Talk:Primal therapy

message: Current text:
According to Psychology Today [Primal Therapy] It is one of the most heavily researched private psychotherapies extant in the world[57]
Please look at the "cited" origin, and note that the statement was made by Arthur Janov (!) during the interview with him, not by "Psychology Today" or even the Author of this specific article. 
The structure of the article can be understood here: 
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/201001/the-ten-coolest-therapy-interventions-introduction
"Click through to each full post and interview:"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danizobin (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy Honey. You are right. I made this mistake. I am going to correct it right now. Thank you for noticing and writing. In a similar circumstance I encourage you to be bold (WP:BOLD) and correct it yourself, just to avoid the sad circumstance of having incorrect information online. Thank you again Randroide (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious error in reference 

message: The article reads: "Primal therapy is a trauma-based psychotherapy", and yet the abstract of a journal article produced in part by the chairman of the German Society for Psychotherapy reads: "The authors examined the available literature and then came to the conclusion that primal therapy is not a valid therapeutic technique." How on earth can this article as it currently stands be reconciled with WP:FRINGE? WilliamH (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was invented by a qualified psychologist and is practiced by professionals qualified in the field. The fact that it is not a popular psychotherapy does not mean it is tantamount to quackery. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That really doesn't mean anything. I can think of something else that was established by a qualified historian and isd still practiced by 'professsionals' qualified in the field, but yet when a large national body states that something is not what it claims to be, Wikipedia presents that accordingly. Why is this any different? WilliamH (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well perhaps you could be a little more specific in your criticisms. Is there something in particular you find objectionable? Gatoclass (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

text: *My main contention is that this is presented as an actual form of psychotherapy, when according to a very reliable source, it isn't. WilliamH (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not the case at all. You have one 30-year-old study carried out by two people in one particular country who came to that conclusion. There is no basis whatever for presenting the therapy from that one POV. Yes, it has declined hugely in popularity since its heyday, leading some to dismiss it as a passing therapeutic fad, but it had plenty of support at one time and still has proponents with qualifications in the field. Gatoclass (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Err... 

message: With regard to the Arson thing mentioned in the History section... I was told by someone who was there at the time, that the Institute had an extremely angry patient. He came in one day and threatened to burn down the Institute. He then returned that evening and set it on fire. The fire department showed up and put out the fire, and part of the Institute was left undamaged. The angry patient returned later and burned down the rest of it. I believe there are actually some reliable sources about this. I think the whole thing is an interesting anecdote for the History section and if anyone wants to look into it, such material could be added.Twerges (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arson 

message: I deleted a few of the paragraphs from the criticism section. They were deleted because they simply repeat the same things which have already been said over and over again, and because they came from sources that are not notable. There is already enough material in the criticism section, and it's not necessary to repeat the same basic points over and over. Twerges (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is unacceptable and was not agreed upon. Please can you restore all the items. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the criticism section 

message: I moved the reference and claim defending primal therapy out of the introduction, and to the end of the criticism section. I think it belongs there. The introduction should be kept as concise as possible, IMO.
Furthermore, the new text says "In response to claims that primal therapy is discredited and harmful", however such claims have not been made yet in the article, so the text is referring to something which has not been mentioned yet.Twerges (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving defensive claim and reference 

message: Someone added the "essay-like" tag to the top of the page. However, I don't see how this page resembles an essay at all. It does not contain any opinions or feelings from any of the editors. I don't see even a single opinion from an editor in the page. All of the major claims are factual and referenced.
Could you be more specific? Which part do you think resembles an essay, and why? Which part of the article do you feel is one of the editor's opinions? Where do you see an editor's feelings inserted into the article?
Thanks,
Twerges (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page not an essay 

message: A great deal of material was added this morning to the article. While I welcome contributions to the article, any such material must be sourced using reliable sources. The author of these most recent edits must find reliable sources indicating that Arthur Janov was eventually vindicated.
Even if there are such sources, it should be added to the "reports" section further down in the article. At most a few sentences should be added to the introduction.
Thanks,
Twerges (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material claiming Janov was vindicated