Talk:Primal therapy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

I see that the article has been under way for over 15 years, and that nom was indeed editing it, with an edit-war, back in 2007, so it has a long and in its way troubled history. Coming to the present state of the article, it has a curious structure. The "History", which might have come first, is the 6th chapter. It is followed by "Notable patients", consisting of a bulleted list followed by a section on John Lennon which takes up most of the chapter. The article concludes with a very short chapter of two short sentences about primal therapy "In popular culture". The main body of the article consists of three sections of Janov's point of view, "Concepts" - which is partly uncited, "Format and process", which begins with an uncited paragraph, and a very short section called "Janov's warnings" which seems misplaced. These are followed or balanced against two chapters called "Reports" and "Criticism" (a deprecated heading). "Reports" leads in with an uncited statement and a brief discussion of Janov's claims, followed by a single-sentence attributed and cited criticism that the work was unscientific, a far more detailed section of praise for the method attributed to Tomas Videgård, partially cited to Videgård's book, and then three lists of reports bizarrely in the middle of the article, without either any presentation of what the reports say or whether any of them rebut any of the others. The latest of the "Peer-reviewed journal reports" is dated 1983. This is somewhat surprising, as later scientific sources include Stephen Khamsi's 1988 "The success and failure of primal therapy: A critical review", published in Aesthema: The Journal of the International Primal Association (8: 11-23), and Premkumar Jeyapaul's 2012 "The Primal Scream" in the British Medical Journal, which one might have expected to be relevant, indeed critically important. Some later reports are however discussed in "Criticism", though eight of these are flattened into one brief sentence stating that the therapy has often been criticised.

The overall impression that the article gives is of disorganisation, accompanied by a desire to support Janov and a matching desire to attack him. Despite recent editing, this abiding impression seems to me to reflect accurately the article's history. It does not come across as neutral; it is highly uneven in tone and content, ranging from expansive (e.g. the lyrical passage on John Lennon, complete with multiple quotations, pop culture indeed) to absurdly terse (such as the 8-ref sentence on criticism).

I considered whether it might be worth trying to run an extended Good Article process, probably taking many weeks, which is not forbidden exactly but is certainly unusual, especially if foreseen from the outset. However, this article has had plenty of time to settle, and has not yet done so. I suggest therefore that nom and other editors look again at the article, study the literature to make use of the range of scholarly sources on the subject, rearrange the materials into a simple clear structure, rewrite the article plainly and neutrally in an encyclopedic tone, and take care to cite everything. It'll be a lot better for it, and I'll be very happy to be asked to review it again at that stage. For now, therefore, we'd best call a halt to this review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick,

Thanks for taking the time to review it. Apparently my nomination of the article was premature. Unfortunately, nobody will re-write the article from scratch. Although I've made many edits recently, they were all very rapid edits and took me a total of about 4-5 hours or so. Before that, nobody had edited the article much for 12 years or so. I don't think anyone would be willing to invest the time to re-write the article completely.

I was considering doing a few more things to improve the article, however, and I'd like to hear your input about it. I had been considering removing entirely the bullet-pointed list you complained about from the "Reports" section. I don't see any need for a bullet-pointed list of references in the middle of the article, which is atypical. I also was considering entirely removing the section entitled "Janov's warnings", which seems inappropriate to me. I was also going to remove the statement from Janov saying "It is a therapy that has been investigated for over fifteen years by independent scientists ... able to reduce or eliminate a host of physical and psychic ailments" which appears very exaggerated. I was also going to shorten the second paragraph from "reports" which describes Janov's studies, perhaps condensing it to 3 sentences. I was also going to condense the bullet-pointed section from "Notable Patients" and reduce it to 1 sentence.

I don't agree with your claims of disorganziation. After I've made the edits I suggested above, the organization of the article seems fine to me. The article starts with an introduction, then proceeds to an explanation of the concepts and format, then to reports and criticisms. It seems like a natural ordering to me. How else could we order it? What do you propose?

I definitely don't think the history and pop culture stuff should be at the top. Some of that material is very detailed and far less important. It would be the opposite of (say) journalistic practice to put trivial material first and fundamental concepts at the end. As an example, I picked another scientific article totally at random just now (Higgs Boson) and the history stuff is nowhere near the top, but after a description of what it is. I think that's appropriate for a scientific topic even if it's not chronological.

It does not come across as neutral; it is highly uneven in tone and content, ranging from expansive (e.g. the lyrical passage on John Lennon, complete with multiple quotations, pop culture indeed) to absurdly terse (such as the 8-ref sentence on criticism).

I have already eviscerated the section on John Lennon, and cut it down drastically, as with the History section. Do you think I should cut them down further? I could shorten the quotation from John Lennon so it's only 3 short sentences. I could also remove everything in History after 1971, all of which is fairly unimportant.

If I did all of those things, do you think the article would be more even in tone and content? What else do you think I should do, short of re-writing the article?

Also, one more thing. You wrote:

to absurdly terse (such as the 8-ref sentence on criticism).

It is not absurdly terse, in my opinion. The reason it has 8 references is because it was necessary to repeat the same references and claims, over and over, and over again in the article. Back in 2007, several editors showed up and wanted to reprint everything negative ever said about primal therapy, no matter how obscure or from where. If they saw any material removed, they would accuse the editor of cult conspiracy, secret monetary payments or undisclosed financial incentives, sinister motives, subversive attempts to manipulate them, and so on. As a result, much absurd material was left in the article to avoid provoking their paranoia.

I have removed the redundant references which are repeated in the section already. That claim no longer has 8 references. I've also removed references from unscholarly sources which mention primal therapy only in passing and which repeat material already here anyway.

Twerges (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I decided to be bold, and I went ahead and made the changes I suggested. Do you think the article is more balanced and even now? Do you think it's better organized?

Of course feel free to revert anything I did if you have disagreements.

Twerges (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Firstly, the additional changes certainly go some way towards what is required; and in my view they leave unanswered my deepest misgivings about the article. The fact that the discussion we are now having is (correctly) referenced to 2007 shows that the underlying issues have not been resolved. Your resistance to putting the "notable patients" into the history, and indeed making the article begin with the history, is itself a matter of note. The artificial separation of "criticism" from "history" does not work either. The article would I think make much more sense with a chronological framework, so that both bouquets and brickbats would be contextualized in their historical setting – which includes each other. Separating the "notable patients" out into an appendix-like chunk of seeming-trivia at the end of the article breaks up the sense and denies the organic role that fame and social response had in the history of the topic. You are of course free to continue to rework the article, or to leave that for others, with these notes here as their guide should they be thinking of resubmitting. I will now recuse myself from the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick,

Your resistance to putting the "notable patients" into the history, and indeed making the article begin with the history, is itself a matter of note. The artificial separation of "criticism" from "history" does not work either.

Actually, I'm perfectly fine with integrating the notable patients stuff into history. That seems quite reasonable to me. Its early fame is a historical topic and its celebrity status contributed to its spread, I suppose. I can see how those could be merged into an organic whole.

Unfortunately, I just can't see how the criticism and history sections could be merged. I'm not arguing against you here, but I just can't envision how the history/criticism section would look. Most of the important criticisms emerged long after primal therapy had faded into oblivion. For example, the APA Delphi poll is from 2006--fully 35 years after the heyday. The few criticisms available at the time were totally ignored by Janov and had no influence on the development of primal therapy and were not answered.

For example, there are strong criticisms right away in that section:

Primal Therapy has not achieved acceptance in the field of Psychology. It is regarded as one of the least creditable forms of psychotherapy and has been classified in a 2006 APA Delphi poll as "discredited". It has been frequently criticized as lacking outcome studies to substantiate its effectiveness.

...and I just don't see how that could fit in a history section. We could say something like "Right away, it came under fire..." however the APA Delphi poll is from 2006 and long after primal therapy was essentially dead. We could pile all that stuff at the end, but then it's not an integrated whole, at all.

Unfortunately, I am confused now. I don't know how to re-write those sections according to your requirements. I suppose I'll just leave it as is. If you have any other criticisms or suggestions which are easier to implement ("this statement is biased", etc), I will change the article. Otherwise, I'll just leave it as is.

Twerges (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)