This page 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. |
This text was added to the end of the article. There is some material that could be integrated into the article. Cheers, - Willmcw 18:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
The patient is NOT encouraged to cry, scream or beat the whatever out of objects. This is typical of the misunderstandings held by people who are only vaguely aware of what the therapy entails. As Janov himself states on his web site, "Primal Therapy is not Primal “Scream” Therapy. Primal Therapy is not just making people scream; it was never “screaming” therapy".
The patient is encouraged to discover just exactly what they are feeling at the time of the therapy session, and if appropriate, explore the history of that feeling as possibly connected to past, painful events. The aim is to elicit deep feeling states connected to past trauma, in a bid to better understand the neurotic behaviours caused by such trauma, and hopefully, eliminate or lessen those neuroses.
Janov cites many surveys and studies of the therapy in his various books. Whether they pass the definition of 'peer-reviewed outcome studies' or not I cannot say, but the statistics cited are remarkable.
The therapy has evolved to be quite different from its early days, when an aggressive approach on the part of therapists who were still formulating the theory behind it, caused a lot of damage to vulnerable patients.
I admit to bias in making this report: I have undergone a Primal-type therapy, which I credit with saving my life. Later this year I intend undertaking further therapy at Janov's center, with a view to possible induction into their therapist training program.
OK, I am another patient at Dr. Janov's Center. I can't figure out how to do this, however here are my comments:
About:
The patient is NOT encouraged to cry, scream or beat the whatever out of objects. This is typical of the misunderstandings held by people who are only vaguely aware of what the therapy entails. As Janov himself states on his web site, "Primal Therapy is not Primal “Scream” Therapy. Primal Therapy is not just making people scream; it was never “screaming” therapy".
Yes, Primal therapy is not _just_ about screaming, beating, etc... BUT yes also these are encouraged and it is what make this therapy specific and different from conventional forms of psychotherapy. The rooms are heavily padded. There is a bat for the patient's use next to the bed. In difference from conventional therapy, Primal therapy include these and make them an important part of the process.
About:
The patient is encouraged to discover just exactly what they are feeling at the time of the therapy session, and if appropriate, explore the history of that feeling as possibly connected to past, painful events. The aim is to elicit deep feeling states connected to past trauma, in a bid to better understand the neurotic behaviours caused by such trauma, and hopefully, eliminate or lessen those neuroses.
Yes, but a patient can do this in any conventionnal psychotherapy. The "Primal Institute" states stuff like that, but they basically provide conventional individual and group therapy.
About:
Janov cites many surveys and studies of the therapy in his various books. Whether they pass the definition of 'peer-reviewed outcome studies' or not I cannot say, but the statistics cited are remarkable.
This was introduced by someone who also removed the link to the inventor's institute and replaced it by a link to the "primal page". There are "peer reviewed outcome studies". And yes, the statistics are remarkable.
About:
The therapy has evolved to be quite different from its early days, when an aggressive approach on the part of therapists who were still formulating the theory behind it, caused a lot of damage to vulnerable patients.
I don't think this happened under the direction of Dr Janov. These happened with imitators and co-optors whom were trying to imitate this therapy without proper training. They were focusing uniquely on the screaming, trashing, beating part. Unfortunately they gave a bad reputation to Primal Therapy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.21.6 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 3 July 2005
Hi, My name is Pat, and I am a long-term primaller from Cape Town, South Africa. I would like to add my two-cents worth:
About:
The patient is encouraged to discover just exactly what they are feeling at the time of the therapy session, and if appropriate, explore the history of that feeling as possibly connected to past, painful events.
Yes, that is correct.
The aim is to elicit deep feeling states connected to past trauma, in a bid to better understand the neurotic behaviours caused by such trauma, and hopefully, eliminate or lessen those neuroses.
I agree with that in principle. I think I would say "... in a bid to relive, re-experience, and then, as a result come to understand the previous neurotic behaviours". Reliving is very important, as the primaller is really "back there" re-experiencing". It is only when we return to the present that we being to make "connections" and out of the connections, come "insights". That is when we come to understand what triggers us in the present, and how we can become aware of those triggers and then do two things (a) Consciously not repeat the destructive behaviours and (b) Discover that because the old pain has been integrated, we often find that we are no longer triggered by "old" situations, and that the issues simply don't come up anymore.
About:
Yes, but a patient can do this in any conventionnal psychotherapy. The 'Primal Institute' states stuff like that, but they basically provide conventional individual and group therapy.
It's true that a patient can deal with old traumas in conventional therapy. In most conventional therapies however, the person may "remember" the trauma (a first step in some primals too), but then they often end up only crying "about" the old pain, and not actually "reliving" it. It is the reliving, on all levels, physical and emotional, that brings resolution and changes in body, brain, feelings and the way one goes on to handle one's life. To the extent that any therapist gives sufficient containment to facilite the reliving of old traumas, in a non-invasive way, and at the pace that the patient's psyche guides, such a person is a good primal therapist!
I added http://primal-page.com as an external link. It was removed by GrahameKing with the claim that the link is spam. The site has a wealth of articles on Primal Therapy (some by print-published researchers), does not host advertising, and has no discernable commercial purpose. Please explain why this link is "spam."
I'm not sure about the purpose of the link. I hastily categorised it as spam when I should have categorized it as being not sufficiently relevant. It muddies the waters with articles about drug induced regression (not used by Dr Janov or any therapists he has trained) and articles about "self-primalling". To the best of my knowledge, Dr Janov has always been sympathetic to self-primallers but I think the proper way to make the connection you are desiring to make is to write articles on these subjects and put the link(s) there. Those articles can link to the article on Primal therapy and explain the relevance. Also, if you want to defend your editing, I suggest you log in before you edit so there is a name, not just an IP number and sign off when you post a discussion item like the one above. I mean all of this in a constructive way and am open to further discussion. GrahameKing 08:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Just an idea: I mean it could be now adequate to mention the triune brain model of Paul MacLean in the article out there too. Jahn TALK TO ME ... 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Jahn: The article triune brain and linked supporting amateurish web pages look like a hoax to me. Without some actual publications in the references it is hard to say. Maclean has been dead for more than a decade and the R-complex article linked to looks just as poor - no references at all - so it's impossible to tell without further research. I would not consider linking any article to either of those as they now stand. I may even propose them for deletion. But thanks for pointing them out. GrahameKing 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. I didn t read the triune brain article, I only looked whether there is an article about it here. But now, after reading Your comment and reading it, I think You are right. I meant that it could be relevant because Janov wrote somewhat about MacLean in Prisoners of Pain and The Biology of Love. I m sorry. My broken english is very bad. I hope You understand what I tried to say. Jahn TALK TO ME ... 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Jahn, your english is easy to understand. I haven't got some of Janov's recent books and haven't read all of his books. As I research this article I am beginning to understand better why Janov's work was treated with disdain by the establishment - his books don't have complete bibliographies at the back. I'm looking through my copy of Prisoner's of Pain and have found just one reference, from the index, to "Experimenter Paul MacLean of the National Institute of Mental Health ... calling them 'the triune brain'". I'll put this link in the article: Paul D. MacLean. Thanks again for your persistence. GrahameKing 23:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Grahame, you're doing a great job revamping this article. I realize you're not finished yet, but have you considered adding a section about a notorious episode in the history of primal therapy -- The Center for Feeling Therapy? It was an abusive therapy cult spawned by former Arthur Janov trainees which eventually disintegrated amid multi-million dollar lawsuits. Two books have been published about the collapse of the Center for Feeling Therapy: Therapy Gone Mad by Carol Lynn Mithers and Insane Therapy: Portrait of a Psychotherapy Cult.
Until I saw that you haven't read all Janov's books I was assuming that your interest in this article was because you actually attended one of the Janov institutes. If not, it would be interesting to know what fired your enthusiasm. My interest is as someone who has read his books and wanted to find out more. -- Simon ( 81.174.212.158 02:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC))
I had put this link back in because I saw a couple of articles that are relevant but they won't add anything beyond the other references. I confess I was biased - they were written by an old friend. The John Lennon article linked to from the primal-page has been added by someone else to the Sidenote, an appropriate spot for it. There are just too many irrelevant articles in primal-page.com for me to cull through and find something that is worth adding separately and so there are way too many for the average reader with less knowledge of Primal Therapy than I have. If anyone finds individual web pages that really relate to Primal Therapy - not Primal Psychotherapy, Primal Integration, Primal Scream Therapy, and especially not Drug induced regression, I would be interested in having a look and discussing suitability. (Please post the exact link here.) Otherwise, clearly they may belong in another article but not in this one.
GrahameKing 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This would be an interesting project for someone as a separate article perhaps. For now I am just trying to get the basics of Primal Therapy down. Arthur Janov's views on this can be read on his website under the title "Grand Delusions".
GrahameKing 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I found a Wikipedia article on the history of the Gate control theory of pain which Arthur Janov adapted to explain the gating of psychological pain between the 3 levels of consciousness. -- Simon ( 81.174.211.203 05:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC))
The article is coming along nicely. I'm wondering if a brief mention of Stettbacher's method belongs in the Techniques and Abuses section. Alice Miller explained why she withdrew her support for Konrad J. Stettbacher in an article on the International Primal Association website: Communication To My Readers. -- Simon ( 81.174.208.44 11:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC))
The Success and Failure of Primal Therapy (Thomas Videgard, 1983, ISBN 9122006982) is the only independent account of the results of primal therapy. and following...
The above entry raises more questions than it answers:
How do you know it is the ONLY independent study?
How was Videgard's sample of 32 selected from the thousands who have been through the therapy?
Your use of the word " prognosis" looks completely wrong. Was this Videgard's word?
What does it mean to finish the therapy? - Janov has said himself that he doesn't believe that every last vestage of Pain can be resolved.
I don't have this book so I'll leave these questions here. - GrahameKing 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Randroide 08:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Hi, GrahameKing. Thank you fo your corrections. I answer your questions:
ow do you know it is the ONLY independent study?
How was Videgard's sample of 32 selected from the thousands who have been through the therapy?
Your use of the word " prognosis" looks completely wrong. Was this Videgard's word?
What does it mean to finish the therapy? - Janov has said himself that he doesn't believe that every last vestage of Pain can be resolved.
Please feel free to ask me questions about this book. I think it is a very important book for this page, and it is a rare book, published in Stockholm in a seemingly non-commercial format. I think that we should make all the necessary efforts to achieve a NPOV description of the key results of Videgard´s study. Randroide 08:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "Spam" tag because I think that a link to the website of relevant people providing the therapy (and I am a critic of the therapy, see history) the article is about is NOT "spam". I am open to suggestions about this issue. Randroide 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
*A 36 year old "experimental" psychoterapy. Thats a loooong experiment, indeed, and I wonder if prospective patients are warned about the "experimental" nature of the therapy. I think that this line must be referenced or deleted.
Thank you to the guy who copied this priceless Janov quote.
Randroide 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I added a section about the Primal Institute at Paris. Any french contributor could take a look at French (specially parisian) newspapers in August 1985, because thre´s much more information about that issue (specially about the reasons for closing down in such a hurry the French operation), but it´s "on paper", not on the web.
I also added this line in "references":
As soon as I can, I will go to the library to check those articles and write a brief resume, althought maybe someone else could do that job sooner than me and in a more complete University Library. Randroide 13:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources
especially the line:
The issue has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Primal_Therapy. An Administrator will tell us what´s next.
Sorry, GrahameKing, but I think that your blanking [1] from this TalkPage of sourced data about Arthur Janov after a third party translation [2], after a two weeks discussion [3] and after you accepting a RfC [4] is unfair.
Randroide 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Discussion deleted by User:GrahameKing (a.k.a. grokking) from his own TalkPage for reasons unknow [5]
I think that the discussion is interesting, so I pasted the text in my own TalkPage: Click here to see the discussion. Randroide 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Per administrative indication [6].
(Reverted section follows)
Section removed by GrahameKing. It is sourced but sensitive, so I think that a two weeks period for checking the source is reasonable time span. Randroide 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In the 1970s Janov opened a Primal Center (later closed) in New York City. Spurred by his second wife, Dr. France Janov [1], a French national, Arthur Janov decided to offer Primal Therapy in Paris, through an organization called the European Primal Institute (EPI).
The European operation started in 1982 and closed down in August 1985,
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
Source for the whole section "Conocer" (Spanish scientific journal), Number 36, January 1986, pp 93-95.
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
Article signed by M. Rouzé
O.K., sequential edits, sir. I prefer the horizontal bar over the accumulating (and space consuming) colons.
You wrote: What is your source for "Spurred by his second wife..."?
Conocer, January 1986. As I said, all the section blanked by you was referenced by that Spanish reference.
Copy-pasted from my User Talk page:
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
IMHO all this data should stay in the article about Primal Therapy, due to the fact that all is about a former Primal Therapy operation in Europe.
There are 12 papers about Primal Therapy at PubMed. The bad thing is that on can not access to a PubMed search simply with an URL. Instead, one must type "Primal Therapy" into the PubMed search box in the PubMed home.
I think that those papers are important and should be linked.
An option (to the incovenience of the unpossibility of linking the search) could be to link the individual papers...
...and so on. Randroide 12:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroid you have found some important links here in these pubmed papers - good work.
I still can not see how we can conclude that France Janov "spurred" Arthur Janov to start an institute in New York. Theresa Alexander Sheppard's statement has herself as director of that institute. There is a suggestion that it might have been like a Janov franchise, so to speak, but that is not clear from the quote you give of her. I may need all of that two weeks to check out your main source. GrahameKing 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, after more thought, I am inclined to agree with you about putting some of this material into the Primal Therapy article. But I think it might be best to work on it in a separate article at first (like "History of Primal Therapy" for example). Then a summary and a link to that could go in the Primal Therapy article. GrahameKing 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for your praise, GrahameKing. Just type "Primal therapy" at PubMed and you´ll find 12 papers, plus the Thomas Videgard study now we have some independent accounts about Primal Therapy. This is a good thing.
If you think that those articles (most of them from the 1970´s) are no longer relevant for what it is now the Primal Therary, History of the Primal Therapy could be an option.
Ehrrr... do you understand Spanish?. If not, I suggest you to do what I did when I needed some French assistance. I suggest you to contact with a Spanish speaking admin if you think that we are going to need any kind of mediation (I hope not). CU, GrahameKing. Randroide 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I had no problem finding the 12 articles as you suggested - that's what I was praising you for. I don't mean to be patronising. Do you? I agree having these accounts is "a good thing". Therefore it seems to follow that we agree that you did good work.
I already asked for translation giving the reference and got a response saying they need a link to the article. Can you give me the title of the article to help me find it? GrahameKing 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So far my reading of the part of the article you posted is as I said before. It looks like nothing more than snide unsubstantiated gossip. Also you're misquoting it because it says Janov's wife spurred him to open the institute in Paris not that she spurred him to open one in New York. GrahameKing 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 10:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC) It was never my intention to be patronise you, GrahameKing. Maybe I over-explained the procedure to gain access to the papers because I think that those papers are very important, and because I failed in my first attemp to link those papers (PubMed does not allow the URL pasting of searches). Maybe I did and explanatory "overkill".
I think that it is better to err on the side of the over-explanation. It is nothing personal: I also err on this side "on the real world", when I am working with a team. Believe me: It is safer to over-explain.
I know you were not patronising me. : )
There´s (AFAIK) no Internet link for the "Conocer" article. I typed the text from my 1986 paper copy of the publication.
The title of the article is "¡Gritad, y seréis curados!" (Shout!, and you will be cured!).
There is also (in some American "skeptic" publication) an article by Martin Gardner that should be mentioned. I will search that piece.
Sorry, sir: It is an article published in a scientific publication (the defunct publication Conocer, a kind of Spanish Discover) that mentions a lot of facts about the French Primal Therapy operation.
Under your own standards you introduced a lot of "unsubstantiated gossip" by Arthur Janov about his own therapy and about other therapies.
I do not call "unsubstantiated gossip" to the say-so of Janov about his own therapy (or about other therapies), so I ask you to please stop calling those names to the "Conocer" source. I repeat: It was not published in a Spanish Tabloid, it was published in a scientific publication, Conocer, directed by a prestigious Spanish Scientist: w:es:Manuel Toharia.
Moreover: The article does not practice "snide", but balanced criticism, because it also says good things about Primal Therapy, like this excerpt:
Where are the references to those studies, please?. Randroide 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to continue this draining discussion let's take one thing at a time - to resolution.
Your strategy so far seems to be make some small concession and then raise a whole host of other issues.
You have not admitted to your misquote of the Conocer article (as reproduced, in part, by you) that I pointed out above. Let's deal with that to completion before going on to your other points above. We can then take your other points above one at a time without introducing more issues until the issues already raised have been resolved. I will only continue this discussion with you on these terms. GrahameKing 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 11:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC) My "strategy", GrahameKing, is to improve the article.
This "draining discussion" is focused upon improving the article with new facts and new sources. I see no "draining" at all.
I have not admitted any misquote because I misquoted nothing.
Here is the source and here is the translation.
Do you have any additional problem with this piece of information?.
Can we move to another point?. If you prefer to discuss changes "one issue at a time" I have no problem.
Until last August, passers-by who were indiscreetly listening to sounds emanating from a quiet semi-detached house on the Avenue Marshal Foch in Paris, could frequently hear sobs, shouts of pain, and sometimes even real screams. Nevertheless, inside the house nobody was being tortured, at least not in the usual sense of the term, that is, unwillingly. In spite of being in the same place, the activities had nothing to do with the cellar having been used by the Gestapo more than 40 years earlier. []... The building was the headquarters of the European Primal Institute (IPE), founded and directed by the North American psychotherapist Arthur Janov. But now the headquarters in Paris have been closed
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
While this does describe one episode in the history of Primal therapy, I think it may be more appropriate in Janov’s biography, i.e. relating the course of his life work, since it does not tell us anything about the therapy as such. It does not say who worked there. From this excerpt, the dates of the New York enterprise are unclear. The article claims that Janov’s wife pressured him to start the Paris branch, but there is no reason to believe that it is authoritative, unless Conocer says where it got that normally highly personal information. Specific letters? Interviews? If we repeat it, we run the risk of carrying forward a journalistic speculation as fact. I would leave that speculation out altogether, otherwise say " The Spanish science magazine Conocer says ...."
Conocer was a Spanish popular science magazine. As noted by others, no web archive exists for the article that Randroide quoted, but the magazine was a respected one, and an appropriate reference. So I can see no reason why the whole section should be quoted, and even less why it should be in Spanish. Using untranslated Spanish in communicating differences is no better than if I were to give references in Xhosa and expect Randroide to find a translation somewhere. I believe that it is the responsibility of an editor to give all arguments on the English wikipedia in English – see Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English -- Seejyb 10:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 11:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for the translation, Seejyb. I did not translate the text myself because I preferred a neutral third party making the translation, but I must recognize that you have a point about the language issue.
Due to the fact that the text is not available online, the Spanish original should be preserved (hidden in the section).
If (both of) you prefer to move the facts to the page Arthur Janov, I am not going to make an issue of that. But I think that Primal Therapy would be the best location. But IMHO this is not a primordial issue.
The "The Spanish science magazine Conocer says ...." seems to be an excellent option. I would write "said" and italize Conocer, However.
Is is authoritative, because Conocer is an authoritative source. Newspapers and Magazines do not feel usually the need to "source" their statements, because they are a source.
This argument of yours would lead us to an endless regression: Suppose that "Conocer" said "we knew about this because it was published by "Le Figaro". Well, then you could ask where "Le Figaro" got that highly personal information?. And so on.
Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. And it is verifiable that Conocer said this and that.
Thank you again for your translation job, Seejyb. Randroide 11:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Errare humanum est. Move on.
I agree with you: I think it is more constructive to drop the subject. It´s unimportant and we have better things to talk about.
I hope that too : )
Key word: Probably. And that´s your personal opinion.
The fact is that a reputed source (with all the checks and guards that a reputable source should have) published some factual statements about the Primal operation in Paris.
Moreover: The alleged "physical and mental exhaustion" of Janov is documented by verbatim excerpts from the letter that Janov wrote to the patients whose therapy was cutted withou warning ("I cannot live any more in the midst of pain and the misery...").
I will tell you: It is verifiable fact that this Spanish magazine of this genre published this and this remarks about the French Primal operation.
I suggest you to add "the other side" views. I am not going to oppose the inclusion of sourced NPOV statements.
Please, do not misuse words:
Tha claim "Conocer" said this and that is not false. Is as true and real as the 21 yo "Conocer" magazine I have on my desk.
On the other hand, the application of the standards you propose, would lead to the deletion of this line at the beginning of the article:
Because, you know?, this line could be considered as derogatory/defamatory.
Uh, and the psychologists who do not practice (remember, "limited effectiveness") Primal Therapy are also living persons.
There´s of course no such a problem, because those are not our words, instead, that´s what Janov says about non-Janovian psychologists.
The Conocer issue is just the same: Those are not our words, that´s what Conocer said about Janov.
If there is any reason for Janov having carte blanche to say whatever he wants about other non-Janovian therapists but not the other way around (other guys critizing Janov), please let me know that reason.
Randroide 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That´s not an argument, Cgingold.
AFAIAC you wrote nothing. Having no time to write an argument, I prefer to write nothing at all.
Just as derogatory as According to Primal Theory, psychological therapies which involve only talking about the problem (referred to as "Talking Therapies") are of limited effectiveness
Moreover: I have a source. Aforementioned text has no source.
I do not see you taking action to delete the limited effectiveness line. Why?.
You are wrong: My judgment has no clouds.
Randroid, I think you're missing the central phrase - "about individuals". GrahameKing 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am missing nothing, GrahameKing. Look: Talking therapists are also individuals. Randroide 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I can not found that study at PubMed. This is a common problem if "Steven Rose" used a slightly different name (for instance "Steven A. Rose" or "Robert S. Rose").
Could you please provide the complete name of "Steven Rose" and the complete title of the article?. Randroide 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Complete name and complete publication curricula of "Steven Rose", please. Randroide 08:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, GrahameKing, two weeks passed. Lets review again the "Conocer" sourced section:
I drop this line to avoid endless discussion about how "Conocer" knew about that. Moreover: It is not important.
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
I do NOT drop this block of text.
It is sourced, you know the quality of the source and you had your translation done.
Any suggestion?. Randroide 09:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
Randroide 10:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all:
I have no views "against me", nor I posted views against you. This is not (and, above all, should be not) a personal issue.
LINE BY GRAHAMEKING 1
Defamation: defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim
The line "The scientific Spanish magazine "Conocer" published that Janov..." would never be "defamatory", because it is verifiable and true.
If (gigantic "IF") there was any defamation, the buck would stop at the desk of w:es:Manuel Toharia, the director of "Conocer" in 1986.
LINE BY GRAHAMEKING 2
Conversely, I could write this line (copy paste from your line, but with substancial minor changes):
Because, did you now?, Janov is very (very!!!) liberal criticizing other (non-Janovian) therapies.
I think that it is impossible to reach an agreement. I ask you to go for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Do you agree?.
Thank you for your attention, GrahameKing. Randroide 10:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Requests for comment
OK, my RfC neutral text proposal:
PROPOSAL
The text
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
"
The source
The January 1986 "Conocer" Spanish science magazine (in the line of Discover).
Text from the article (translated by a third party) [8]:
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
Pro inclusion
It is sourced, relevant and NPOV.
"Libel" allegations are baseless: If it is sourced it is not libellious.
Likewise, the article already presents alegations made by Arthur Janov about talking therapies being of limited effectiveness. Those alegations are neither libelious against talking therapists: Janov said that, not Wikipedia.
Against inclusion
END OF THE PROPOSAL
Now, GrahameKing (or any other "against" editor), please add your "against" reasons.
Do you agree with my presentation?. Any suggestions?
Randroide 12:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
END OF THE RESTORED DISCUSSION (DELETED BY GRAHAME KING) [9]
O.K. GrahameKing. We are again in the same situation prior to you deleting the discussion.
I ask you the question again: Do you agree with my presentation?. Any suggestions?. Please add your "Against" reasons and move on towards the RfC. Randroide 12:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources
especially the line:
The terms of my proposal on my talk page were clear and liberal and left open all means of lower level dispute resolution processes including a possible RfC referring to the reverted content on this page.
You have subverted the most used tool on Wikipedia for dispute resolution by loading it with a personal attack of the lowest order against an 82 year old man who is trying in his own way to teach us to have respect for each other. No more warnings. I do not know if the subversion of an important Wikipedia tool was what you intended by posting that RfC
but from my POV that is the effect. I think that Ayn Rand, whom I respect to this day, was a great believer in discussion and so, I think, is Arthur Janov. Randroid, I apologise if my previous post under this heading appeared in itself to be a personal attack, I meant only to describe the effect from my POV.
If the dates are confusing it's because reversions are confusing and because your last reversion used an earlier date not the date the reversion was made.
The proposal referred to above on my talk page is the truce porposal here. [10]-- GrahameKing 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 07:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. You reject mediation [11], GrahameKIng. That changes everything.
Of course there´s need for resolution of this dispute, GrahameKIng:
You deleted sourced data [12] [13].
There´s no libel, GrahameKing: It is sourced.
The buck does not stop here, GrahameKing. I am sorry, but I thought we could be able to solve this dispute in an amiable manner. I´ll tell you what´s next.
Randroide 09:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Randroide 11:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The following subsection, introduced by User:Randroide, has required a lot of work by myself and other editors, and in the end it is very doubtful that it should have been included at all. It describes a study that came to a mildly positive conclusion about Primal Therapy. It was published in an obscure inaccessible book rather than a peer-reviewed journal (which the study was initially clearly aimed at). There is no indication that it was an independent study as it was conducted by a patient at the Primal Institute with cooperation from the staff.
Section reintroduced.
A line at the cover of the book:
A paragraph from page 1:
This book is the nearest thing on earth to an independent account of Janov-approved Primal Therapy. Sorry but if you delete this stuff I will be forced to deal with that deletion as simple vandalism.
This behaviour of yours is unacceptable, GrahameKing. Please stop it, because I know you can make good contributions to the article.
If you are worried about the "Conocer" article, please go ahead ASAP with the mediation process. If the "Conocer" text is declared "defamatory" (I doubt it, but who knows), the text will be deleted and that´s it.
Randroide 14:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In an early account of the results of primal therapy (published in book form, only in Sweden in English), Tomas Videgård [2] reported on a study of a sample of 32 patients treated at The Primal Institute (Janov). Patients entered therapy from December 1975 to May 1976.
Outcome evaluation for the patients:
Patients who did not "finish" the therapy were excluded. Patients in the sample had been in therapy for between 15 and 32 months. Janov now claims that the formal therapy can take significantly longer than this and has never put a time limit on the therapy process overall as it depends on how much Pain the individual has to resolve.
Videgård himself went through the therapy. It should also be noted that the evaluation was based on patients' answers to questions and some projective tests that require interpretation by the tester. Videgård concluded that therapy at the Primal Institute was marginally better than the Tavistock clinic and markedly better than the Menninger Foundation - the two psychotherapy clinics which he used for comparison.
Where exactly can you buy this book? I can't find any places that sell the book:
WatchAndObserve 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the book is a rare, out of print item. Your question is like asking Where´s the "exact" place to buy a De Lorean DMC-12. Answer: Wherever you can find one on sale in a given moment.
There´s no "exact" place, as books appear and disappear. Today´s "hit" could be tomorrow´s miss, and the opposite.
A place selling the book, right now: [14] Randroide 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." ( Exceptional claims require exceptional sources)
The source is credible enough - a respected journalist who had an inside contact in the cult - but this is extreme stuff and I haven't had the time to get the corroborative credible sources to back it up. Maybe it can be put back then. -- GrahameKing 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I restored the section you deleted.
The cult history is also mentioned in "Crazy Therapies", I added the reference. Randroide 10:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ehrrr...where are those studies?.
What the h**l means Dr. Janov was the first psychologist to submit his results to scientific scrutiny?.
Randroide 15:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, WatchAndObserve. It´s a pleasure to have such a well documented person at the other side of the line. Randroide 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have, once again, removed the line from the Sidenote re John Lennon about "the one-eyed witch-doctor leading the blind" as a supposed reference to Janov. While I would agree that it is a plausible claim, surely it must be clear that we need some sort of confirmation and sourcing for this claim. I just finished another round of internet searches, but there was nothing that came close to meeting that objective. The most I could find is the lyrics to the song, "Nobody Loves You (When You're Down and Out)" from the 1974 album, Walls and Bridges, which is the source of the "one-eyed witch-doctor" quote. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it refers specifically to Janov; it's just as plausible that the line refers to, for instance, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, or perhaps to both, or perhaps to someone else, or .... who knows?? Cgingold 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
This text was added to the end of the article. There is some material that could be integrated into the article. Cheers, - Willmcw 18:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
The patient is NOT encouraged to cry, scream or beat the whatever out of objects. This is typical of the misunderstandings held by people who are only vaguely aware of what the therapy entails. As Janov himself states on his web site, "Primal Therapy is not Primal “Scream” Therapy. Primal Therapy is not just making people scream; it was never “screaming” therapy".
The patient is encouraged to discover just exactly what they are feeling at the time of the therapy session, and if appropriate, explore the history of that feeling as possibly connected to past, painful events. The aim is to elicit deep feeling states connected to past trauma, in a bid to better understand the neurotic behaviours caused by such trauma, and hopefully, eliminate or lessen those neuroses.
Janov cites many surveys and studies of the therapy in his various books. Whether they pass the definition of 'peer-reviewed outcome studies' or not I cannot say, but the statistics cited are remarkable.
The therapy has evolved to be quite different from its early days, when an aggressive approach on the part of therapists who were still formulating the theory behind it, caused a lot of damage to vulnerable patients.
I admit to bias in making this report: I have undergone a Primal-type therapy, which I credit with saving my life. Later this year I intend undertaking further therapy at Janov's center, with a view to possible induction into their therapist training program.
OK, I am another patient at Dr. Janov's Center. I can't figure out how to do this, however here are my comments:
About:
The patient is NOT encouraged to cry, scream or beat the whatever out of objects. This is typical of the misunderstandings held by people who are only vaguely aware of what the therapy entails. As Janov himself states on his web site, "Primal Therapy is not Primal “Scream” Therapy. Primal Therapy is not just making people scream; it was never “screaming” therapy".
Yes, Primal therapy is not _just_ about screaming, beating, etc... BUT yes also these are encouraged and it is what make this therapy specific and different from conventional forms of psychotherapy. The rooms are heavily padded. There is a bat for the patient's use next to the bed. In difference from conventional therapy, Primal therapy include these and make them an important part of the process.
About:
The patient is encouraged to discover just exactly what they are feeling at the time of the therapy session, and if appropriate, explore the history of that feeling as possibly connected to past, painful events. The aim is to elicit deep feeling states connected to past trauma, in a bid to better understand the neurotic behaviours caused by such trauma, and hopefully, eliminate or lessen those neuroses.
Yes, but a patient can do this in any conventionnal psychotherapy. The "Primal Institute" states stuff like that, but they basically provide conventional individual and group therapy.
About:
Janov cites many surveys and studies of the therapy in his various books. Whether they pass the definition of 'peer-reviewed outcome studies' or not I cannot say, but the statistics cited are remarkable.
This was introduced by someone who also removed the link to the inventor's institute and replaced it by a link to the "primal page". There are "peer reviewed outcome studies". And yes, the statistics are remarkable.
About:
The therapy has evolved to be quite different from its early days, when an aggressive approach on the part of therapists who were still formulating the theory behind it, caused a lot of damage to vulnerable patients.
I don't think this happened under the direction of Dr Janov. These happened with imitators and co-optors whom were trying to imitate this therapy without proper training. They were focusing uniquely on the screaming, trashing, beating part. Unfortunately they gave a bad reputation to Primal Therapy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.21.6 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 3 July 2005
Hi, My name is Pat, and I am a long-term primaller from Cape Town, South Africa. I would like to add my two-cents worth:
About:
The patient is encouraged to discover just exactly what they are feeling at the time of the therapy session, and if appropriate, explore the history of that feeling as possibly connected to past, painful events.
Yes, that is correct.
The aim is to elicit deep feeling states connected to past trauma, in a bid to better understand the neurotic behaviours caused by such trauma, and hopefully, eliminate or lessen those neuroses.
I agree with that in principle. I think I would say "... in a bid to relive, re-experience, and then, as a result come to understand the previous neurotic behaviours". Reliving is very important, as the primaller is really "back there" re-experiencing". It is only when we return to the present that we being to make "connections" and out of the connections, come "insights". That is when we come to understand what triggers us in the present, and how we can become aware of those triggers and then do two things (a) Consciously not repeat the destructive behaviours and (b) Discover that because the old pain has been integrated, we often find that we are no longer triggered by "old" situations, and that the issues simply don't come up anymore.
About:
Yes, but a patient can do this in any conventionnal psychotherapy. The 'Primal Institute' states stuff like that, but they basically provide conventional individual and group therapy.
It's true that a patient can deal with old traumas in conventional therapy. In most conventional therapies however, the person may "remember" the trauma (a first step in some primals too), but then they often end up only crying "about" the old pain, and not actually "reliving" it. It is the reliving, on all levels, physical and emotional, that brings resolution and changes in body, brain, feelings and the way one goes on to handle one's life. To the extent that any therapist gives sufficient containment to facilite the reliving of old traumas, in a non-invasive way, and at the pace that the patient's psyche guides, such a person is a good primal therapist!
I added http://primal-page.com as an external link. It was removed by GrahameKing with the claim that the link is spam. The site has a wealth of articles on Primal Therapy (some by print-published researchers), does not host advertising, and has no discernable commercial purpose. Please explain why this link is "spam."
I'm not sure about the purpose of the link. I hastily categorised it as spam when I should have categorized it as being not sufficiently relevant. It muddies the waters with articles about drug induced regression (not used by Dr Janov or any therapists he has trained) and articles about "self-primalling". To the best of my knowledge, Dr Janov has always been sympathetic to self-primallers but I think the proper way to make the connection you are desiring to make is to write articles on these subjects and put the link(s) there. Those articles can link to the article on Primal therapy and explain the relevance. Also, if you want to defend your editing, I suggest you log in before you edit so there is a name, not just an IP number and sign off when you post a discussion item like the one above. I mean all of this in a constructive way and am open to further discussion. GrahameKing 08:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Just an idea: I mean it could be now adequate to mention the triune brain model of Paul MacLean in the article out there too. Jahn TALK TO ME ... 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Jahn: The article triune brain and linked supporting amateurish web pages look like a hoax to me. Without some actual publications in the references it is hard to say. Maclean has been dead for more than a decade and the R-complex article linked to looks just as poor - no references at all - so it's impossible to tell without further research. I would not consider linking any article to either of those as they now stand. I may even propose them for deletion. But thanks for pointing them out. GrahameKing 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. I didn t read the triune brain article, I only looked whether there is an article about it here. But now, after reading Your comment and reading it, I think You are right. I meant that it could be relevant because Janov wrote somewhat about MacLean in Prisoners of Pain and The Biology of Love. I m sorry. My broken english is very bad. I hope You understand what I tried to say. Jahn TALK TO ME ... 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Jahn, your english is easy to understand. I haven't got some of Janov's recent books and haven't read all of his books. As I research this article I am beginning to understand better why Janov's work was treated with disdain by the establishment - his books don't have complete bibliographies at the back. I'm looking through my copy of Prisoner's of Pain and have found just one reference, from the index, to "Experimenter Paul MacLean of the National Institute of Mental Health ... calling them 'the triune brain'". I'll put this link in the article: Paul D. MacLean. Thanks again for your persistence. GrahameKing 23:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Grahame, you're doing a great job revamping this article. I realize you're not finished yet, but have you considered adding a section about a notorious episode in the history of primal therapy -- The Center for Feeling Therapy? It was an abusive therapy cult spawned by former Arthur Janov trainees which eventually disintegrated amid multi-million dollar lawsuits. Two books have been published about the collapse of the Center for Feeling Therapy: Therapy Gone Mad by Carol Lynn Mithers and Insane Therapy: Portrait of a Psychotherapy Cult.
Until I saw that you haven't read all Janov's books I was assuming that your interest in this article was because you actually attended one of the Janov institutes. If not, it would be interesting to know what fired your enthusiasm. My interest is as someone who has read his books and wanted to find out more. -- Simon ( 81.174.212.158 02:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC))
I had put this link back in because I saw a couple of articles that are relevant but they won't add anything beyond the other references. I confess I was biased - they were written by an old friend. The John Lennon article linked to from the primal-page has been added by someone else to the Sidenote, an appropriate spot for it. There are just too many irrelevant articles in primal-page.com for me to cull through and find something that is worth adding separately and so there are way too many for the average reader with less knowledge of Primal Therapy than I have. If anyone finds individual web pages that really relate to Primal Therapy - not Primal Psychotherapy, Primal Integration, Primal Scream Therapy, and especially not Drug induced regression, I would be interested in having a look and discussing suitability. (Please post the exact link here.) Otherwise, clearly they may belong in another article but not in this one.
GrahameKing 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This would be an interesting project for someone as a separate article perhaps. For now I am just trying to get the basics of Primal Therapy down. Arthur Janov's views on this can be read on his website under the title "Grand Delusions".
GrahameKing 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I found a Wikipedia article on the history of the Gate control theory of pain which Arthur Janov adapted to explain the gating of psychological pain between the 3 levels of consciousness. -- Simon ( 81.174.211.203 05:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC))
The article is coming along nicely. I'm wondering if a brief mention of Stettbacher's method belongs in the Techniques and Abuses section. Alice Miller explained why she withdrew her support for Konrad J. Stettbacher in an article on the International Primal Association website: Communication To My Readers. -- Simon ( 81.174.208.44 11:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC))
The Success and Failure of Primal Therapy (Thomas Videgard, 1983, ISBN 9122006982) is the only independent account of the results of primal therapy. and following...
The above entry raises more questions than it answers:
How do you know it is the ONLY independent study?
How was Videgard's sample of 32 selected from the thousands who have been through the therapy?
Your use of the word " prognosis" looks completely wrong. Was this Videgard's word?
What does it mean to finish the therapy? - Janov has said himself that he doesn't believe that every last vestage of Pain can be resolved.
I don't have this book so I'll leave these questions here. - GrahameKing 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Randroide 08:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Hi, GrahameKing. Thank you fo your corrections. I answer your questions:
ow do you know it is the ONLY independent study?
How was Videgard's sample of 32 selected from the thousands who have been through the therapy?
Your use of the word " prognosis" looks completely wrong. Was this Videgard's word?
What does it mean to finish the therapy? - Janov has said himself that he doesn't believe that every last vestage of Pain can be resolved.
Please feel free to ask me questions about this book. I think it is a very important book for this page, and it is a rare book, published in Stockholm in a seemingly non-commercial format. I think that we should make all the necessary efforts to achieve a NPOV description of the key results of Videgard´s study. Randroide 08:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "Spam" tag because I think that a link to the website of relevant people providing the therapy (and I am a critic of the therapy, see history) the article is about is NOT "spam". I am open to suggestions about this issue. Randroide 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
*A 36 year old "experimental" psychoterapy. Thats a loooong experiment, indeed, and I wonder if prospective patients are warned about the "experimental" nature of the therapy. I think that this line must be referenced or deleted.
Thank you to the guy who copied this priceless Janov quote.
Randroide 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I added a section about the Primal Institute at Paris. Any french contributor could take a look at French (specially parisian) newspapers in August 1985, because thre´s much more information about that issue (specially about the reasons for closing down in such a hurry the French operation), but it´s "on paper", not on the web.
I also added this line in "references":
As soon as I can, I will go to the library to check those articles and write a brief resume, althought maybe someone else could do that job sooner than me and in a more complete University Library. Randroide 13:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources
especially the line:
The issue has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Primal_Therapy. An Administrator will tell us what´s next.
Sorry, GrahameKing, but I think that your blanking [1] from this TalkPage of sourced data about Arthur Janov after a third party translation [2], after a two weeks discussion [3] and after you accepting a RfC [4] is unfair.
Randroide 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Discussion deleted by User:GrahameKing (a.k.a. grokking) from his own TalkPage for reasons unknow [5]
I think that the discussion is interesting, so I pasted the text in my own TalkPage: Click here to see the discussion. Randroide 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Per administrative indication [6].
(Reverted section follows)
Section removed by GrahameKing. It is sourced but sensitive, so I think that a two weeks period for checking the source is reasonable time span. Randroide 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In the 1970s Janov opened a Primal Center (later closed) in New York City. Spurred by his second wife, Dr. France Janov [1], a French national, Arthur Janov decided to offer Primal Therapy in Paris, through an organization called the European Primal Institute (EPI).
The European operation started in 1982 and closed down in August 1985,
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
Source for the whole section "Conocer" (Spanish scientific journal), Number 36, January 1986, pp 93-95.
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
Article signed by M. Rouzé
O.K., sequential edits, sir. I prefer the horizontal bar over the accumulating (and space consuming) colons.
You wrote: What is your source for "Spurred by his second wife..."?
Conocer, January 1986. As I said, all the section blanked by you was referenced by that Spanish reference.
Copy-pasted from my User Talk page:
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
IMHO all this data should stay in the article about Primal Therapy, due to the fact that all is about a former Primal Therapy operation in Europe.
There are 12 papers about Primal Therapy at PubMed. The bad thing is that on can not access to a PubMed search simply with an URL. Instead, one must type "Primal Therapy" into the PubMed search box in the PubMed home.
I think that those papers are important and should be linked.
An option (to the incovenience of the unpossibility of linking the search) could be to link the individual papers...
...and so on. Randroide 12:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroid you have found some important links here in these pubmed papers - good work.
I still can not see how we can conclude that France Janov "spurred" Arthur Janov to start an institute in New York. Theresa Alexander Sheppard's statement has herself as director of that institute. There is a suggestion that it might have been like a Janov franchise, so to speak, but that is not clear from the quote you give of her. I may need all of that two weeks to check out your main source. GrahameKing 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, after more thought, I am inclined to agree with you about putting some of this material into the Primal Therapy article. But I think it might be best to work on it in a separate article at first (like "History of Primal Therapy" for example). Then a summary and a link to that could go in the Primal Therapy article. GrahameKing 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for your praise, GrahameKing. Just type "Primal therapy" at PubMed and you´ll find 12 papers, plus the Thomas Videgard study now we have some independent accounts about Primal Therapy. This is a good thing.
If you think that those articles (most of them from the 1970´s) are no longer relevant for what it is now the Primal Therary, History of the Primal Therapy could be an option.
Ehrrr... do you understand Spanish?. If not, I suggest you to do what I did when I needed some French assistance. I suggest you to contact with a Spanish speaking admin if you think that we are going to need any kind of mediation (I hope not). CU, GrahameKing. Randroide 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I had no problem finding the 12 articles as you suggested - that's what I was praising you for. I don't mean to be patronising. Do you? I agree having these accounts is "a good thing". Therefore it seems to follow that we agree that you did good work.
I already asked for translation giving the reference and got a response saying they need a link to the article. Can you give me the title of the article to help me find it? GrahameKing 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So far my reading of the part of the article you posted is as I said before. It looks like nothing more than snide unsubstantiated gossip. Also you're misquoting it because it says Janov's wife spurred him to open the institute in Paris not that she spurred him to open one in New York. GrahameKing 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 10:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC) It was never my intention to be patronise you, GrahameKing. Maybe I over-explained the procedure to gain access to the papers because I think that those papers are very important, and because I failed in my first attemp to link those papers (PubMed does not allow the URL pasting of searches). Maybe I did and explanatory "overkill".
I think that it is better to err on the side of the over-explanation. It is nothing personal: I also err on this side "on the real world", when I am working with a team. Believe me: It is safer to over-explain.
I know you were not patronising me. : )
There´s (AFAIK) no Internet link for the "Conocer" article. I typed the text from my 1986 paper copy of the publication.
The title of the article is "¡Gritad, y seréis curados!" (Shout!, and you will be cured!).
There is also (in some American "skeptic" publication) an article by Martin Gardner that should be mentioned. I will search that piece.
Sorry, sir: It is an article published in a scientific publication (the defunct publication Conocer, a kind of Spanish Discover) that mentions a lot of facts about the French Primal Therapy operation.
Under your own standards you introduced a lot of "unsubstantiated gossip" by Arthur Janov about his own therapy and about other therapies.
I do not call "unsubstantiated gossip" to the say-so of Janov about his own therapy (or about other therapies), so I ask you to please stop calling those names to the "Conocer" source. I repeat: It was not published in a Spanish Tabloid, it was published in a scientific publication, Conocer, directed by a prestigious Spanish Scientist: w:es:Manuel Toharia.
Moreover: The article does not practice "snide", but balanced criticism, because it also says good things about Primal Therapy, like this excerpt:
Where are the references to those studies, please?. Randroide 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to continue this draining discussion let's take one thing at a time - to resolution.
Your strategy so far seems to be make some small concession and then raise a whole host of other issues.
You have not admitted to your misquote of the Conocer article (as reproduced, in part, by you) that I pointed out above. Let's deal with that to completion before going on to your other points above. We can then take your other points above one at a time without introducing more issues until the issues already raised have been resolved. I will only continue this discussion with you on these terms. GrahameKing 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 11:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC) My "strategy", GrahameKing, is to improve the article.
This "draining discussion" is focused upon improving the article with new facts and new sources. I see no "draining" at all.
I have not admitted any misquote because I misquoted nothing.
Here is the source and here is the translation.
Do you have any additional problem with this piece of information?.
Can we move to another point?. If you prefer to discuss changes "one issue at a time" I have no problem.
Until last August, passers-by who were indiscreetly listening to sounds emanating from a quiet semi-detached house on the Avenue Marshal Foch in Paris, could frequently hear sobs, shouts of pain, and sometimes even real screams. Nevertheless, inside the house nobody was being tortured, at least not in the usual sense of the term, that is, unwillingly. In spite of being in the same place, the activities had nothing to do with the cellar having been used by the Gestapo more than 40 years earlier. []... The building was the headquarters of the European Primal Institute (IPE), founded and directed by the North American psychotherapist Arthur Janov. But now the headquarters in Paris have been closed
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
While this does describe one episode in the history of Primal therapy, I think it may be more appropriate in Janov’s biography, i.e. relating the course of his life work, since it does not tell us anything about the therapy as such. It does not say who worked there. From this excerpt, the dates of the New York enterprise are unclear. The article claims that Janov’s wife pressured him to start the Paris branch, but there is no reason to believe that it is authoritative, unless Conocer says where it got that normally highly personal information. Specific letters? Interviews? If we repeat it, we run the risk of carrying forward a journalistic speculation as fact. I would leave that speculation out altogether, otherwise say " The Spanish science magazine Conocer says ...."
Conocer was a Spanish popular science magazine. As noted by others, no web archive exists for the article that Randroide quoted, but the magazine was a respected one, and an appropriate reference. So I can see no reason why the whole section should be quoted, and even less why it should be in Spanish. Using untranslated Spanish in communicating differences is no better than if I were to give references in Xhosa and expect Randroide to find a translation somewhere. I believe that it is the responsibility of an editor to give all arguments on the English wikipedia in English – see Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English -- Seejyb 10:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 11:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for the translation, Seejyb. I did not translate the text myself because I preferred a neutral third party making the translation, but I must recognize that you have a point about the language issue.
Due to the fact that the text is not available online, the Spanish original should be preserved (hidden in the section).
If (both of) you prefer to move the facts to the page Arthur Janov, I am not going to make an issue of that. But I think that Primal Therapy would be the best location. But IMHO this is not a primordial issue.
The "The Spanish science magazine Conocer says ...." seems to be an excellent option. I would write "said" and italize Conocer, However.
Is is authoritative, because Conocer is an authoritative source. Newspapers and Magazines do not feel usually the need to "source" their statements, because they are a source.
This argument of yours would lead us to an endless regression: Suppose that "Conocer" said "we knew about this because it was published by "Le Figaro". Well, then you could ask where "Le Figaro" got that highly personal information?. And so on.
Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. And it is verifiable that Conocer said this and that.
Thank you again for your translation job, Seejyb. Randroide 11:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Errare humanum est. Move on.
I agree with you: I think it is more constructive to drop the subject. It´s unimportant and we have better things to talk about.
I hope that too : )
Key word: Probably. And that´s your personal opinion.
The fact is that a reputed source (with all the checks and guards that a reputable source should have) published some factual statements about the Primal operation in Paris.
Moreover: The alleged "physical and mental exhaustion" of Janov is documented by verbatim excerpts from the letter that Janov wrote to the patients whose therapy was cutted withou warning ("I cannot live any more in the midst of pain and the misery...").
I will tell you: It is verifiable fact that this Spanish magazine of this genre published this and this remarks about the French Primal operation.
I suggest you to add "the other side" views. I am not going to oppose the inclusion of sourced NPOV statements.
Please, do not misuse words:
Tha claim "Conocer" said this and that is not false. Is as true and real as the 21 yo "Conocer" magazine I have on my desk.
On the other hand, the application of the standards you propose, would lead to the deletion of this line at the beginning of the article:
Because, you know?, this line could be considered as derogatory/defamatory.
Uh, and the psychologists who do not practice (remember, "limited effectiveness") Primal Therapy are also living persons.
There´s of course no such a problem, because those are not our words, instead, that´s what Janov says about non-Janovian psychologists.
The Conocer issue is just the same: Those are not our words, that´s what Conocer said about Janov.
If there is any reason for Janov having carte blanche to say whatever he wants about other non-Janovian therapists but not the other way around (other guys critizing Janov), please let me know that reason.
Randroide 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That´s not an argument, Cgingold.
AFAIAC you wrote nothing. Having no time to write an argument, I prefer to write nothing at all.
Just as derogatory as According to Primal Theory, psychological therapies which involve only talking about the problem (referred to as "Talking Therapies") are of limited effectiveness
Moreover: I have a source. Aforementioned text has no source.
I do not see you taking action to delete the limited effectiveness line. Why?.
You are wrong: My judgment has no clouds.
Randroid, I think you're missing the central phrase - "about individuals". GrahameKing 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am missing nothing, GrahameKing. Look: Talking therapists are also individuals. Randroide 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I can not found that study at PubMed. This is a common problem if "Steven Rose" used a slightly different name (for instance "Steven A. Rose" or "Robert S. Rose").
Could you please provide the complete name of "Steven Rose" and the complete title of the article?. Randroide 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Complete name and complete publication curricula of "Steven Rose", please. Randroide 08:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, GrahameKing, two weeks passed. Lets review again the "Conocer" sourced section:
I drop this line to avoid endless discussion about how "Conocer" knew about that. Moreover: It is not important.
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
I do NOT drop this block of text.
It is sourced, you know the quality of the source and you had your translation done.
Any suggestion?. Randroide 09:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
Randroide 10:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all:
I have no views "against me", nor I posted views against you. This is not (and, above all, should be not) a personal issue.
LINE BY GRAHAMEKING 1
Defamation: defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim
The line "The scientific Spanish magazine "Conocer" published that Janov..." would never be "defamatory", because it is verifiable and true.
If (gigantic "IF") there was any defamation, the buck would stop at the desk of w:es:Manuel Toharia, the director of "Conocer" in 1986.
LINE BY GRAHAMEKING 2
Conversely, I could write this line (copy paste from your line, but with substancial minor changes):
Because, did you now?, Janov is very (very!!!) liberal criticizing other (non-Janovian) therapies.
I think that it is impossible to reach an agreement. I ask you to go for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Do you agree?.
Thank you for your attention, GrahameKing. Randroide 10:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Requests for comment
OK, my RfC neutral text proposal:
PROPOSAL
The text
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
"
The source
The January 1986 "Conocer" Spanish science magazine (in the line of Discover).
Text from the article (translated by a third party) [8]:
...Inadequately sourced negative material removed as per WP:BLP.-- GrahameKing 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)...
Pro inclusion
It is sourced, relevant and NPOV.
"Libel" allegations are baseless: If it is sourced it is not libellious.
Likewise, the article already presents alegations made by Arthur Janov about talking therapies being of limited effectiveness. Those alegations are neither libelious against talking therapists: Janov said that, not Wikipedia.
Against inclusion
END OF THE PROPOSAL
Now, GrahameKing (or any other "against" editor), please add your "against" reasons.
Do you agree with my presentation?. Any suggestions?
Randroide 12:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
END OF THE RESTORED DISCUSSION (DELETED BY GRAHAME KING) [9]
O.K. GrahameKing. We are again in the same situation prior to you deleting the discussion.
I ask you the question again: Do you agree with my presentation?. Any suggestions?. Please add your "Against" reasons and move on towards the RfC. Randroide 12:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources
especially the line:
The terms of my proposal on my talk page were clear and liberal and left open all means of lower level dispute resolution processes including a possible RfC referring to the reverted content on this page.
You have subverted the most used tool on Wikipedia for dispute resolution by loading it with a personal attack of the lowest order against an 82 year old man who is trying in his own way to teach us to have respect for each other. No more warnings. I do not know if the subversion of an important Wikipedia tool was what you intended by posting that RfC
but from my POV that is the effect. I think that Ayn Rand, whom I respect to this day, was a great believer in discussion and so, I think, is Arthur Janov. Randroid, I apologise if my previous post under this heading appeared in itself to be a personal attack, I meant only to describe the effect from my POV.
If the dates are confusing it's because reversions are confusing and because your last reversion used an earlier date not the date the reversion was made.
The proposal referred to above on my talk page is the truce porposal here. [10]-- GrahameKing 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Randroide 07:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. You reject mediation [11], GrahameKIng. That changes everything.
Of course there´s need for resolution of this dispute, GrahameKIng:
You deleted sourced data [12] [13].
There´s no libel, GrahameKing: It is sourced.
The buck does not stop here, GrahameKing. I am sorry, but I thought we could be able to solve this dispute in an amiable manner. I´ll tell you what´s next.
Randroide 09:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Randroide 11:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The following subsection, introduced by User:Randroide, has required a lot of work by myself and other editors, and in the end it is very doubtful that it should have been included at all. It describes a study that came to a mildly positive conclusion about Primal Therapy. It was published in an obscure inaccessible book rather than a peer-reviewed journal (which the study was initially clearly aimed at). There is no indication that it was an independent study as it was conducted by a patient at the Primal Institute with cooperation from the staff.
Section reintroduced.
A line at the cover of the book:
A paragraph from page 1:
This book is the nearest thing on earth to an independent account of Janov-approved Primal Therapy. Sorry but if you delete this stuff I will be forced to deal with that deletion as simple vandalism.
This behaviour of yours is unacceptable, GrahameKing. Please stop it, because I know you can make good contributions to the article.
If you are worried about the "Conocer" article, please go ahead ASAP with the mediation process. If the "Conocer" text is declared "defamatory" (I doubt it, but who knows), the text will be deleted and that´s it.
Randroide 14:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In an early account of the results of primal therapy (published in book form, only in Sweden in English), Tomas Videgård [2] reported on a study of a sample of 32 patients treated at The Primal Institute (Janov). Patients entered therapy from December 1975 to May 1976.
Outcome evaluation for the patients:
Patients who did not "finish" the therapy were excluded. Patients in the sample had been in therapy for between 15 and 32 months. Janov now claims that the formal therapy can take significantly longer than this and has never put a time limit on the therapy process overall as it depends on how much Pain the individual has to resolve.
Videgård himself went through the therapy. It should also be noted that the evaluation was based on patients' answers to questions and some projective tests that require interpretation by the tester. Videgård concluded that therapy at the Primal Institute was marginally better than the Tavistock clinic and markedly better than the Menninger Foundation - the two psychotherapy clinics which he used for comparison.
Where exactly can you buy this book? I can't find any places that sell the book:
WatchAndObserve 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the book is a rare, out of print item. Your question is like asking Where´s the "exact" place to buy a De Lorean DMC-12. Answer: Wherever you can find one on sale in a given moment.
There´s no "exact" place, as books appear and disappear. Today´s "hit" could be tomorrow´s miss, and the opposite.
A place selling the book, right now: [14] Randroide 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." ( Exceptional claims require exceptional sources)
The source is credible enough - a respected journalist who had an inside contact in the cult - but this is extreme stuff and I haven't had the time to get the corroborative credible sources to back it up. Maybe it can be put back then. -- GrahameKing 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I restored the section you deleted.
The cult history is also mentioned in "Crazy Therapies", I added the reference. Randroide 10:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ehrrr...where are those studies?.
What the h**l means Dr. Janov was the first psychologist to submit his results to scientific scrutiny?.
Randroide 15:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, WatchAndObserve. It´s a pleasure to have such a well documented person at the other side of the line. Randroide 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have, once again, removed the line from the Sidenote re John Lennon about "the one-eyed witch-doctor leading the blind" as a supposed reference to Janov. While I would agree that it is a plausible claim, surely it must be clear that we need some sort of confirmation and sourcing for this claim. I just finished another round of internet searches, but there was nothing that came close to meeting that objective. The most I could find is the lyrics to the song, "Nobody Loves You (When You're Down and Out)" from the 1974 album, Walls and Bridges, which is the source of the "one-eyed witch-doctor" quote. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it refers specifically to Janov; it's just as plausible that the line refers to, for instance, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, or perhaps to both, or perhaps to someone else, or .... who knows?? Cgingold 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)