Talk:Primal therapy

What a mess

Much of this article, dumped from a contentious Wikipedia page, reads like an annotated bibliography rather than a collection of noteworthy quotations. I have removed some parts that are patently not quotations. I am sorely tempted to just nominate the whole thing for deletion. ~ Ningauble 19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete quotations from Wikiquote?. Randroide 11:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was tempted but I didn't. Recall that Wikiquote's mission is different from Wikipedia's: Wikipedia aims to provide summary coverage of the state of knowledge on a topic, while Wikiquote seeks to collect gems of pithy, eloquent, and poignant expression, and to compile our legacy of widely quoted statements.
Remarks like "all but abandoned, especially due to a lack of evidence," "since there is no relevant research, ... could simply be chalked up as a placebo," "cannot be defended on scientifically established principles," etc. are quite ordinary and dry statements such as have been made innumerable times about countless subjects. Also, the topic itself is rather narrow for a Wikiquote theme. In an article on a broader theme, such as skepticism or fringe practices in general, or psychotherapy in particular, most of these quotes would not stand out.
That said, there are lots of other problem articles, and current cleanup efforts are focused elsewhere. There are also certainly a lot of grey areas in community consensus. I am just sharing my perspective, since you asked. ~ Ningauble 14:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any rule about Wikiquote topics requiring them to be "broad"??? (???). Quotes are well sourced and on topic. I fail to see any problem apart from the fact that all quotes are contra. Somo pro quotes would be great here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts (and for improving my English language vocabulary :-) ). Randroide 09:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)