Talk:Arthur Janov

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I will probably restore the sidenote unless someone objects. Skoojal (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ellen Janov

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: New link to 'new abreactive therapy'

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Why would the therapist say that, I believe you, but I don't understand that part.  Psychmajor902 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: License

message: 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)
replies: text: I tend to agree with psychmajor because the therapy has been severely challanged.   Aussiewikilady (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit war with Psychmajor902

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I know I wrote that that link should go in a separate criticism section, but I no longer think this. I have eliminated the criticism section and shifted the link. Skoojal (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After further consideration, I have decided to remove the link. This is an example of wikipedia citing itself, which should be avoided. Skoojal (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war over link to primal therapy criticism section 

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

message: A previous version of this article said that Janov is the author of numerous books, most famously The Primal Scream. I have changed famously (which was the word I originally chose) to notably. There are two reasons for this. One is that it is perhaps questionable whether The Primal Scream is a famous book (it might have been famous once; I'm not sure it is now) and the other is that 'most famously' implies that Janov's other books are famous, which they aren't. Skoojal (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of recent rewrite 

message: I suggest that the information about Janov's marriages be made into a separate section, since it does not follow chronologically from the rest of the description of his life. The other option would be to integrate this material into the preceding paragraph so that it follows chronologically. Skoojal (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Janov's marriages

message: I propose that this article, Arthur Janov, be merged with the article on The Primal Scream. The main reason for this is that the Janov article contains very little worthwhile content; much of the material that could be used to expand it is in The Primal Scream article instead. There is little reason to have separate articles. See DGG's comments on my talk page about book articles: 'my guess is hat you;'ll find consensus will be to merge with the article on the author.' Skoojal (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one responds to this proposal in the near future, I'm going to abandon it. Won't merge without discussing it first. Skoojal (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I have now withdrawn the proposal, due to the lack of comment over the last ten days. Skoojal (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Recently I removed some unsourced assertions about the life of Dr. Arthur Janov, the subject of this article. These assertions include the claim that Janov is "the son of Conrad Hyman Janov (1903-1970), a grocer, and Ann Coretsky (1901-1990), both Russian Jewish immigrants" and that "Janov divorced his first wife on July 25, 1980, and married France Daunic on November 15, 1980". The former of these assertions I have had to remove twice now, since it was reinserted without explanation. I would ask the user who has added these claims to please not do so in future. Adding claims of any kind to an article about a living person is irresponsible if it is done without a source. Assertions about a divorce that someone allegedly had are especially inappropriate, and in violation of Wikipedia's policies about articles concerning living people. Hebradaeum (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readdition of unsourced claims about Dr. Janov's life 

message: After some research, I have seen some evidence for Dr Janov's MSW in social work from UCLA, and then his PhD in clinical psychology from Claremont.  However, I have never seen any evidence of his bachelors degree or any mention of the major it was in.  Could someone please check: 1. that he does actually have a bachelors degree from UCLA. 2. what subject was it in, and 3. what year it was achieved, and 4. please provide a source such as an UCLA archive link: surely they keep a list of previous BA holders.
This request is brought due to the insertion into this wiki page, and because sometimes vocational masters degrees (such as social work) have been achieved in the past by people without a bachelors degree (they can get credit and admission for life experience in some cases, as an example).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.135.13 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Evidence of BA degree 

message: Joefromrandb, if you believe that a particular link should be removed from this article, is up to you to explain why. You asserted that the link to Sexual orientation change efforts was irrelevant here. You are wrong. Read the article Sexual orientation change efforts. Janov is discussed there. Hence, the link is relevant and you are in no position to remove it. It is bad manners and bad taste, and also contrary to WP policy, to keep reverting me over and over without any attempt at dispute resolution. I assume that you are not a brand new user and should know better than to behave this way. Read WP:BRD if you need elementary instruction on such issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Joefromrandb, I see that you have removed the link again, this time on the grounds that it is a BLP violation. In my judgment, you are wrong. The link is not a BLP violation in any way, and I intend to restore it. I note again that it is rude, and contrary to WP policy, to continue making reverts at this article without discussing the issue on the talk page or seeking dispute resolution. You cannot expect other users to automatically agree with you, and need to seek consensus. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

text: If Arthur Janov is discussed at Sexual orientation change efforts, it is reasonable to link to Sexual orientation change efforts at Arthur Janov. Why can you not respond to a perfectly simple argument, Ryk72? Why ignore what I said when responding to me? It would in fact be quite easy to add information about sexual orientation change efforts here, but I've no interest in doing that at present. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for your thoughts. I would suggest that Arthur Janov is not discussed at Sexual orientation change efforts, even prior to the recent redaction. Robert Kronemeyer is discussed, by contrast to Janov, but there is no discussion of Janov himself; if Janov is instrumental to documenting that subject, he should be discussed; similarly, if that subject is instrumental to documenting Janov, then it should be covered here.I do not concur that this passing mention of Janov at the other article warrants inclusion of the link here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a specious argument. Even the brief mention of Janov at Sexual orientation change efforts (now removed) constitutes discussion of Janov. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I disagree. That Walter Lindrum is regarded as the Don Bradman of billiards, does not mean that we link one from the other. (For US readers, perhaps subst Michael Jordan & Jack Nicklaus). If Janov is important to that article, or holds noteworthy views on that subject, then they should be documented; a discussion about linking might find greater support if there were significant, not passing or coatracked, coverage there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see that you disagree. I have no intention of restoring the link without consensus. I believes that concludes discussion for now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arthur Janov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130612082051/http://lifebeforebirthbook.com/ to http://www.lifebeforebirthbook.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified