"

 Dispute 

I noticed there's an edit war going on with regard to the debunkingprimaltherapy link, and the link at the end of the ""Primal Therapy"" section.

My opinion is as follows. I think the link at the end of the ""Primal Therapy"" section should lead to the ""Primal Therapy"" article, not to the criticism section specifically. I feel that way because the section in the page entitled ""Primal Therapy"" is relevant to the entire primal therapy article (including the criticisms) and not to the criticisms alone.

It would be quite possible to have both links at the bottom of the paragraph (""see Primal Therapy, including the criticism section...""). I wouldn't be opposed to that. 

Personally I don't believe that the section ""Primal Therapy"" should be on the biography page at all; we should have a link only: ""Arthur Janov is the creator of (linked) Primal Therapy, and author of many books on that subject"". IMO there is no need to discuss primal therapy (or its criticisms) in any detail on a biography page, because those things are not biographical details. They are not relevant here. They belong in the Primal Therapy article, and there is no need to repeat that article here.

With regard to the DBT.com link. I don't believe this page is an appropriate place for any kind of dispute about Primal Therapy, one way or the other, since this article is not about Primal Therapy. I don't believe that we should include here links to any sites unless they are specifically relevant to the biography of Arthur Janov. If we do have any such links  (like the DBT.com link) then we must revisit the whole debate here, and we must include other links, otherwise we violate NPOV by representing only one side. It would be better just not to have such links.

Bear in mind that Art Janov is an exceedingly minor historical figure. His biography should be only a few paragraphs. It's not really the best place for an extensive argument.

I realize you guys are concerned about people being led astray by reading the wiki, but I really don't think that's a major concern. Anyone who follows a ""Primal Therapy"" link and reads the article will realize that Primal Therapy has been criticized. The readers aren't dense and don't need things repeated. In other words, I don't think anyone could be misled or led astray by a simple link (and nothing more) on the biography page.

We should achieve some kind of consensus before editing the article. If we can't achieve consensus then we should solicit outside opinion.

  "