Criticism" section presents (your words) "an almost totally negative picture of the therapy". ... What do you want?. The section is not called "Criticism" for no reason

Perhaps that is part of the reason why "Criticism" sections are now deprecated on this project. However, part of the problem here is that some supporters of the therapy have also criticized aspects of it. One cannot just present the criticisms of such people as if that is all they had to say on the subject. That's part of what I mean when I said statements are presented out of context. It's also why I thought it better to create an "Evaluation" section in place of the "Crit" section - because many sources have both critical and positive things to say about the therapy, and don't fit comfortably under such headers. Gatoclass (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, the opening two paragraphs in the "crit" section contain a grab-bag of decontextualized criticisms presented in a highly POV manner
Please feel free to add whatever sourced context you think is required.
But a closer inspection might reveal that many of the cites do not say what they are alleged to say, or that they are from unreliable or dubious sources, or that they are from sources already cited.
I agree that what is alleged in the article the sources said must be what the sources really said.
I agree that unreliable and dubious sources must be removed.
Perhaps that is part of the reason why "Criticism" sections are now deprecated on this project.
Really?. Could you please link the WikiProject page where they are deprecated. All this is new to me.
part of the problem here is that some supporters of the therapy have also criticized aspects of it. One cannot just present the criticisms of such people as if that is all they had to say on the subject
Please feel free to add all (good and not-so-good) that the mentioned sources said about PT.Randroide (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of sources in "Criticism" section

Randroide expressed concern over the fact that many references had been omitted in my rewrite. In fact I did skip a few. This is mainly because as I said the rewrite was composed a year ago and I'd since forgotten the state of play on it, but decided to post what I already had and include any other valid sources I had missed at a later date. Since Randroide has challenged me to check through the references to see what was omitted however, I have now done so and find that in fact I had indeed already included most of the material I consider to be valid.

I am therefore including a breakdown of all the sources included in the current "Criticism" section, categorized by those I think are reliable and relevant and those which I do not, together with reasons (in italics) where appropriate.

ALREADY IN THE REWRITE, or accepted as possible inclusions
  • 19 a b c Ehebald U, Werthmann HV (1982). "[Primal therapy—a clinically confirmed procedure?]" (in German). Z Psychosom Med Psychoanal 28 (4): 407–21. PMID 7180218.
  • 20 a b Starker S, Pankratz L (February 1996). "Soundness of treatment: a survey of psychologists' opinions". Psychol Rep 78 (1): 288–90. PMID 8839319.
  • 23 Eisner, The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions, pp 51
  • 24 Moore, Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology
  • 34 http://www.primals.org/articles/weiner.html
  • 36 http://www.selfhelpfraud.com/uploads/3__Fringe_Psychotherapy.pdf
  • 38 Alice Miller´s communication to her readers
  • 30 a b c Thompson, Sally Anne; Clare, Anthony W. (1981). Let's talk about me: a critical examination of the new psychotherapies. London: British Broadcasting Corp. p. 121. ISBN 0-563-17887-6.
possibles
  • 26 Cordon, Popular Psychology - An Encyclopedia, pp 133 questions validity of therapy
  • 25 Bornstein RF (2003). "The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Implications for Psychology and Psychoanalysis". Psychoanalytic Psychology 20 (4): 717–26. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.20.4.717. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pap/20/4/717/. if someone has access to this article, we could consider it
neutral
OUT
duplicate links to refs already included
attacks on catharsis in general rather than PT in particular
no relevant qualifications
  • 29 Rosen, Psychobabble - no qualifications in field
  • 33 New Age Blues (1979, ISBN 0-525-47532-X), Page 28 no qualifications in field
dubious sources
  • 35 Ayella, Insane Therapy - about center for feeling therapy rather than PT
  • 41 Insane Therapy ISBN 1-56639-601-8 ,page 39 link to same
  • 31 http://tanadineen.com/media/NatPostMilstone.html attacks both gestalt therapy and PTSD as dubious along with PT, which makes this source highly questionable
  • 44 "Primal Therapy: A Persistent New Age Therapy." in the Skeptical Inquirer, May 1 2001. - secondhand source, and quite frankly, the writer of this article is so ill-informed about the therapy it simply doesn't merit inclusion
  • 45 "Dubious Mental Health." can't access, unknown provenance, only repeats info already included, so scarcely worth inclusion
unverifiable
  • 22 Abrall, Soul Snatchers: The Mechanics of Cults can't verify
  • 37 Kirsch, Los Angeles Times, March 27, 1970 - can't verify

Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. What a extensive and well presented review you did. Impressive. Congratulations.

ALREADY IN THE REWRITE or accepted/possible inclusions/possibles

I agree on those sources being used.

neutral

I disagree. "The Guardian" is a WP:RS.

attacks on catharsis in general rather than PT in particular
*21 Singer, Lalich, Crazy Therapies : What Are They? Do They Work?, pp 128

Error. Crazy Therapies critizices specifically Janovian PT (pages 120-122). I know this because I have the book here on my desk. Unfortunately I have no copies of those other books you cited. I must check your other claims one by one. I shall try at Google books.

unverifiable
*22 Abrall, Soul Snatchers: The Mechanics of Cults can't verify'

Now you can [6]. Author is Jean-Marie Abgrall.

BTW: What a serendipitious find. I am going to buy the books by this French man. Mr Abgrall quotes M. Rouzé [7]. M. Rouzé was the author of the 1986 Spanish journal "Conocer" article that described some very interesting activities by Janov in France in the 1980s. I have spent hours looking for additional references about those activities with no success. I hope I shall find those references in the books by Mr. Abgrall.

We had a heated discussion about the article by M. Rouzé (Talk:Primal_therapy/Archive_1#Reversion_of_potentially_libellous_material). That article (I found out 5 minutes ago) was published first at Science et Vie in 1985. Fantastic. This is exciting!. Checking your assertions I stumbled on the references I failed to find.

*37 Kirsch, Los Angeles Times, March 27, 1970 - can't verify'

Now you can [8] Randroide (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting a "file not found" error on the Soul Snatchers link. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Uhmmm...try now again. Anyway, look for "Soul Snatchers" at Google Books and then search por "Janov" in the book. I can only have access to the Spanish Google Books. Maybe there are copyright issues (for instance, I can not see most of the sample videos at Amazon.com). Try at your local Google books.
Actually, your second link does work, and I think I've seen the link before, but the problem is that most of the pages pertaining to PT from this link are unavailable. Gatoclass (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no. They are available. You must pay some dollars, but they are available. The 19.95$ month pass seems agood option. Do not you agree?. Randroide (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You've misunderstood me, I wasn't referring to the newspaper article, I have bought la times archives previously and may do so again if I see the need. I was referring to the book Soul Snatchers. The online sample includes only a brief reference to PT so one cannot verify that he actually said what the article states that he said, ie that PT is "lacking outcome studies to prove its effectiveness" (although I think it probable, given the book's topic, that he did make such a comment). Actually, I see I was wrong about that, he does say in that snippet that it lacks proof of effectiveness. I'm still not convinced it should be used as a source however, as it's a glib statement that is not backed up by any evidence. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass wrote: I'm still not convinced it should be used as a source however, as it's a glib statement that is not backed up by any evidence. Excuse me: I think that the same can be said about all what Janov said about PT. We quote Janov about his own therapy. For the same token we can and must quote its WP:RS critics. Soul Snatchers is as valid as "The primal scream". Randroide (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW, do you have access to the la times article? It would be helpful if we knew who the author was. Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
No. But I can dispose of 20$ to take a look at the LA Times archive if the source is disputed. Randroide (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My take on all this

Gatoclass, thanks for your effort and professionalism. I'm glad someone is willing to devote some energy to improve this article.

With that said, I agree with randroide that the Insane Therapy reference should be retained. I have read that book, and it discusses primal therapy specifically and at considerable length. Furthermore, it's written by someone with relevant qualifications.

However, I agree with Gatoclass that the reference for tana dineen should be removed. That reference mentions primal therapy only once in passing. I don't think we should include references which say nothing significant about primal therapy per se. It's not necessary to include every single comment ever made by anyone about the topic.

The same goes for dubious mental health, which devotes almost no space to primal therapy, and which mentions PT only once in a sentence with about 40 other therapies.

I agree with Gatoclass that the guardian article should be used for historical and biographical information only. It's a biography piece taken from the "music" section of a magazine. It's very thorough and informative, but not a scholarly source for information about efficacy.

I agree with Gatoclass that all duplicate links should be removed.

With regard to the Crazy Therapies source. I'm inclined to include it because of Singer's obvious notability. However, I have some reservations about it, because of the controversy surrounding Singer. She made peculiar claims against groups she disagreed with, after which an APA committee described her views regrading NRMs as "uninformed speculations based on skewed data." After which, she remarkably sued the APA for conspiracy and many other things; her lawsuits were all thrown out of court. I'm a little hesitant to include as an expert somebody who is no longer allowed to testify as an expert in court, and whose views were described as "ridiculous" by APA committee members. Nevertheless, I think we should retain this reference, because she had previously been a significant figure within the field of psychology.

I have one additional objection to Gatoclass' edits. I think those edits bias the article a bit too strongly in favor of primal therapy. Gatoclass devotes the same amount of space to discussing the three tiny uncontrolled studies which support primal therapy, as to discussing the criticism of it. Which raises a question of undue weight.Twerges (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the support Twerges (and I might add, having trawled through much of the talk page archives last night, thankyou for your ongoing commitment to this article and for your often lone hand in trying to maintain article quality!).
In regards to your comments above - obviously I agree re dineen and the "dubious mental health" link. In regards to Insane Therapy - I had two concerns with inclusion of that link, firstly that the book is about the CFT rather PT, and I was concerned that readers may inadvertently conflate the two. Secondly that the snippet available online gives no indication as to whether she actually researched PT itself. I am somewhat reassured by your comment that she has in fact discussed PT "at considerable length", but if we are to include this source, it would have to be done in such a way as to ensure that there is no danger of CFT and PT being conflated, and given the difficulty in doing so quite frankly I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
Re Crazy Therapies - having read what she has to say about PT, I am firmly opposed to the inclusion of this source, she appears to make no specific criticisms of PT at all, instead after a brief description of the therapy, she launches into a blanket condemnation of cathartic therapies in general. Opinions about cathartic remedies belong in an article about catharsis, not in articles about specific cathartic techniques. Furthermore, now that you have informed me about her questionable status as a reliable source, I am even more firmly opposed to the inclusion of this source.
As for your comments re undue weight - the policy recognizes the inherent difficulty of adequately discussing unpopular ideas in articles specifically devoted to such, and accordingly makes allowance for that. In regards to your specific criticism about the studies - wp:undue can certainly be said to apply to the preponderance of scientific evidence on one side or another, but in this particular case, there is very little scientific evidence either way. About all we have are the two or three small studies and Janov's little bit of in-house research, so there can be no question of misrepresenting the weight of evidence here. If there had been, for example, a large-scale study discrediting primal therapy, and we were giving equal weight to the Videgard study, that would obviously be a clear violation of wp:undue, but in this case there are no such studies. Gatoclass (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)~
I had two concerns with inclusion of that link, firstly that the book is about the CFT rather PT, and I was concerned that readers may inadvertently conflate the two
I am afraid I am one of those "uninformed" readers. I actually believe (not know, I just believe -ugh, to believe is a bad thing-) that the CFT praticed PT.
Did the Center for Feeling Therapy claim they practice PT or did they claim they practiced something different from PT?. Seems than your knowledge on this particular issue is greater than mine, therefore could you please quote a source about this highly specific question?.
Sorry fot the apparent fastidiousness of this question, but Gatoclass thinks (I beg to differ) it is better to list non-Janovian PT practicioners/sources on this page, so I think that we must be sure (and I mean really sure) about the the issue of the CFT practicing PT or not. Randroide (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Randroide, the CFT did not practice PT, except at the very beginning.
The CFT started as an offshoot of PT in which they would practice PT. But then, the founders of the CFT abandoned Janov's ideas completely and went off in different directions. The CFT completely abandoned PT early on, and was not practicing PT after that.
There are some quotations and references about this in Center for Feeling Therapy#Abandonment of primal therapy.Twerges (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for not having much to say over the last few days. Unfortunately we are experiencing a heat wave in my part of the world, I don't have aircon and my flat is literally like a sauna in hot weather, I'm afraid I simply cannot do any work in these conditions, but this article has certainly been on my mind and I am still planning to work on some improvements when conditions are a little more amenable. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
@ Twerges: Oh. I failed to see the section you linked. Yes: You are absolutely right. The issue is excelently referenced there. Thank you for the wikilink, Twerges.
@ Gatoclass: We can avoid any risk of the reader conflating PT and CFT just linking the section linked by Twerges. Something like this: The center for feeling therapy abandoned the Practice of Primal Therapy from the beginng of its existence.
Please take all the time you need until the weather conditions where you are go again to normal. BTW, I suggest you to try a wet towel + a fan + shade. The net effect of these factors can be enough to be the difference between relative confort and extreme disconfort. Te wet towel on the pillow + a fan is also fantastic "system" to help sleep. Modern flats can be like a stove, tough. Consider awnings. Being a vegetarian (I am) and eating light, raw and fresh food also helps a lot. I know what you are talking about: I often remember very hot summers my chilhood, living in a flat, with no air conditioning, no fans (for some strange reason my parents have never bought a fan) and me then being an omnivore (the omni was literal: Also included junk food): It was very though on mind and body. Against extreme cold it is relatively easy to fight with "low tech" means. Against extreme heat it is much more difficult. What a blessing an aircon unit can be! Randroide (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I could buy an aircon unit, but the sensible thing to do is move to a cooler place! This is a very nice apartment in many ways, and in a nice location, so I haven't wanted to move, but it's just too darned hot in summer, and now I'm regretting I didn't follow through on my intention to move after last summer. On the bright side, I have found that leaving the front door open in the evening does a really good job of cooling down the house overnight, so you don't get that horrible buildup of heat over several days. But thankyou for the words of commiseration :)
As for vegetarianism, I admire your discipline, and I've often thought about trying vegetarianism for myself, but it's not easy to do in a society that doesn't support the lifestyle.
In regards to the article, having been interrupted by the heat wave, I've lost a little momentum on this project, and also I think a rewrite is going to need considerably more thought than I at first anticipated given the discussion above. So I may have to let things percolate for a while. Meanwhile I'm finishing off a few little projects here and there that can be more easily tackled. However, I do still hope to get back to improving this article some time over the next few weeks, although it may have to wait until the new year now as things are inclined to get a little more hectic around this time of year. Gatoclass (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Death of psychotherapy

Someone changed the reference for "Death of Psychotherapy" saying that the book claims there is evidence to support cognitive behavioral therapy.

There has already been a consensus reached on this issue. That consensus can certainly be challenged now, but whoever does so must preset some kind of evidence and must achieve a new consensus before undoing edits or reversing a consensus.

The following is a book insert distributed by the publisher and included with the book:

From psychoanalysis to cognitive-behavior therapy as well as the 500 or so other psychotherapies, there is not a single experimental study that supports the effectiveness of psychotherapy over a placebo or religious healing.

If there is some text within the book which contradicts this, then please present that text here.

I don't think you would violate copyright by posting a short excerpt in discussion.

I would buy the book, but it's $120.

Thanks.Twerges (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As long a no quote is produced, I must concur with Twerges. Please read [9]
Those Praeger books are incredibly expensive, but worth every Euro Cent you pay for them. Randroide (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Videgård, T., The Success and Failure of Primal Therapy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Primal_therapy/Archive_5&oldid=1137097549"