Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:17, 2 January 2008

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Refspam

Psychology B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Old posts

• March 20, 2005—February 18, 2007 posts are in Talk:Primal therapy/Archive 1.

"one-eyed witch-doctor"

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)

Discover article

Apparently I've stirred up some kind of edit war with my deletion of the second reference to a Discover article. Someone undoes my edits without comment or explanation.

I don't understand why this issue is even contentious. The Discover reference was obviously in the wrong section. The section is entitled "Peer-reviewed journal articles." However, Discover is not a peer-reviewed journal, but a magazine found on newstand shelves. And the referenced article is not a peer-reviewed article, but an editorial found in a pop magazine. In other words, the reference doesn't belong in the "Peer-reviewed journal articles" section because it's not peer-reviewed, and not in a journal. On the other hand, the article DOES belong in the "criticism" section. But its found there already, as I explained in my initial comment and in my second comment.

Also, with regard to other edits made recently... To whomever undid them... Please don't automatically remove edits without comment or explanation. And when you do include comments, please don't refer to other wikipedia editors as "cultic" or "cultists", or refer to their edits as "cultic". Note that I am not affiliated with the Primal Center, or the Primal Institute, or any cult! True, I have removed misplaced quotation marks, and I have removed a reference that was not about Primal Therapy (but mentioned it briefly in passing), and I have removed only one of two references to a Discover article because it was in the wrong section. That does not mean that I am in a cult! I could have good reasons for making those edits.

It's important to retain an air of civility on wikipedia and not to make accusations about the motives of other editors. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twerges (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discover magazine is NOT a journal

There is a big difference between an academic, peer-reviewed journal (like Lancet) and popular science magazines (like Scientific American or Discover).

Discover magazine is not a peer-reviewed journal! From the wikipedia article about it: "Discover was originally launched into a burgeoning market for science magazines aimed at educated non-professionals, intended to be somewhat easier to read than Scientific American.."

In other words, Discover is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific journal! Editors should read about the differences between peer-reviewed journals and popular magazines before deciding which section to put references in.

Twerges (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)twerges

Please stop the edit war!

My revision has been reverted over 5 times now, without explanation and without discussion on the talk board, even though I have requested discussion repeatedly. This appears to be a violation of the wikipedia policy on edit wars, in addition to violating the wikipedia policy requiring editors to revert only when necessary. When reading these policies, please note the one-revert rule, the requirement of explaining your reverts on the discussion page, the requirement of explaining your reverts in comments (rather than leaving blank comments), and the requirement of contributing to discussion and resolving disputes through discussion. I believe the recent activity has violated those guidelines and requirements.

Please discuss your reasons for believing that the "Discover" magazine is a "high-quality journal" and belongs in the "peer-reviewed scientific journal" section. Please do not revert the edit without any discussion!

If there are further reversions without discussion then I will submit this issue to the wiki process for obtaining a third opinion.

Thanks.

Twerges (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Twerges

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles