Talk:Stanislav Grof

Integral theorists panel
I don’t think it is appropriate to give the Integral theory panel such a prominent place in this article. This distorts the article away from its subject. In all WP articles, panels at the head of an article give background on the article itself. Panels which link the article to other themes are at the foot. Unfortunately the shape of this panel makes it look incongruous at the foot so I have extracted the data and placed it into the See Also section. Lumos3 12:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grof is a member of the CIIS. He is a contributor to integral theory. The panel does not distort the article; it gives it context. --goethean &#2384;  15:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The panel is not about Grof himself but gives context in relation to other articles. Since the Grof article is short, placing it at the head of the article only confuses the reader. Context information needs to go nearer the foot of an article. The other articles within the Integral theory panel are longer and so achieve this. In the case of a short article the panel needs to be reformatted so it is horizontally aligned or the data extracted as I have done.   Lumos3 16:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The panel looks fine now, but the problem I have with it is that Grof isn't an integral theorist first and foremost, he's a transpersonal psychologist, a role predating integral theory and being separate from it. I guess the integral panel will do until a transpersonal psychology panel is made up. Not a job for me right now. :( Tarnas 22:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) --

One addendum removed
The addendum that it is 'notable' that Grof gave his brother information about ecstacy seems out of place and not significant. Why is it 'notable'? Otherwise, if the author has a personal view on why it is notable then he/she should state his bias or reason. Because it is not clear which we are dealing with I have removed it. Argonautic 10:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Growth"?
In the opening lines of the article there is talk of "growth" that people desired to achieve. Now one immediately has to ask "growth of what?"!

I am aware that the wonderfully wooly-cloudy word was used in the psycho-boom-jargon, psycho-babble sense. But that precisely is my complaint: you cannot use such style in an encyclopaedia. You can use things, e.g. drugs, in order to create, stimulate, enhance etc. certain experiences. Well. But "inner/psychological growth" or the like is just a catch word, a marketing tool and not a descriptive device.147.142.186.54 (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Order
It is not helpful if an article goes on for quite a while, and then someone noticed: "Oh, we better include a table of contents as well", but that is found at about the middle of the text and covers only the remaining second half. - Its proper place is at the beginning, after just one (or two or three, at most) opening sentence/s.

That was not the first time I noticed that habit in WP articles, so I wonder why...147.142.186.54 (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Birth trauma"
A reader unfamiliar with the area of study will probably assume, after reading this article, that S.G. sort of "invented" the study of experiences at the very beginning of human life and their impact on later psychol. development. Esp. when I came to the point where there is talk of a "S.Grof versus mainstream" debate regarding the concept of "birth trauma", I thought: "No, stop it, you are misrepresenting facts, that was Otto Rank's invention and coinage...". You always have to write texts with unknowing readers in mind, and they will get a wrong picture of the story ! - I then found I could provide a "blue colour link" to an extra entry to that term, which in turn refers to another article, where a suitable historical account is provided; and also I noticed that Otto Rank is mentioned at the page bottom under "see also...", but readers would not know why they should look up a name that never appears in the article text itself. - With other words, some sketch of the "history of ideas" in this area of "very earliest life experiences" needs to be included in the article; at least a number of clear hints and links, to provide proper context.

Regards, Sophophilos:147.142.186.54 (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of anonymous edit
I've removed the anonymous edit with the reference to Gunnel et al criticising Jacobsen's birth trauma/suicide research. The link posted related to a later study by Jacobsen than the one cited here, was a letter to the editor rather than a contradictory study, and included a reply to the criticisms by Jacobsen that the posted text didn't address. Jablett (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this was a correct deletion of material. It is irrelvent as to when the study was published. Grof is prosing an idea that science refutes - the timeline is not material to the issue. Additionaly, whether the citation was a letter to an editor or not, it was a product of research. After conducting the research the author warned that assertioons regarding the influence of "prenatal memory" should be approached with caution. Therefore, please replace the section, along with the citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.209.129 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The deleted text reads: "However, as Gunnell, et al. note reagrding the Jacobson article "deficiencies in the design and analysis of this case-control study should be addressed before the findings are accepted or possible mechanisms are considered." Also, as noted in Gunnell regarding Jacobson "the epidemiology of suicide is complex, and it seems unlikely that the factors investigated in this study explain the high proportion of suicides." However, Gunnell's work, which contradicts Jacobson's findings, are not noted in Grof's 2000 work." and the ref is http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7192/1211


 * I think the quotes in this text imply that they relate to the Jacobson study cited, so the timeline is relevant. Gunnel may well have done research that contradicts Jacobson, but this reference is not to that research. Perhaps other editors of this page could look and offer an opinion.Jablett (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Full citation of sources/articles required
The papers by Jacobson and the one in the medical journal "Lancet" are mentioned, but a complete reference is needed and missing (it is no proper academic habit to quote a research paper after some book where in turn it was mentioned; you must give precise details and best read it in its original version, to avoid mistakes by mis-quotes etc.).147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the Jacobson ref. I don't have access to the Lancet online, but from a web search, I guess the reference is probably: Salk, L, Lipisitt, LP & Sturmer, WO Reilly, BM & Levat, RH (1985). Relationship of maternal and prenatal conditions to eventual adolescent suicide. Lancet, 16, 624-627.  Can someone who has access to the original check and verify this ? A full reference is needed for Howe and Courage, 2004 and Spanos, 1996. in the paragraph above.Jablett (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the closing double quote WatchandObserve, it enabled me to track down the reference online ! 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jablett (talk • contribs)

NPOV - NDE hypothesis
I am questioning the NPOV and language of the "NDE hypothesis"-section. To be critical of scientific theories, including the theories of Stanislav Grof, is of course necessary and healthy. But this section contains only a short mention of the theory, followed by three skeptical/critical views that dismiss the theory. There is no elaboration of Grofs NDE-hypothesis, or mention of other theorists who might support it. There is only the speedy refusal, and critical tonality, provided by three skeptical sources. This does not look like a balanced presentation. My proposal is: Elaborate upon the theory, then present criticisms of all the aspects of Grof's scholarship in a section called "Reception and Criticism". --Hawol (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Capital Letters
Are all those capital letters necessary in the Stanislav Grof section? 78.0.214.21 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanislav Grof. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111070217/http://www.entheogen.tv/ to http://www.entheogen.tv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncontroversial
I take it from this article that there has been no criticism of his theories and practice. Astonishing. --87.112.160.37 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I too am confused about the state of this article and the state of the general discourse around Grof and his ideas. There seems to be (at least to my current knowledge) no credible scientific discurse validating Grof's theories on perinatal psychology. On the contrary, a quick search for his name or any adjacent concepts such as holotropic breathing and perinatal matrices yield many results of self proclaimed healers and therapists who seem to uncritically sell these ideas.
 * I fear that WP might lend credibility to unscientific thought here, as there is little discussion of the merits of Grof's theories in this article. Strangedev (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This issue was reported to WP:FTN. I came from over there and removed a large amount of the text here that was sourced primarily to boosters and Grof himself. As you might imagine, this kind of sourcing is not appropriate for WP:TERTIARY references like Wikipedia. Thanks for noticing and commenting and apologies that it took so many years to clean up! jps (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Nationality
American? Really? He was born in Prague, he studied there, gained all of his education and then went to USA. Clearly, he was Czech.


 * We use place of residence and citizenship, NOT ethnicity. See WP:CONTEXTBIO. He was a US national when he became notable, so he is referred to as American on Wikipedia. Please stop changing it, you've been reverted multiple times with an explanation in the edit summary every time. Unless you want to get blocked? Skyerise (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)