Talk:I'm OK – You're OK

OR in the Criticisms section
Ripped out quite a lot of OR rubbish from the criticsms section. ElectricRay (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

themes
I'm proposing to add a section describing the major themes to this book, and removing (for now) the elements of the current article that seem to make unsubstantiated POV judgements - any objections or anyone else working on this at the moment? Infilms (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I'm done adding new material. I invite other editors who know this subject to improve this article further. Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't a person be referred to by his or her last name, as in Penfield for Wilder Penfield?
The subject line says it all. Just wondering why the author used the first name, Wilder, to refer to the neurosurgeon? (69.155.140.190 (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

POV issues
There's a clear "positive" bias in the language of this article, especially in the lead, and that's even allowing for the Criticism section. I've added CN for a couple of the more blatant examples (in the lead), but the whole thing could do with a clean up towards a more neutral tone. Thomask0 (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)