Talk:Primal therapy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Discover article

Apparently I've stirred up some kind of edit war with my deletion of the second reference to a Discover article. Someone undoes my edits without comment or explanation.

I don't understand why this issue is even contentious. The Discover reference was obviously in the wrong section. The section is entitled "Peer-reviewed journal articles." However, Discover is not a peer-reviewed journal, but a magazine found on newstand shelves. And the referenced article is not a peer-reviewed article, but an editorial found in a pop magazine. In other words, the reference doesn't belong in the "Peer-reviewed journal articles" section because it's not peer-reviewed, and not in a journal. On the other hand, the article DOES belong in the "criticism" section. But its found there already, as I explained in my initial comment and in my second comment.

Also, with regard to other edits made recently... To whomever undid them... Please don't automatically remove edits without comment or explanation. And when you do include comments, please don't refer to other wikipedia editors as "cultic" or "cultists", or refer to their edits as "cultic". Note that I am not affiliated with the Primal Center, or the Primal Institute, or any cult! True, I have removed misplaced quotation marks, and I have removed a reference that was not about Primal Therapy (but mentioned it briefly in passing), and I have removed only one of two references to a Discover article because it was in the wrong section. That does not mean that I am in a cult! I could have good reasons for making those edits.

It's important to retain an air of civility on wikipedia and not to make accusations about the motives of other editors. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twerges (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discover magazine is NOT a journal

There is a big difference between an academic, peer-reviewed journal (like Lancet) and popular science magazines (like Scientific American or Discover).

Discover magazine is not a peer-reviewed journal! From the wikipedia article about it: "Discover was originally launched into a burgeoning market for science magazines aimed at educated non-professionals, intended to be somewhat easier to read than Scientific American.."

In other words, Discover is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific journal! Editors should read about the differences between peer-reviewed journals and popular magazines before deciding which section to put references in.

Twerges (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)twerges

Please stop the edit war!

My revision has been reverted over 5 times now, without explanation and without discussion on the talk board, even though I have requested discussion repeatedly. This appears to be a violation of the wikipedia policy on edit wars, in addition to violating the wikipedia policy requiring editors to revert only when necessary. When reading these policies, please note the one-revert rule, the requirement of explaining your reverts on the discussion page, the requirement of explaining your reverts in comments (rather than leaving blank comments), and the requirement of contributing to discussion and resolving disputes through discussion. I believe the recent activity has violated those guidelines and requirements.

Please discuss your reasons for believing that the "Discover" magazine is a "high-quality journal" and belongs in the "peer-reviewed scientific journal" section. Please do not revert the edit without any discussion!

If there are further reversions without discussion then I will submit this issue to the wiki process for obtaining a third opinion.

Thanks.

Twerges (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Twerges

WP:BLP ticket opened

→ See BLP/N Archive 12 (section 16) and BLP/N Archive 38 (section 36).

[1].

Randroide (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to "criticism" section

There has been a great deal of information added to the "criticism" section recently, much of it helpful. However there are a few cases where I think some of the info should be removed because of questionable relevance or because it violates wikipedia's policies. Specifically, the quotation from DebunkingPrimalTherapy.com was a personal opinion taken from the web page of one of the wikipedia edit warriors. It seems like a violation of wikipedia's policy of not being a soapbox, to have critical quotations of the opinions of wikipedia edit warriors inserted into the article itself. Note that there are no quotations in the article from the personal webpages of wikipedia editors who have written articles defending primal therapy.

With regard to the other two recent edits... It appears unnecessary to me to include a full quotation for every critical remark made about primal therapy, no matter how obscure the source or how unrelated to primal therapy is the quotation. Some of the sources mention primal therapy only once in passing in a parenthetical remark (out of tens or hundreds of pages), and have been out of print for decades, or the quotation does not even relate to primal therapy specifically. Part of the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a condensed synopsis of available material, not to reprint every critical quotation available, no matter how obscure. I think these sources should remain in the criticism section, but the sources which mention primal therapy only very briefly should be included in a single bullet point, like "further sources which question the empirical basis for primal therapy can be found here (pg 27), here (pg 131), here (pg 412), etc".

Please note that I did not delete the disputed sources from the criticism section. I deleted only extensive quotations of questionable relevance, or quotations from the personal web sites of edit warriors.

Thanks.

Twerges (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Twerges

With regard to the other two recent edits... It appears unnecessary to me to include a full quotation for every critical remark made about primal therapy, no matter how obscure the source
Primal Therapy is an obscure therapy, sir. Therefore, critical (or favourable) remarks about it are going to be obscure sources. This is not Behaviorism nor Psychoanalysis.
...or how unrelated to primal therapy is the quotation. Some of the sources mention primal therapy only once in passing in a parenthetical remark (out of tens or hundreds of pages)...
I agree with you 100%, sir. Quotes non related to Primal Therapy have no place here.
...and have been out of print for decades...
Could you please explain us why out of print sources are bad sources?. Sorry but I am unable to grasp your implicit rationale, so, please, I beg you to make it explicit.
...but the sources which mention primal therapy only very briefly should be included in a single bullet point...
Why?. How short is "briefly"?.
Randroide (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Primal Therapy is an obscure therapy, sir. Therefore, critical (or favourable) remarks about it are going to be obscure sources. This is not Behaviorism nor Psychoanalysis.
Certainly that's true. Primal Therapy is very obscure, and most of the literature on it is decades old. However, some of the citations in the "criticism" section are from books that have been out of print for decades, were obscure at the time, and mention primal therapy only very briefly. Many of the critical sources do not even devote a full sentence to primal therapy. It is a combination of elements (obscurity, out-of-date, irrelevance) which leads me to believe that some of them may not be important enough to justify extensive quotations of what they say about primal therapy in the encyclopedia.
Why?. How short is "briefly"?.
"Briefly" means less than one full sentence devoted to Primal Therapy, or less than half a paragraph in a book or very long article. Why? Because the purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide a concise synopsis, not to quote (in full) everything ever said about it.
Could you please explain us why "out of print" sources are "bad" sources?. Sorry but I am unable to grasp your implicit rationale, so, please, "I beg you" to make it explicit.
That is not what I claimed, sir. I did not claim that "out of print" sources are "bad" sources. I provided an explicit rationale, but apparently I was unclear, so I'll try again.
I don't think out-of-print sources are bad sources. I think that sources which are obscure, AND have been out of print for decades, AND which mention primal therapy only in passing, may not be important enough to justify reprinting everything they say about it in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, I don't believe that a half-sentence remark from an obscure therapist's personal webpage ("Tana Dineen") referenced by a Canadian Tabloid, should be reprinted in full in the encyclopedia. I think they should be _referenced_, but not extensively quoted. Note that I did not remove the references, but only the extensive quotations from references with arguable importance or relevance.
It's a question of _concision_. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to reprint everything ever said (in print or on the web) about a topic, but to provide a concise synopsis and references (not always full quotations).
I certainly don't think out-of-print sources are necessarily bad sources. Many of the references to out-of-print books are very important. For example, I think that the reference to "Psychobabble" is a very good reference. Even though the book has been out of print for decades, it had an entire chapter (!!) devoted to criticizing primal therapy and so is obviously relevant. Since it's out of print, it may be desirable to quote from the book.
Please note that I am not just trying to suppress criticism against Primal Therapy. I don't favor removing these sources, just reducing the number or length of quotations from sources of questionable importance or relevance, for the sake of concision. And I certainly don't favor reproducing every printed remark ever made _in favor_ of primal therapy, either! Arguably, this article is already too long for a therapy which is (as you pointed out) quite obscure.
Twerges (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Twerges, you are attempting to remove as much criticism about primal therapy as you can, and you have been for some time now. You are trying to justify your vandalism in order to manipulate and confuse others sufficiently to make it stick. The criticizes must stay to to fair and open with the public about primal therapy.
Zonbalance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Zonbalance, once again, you are making assumptions about my motives without saying anything relevant to the debate. Your message is about me personally. It contains nothing relevant to the topic.
Please say why you believe the Discover magazine is a journal, etc.
I am not trying to "confuse" or "manipulate" people! I am trying to improve the article. That is all!
Please note that I don't believe magazine articles either for or against primal therapy should be placed in the "peer-reviewed journals" section. Also note that I don't believe that every obscure quotation either for or against Primal Therapy should be reprinted verbatim in the encyclopedia.
PLEASE stop making assumptions about my motives! Your assumptions about my motives are completely mistaken. I realize I've said that about 10 times already, but apparently I'm not being clear enough...
Please read the section on etiquette for wikipedia editing, in which it states that you should assume good faith, and not make remarks about the other editors (only about the topic).
Twerges (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with zonbalance that all the criticisms are sourced and should stay. He may have a point that the wiki primal therapy may attract people with a financial interest in primal therapy (or a social vested interest); and thus may try to remove criticisms. I must say the wiki article on primal therapy is quite pro primal considering the lack of support it gets from the majority of professional psychologists, Pro primal editors should feel lucky it is as positive as it is. Those criticisms must stay though to maintain some balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychmajor902 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
PsychMajor. Nobody here has a financial (or social) interest in Primal Therapy. Of the two "pro-primal" editors, one lives on another continent. As for myself, I've had no connection to the Primal Center or Institute for years. Please read the the wiki policy related to assuming good faith, etc etc. I've already provided the link lots of times. You could also take a look at the wikipedia page on the Ad hominem fallacy.
Once again (maybe I'm wasting my breath here) I'm not suggesting that we remove the critical references, but only that we replace QUOTATIONS with SUMMARIES in cases where the source is obscure, and a complete quotation of everything that they say about primal therapy may not be concise. If you have a remark relevant to that, please post it.
I don't see how the article has a "pro primal" bias. At present, the criticism section is already 75 times longer than the "answers to criticism" section (which may be appropriate, but it certainly isn't a PRO-primal bias). Furthermore, statements about the biases of the authors have been inserted into the section on the only study on Primal Therapy ever done, despite its tepid conclusions. Furthermore, much of the rest of the article is critical. Which section do you feel is biased in favor of Primal Therapy?
Twerges (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
All those criticisms are valid as are the quotations. Without them a biased impression is given by the rest of the wiki article. The sections on the theory, and all the sections above the criticisms etc are NOT what a proper psychological scientist would say about primal therapy. The section on the Center for feeling therapy is not bad, but it ends with an explanation of what happened by the very man who trained them. It's a total cult. The article should start out saying it is a non clinically tested and widely seen as invalid therapy approach. Pick a psychologist or social worker at random, and you will hear things like that. It's not a valid approach and is usually abusive. Also, people should realize that the pro-primal editors may not be who they say they are, there have been people with a financial stake in primal therapy removing criticism and adding advertising material. Others may only have a social stake, but they are still acting like scientologists in there editing out of criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychmajor902 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Without them a biased impression is given by the rest of the wiki article."
I don't see how quotations instead of summaries would counterbalance any problems found in other sections of the article. If there is a problem with another section than we should discuss that.
"The article should start out saying it is a non clinically tested and widely seen as invalid therapy approach."
The article does start out saying: "The absence of peer-reviewed outcome studies (or experimental clinical trails) to substantiate these claims led to the therapy falling out of favor in academic and psychotherapeutic circles." That is taken from the 3rd full paragraph of the article, before any of the sections. I still don't see a "pro-primal" bias.
"Also, people should realize that the pro-primal editors may not be who they say they are, there have been people with a financial stake in primal therapy removing criticism and adding advertising material. Others may only have a social stake, but they are still acting like scientologists in there editing out of criticism."
I realize that I've said this about 10 times already, but please read the wikipedia policies relating to the assumption of good faith, and the prohibitions against making accusations against the other editors.
(oops, forgot to login and add my signature, adding it now)
Twerges (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the past destructive removal of criticism by grahameking and to a lesser extent, twerges, forgive me for not trusting that those removals ae not done with the intention to make primal therapy look a whole lot better than the majority of psychologists believe. Such deletions of sourced material is not acceptable however you try to spin it. The job of primal therapy is to respond to those criticisms, not tohide or suppress them. The quotations are important, and should stay bcause it would take the reader a long while to get the essence of them by reading the whole articles. By removing the quotations, you may in effect be removing the criticism, because it becomes unclear what the criticism actually is. I agree with psychmajor in calling the past attempts to suppress criticism what they are, a bit like a cult.
By the way the quote from that former primal therapy trainee is a valid source because he shows proof he was a trainee on his site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Zonbalance, I agree that it would take a reader a long time to get the essence of an article from reading it. But I also think that a reader won't get the essence of an article by reading a single sentence or quotation from it. For example, the books "Psychobabble" and "Crazy Therapies" have entire sections criticizing Primal Therapy, and those criticisms are not adequately summarized by any one sentence from those books. The best way for a reader to gain an "essence" of an article is to read a concise summary of the article; in fact, the very purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide such summaries, which is not tantamount to suppression.
I realize that the author of that quote was a trainee at the Primal Center. However I don't believe it's appropriate for any wikipedia editor, trainee or not, to have his own quotations inserted into an encyclopedia article.
Twerges (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I strongly disagree with your idea to delete criticisms or critical quotations, it may be possible to expand them to give a rounded summary of the criticism. Your last set of edits though, twerges were very fair. So long as you don't try to use them as a prelude to deleting all the criticisms, I am impressed with your grasp of the material. I don't think the website author you refer to is necessarily a wiki editor, given the relatively large number of primal critics, even if he were you can't ban quotations from such rare, valid, verified and non-commercial (without a financial stake) sources such as that (without arousing suspicion of intention). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with Zonbalance on everything (like the Discover article) I do share a concern of his/hers: I agree that in the past criticisms have been deleted from the webpage with invalid and misleading reasons based on consensus of editors (bar one) who seem to believe strongly the primal therapy. I see no reason to cut down the criticism section on the article, without it learners are going to embarrass themselves in front of their professors on the subject. I agree with zonbalance and psychmajor on this. With regards to the debunking primal therapy website, I agree it should stay, and that the quotation should remain to give the reader an idea of the criticism. The source is a former primal trainee, and a well informed one too, and he/she provides evidence of this, so I don't understand why that source is not as valid as PhDs with no personal experience of primal therapy. However, I am consiering whether the website should be put at the bottom of the criticism section, because it's author gives no indication that he/she has a PhD in the subject. That would allow the PhD quotations and in print criticisms to be seen first by the readers. However, since the debunking website does use a lot of material written by peer reviewed psychologists, I am in two minds about this, and don't really mind if it remains at the top (it is the most comprehensive discussion and it pulls all the ideas together unlike the other criticisms).
Regarding criticisms from articles or books that don't discuss primal therapy solely or in enough detail for twerges liking: I think this is a problem because Primal Therapy is rejected as invalid by a large number of the psychological community. In a similar way you will not find scientology's auditing methods discussed much in psychotherapeutic peer reviewed literature. However, when primal therapy is listed in an article that discusses health fraud, pseudoscience, it is a significant piece of evidence that should not be deletd or hidden. So I disagree with twerges in his idea to delete criticisms of primal therapy that do not solely concentrate on primal therapy.
Aussiewikilady (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"I agree that in the past criticisms have been deleted from the webpage with invalid and misleading reasons based on consensus of editors (bar one) who seem to believe strongly the primal therapy."
Both of those claims are incorrect.
There are 3 editors who appear to be in the anti-primal camp (randroide, zonbalance, and PsychMajor) and two on the other side (GrahameKing and myself). The editor "MoonRiddenGirl" is a wikipedia administrator with no connection to Primal Therapy.
The reasons given were not "misleading". I strongly suggest that you not assume that anyone here (on either side) is being "misleading" when giving reasons for edits. (WP:Assume_good_faith). There is a tremendous problem here already with "mind reading" and with assuming devious motives and/or conspiracy where none exists.
"I see no reason to cut down the criticism section on the article, without it learners are going to embarrass themselves in front of their professors on the subject."
Nobody has ever suggested removing the criticism section. The only suggestion has been to replace 3 quotations with summaries. Would that seriously cause learners to embarrass themselves in front of their professors? I don't see how. If anything, I believe students would embarrass themselves if they started citing references in the "quotation style" exemplified here, with one random sentence quoted for almost every citation.
I believe the entire article (including the criticism section) should be drastically cut down. A reasonable length for an article about primal therapy would be 1-2 pages. Recently I looked up "Primal Therapy" in an Encyclopedia of Psychology in the bookstore, and the entry for Primal Therapy was one sentence.
"The source is a former primal trainee, and a well informed one too, and he/she provides evidence of this, so I don't understand why that source is not as valid as PhDs with no personal experience of primal therapy."
It's not a question of the validity of the source. It was question of whether a wikipedia editor should insert quotations from himself (or have quotations inserted by associates) of their own personal opinions or observations. Doing so is a violation of wikipedia policy ("wiki's not a soapbox"), even if the editor did have a PhD. Please note that the pro-primal editors haven't inserted quotations from themselves or their own web pages in the wiki article.
"I think this is a problem because Primal Therapy is rejected as invalid... However, when primal therapy is listed in an article that discusses health fraud, pseudoscience, it is a significant piece of evidence that should not be deletd or hidden."
Please carefully re-read the debate. I have never suggested "deleting" or "hiding" any of the critical citations.
"So I disagree with twerges in his idea to delete criticisms of primal therapy that do not solely concentrate on primal therapy."
You're not reading what I wrote. Please READ CAREFULLY the suggestions that I made. I have never suggested removing even a single critical citation, regardless of how minor or tangential. The question is whether we should have quotations or summaries. Twerges (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why "Discover Magazine" is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal

I went to google and typed "peer-reviewed journals". This was the first result returned. This page is from a library and lists criteria for what constitutes a peer-reviewed journal, as follows:

  • Formal in format
  • Sources are cited with footnotes or a bibliography at the end of the article
  • Authors are scholars and researchers in the field and are identified as such
  • Purpose of the article is to publish the results of research
  • Publisher may be a professional organization, research institution; usually not-for-profit
  • Very little advertising
  • Graphics are usually statistical illustrations, in black-and-white

Discover Magazine clearly does not meet any of those criteria. Discover magazine is informal, its sources are not cited in a bibliography, its authors are journalists not scholars, its purpose is not to publish the results of research, its a for-profit mag owned by a magazine company, it's filled with advertisements, and it has many color pictures, some of which are artists' conceptions.

As a result, Discover Magazine is clearly not a peer-reviewed journal by these criteria.

If anyone has a better definition of a "peer-reviewed journal" which would include "Discover Magazine", I'd be happy to see it.

Thanks. Twerges (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

right, in my opinion. Its a medium quality popular science journal, but is citable as such. We pay attention to want the popular sources report as well as the scientific ones. DGG (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right: Quotable BUT not peer-reviewed, just as the books by Janov. Thank you for the extensive and sourced explanation. Randroide (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
DGG, the Discover Magazine is a good popular source and should definitely be cited in the "criticism" section. That point was never disputed. The only debate here was whether the citation should also be copied into the "peer-reviewed journals" section. I realize that might not have been obvious from my post. But there is agreement that Discover magazine should be included. The only question is whether it should also be found under "peer-reviewed journals". There seems to be substantial agreement that it should not. Twerges (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been reviewing the primal therapy article and history, and I think although Zonbalance could argue Discover is peer reviewed, since it is in the criticism section, I'll take it out of the peer reviewed section and keep an eye on the criticism section to make sure nobody deletes it from there. I'll message Zonbalance to see if I can get agreement. Aussiewikilady (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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. The website debunkingprimaltherapy incorporates such material and for that reason is problematic for use on Wikipedia under those guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are right. It´s a pity because there´s valuable information on that website, but the rules are the rules. We must follow your previous piece of advice:
The website may provide links to reliable sources with editorial oversight, but it does not boast the same for itself, and it contains a subpage that is derogatory and unverifiable. I think it would be far better to mine the website as a source of usable material—by which I mean looking for links to published journal articles or tips to books—and leave it out of the article altogether [2].
OTOH:
  • What about if the webmaster removes the problematic material about Janov?.
  • What about if that material is published on an online journal not devoted just to Primal Therapy?. I was thinking in this journal. Would an hipothetical publication on skepdic.com (there´s even a special section for this kind of issues) "clean" the offending material?.
Meanwhile: Could you please remove the links to the problematic site yourself...I did not realized that the page is blocked. It´s a curious thing to see the page blocked with the offending link still there...
Randroide (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit wars are blocked as they are. :) I've invited further feedback from another admin, who weighed in at the noticeboard for BLP (and also contributed above to the question about Discover, with which I agree). He disagrees that as an external link the website violates BLP, since (some of this from discussion elsewhere) the identities of the individuals being accused of criminal misconduct are sufficiently vague, but agrees that as a source within the article—for quotes and such—it is inconsistent with policy. Since there is no longer consensus against the link, it can be included (unless more folks weigh in and strong consensus develops) in the External links section. It shouldn't be used to source statements, as it currently is in the "criticism" section. That should be removed when the page protection ends. As it's not a BLP emergency, it's more a question of verifiability in sourcing, and there's no reason to override the cool down. I'm not familiar with skepdic.com. A quick glance shows me that it corresponds to a book from a reputable publisher, so it may qualify, but what would excite me if I were a contributor of the article is the list of reference material on the specific subpage you mention. Truly, there seems to be quite a lot of reliable material from which to draw.
Incidentally, in terms of reliability, there are a lot of links on this page that would do examination in regards to the WP:EL policy. The EL policy indicates that sites that do not meet WP:RS requirements may be appropriate if from knowledgeable sources; however, we're encouraged to avoid "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." [3] seems problematic as well. I'm personally of the opinion that the article (and related articles) would benefit from restructuring with a careful eye on the verifiability policy. It seems that the debate about the efficacy of Primal Therapy could probably be presented much more concisely without need to resort to questionable sources. After all, we're not here to win or even argue the debate; merely to report neutrally that it exists. However, I have no background in the subject and am not nominating myself for the job. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Given your attempts to remove a link to a website that is critical of primal therapy, and the arguments you use, forgive me if I don't believe that you are neutral on the topic. If you have no background in the topic, as you claim, and nothing to gain, it doesn't make sense what you are trying to do. In any neutral persons eyes, theat website debunkingprimaltherapy is an important consideration in the debate to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Monridden girl quoted "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". However the website debunkingprimaltherapy is
1 not a questionable source, it is verified the author was a primal therapist trainee for years
2 not of dubious value because it is an educational website drawing on the accepted rules of science and social psychology
3 not derogatory is any way in any section, as far as I have read, it criticises the treatment and theory, and is not derogatory.
So forgive me for feeling confused , manipulated and nauseated with regard to your attempts to remove criticism and then justify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Twerges' edits of Center of Feeling Therapy

Twerges recent edits on the Center for Feeling Therapy I thought were very biased and set out to try and give his opinion that the Center of Feeling Therapy became a cult as a result of not following Dr. Janov's prescription. However others interprete it differently, that they were led astray by Janov's theory intitially, and by techniques they had witmnessed at the Primal Institute. Twerges also edited it in such a way as to say "the Primal Institute was not a cult, and was not like a commune": that is his opinion, others would disagree. Of course I'm not saying my opinion that the Institute itself was a cult during this time should be put into the section, I just say both opinions should not be in the section. Twerges interpretation of the Center of Feeling Therapy is done throught the lens of a belief in primal therapy, and is not objective. I also read the books he did and concluded that they were mistreated and led astray by there experiences and beliefs in primal therapy. Zonbalance (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Zonbalance, I'm not sure you're reading what I wrote.
"give his opinion that the Center of Feeling Therapy became a cult as a result of not following Dr. Janov's prescription."
My edits didn't claim anything like that. In fact, that isn't my opinion, and I don't know where you got it.
"Twerges also edited it in such a way as to say 'the Primal Institute was not a cult, and was not like a commune'"
That quotation was not taken from my edit. I don't know where that quotation is from. Nothing in my edits expressed any opinion one way or the other about whether the Primal Institute was a cult. Furthermore, the brief mention about the PI not being a commune was present before my edits; I just changed the ordering of the phrases. ...As an aside, the Primal Institute actually was not a commune, since people didn't live there.
"Of course I'm not saying my opinion that the Institute itself was a cult during this time should be put into the section, I just say both opinions should not be in the section"
I did not put any opinion, one way or the other, about whether the Primal Institute was a cult, into the section. The section is not about the Primal Institute. And I have never put my personal opinion, or any quotations from myself, into the article as a whole. In fact my text said virtually nothing about the PI.
(...By the way, if the wikipedia editors engaged on the other side of this debate are sincere in their belief that opinions should not be interjected into the article, then they should remove any inappropriate quotations from themselves of their opinions, which are present in the article now. I find it a bit rich that you guys yell (and roll back!) that I'm interjecting my own opinion, when I've never done anything remotely like that and when you do precisely that.)
My edits were taken directly from the source material. Twerges (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removal or qualification of the word 'theory'

According to wiki policy, the word theory should only be used with scientific theories. As Primal Theory is not a scientific theory, I suggest the replacement of the word with another (neutral) word like idea, premise, etc. Or maybe continue to use the word but with a qualification somewhere in the article.Zonbalance (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the WP:List_of_policies and can't find any such policy. Please provide a link. Twerges (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw the rule on the pseudoscience talk page, I'll look it up when I have time. Also I propose removing of capitalizations apart from when explaining that Janov capitalized them. ie Primal Therapy becomes primal therapy, and Pain becomes pain (or primal pain). however article should include the fact that Janov capitalized. Zonbalance (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Proper Nouns ("Primal Institute", "Primal Therapy", "Center for Feeling Therapy") require capitalization as a rule of grammar. The term "Pain" should be capitalized to signify that it's being used in Janov's unusual sense, or it should be replaced with "primal pain" (no caps). Twerges (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It is Words to avoid. This does not apply to the capitalized proper name "Primal Theory," but I corrected several other instances in this article. There are a plethora of quotations in this article, but I think the inclusion/exclusion worked. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of crucial information

I don't understand why these sections were removed from the article:

"Shortly after leaving the Primal Institute, Joe and Riggs underwent a major theoretical shift, away from Janov's Primal Therapy and toward a therapy focused solely on dealing with present feelings. This theoretical shift was a result of their admission that they had faked their Primals while at Janov's Institute, and the admission of one of the therapists that he had made up most of what he wrote for a testimonial in Janov's book [22]. Upon querying their patients that had defected with them, they found that many of the patients had faked their Primals as well."

This point is documented clearly in Therapy Gone Mad which is the definitive source of information for this section. The book clearly claims that the founders believed that the defecting patients were just "going through the motions" (VERBATIM QUOTE) while at Janov's Institute and were only doing what they believed was expected of them, rather than having actual Primals as described in Janov's books. The book also clearly claims that one of the therapists invented what he wrote for Janov's book.

The book does NOT claim that the defectors had "exaggerated the benefits"; the book clearly claimed that they had "gone through the motions" (VERBATIM QUOTE) without actually having any experiences like Janov had described.

"At this point, Joe and Riggs claimed that their 'break with Janov was complete.'[25]"

That quotation is taken verbatim from Therapy Gone Mad. The quotation is clearly relevant and is necessary to spell out the relationship between the Center for Feeling Therapy and Primal Therapy. Since this is an article about Primal Therapy, the direct quotation from Mithers about Janov is obviously relevant.

"Thereafter, the Center for Feeling Therapy would focus entirely on present feelings. A new theory was developed (to replace Janov's) which described how patients could get well by learning to react instinctively in the present;"

This point was clearly and extensively documented in Therapy Gone Mad. In fact, the book claims that the Center for Feeling Therapy instituted rules for therapy groups in which discussing past feeling was forbidden. The book claimed that the "break with Janov was complete" because his theory had been replaced.

The book also claims that there were "major theoretical shifts" as I pointed out, and discusses them extensively and repeatedly, in similar terms. In fact, the book points out that the drastic changes were "confusing" and remarks on how strange it must have been for the patients. I don't see why that information was deleted since it's necessary to document the relationship to Primal Therapy.

...If there are any disputes about these points, or anyone feels that Mithers did not claim these things in her book, then please provide page references (as I did with my edits) with contrary information!

One more thing. Zonbalance claimed that the edits were "Janov worship" however there was nothing in the edits which said anything positive about Janov at all. I do not and have never worshipped Janov.

Twerges (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for deleting some of your work twerges, however it does give certain impressions that are biased, as I described before. I read Going Sane, and I have to be perfectly honest, it is primal theory regurgitated, I don't agree that there was a theroetical shift, the primal base of beliefs stayed and cause many problems. The fact that primal theory was unfalsifiable and asserted with great force with certainty and evangelic grandiosity is precisely the model that Riggs And Hart built on. The reason the Center for Feeling therapy did not use "primal" in the title of the center is more to do with trademarking than for large theoretical shifts. Please cross reference with Ayella's Insane Therapy because she is a sociologists and adds some insights the journalist Mither's misses (although both books are very valuable) Zonbalance (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Zonbalance, thanks for being civilized in your response. You certainly don't have to apologize for deleting.
I'm honestly not trying to be biased. I understand your point that there are similarities between Janov's writing and "Going Sane". I also read "Going Sane". It does have the unfalsifiable character, great force, and "evangelistic" tone, however it did not share Janov's emphasis on reliving childhood trauma. Perhaps there is some way of saying that the Center for Feeling Therapy shared tone/evangelism/etc with Janov even though they had a theoretical departure. I'm not trying to minimize the similarity, however I also don't wish to make it appear like the Center for Feeling Therapy was doing Primal Therapy, which is definitely not what "Therapy Gone Mad" claims.
I will try to cross-reference with Ayella's book. Unfortunately I have only made an index of the relevant pages for "Therapy Gone Mad", which I thought would be appropriate since the section starts off saying "The following summary is based on 'Therapy Gone Mad'..." However I agree that Ayella's book is at least as important. Twerges (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree that it maybe good to add Ayellas book to the start of the section. It is a long time ago now, so I guess it is okay to bring it up, the idea of sluggo may well have come from a less severe physical manipulation ideas they got form the Institute (I haven't been able to get multiple convergent sources on that so it is tentative). Lets not turn the section into something that looks like it became a cult because they shifted theoretically away from the master. Some primal cults have been abusive without any major theoretical shifts away from the Primal Scream (Australia, Canada, San Fran, Ireland, LA, Paris, England, South of France). Similarly, I will not impose my view and opinion on the section--that the cult formed because of primal therapy beliefs, and then got worse due to the grandiosity, charm and unfalsifiable ways of former teachers who they imitated (right down to the detail of thinkning themselves as being the next Freuds). Yes, they did change theoretically, but not at first, and that may have led to more abuse, but one cannot be certain of that causation (it is a correlation). The theoretical change was a necessity because they quite rightly observed that primal therapy did not cure and even caused problems. Hart may have been partially right about "primals". However, they had been brain washed into thinking mainstream psychology (and the world) was a load of crap, and were not educated in falsifiability and therefore developed some wacky ideas and practices. I'm not saying my opinion (or anyones) should make it onto the article, I'm just saying there are alternative explanations. I feel strongly about this because I believe the mistakes will be repeated in the future unless young therapists think outside the box on this one. I do feel bad though about deleting your references, I know how long it takes. Zonbalance (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have the quotation from Carl Rogers?

I removed the following quotation from Carl Rogers about the Center for Feeling Therapy:

"Going Sane, the book published a few years later describing their 'Feeling Therapy', was given very favorable reviews by some, notably: 'A group of very honest young therapists tell, with great candor and openness, about the new kind of therapy they are developing and the mutuality of relationship it involves.' - Carl Rogers[20]

After I removed it, this information was re-added. I don't really see the importance of it. I liked Rogers' books and think he was an great guy, but this isn't an article about Client-Centered therapy. I don't see how a quotation from Rogers has any relevance to Primal Therapy at all. If there is some relevance, perhaps someone could explain it to me? If I didn't get the relevance, maybe the readers of the article won't either, and the relevance should be spelled out. Thanks.

Twerges (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is crucial information because it shows how potentially harmful therapies can recieve the endorsement from famous people in error. It is instructive so that the next time Oprah (or whoever) talks about some new therapy, one takes it with a grain of salt. It is fascinating that someone like Rogers endorsed a therapy that was cultic from the start and became abusive later. Up until the court case was won, they would have been using this endorsement for all it's worth.Zonbalance (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Zonbalance, this seems to be a wish to teach the reader "a lesson" about not listening to Oprah, etc. Although I sympathize with your desire to be "instructive" and agree that people should take such things with a grain of salt, I'm not sure the purpose of an encyclopedia article is for us to convey a lesson. I feel the purpose of the article should be to describe Primal Therapy and its controversy and criticism, that is all. I agree that it's fascinating that Rogers would have endorsed it, but I'm still unsure about the relevance to Primal Therapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twerges (talk • contribs) 05:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Crucial information removed again

Once again, the crucial information which I added to the section "Center for Feeling Therapy" has been removed, with this explanation:

"twerges POV. this article is not an appropriate place for your opinion as to the causation of the CFT"

This isn't correct. It is NOT my point of view. I have NEVER inserted my personal opinion into the article! Please note that I have never inserted quotations from myself of my opinions, or quotations from anyone pro-primal into the article. The information was taken from Therapy Gone Mad and consisted of summaries and (in some cases) verbatim quotations. When verbatim quotations are supplied, it is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the author of the work on which the section is based.

The information is absolutely crucial. This is an article about Primal Therapy (not the Center for Feeling Therapy) and my edits were the only part of the section which spells out the relationship to Primal Therapy. Without that information (which was taken from the book, not from me) the relationship to Primal Therapy is not clear. In fact, the reader is left with the impression that the Center for Feeling Therapy was practicing Primal Therapy, which is clearly false, as the source clearly and repeatedly indicates.

The article as it stands contains "cherry picked information" because it contains quotations about how "they'd be following Janov's program" without mentioning the far more extensive sections of the book in which it claimed they soon dropped Janov's program completely. That is cherry-picked information because it contains only a small portion of the story and leaves out information which changes the picture completely. Twerges (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

see my comments above, we must have been writing them at the same time. The quotations are only crucial to your POV, that the CFT's going astray was caused by a shift away from Janov's premise. This is a logical error. And I do not agree, I think Janov's work and ideas laid the groundwork for this cult and many others. Zonbalance (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Zonbalance, the remarks are not just crucial to my point of view! They are crucial to the article as a whole. They are from the only part of the source material which discusses Janov and Primal Therapy, and their relation to the CFT. This is an article on Primal Therapy! Therefore, the only section of the source which deals with Primal Therapy is clearly relevant and essential here!
I did not claim that "the CFT's going astray was caused by a shift away from Janov." There was nothing in my edit which said that, or which implied causation. I claimed only that there was a shift away from Janov, which is clearly true, relevant, and essential. I said nothing about causation. If the concern is about causation, I would be happy to change the wording so there is no implication of causation.
However the article cannot stand as it is, because it contains information about them following "Janov's program", when that is cherry-picked and absolutely untrue, according to the major source. Twerges (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition of incorrect material

My changes were reverted (without consensus) and this material was added:

"Joe's and Riggs' added there own theories upon their basic primal-theory beliefs. "

That is not correct at all, according to Therapy Gone Mad. The source clearly claims that they abandoned Janov's theory completely, believing it to be untrue. The source does not claim that they just "added to it." Twerges (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to take some time to understand what you guys are arguing about. I do agree that the section should not give an impression one way or the other. It should be "this is what happened" without too much interpretation, descriptive rather than evaluative, and certainly not saying Janov caused it or that their rejection of Janov caused the problems. Twerges has some good points, but so does zonbalance. Psychmajor902 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm so disappointed because I lost a whole lot of text in the talk section I wrote about the CFT and institute yesterday that further explained my edits. Does anyone know how to get the text back, I think one of the others was adding there comments at the same time and mine got lost. I also lost another edit yesterday for the same reason. Zonbalance (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Back" button on your browser allows you to access again your text, but if you turned off your computer, AFAIK that text is lost forever. Sorry. Randroide (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Added new material

I added some new material from Therapy Gone Mad, including extensive quotations from the section which details the relationship between the CFP and Primal Therapy.

The quotations are NOT my opinion. They are extensive quotations taken straight from Therapy Gone Mad which is the source for this section. They correctly summarize the 10 pages of the source material which spell out how CFP relates to Primal Therapy.

DO NOT DELETE source material just because you don't like its contents! The material is OBVIOUSLY relevant and important. Twerges (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

twerges, You have searched for confirmational evidence only. You have found some quotes that you like because they can be used to suggest the reason the CFT was abusive or a cult was because they strayed from Janov's message. Others would say they were trained and primed by Janov for cultic tendencies. Others would the say the institute at this time was also a cult, albeit a less abusive one ultimately. There is other evidence of similarities of CFT theory and the Institutes theory. Zonbalance (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
NO, that is NOT accurate. I have NOT searched for "confirmational quotes." I EXTENSIVELY QUOTED the SINGLE SOURCE for this section. The quotes are not "cherry-picked"; there are HUNDREDS of pages within that source detailing "theoretical shifts" of the CFP. I ended up quoting a significant portion of the 5 or so pages which spell out the relationship between CFP and Primal Therapy, and which is the ONLY relevant text to this section (since this is an article about Primal Therapy).
DO NOT DELETE SOURCE MATERIAL. If anything, what YOU are doing is "cultic suppression." Nobody else has ever tried to suppress information to this extent. The material you added to the section was blatantly inaccurate. Twerges (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
twerges please do one edit at a time, because you deleted and edited all at the same time, the only recourse is to reverse all your edit since it gets too complicated to work out what you did. Zonbalance (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Zonbalance wrote:
  • "twerges, You have searched for confirmational evidence only. You have found some quotes that you like...Others would say they were trained and primed by Janov for cultic tendencies. Others would the say the institute at this time was also a cult, albeit a less abusive one ultimately. There is other evidence of similarities of CFT theory and the Institutes theory."
Excuse me, sir: If those quotes say this and that, those quotes can be quoted, indeed. If you think that twerges cherrypicked, I kindly invite you to add contradictory sourced data, not to remove data you do not agree with. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about factuality. About what sources said, not about what "really" happened. I am a strong critic of Janov, but in 2006 I added also praises of Janov´s work because if sources said this and that, this and that are legit additions to the article.
OTOH no one should revert legit edits just because are "complex" for reasons of mixing good and bad modifications.The reverter should take the job of reverting only the changes that do not fit abide by Wikipedia policies.
On the third hand, is a common courtesy to make simple edits in highly disputed articles, just to facilitate other editor´s supervision. I suggest you to do so. Randroide (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Randroide, the reason I deleted Zonbalance's sentence at the same time as I added the source material, was because Zonbalance's sentence was contradicted by the source material. Zonbalance claimed that CFT "added there [sic] own theories upon their basic primal-theory beliefs" which directly contradicts the source material I added: "Arthur Janov's theory...of childhood trauma was abandoned." I can't leave both claims at the same time because they contradict each other, and only one of them is sourced and accurate. The purpose of the edit was to replace inaccurate material with an extensive quotation from the source.
The other two sentences I deleted (about dream theory) were sentences I had added during my initial edit, and which had their references and context removed during the edit battle. Twerges (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Zonbalance, your summary of my edits was not correct.
"You have found some quotes that you like because they can be used to suggest the reason the CFT was abusive or a cult was because they strayed from Janov's message."
My edits do not claim that the CFT became a cult because they strayed from Janov's message. I don't know where you got that from. I didn't say it. Please read CAREFULLY what I wrote. All I did was quote the original source. The original source only claims that the CFT was not practicing Primal Therapy at that time; it makes no claims about causation.
"Others would say they were trained and primed by Janov for cultic tendencies."
Those are weasel words. "Others would say..." Who says it? You? Not any of the sources.
"Others would the say the institute at this time was also a cult."
The sources do not say that. Twerges (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just want to throw my two cents in, it seems like twerges edits took out some sentences that may have been negative about primal therapy and replaced it with material that I agree with zonbalance is highly misleading and a bit manipulative. If we follow randiode's advice the section on the center for feeling therapy would become huge. Psychmajor902 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What the hell are you people talking about? When I provide sourced, extensive, accurate quotations from the single source for this section, it's "manipulative"? Do you understand the definition of that word? Whom am I trying to "manipulate?" How is it "misleading"? I DIDN'T WRITE THE SOURCE, neither did I cherry-pick quotations out of context.
That is the ONLY MATERIAL from the source which deals with Primal Therapy and how it relates to the CFP. Since this is an article about Primal Therapy (not the CFP), that is the MOST RELEVANT material in the entire section for the CFP. And you don't want to include it because the section is getting too long? That is the most ridiculous excuse for suppressing information that I've seen! What I provided was the MOST relevant material in the section, since it actually deals with Primal Therapy! It is NOT a random quotation from some obscure author; it's from the SINGLE SOURCE for this section and is OBVIOUSLY highly relevant! If the section must be pared down, everything else should be removed first!
With all your babble about "suppressing information", etc, YOU are the only people who have seriously done it. With all your talk about "interjecting personal opinions", YOU are the only people to have placed quotations from yourselves into the article! With all of the accusations you make, you are the only people who actually do the things you make accusations about! It's very difficult at this point even to place trust in your basic honesty.
DO NOT REMOVE SOURCE MATERIAL. Twerges (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the sentence from Zonbalance was removed because it had no reference to the source material, was obviously inaccurate, and was obviously contradicted by the quoted source material I provided. Here is the quoted material: "Arthur Janov's theory...of childhood trauma was abandoned." And here is Zonbalance's summary: "[The CFT] added there [sic] own theories upon their basic primal-theory beliefs." How on Earth did Zonbalance derive that comment from the source material? The source says NOTHING like that; it says the OPPOSITE, as I've shown. The purpose of my edit was to REPLACE Zonbalance's inaccurate and unreferenced information with ACCURATE, REFERENCED information from the SOURCE. If there is any hint of honesty in either of you (which I SERIOUSLY doubt at this point) then you will STOP DELETING SOURCE MATERIAL and STOP PLACING inaccurate, unreferenced material in the section. Twerges (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus twerges, we do not like your last edit. Do your capitals mean you are shouting? Look, we don't all have as much time as you to justify your pro primal edits like you do, but we have seen that you often change the article to make primal look good. If I get more time I will try to explain why your edits are misleading, but it has already been attemptd above and you just try to bully your way in with capitals. Psychmajor902 (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There´s neither consensus about Twerges additions being deleted, Psychmajor902. I suggest a new path to consensus: To create The Center for Feeling Therapy article and to add there all the conflicting data.
If different relevant sources tell different tales, all must be quoted. There are two or three books and handfuls of newspaper articles about The Center for Feeling Therapy, an interestig Primal Therapy offshot, so we are A-OK at the notability department. Randroide (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Randroide, the relevant sources do not tell different tales. The other major book on this subject (Insane Therapy) does not contradict Therapy Gone Mad in any substantive way. Unfortunately, there is no conflicting data.
PsychMajor, I am not "bullying" my way in. I should point out that the personal accusations thus far ("you are being manipulative", "you are worshipping", "you are a cultist", as well as bizarre accusations against the wiki administrators, allegations that I have financial motives, etc) have all come from either you or Zonbalance. Even the most recent edit comments by Zonbalance have name-calling. The repeated name-calling goes way beyond CAPS.
The caps are there for EMPHASIS because you unjustifiably deleted accurate, extensively quoted source material, and you give no serious reasons for doing so (other than name-calling)! And you don't even respond to the points that I raise! You say nothing in response, other than to repeat what has been rebutted! I use caps because I'm trying to GET THROUGH to you, and because I've tried every other way!
"If I get more time I will try to explain why your edits are misleading..."
You don't have time to give reasons for your reversion? Then don't revert.
You guys had sufficient time to research almost every obscure critical quotation ever said about Primal Therapy, even from sources that have been out of print for decades and would require a trip to the library. You guys had sufficient time to make a website with about 50 pages of material. You had time to participate in edit wars, to edit the pages of everything related to Primal Therapy (even Art Janov's biographical page). Zonbalance had enough time to make over 30 edits in the last few days. But you have no time to give reasons for the removal of extensive, accurately quoted source material? All it would take would be to open the book you have (Therapy Gone Mad) and to find where my quotations are inaccurate or out of context, which shouldn't be hard because I provided page references and you could jump right to the page.
"If I get more time I will try to explain why your edits are misleading, but it has already been attemptd above and you just try to bully your way in with capitals."
It has not been attempted, PsychMajor. You have given no reason that I can discern, other than name-calling ("manipulative"). Zonbalance's only reason (that I have "cherry-picked") was inaccurate. You didn't respond to the points I made, or offer any evidence or quotations from the source to the contrary.
"[From your edit summary] reversing edit that secretly deleted sentences and added promotional picks"
As usual, these claims are inaccurate. The deletion was not "secret" because I announced in my comment for that change: "replacing inaccurate material with referenced quotations..." and I repeatedly announced my reasons for it here. How is that "secret"? Also, there is no "promotional" material whatsoever in the edit. There was nothing said positively at all about Primal Therapy in the edit. The edit only claimed that the CFP was not doing Primal Therapy at that time; it didn't say anything positive about Primal Therapy.
Please make some plausible claim (for once!) about why we should delete the extensive, accurate, highly relevant source material from that section. If you do not have "time" to make such a claim, then STOP DELETING SOURCE MATERIAL (said for emphasis).Twerges (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
PsychMajor, you have reverted an edit once again, and I must confess that I don't see your reason for it. I re-added the material which you claimed I was "secretly" trying to delete, thereby acquiescing to your demand, and you still reverted it. Do you feel it's in the wrong place? Feel free to move it, as long as the chronological order is respected. But do not just revert without explanation and without any attempt at fixing it. I acquiesced to your point of view, and you still reverted; was your reversion accidental? Twerges (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to confess I am not happy with twerges edit, although some was okay. It still appears to me that something was lost in the edits, that twerges removed some things. I strongly disagree with twerges interpretation and cherry picking of the quotations. It is not that Mithers defends primal therapy at all, in fact she is critical, the problem is TWERGES defends primal therapy by cherry picking quotations and interpreting them the way he wants it to be true. I agree with Randriode that other interpretations need to be represented, or maybe all interpretations removed and a balanced set of evidences introduced.
Anyway, here are some points missed, and are crucial if anything is to be learned from the center of feeling therapy (CFT).
1 CFT continued to use Janov's beliefs that ethics came NATURALLY from a natural feeling persons feelings. I think this led to ethical problems in EVERY major primal therapy group THEY WERE TAUGHT BY JANOV THAT ETHICS FLOWS NATURALLY IN "REAL" PEOPLE. (So, no need to read any ethics guide or read ethics in philosophy, or think or be too intellectual about it). Disastrous grandiosity.
2 CFT changed there name due to copyright rather than a shift theorectically.
3 They maintianed their Janovian belief that a real person reacts fully in the present and is uninhibited, expressing feelings regardless of consequences.
4 CFT did have shared houses, but so did primal institute.
5 CFT started out less authoritarian than primal institute, but then became authoritarian soon after. Why does this happen in primal therapy movements, and not Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for example? Think about it and you will see some things are not adding up.
6 Many of the CFT founders had LOTS of feelings at the primal institute (prob more than Janov) that they became more wacky than Janov is not proof of his therapy's effectiveness, in fact it is quite the opposite.
there are many other points I don't have time for today. Psychmajor902 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the current section on CFT and actually it is not that bad. When I was looking at your edits twerges, they looked a bit manipulative, but the current version as a whole is certainly good work, although I think missing some things and a little biased. It can be improved. Anyway, I put some of the points above, but there are more. For example current primal groups sometimes also try to use therapist collective input, like the CFT intended, and these groups have also had ethical problems arise (to a lesser extent to CFT). So there are similarities as well as differences. Also, in every decade there has been problems with dual relationships in primal therapy, as in the CFT. Luckily sluggo didn't develop in primal therapy, although the may have got the idea from the wild days of earlier primal therapy. One primal therapy group in the south of france also reported problems of "primal therapy is too violent" (I know someone who had a parent...etc) and they didn't stray from Janov's theory. Also Atlantis in Ireland became a primal therapy cult while keeping loyal to Janov's theory. Some have argued that the official JAnov centers were also cultic (see several sources on debunking primal therapy, this is not a "Some may say" Fox-News-type argument). Can we cover any of these points in the section on CFT or somewhere else in the article? Psychmajor902 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems quite reasonable to add a section which discusses the primal therapy "spin offs" like the Atlantis commune you mentioned, the Denver center, the south of france, etc. In fact, it seems more reasonable to include the CFT section (as well as Atlantis, etc) under "spin-offs," since right now it's in the "techniques" section. The spin-offs which were abusive should be labelled as such provided we do so in a manner which is very careful, so as to avoid claims of defamation. But those primal spin-offs (and what happened at them) are clearly relevant to Primal Therapy.
As far as the similarities between Primal Therapy and (say) the CFT or Atlantis... I realize that you recognize recurring patterns in these spin-offs, and see many subtle connections between what they were doing and what the Institute/Center was doing. I'm certainly not saying you're wrong about those connections, you may very well be right, but some of the connections might be speculative and difficult to establish beyond doubt. It's often very difficult to prove or demonstrate why somebody at the CFT started doing something, whether it was suggested by Janov's writings or whether they came up with it themselves. I don't know if we can have something in the wiki which is potentially accusatory against Janov or the Center or Institute, unless it's a cold, hard fact which is documented in primary sources and devoid of any speculation.
Perhaps one way to address this issue would be to add a page to the an outside website which discusses your views about the similarities between the Institute and the CFT (and other spin-offs), and the ways in which the spin-offs may have been influenced by the Institute.
Then we could add the "spin-offs" section to the wiki. Unfortunately, I don't know how easy it would be to find information about some of the spin-offs. Twerges (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That's quite reasonable stuff, some good ideas and contributions by all, when they calmed down. It is not easy editing this article, and I am not suprized not many have the stomach for it. The ideas of the spinnoffs by twerges is good, but it is important not to label them as "aberations and deviations in deviant psychopaths that faked their primals, that can happen if you don't train with Janov, and Janov printed warnings for years in his books..." because they have happened with officially trained people too, in official places. Good ideas by twerges for when we get time, and I agree we can't put potentially accusatory stuff in the wiki article unless it is documented solidly somewhere. I had some displeasure at the emphasis on DIFFERENCES of CFT and primal. The impressions the article give are important as well as whether the quotations are sourced. I've was critical of your work twerges, because of the impression it gave, but I must admit you are sharp, have done great work, and your editing skills are really good. If only we had you on our side, we could rule the galaxy as father and son. (that's just a star wars joke, not to be psychoanalysed :) )Zonbalance (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"That's quite reasonable stuff...when they calmed down."
Indeed, it appears that the accusations ("cultist", etc) and the removal of source material have thankfully ceased, and I'm no longer using caps or getting irate about it all. I'm glad everything has calmed down because this was all getting difficult.
"I had some displeasure at the emphasis on DIFFERENCES of CFT and primal. The impressions the article give are important as well as whether the quotations are sourced."
The purpose of my edit was only to explain that CFT was not doing primal therapy, and didn't claim to be doing primal therapy, at the time of their abuses. I felt the prior text was defamatory since it claimed: "[the CFT would] be following Janov's program" and was abusive. I felt (and still feel) that we cannot claim the CFT was "following Janov's program" while they were abusing since the claim would be defamatory. I think we have to be quite careful about this stuff.
"If only we had you on our side, we could rule the galaxy as father and son. (that's just a star wars joke, not to be psychoanalysed :)"
I took it as a joke. I don't usually psychoanalyze people. Twerges (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The removal of material that is sourced but is edited to give a misleading impression is not necessarily out of the question in the future, nor is a careful watch over the article for removal of criticism and addition of grandiose claims. Zonbalance (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Just don't remove the sourced material from the CFT section!! Twerges (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)