Talk:Arthur Janov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

The References section is for references. A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) referred to while writing the article. The References section of a Wikipedia article isn't just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it. (from WP:SPAM)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arthur Janov article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

Archives:

1: Jan 2005 - Jan 2007

Contents

[edit] External links and BLP

"Biographies of living persons" requires that external links be fully compliant with the external link policy, which states that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". External links that do not meet this policy may be used to find other references that do, but cannot be linked themselves. If a website contains unverifiable controversial information about a living person, it violates BLP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


This is a ridiculous argument. The website debunking primal therapy is sourced, not only to the material it draws from, but also the author has provided evidence that he actually was a trainee at the Primal Center. The website deals with criticism of the therapy and the treatment, not does not deal with the biography of a living person. The effort here is probably by people who want to remove as much criticism about primal therapy from the web, and are looking for excuses to do so.

Zonbalance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil and assume good faith. My involvement with these articles stems from a complaint brought before the biographies of living persons noticeboard. There are significant allegations of sexual misconduct and the overlooking of such referenced within the site. However, since the above comment, there has been further discussion of the issue, and another uninvolved admin believes that the source is usable as an external link, if not as a source for material within the article. There is a more involved discussion of the matter at Talk:Primal_therapy#External_links_and_BLP, and I'd invite you to join the conversation there, as these articles are related. (Please sign your comments on talk pages and discussion boards by typing four tildes (~~~~), which will add your username and a timestamp to your comments. This is useful information for other editors communicating with you and helps to keep talk pages orderly. Thanks.)--Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Zonbalance, if the website "does not deal with the biography of a living person" then it clearly doesn't belong on this page, as I stated previously. Since this page is a biography of Arthur Janov, the only things posted here should be biographically relevant details. Arguments for or against Primal Therapy should be included in the article about that, rather than here.
The only thing from DebunkingPrimalTherapy which could be relevant here, are the few sections which mention him personally. Unfortunately, those few sections violate BLP.

Twerges (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with zonbalance on this one, I checked the debunking page and could not find anything even remotely libellous, and I thought it was just as reliable a source of information on primal therapy and theory as Janov's books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychmajor902 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
PsychMajor, please re-read my comment. I did not use the word "libellous". I claimed that the vast majority of the site is an argument about primal therapy, and so is not relevant to this biographical page. Zonbalance himself claimed the website "does not deal with the biography of a living person", however this is a biography page.
There are a few comments in the "your stories" section of the references site which mention Arthur Janov personally. Those are the only portions of the site which are relevant to this article. However those claims about Janov are unsourced and anonymous, and so violate BLP. From the article on BLP: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."
Note that I did NOT say "libellous"; I said it violates BLP which includes more than libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twerges (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing that violates BLP that I can find on that website. You are just trying to remove criticism and trying to find reasons to do so. Your reasons are pedantic, and that source website you are disputing seems to provide more accurate information than Janov's own books on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychmajor902 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You do understand that libel involves information that is proven to be false, don't you? Saying that someone drives or drove a certain car-type, for example is not libel just because you don't want that information to get out. It would only be libel if it were NOT TRUE and it led to damages to the person as a result of a deliberate lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychmajor902 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"You do understand that libel involves information that is proven to be false, don't you?"
PsychMajor, here are some quotations from my posts above, to which yours is a response: "Note that I did NOT say 'libellous'". And: "PsychMajor, please re-read my comment. I did not use the word 'libellous'".
But now you say (once again): "You do understand that libel involves..."
I have already repeated various things 1,000 times. PLEASE, PLEASE READ and UNDERSTAND the comment I made. I did NOT NOT NOT use the word "libel" and was not talking about it... Again, I did NOT use the word libel. Please do not just reply (once again) "you're accusing me of libel". Please READ THE COMMENT.
Am I being obscure in some way? I don't understand why anything I say fails to make it through, no matter how much I repeat it. I swear, I could say "I don't think anyone is guilty of libel" and I could repeat it 10,000 times, and you (or Zonbalance) would respond "why are you accusing me of libel?" And the same goes for criticism; I could say "I don't want to delete critical citations" 10,000 times in a row, and you (or Zonbalance) would respond "so, you want to delete all the critical citations."
Please read my actual remarks and respond to them, rather than responding to what you think I believe etc. Twerges (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ellen Janov

Recently the sidenote on Ellen Janov was deleted. I can understand why that was done, but I think it should be re-considered. One may or may not agree with him, but Arthur Janov is a major historical figure, and any information about his life is potentially of interest or importance (would anyone remove information about Anna Freud from the article on Sigmund Freud?).

Skoojal (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with skoojal, I don't see any harm in the Ellen sidenote, but am neutral on whether it should be restored Zonbalance (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I will probably restore the sidenote unless someone objects. Skoojal (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New link to 'new abreactive therapy'

It is an informative article because it at least it shows where some of Janov's ideas come from. However I also find the article inaccurate in places, and also mildly plagarises Janov by regurgitating his ideas as if they are the authors. It comes across as a bit wierd. Does the author of that article have a bachelors, masters and or PhD in psychology? Or are they self taught? Also, is this link better off in the primal therapy wiki page? Zonbalance (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, remove the link, if you insist. I'm not sure where the article is inaccurate, or how any inaccuracies it might contain outweigh its usefulness. Surely the article doesn't have to be perfect to be helpful? I personally don't think it makes a difference whether the link is in this article or the primal therapy page; it could be in either or both. Skoojal (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure zonbalance read the article fully, the article comes across as an evangelic advertisement for primaling to save the world. I vote to remove it because it comes across as a bait and switch, it promises to discuss how earlier therapies influenced janov, and then it turns cultic. Aussiewikilady (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The article may be written from a particular point of view, but I don't think that means it's not valuable. The anti-primal therapy site certainly represents a particular point of view, but that isn't a reason for removing it. I think it's appropriate that there be links to both pro- and anti- primal therapy points of view. Skoojal (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the link would be better placed in the "Primal Therapy" article rather than here. The link deals primarily with Primal Therapy, and not with Arthur Janov personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twerges (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Primal therapy is Arthur Janov's creation and closely associated with him, so I don't think it's much of a distinction - no one would be interested in Janov if it weren't for primal therapy, and I think readers of an article about him expect to see some information about it. Skoojal (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit dispute

I noticed there's a dispute going on regarding whether or not www.debunkingprimaltherapy.com should be referenced on this page. Skoojal claims that the link to DBT.com should be deleted since other, pro-primal sites were deleted. I agree with him on that point. If the DBT.com link remains, then we must add a corresponding link to the website which rebuts it (rombastic.org); otherwise, we have violated NPOV. In the very least, we must restore NPOV--we must have both links or neither.

Personally, I think neither link should be included on this page, since this is a page about Arthur Janov and not Primal Therapy. I think all links regarding Primal Therapy (either pro or con) should be moved to the page where such links would be appropriate. However, I'm certainly willing to relent on this point, if others feel that we should include both pro- and anti-primal therapy arguments here. But if we are going to have the argument here then we must have both sides referenced.Twerges (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The attempts to remove relevant criticism are at once cultism and vandalism, and also was done by someone who linked an article to a specific primal therapist who has an financial stake in the removal of criticism or the addition of advertising material. How do we know that this person is not in fact the primal therapist themselves, or a accultized follower? With regard to having both sides, the link to the primaltherapy.com website is incredibly pro-primal to an embarrassing, unscientific and almost delusional degree. the debunking site link adds some sanity to the absolute madness of it. Zonbalance (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Zonbalance,
"The attempts to remove relevant criticism are at once cultism and vandalism"
The removal was neither cultism nor vandalism. The removal was not cultism because it didn't advocate joining a commune, or severing connections to the community. Neither was the removal vandalism, because the editor gave a plausible reason. Please remember to refrain from name-calling.
"was done by someone who linked an article to a specific primal therapist who has an financial stake in the removal of criticism or the addition of advertising material. How do we know that this person is not in fact the primal therapist themselves, or a accultized follower?"
We don't know what the editor does for a living. Therefore, we should follow the wikipedia policy WP:Assume_good_faith. With regard to the comment on "accultized follower": please remember to refrain from name-calling.
"the debunking site link adds some sanity to the absolute madness of it."
There is no "absolute madness" at present on the page.Twerges (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Precedents: I refer editors to other wiki articles of controvbersial figures in psychology. Try Freud, Hubbard, etc. Criticism and external links to criticism is allowed there. Psychmajor902 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. The pages of L Ron Hubbard and Freud have criticisms in the "external links" section. However, "most" of that criticism is of Freud or Hubbard as persons, not the doctrines they founded. An exception is the "clambake" site referenced on the Hubbard page which links to a site that opposes both Hubbard and Scientology.
Also, the hubbard page has "pro-hubbard" links at the bottom. I think what skoojal was disputing was that the pro-Janov link had been deleted while the anti-janov link was retained.
The debunkingprimaltherapy site deals with Janov only on two pages: one entitled "Janov top psychologist?" and a few mentions in the "your stories" section. Perhaps a solution is to link directly to the "Janov top psychologist" page rather than the website generally, and not delete skoojal's links to any pro-Janov articles which deal with Janov specificallyTwerges (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks psychmajor, didn't think of that, precendents. I agree with twerges that the link on debunk could be changed to janov top psychologist, so long as it then does not get removed for some other reason. The external link to skoojal is not such a bad thing, it is a good article for those who think Janov "discovered" something new. However someone said it was a bait and switch and I haven't had time to look into that.Zonbalance (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that the link to the debunking primal therapy site is there, I think there is no real reason why the link to the Bryan article shouldn't be there as well. It doesn't make sense to remove it because it is pro-primal therapy; in that case, the link to Janov's website would have to go as well. That it is about primal therapy rather than Janov personally is also not relevant; as Twerges points out, the debunking primal therapy site is also mostly not about Janov himself. Skoojal (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License

When I lived in America more than one source made it clear that Janov had lost his licence to practice psychotherapy (or primal therapy I am not sure) in any English speaking country in the seventies, and therefore relocated to France. His lawyers negotiated that he be able to teach , but not practice as a psychotherapist, in America, hence his ability to open the Primal Center to train new therapists. Can someone advise where the documentation for this would be found, and can somebody who lives in America go and look it up, because these things are public record, and not supposed to be kept secret. Once a solid source is found, it should be added in a neutral way onto the article. Aussiewikilady (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Aussiewikilady, the claim is probably untrue. We must be very careful not to add defamatory material to the biographical page. A solid source in this case would be a public record.Twerges (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, documentary evidence is needed, but I am not so sure it is untrue because I was at the Primal Center in the 90s and is was told to me by patients, then my therapist explained it to me too. It's worth looking up. Aussiewikilady (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Why would the therapist say that, I believe you, but I don't understand that part. Psychmajor902 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The patients told me, then when I asked the therapist the therapist explained it to me in a positive light. thats why I would be suprized if it were false, because the therapist did not reject it. Aussiewikilady (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone (not me!) could try looking up the records, or enquiring to the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, or the American Psychological Association, and if that doesn't work, perhaps California civil case law which may contain public records relevant. Zonbalance (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undone a recent edit

I've just undone the deletion of a link to a website that debunked the debunking primal therapy page. There was a typing error in the justification I gave for that - I meant that if one pro-primal site is linked to, there's no reason why there should not be links to others. The exact number of sites is not the issue. Skoojal (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WHy is it required to immediately give a link to a site rebutting that website. It doesn't strike me as right or normal that the readers of wiki can't just look at the evidence without an immediate rebuttal, is the information so dangerous to the belief system? By always adding that rebuttal site to any mention of that debunking website could rob the reader of serious consideration of the evidence presented on that site. It strikes me as just wrong and manipulative. Aussiewikilady (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The site in question gives information that readers can consider for themselves. I don't see that it robs anyone of anything. Skoojal (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
AussieWikiLady, it's important that both sides are presented. The website mentioned (Debunking) makes specific claims about personal attacks, cultish behaviors, authoritarianism, and so on. Those claims are disputed. To maintain NPOV we must have both sides represented.
"is the information so dangerous to the belief system?"
I don't understand this point. I didn't remove the information.
"By always adding that rebuttal site to any mention of that debunking website could rob the reader of serious consideration of the evidence presented on that site."
Serious consideration requires considering both sides. Nothing prevents the reader from seriously considering whatever he reads on DebunkingPrimalTherapy.
"It strikes me as just wrong and manipulative."
AussieWikiLady I don't understand how any of these edits are "manipulative", unless you're using a very broad definition of that word (meaning "to change something"). Could you further explain what you mean? Twerges (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with aussiewikilady that the rebuttal link should be removed or moved. Think of it this way, how would you feel if on every primaltherapy.com mention on wiki, I went through and ON THE SAME LINE immediately wrote (some of the claims made on this site are rebutted on debunking...com). The thing is it sets up in the mind in the reader that the truth must be half way between the extremes, however the information on debunkingprimal is basically true observations mixed with informative links and quotations, and has already attempted to be balanced in itself. Psychmajor902 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That link doesn't necessarily have to be placed directly after the link to the debunking primal therapy page. I don't see any reason why it should be removed from the article, however. Skoojal (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


"Think of it this way, how would you feel if on every primaltherapy.com mention on wiki, I went through and ON THE SAME LINE immediately wrote (some of the claims made on this site are rebutted on debunking...com)."
PsychMajor, the debunking website has already been added to every mention of primal therapy on the wiki. It's listed twice on this short biographical page--once within the text of Art Janov's ideas. It has even been added to pages ("debunker") which do not mention primal therapy. The contrary point of view must also be presented.
"The thing is it sets up in the mind in the reader that the truth must be half way between the extremes"
It sets up in the mind of the reader that the issue is disputed and that there are two sides. It is up to the reader to decide where the truth resides.
"however the information on debunkingprimal is basically true observations mixed with informative links and quotations, and has already attempted to be balanced in itself."
The debunking website is not balanced. It clearly attempts to debunk primal therapy. There is no section on the site which defends primal therapy or presents stories of those who disagree with the negative assessment. Twerges (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The immediate following of the debunking link with the rebuttal link makes the article look unprofessional, and looks childish. However, it may show readers how dangerous the information is, and how cultic the followers are that they have to qualify any dissent or criticism immediately, regardless of whether the information is from a source who has more experience in both primal therapy and psychological science than themselves, and which includes testimony from others who also have more experience. I'm glad twerges got out before he got to lift the curtain on Oz, but he should not assume those that did lift the curtain are mistaken. Psychmajor902 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"The immediate following of the debunking link with the rebuttal link makes the article look unprofessional, and looks childish."
I don't think it's unprofessional or childish to represent both sides of an argument. How is it unprofessional? For example, in the professions which actually deal in argumentation (like law), I believe it's customary for both sides to present a case.
"However, it may show readers how dangerous the information is, and how cultic the followers are that they have to qualify any dissent or criticism immediately, regardless of whether the information is from a source who has more experience in both primal therapy and psychological science than themselves, and which includes testimony from others who also have more experience."
Once again, we see the word "cultic" thrown around, this time in reference to someone trying to have both sides of a debate represented. But how is it "cultic" to have both sides represented? Precisely which definition of the word "cult" are you using here? You might be using that word somewhat loosely. I had thought that cults were places where only one viewpoint was allowed.
With regard to your claims of authority. Insofar as I can tell, you are a graduate student in psychology, as I once was. You have good reason to be proud of that, and I wish you well in your studies. But I don't think being a psychology student is a strong enough credential for you to attempt some kind of "argument by authority," which would be fallacious even if you really were some kind of authority. Anyways, even if you were an authority (speaking hypothetically), I don't think that it would give you the right to suppress contrary points of view. That kind of authority is not scientific, and went out of style a long time ago.Twerges (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I'll remove the links to the rebuttal website. It's not that important to have it on the biographical page.Twerges (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In this case, why keep the debunking primal therapy site there? Surely it should go too, if the pro-primal site is out?Skoojal (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, in my opinion, the rombastic link should stay, but I'm not willing to fight over it because it's too minor. The link had been absent from this page for many months, and I added it here on somewhat of a whim ("why not have this link..."). However, by adding the link, it appears that I inadvertently kicked off another round of name-calling ("childish", "cultic", etc--see above) and more speculation about my devious motives (I'm terrified of the threatening information on debunkingprimaltherapy.com, etc). I hadn't expected the intensity of the response, since the issue is minor.
Who will read the Art Janov biography page, anyway? If you want to keep up the struggle, then go for it, but don't wear yourself out!!Twerges (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
After some consideration, I've removed both the debunking primal therapy site and the pro-primal site; given that they are both in the article on primal therapy, they don't need to be here. I think my current edit makes the article more neutral. Skoojal (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The link to primaltherapy.com is not a neutral link. It is a misleading and self published website that needs a counter to balance. Zonbalance (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The link to primaltherapy.com is there because it is Janov's personal website. Its neutrality or lack of it isn't relevant. The debunking primal therapy site and the rom bastic site both belong in the article on primal therapy. Skoojal (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war with Psychmajor902

Psychmajor902, can I suggest that it is a little silly to wage an edit war over something this minor? I am sure that you think it looks very impressive to add the word 'challenged' to the sentence under dispute, but you have not attempted to show that it adds anything of substance to the article. Skoojal (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with psychmajor because the therapy has been severely challanged. Aussiewikilady (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Psychmajor902 needs to explain what the word 'challenged' usefully adds to the article that is not already conveyed by the word 'criticized.' I don't think it adds anything. Skoojal (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Due to previous edits done by skoojal, it appears he/she has an agenda, and request he/she stop editing the article. Zonbalance (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I have an 'agenda' any more than you do, Zonbalance. Your 'request' that I stop editing the article is denied. By the way, I am a he, not a 'he/she.' Skoojal (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which websites should be linked from this article

There has been an ongoing edit dispute regarding which external websites should be linked from this page. More specifically, there has been an ongoing dispute about whether the DebunkingPrimalTherapy site should be linked from here and, if so, whether the rebuttal site should also be linked.

There doesn't appear to be any consensus on this issue, and it seems unlikely that such a consensus will develop. Furthermore, it seems very unlikely that further discussion will contribute to a consensus, since many of the arguments here consist entirely of personal attacks, accusations, etc, none of which is relevant to the debate. (I won't bother pointing out the relevant wikipedia policies yet again).

As a result, perhaps it would be best to solicit a third opinion on this matter, or to widen the "debate" to include other parties that might not be biased one way or the other about Primal Therapy.Twerges (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are some inaccuracies in your above text twerges. The dispute seems between someone, skoogal, who made consistently vandalism-pro-primal edits, and another who tried to reverse those unhelpful edits. There also seems that a compromise has been made on both sides. Psychmajor902 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
PsychMajor, what you said appears to me to be incorrect. Skoojal's edits weren't vandalism. Vandalism on wikipedia means adding meaningless text like "FUCK SHIT" (or whatever) to the middle of the page, or replacing the entire article with an obscene image, etc. Skoojal did nothing like that. Skoojal added content which he believed was legitimate and which you believe is undesirable. That is an example of a content dispute, not vandalism.
It's important to avoid accusations like "vandalism" etc except in cases where it's clearly justified.Twerges (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

I noticed there's an edit war going on with regard to the debunkingprimaltherapy link, and the link at the end of the "Primal Therapy" section.

My opinion is as follows. I think the link at the end of the "Primal Therapy" section should lead to the "Primal Therapy" article, not to the criticism section specifically. I feel that way because the section in the page entitled "Primal Therapy" is relevant to the entire primal therapy article (including the criticisms) and not to the criticisms alone.

It would be quite possible to have both links at the bottom of the paragraph ("see Primal Therapy, including the criticism section..."). I wouldn't be opposed to that.

Personally I don't believe that the section "Primal Therapy" should be on the biography page at all; we should have a link only: "Arthur Janov is the creator of (linked) Primal Therapy, and author of many books on that subject". IMO there is no need to discuss primal therapy (or its criticisms) in any detail on a biography page, because those things are not biographical details. They are not relevant here. They belong in the Primal Therapy article, and there is no need to repeat that article here.

With regard to the DBT.com link. I don't believe this page is an appropriate place for any kind of dispute about Primal Therapy, one way or the other, since this article is not about Primal Therapy. I don't believe that we should include here links to any sites unless they are specifically relevant to the biography of Arthur Janov. If we do have any such links (like the DBT.com link) then we must revisit the whole debate here, and we must include other links, otherwise we violate NPOV by representing only one side. It would be better just not to have such links.

Bear in mind that Art Janov is an exceedingly minor historical figure. His biography should be only a few paragraphs. It's not really the best place for an extensive argument.

I realize you guys are concerned about people being led astray by reading the wiki, but I really don't think that's a major concern. Anyone who follows a "Primal Therapy" link and reads the article will realize that Primal Therapy has been criticized. The readers aren't dense and don't need things repeated. In other words, I don't think anyone could be misled or led astray by a simple link (and nothing more) on the biography page.

We should achieve some kind of consensus before editing the article. If we can't achieve consensus then we should solicit outside opinion.

Twerges (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that argument is useless, and it may seem inappropriate to say this at all, but Arthur Janov is not a minor historical figure. He is a major historical figure. So I do not agree that the biography must be restricted to only a few paragraphs. I see no reason why there should not be at least a brief section on primal therapy in this article. I can understand the appeal of including both a link to the primal therapy page and a link specifically to the criticism section as a compromise measure, but really, it shouldn't be necessary. Only the first link should be there.Skoojal (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You may feel that Janov is a major figure, and you may or may not be right; but the encyclopedia must be based on the general consensus of his importance.
I don't see why material from the Primal Therapy article should be repeated here, since we provide a link. It's redundant to provide a link and to copy material. And it's not strictly relevant to this page. I suppose I should ask: why do you feel we should repeat that material when the reader can follow a link?
I agree that only the first link to the Primal Therapy article should be necessary. It is not necessary to provide individual links to separate sub-sections (criticisms) of the Primal Therapy article.

Twerges (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If the material about primal therapy is removed, what will be left for readers of this article to read about? Just Janov's divorces? And if primal therapy is really irrelevant to an article about Arthur Janov, then why even place a link to the main article on that subject? Skoojal (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'Primal therapy' section could perhaps be abbreviated, however. I'll remove the second half. Skoojal (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war over link to primal therapy criticism section

Let me explain my reasons for removing that link a little more fully. My three main reasons for doing this are,

1. The biography section of this article simply gives a neutral description of Janov's claims. It does not say that they are correct, and hence it does not need for the sake of balance to mention that they have been criticised (mentioning the fact that someone has said or argued something or other does not in any way imply that his argument is correct).

2. The fact that Janov's claims have been criticised does not necessarily have anything to do with his biography. Janov's claims have been defended and supported by some people too, but there is no need for his biography to mention this either, for the same reason. Mentioning the fact that Janov has been criticised, but not that he has been defended, shows bias.

and

3. The fact that the entire article about primal therapy is criticial of it, and hence that there is no reason for this article to link to the criticism section in particular. To include a link specifically to the criticism section implies that the primal therapy article as a whole is not criticial of Janov's claims, which is false.

My grounds for removing that link are clear. Psychmajor902 has not made a serious case for including it. Skoojal (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with psychmajor on this. We have argued about this sort of thing before. The reasons skoojal gives for deleting criticism and trying to make the article more pro primal are not adequate. Zonbalance (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Zonbalance, my reasons are adequate. It is your unsupported assertion that they are inadequate that is inadequate. Skoojal (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a new proposal. The link to the criticism section of the primal therapy article doesn't need to be in this article at all, but what the hell, add it anyway - just so long as it goes in a separate criticism section of this article, and not in the description of Janov's life. I'm no longer objecting to the inclusion of the link in this article, but I do object to its current location. Skoojal (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the link, and I agree with skoojal that it would be fine to put it in a new section. Aussiewikilady (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Aussiewikilady. I think that's a great improvement, and hopefully that brings that edit war to an end. Skoojal (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent reversion

Sorry, I didn't realize there had been an agreement on that point.Twerges (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)