Talk:The Primal Scream

message: Apparently there's an edit war raging here about two issues: 1) whether the external links should be included; and 2) whether the paragraph describing the text of The Primal Scream should be included.
My own opinion is that the paragraph should be included, however it was right to remove the scare quotes ("Janov's 'discovery' of...") since they clearly implied a point of view. Although the paragraph was not sourced, it made claims which are obvious and indisputable, namely, that Janov claimed to have found the cure for neurosis. If I recall, even the byline of The Primal Scream was: The cure for neurosis.
As for the external links. There should be no external links on this page. If we have any anti-primal-therapy links here, or links which take up specific points of view, then we must include links to the other side for the sake of NPOV. It's silly to repeat the entire debate here. There should be no external links.Twerges (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits by skoolgal seem to be quite distructive and biased.  External links are helpful for readers and the only reason I see to want to delete them is to hide negative information.  The fact that skoolgal wanted a source for the claim of the cure for neurosis is ridiculous, it was the subheading of the book.  Then after deleting that, grahamking, I mean skoolgal, sorry, then put back lots of glorifying description of the book.  Not acceptable.  Zonbalance (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion about edit war 

message: I am considerably bothered with the edits just now, Some of them are prejudicial a little towards one direction, some the other. Skoojal, many of your edits are good cleanup of the wording, & I thnak you for them. But you should not introduce biographical material in here--the article on the author is where it goes and only there. Nor do I se the point about the capitals letters ands o on,and I've commented them out--they might be useful in explaining to someone editing why it was done that way, but to nobody else. As for the positive reviews, I've put in the correct heading. What is said on the book jacket is irrelevant, & not usually included unless there's a published source for it. Please find the references to those three reviews. More a little later about the negative reviews--I want to think about this.  DGG (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I added the biographical material was because it is part of the book. Is there a wikipedia policy specifically against referring to biographical material present in a book? Regarding the capital letters, I think it is helpful to know how they are used, because they convey information about the look and feel of the book. They're particularly relevant where the front cover is concerned. And is there a wikipedia policy against describing the back cover of books? Skoojal (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: More questions. Why remove the information about the dedication and acknowledgements, and why remove the mention of what the instructions to new primal patients were? I don't see why the dedication should be objectionable - I think it's useful in that it shows something about the spirit of the book. Skoojal (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is just dreadful, and not what an independent encyclopedia would write.  It amounts to a recapitulation of the original advertizing material that breaks APA ethics code for false advertizing. Aussiewikilady (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What, in your opinion, should the article look like? Skoojal (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: One of PsychMajor's recent edits removed the positive reviews, with the following comment:
: positive reviews out of date, not NPOV and in one case misleading (Kirsch- see primal therapy criticism section)
That may be true. But that's not even the point anymore.
PsychMajor also re-instated the DebunkingPrimalTherapy link during the same edit, without mentioning it in the summary. Furthermore, he moved that link from the "external links" section to the article text itself, which I hope was not some kind of "one-upmanship."
Yikes!! PsychMajor... What are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Twerges (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The positive reviews (one of them only partially positive, of course) are important historical information, because they show how people reacted to The Primal Scream at the time of its publication. They are thus valuable regardless of their accuracy or inaccuracy. Skoojal (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: right. Psychmajor, I've warned you about this at another article--& given you a final warning about deleting valid material or inserting inappropriate links.   DGG (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The insertions of positive reviews, which came out when the book was first published is not giving a balanced impression.  In one case Kirsch actually was critical, yet they used one of his more open-minded lines to sell the book.  It is totally unacceptable that a book that basically breaks APA ethics code is being advertized here on wikipedia considering the mountain of evidence not supporting and the scandals that have occurred in primal therapy.  It is a cult movement and we are advertizing here for them.  Psychmajor902 (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what your concern is here, Psychmajor902. Do you think that someone will read this article, see those reviews, think, 'Oh, these reviews show that primal therapy must be a wonderful thing! I'll go out and try primal therapy!', and have their life ruined as a consequence? Personally, I think readers can be trusted to realize that Janov carefully chose positive reviews for the book and that they can be taken with a grain of salt. Skoojal (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: I see Twerges recently decided that this sentence, 'This edition does not reproduce the entire painting, focusing on the screaming figure at its center, holding up its hands to its head', is irrelevant and deleted it. I have now restored it. I only wonder why, if this information is not relevant, the article should say anything at all about the cover of The Primal Scream? Why even bother to mention its use of a particular painting by Edvard Munch? Skoojal (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Skoojal the sentence provides far too much detail and violates concision. We do not need to explain in great detail what the cover art looked like.Twerges (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The cover art is interestingly symbolic of the book as a whole. So the details that are currently there belong there, and I may even add one or two more. Why make a big deal out of this? Skoojal (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cover of ''The Primal Scream'' 

message: If no one objects, I'd like to move the somewhat lengthy synopsis to its own heading, and remove a small bit of superfluous content that describes the appearance and number of chapters of the book. Aside from that, I think it's important that there be an expansion on what exactly is meant by "feel" in "Following the scream, Wilson declared that he could feel." Was he paralyzed before? Or is this some sort of emotional reconnection?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinderien (talk • contribs) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that the content which describes the appearance and number of chapters of the book is superfluous. This is a major work in the history of psychotherapy, and it deserves a detailed description. As for the meaning of "feel": re-adding some of the information that was deleted in some form should clarify this (the term did not refer to overcoming paralysis).Skoojal (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well things like "Both the title of the book and its author's name are in large capital letters." - That doesn't seem particularly relevant... Reinderientalk/contribs 06:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It's relevant as far as I'm concerned. I added it because details like this help one to understand the impact that this book had on its readers. That impact starts with the initial impression the book's appearance created. This is fully warranted by the book's importance. Skoojal (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding the clarification on "feel" - is this still going to happen? (out of curiosity.) Reinderientalk/contribs 00:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reinderien, the changes seem good to me. Go ahead and make them.Twerges (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no reason why this information should be deleted. It's interesting information about an important book. Please just ignore it if you don't like it. Skoojal (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case I wasn't talking about content deletion, but rather your proposal to "re-add some of the information that was deleted" to clarify "feel". Reinderientalk/contribs 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If you want to re-add the content DGG deleted, feel free. I intend to do that eventually (and to add more where it came from), but it's not a high priority. It may or may not clarify the meaning of 'feel'; take a look at versions of the article before DGG cut it back and see what you think. Skoojal (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed cosmetic changes

message: DGG has again removed part of this article on the grounds of its being excessive detail. I suppose he was probably right. Skoojal (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive Detail?

message: I notice the article contains criticism of Janov on the grounds that he allegedly thought "girls become lesbians through being seduced by older women". This is not correct at all. I can imagine that in specific cases he might conceivably have thought that, although I can't immediately think of any from what I've read in Primal Scream. But as a generalisation, it is grossly inaccurate. The book postulates many varied processes affecting sexuality, centred mostly on parent-child relationships, not external seductions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.224.43 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an accurate criticism