Talk:Waking the Tiger

message: For a March 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Waking the Tiger. For an April redeletion debate see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Waking the Tiger 2. It was also on Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion in April.
What do you guys say to a VFD for the third time? Just for fun?--Jondel 05:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gay Nigger Association of America went through about 5 or 6. --SPUI (talk) 05:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh. I 'm sorry I suggested it. It might really happen.--Jondel 05:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [untitled]

message: *I would like to provide decent sources and restore the book article.--Jondel (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcces

message: We can't have fringe views in the article unless they can be contextualized by mainstream view. This is a core policy. WP:REDFLAG / WP:PSCI / WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:REDFLAG says, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". What "exceptional claim" is being made anywhere in the article?The quote from John Marzillier of British Psychological Society does not violate WP:NPOV. The xoJane review does not violate WP:NPOV.The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine article is used (1) to source the synopsis of the book in the "Synopsis" section and (2) to provide the perspective of the book reviewer in the "Reception" section. I see no reason to exclude it as a source for the synopsis; that is just factual information about what the book says. If you consider anything in the "Synopsis" section not to be factual information, or if you consider anything in the section to be an "exceptional claim", please point it out. I agree that the book reviewer's positive opinion of the book may be considered a fringe opinion, so I will not contest its removal.Please do not remove the remaining information without gaining prior consensus to do so. The default state of the article is its state when it was returned to mainspace at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 20#Waking the Tiger.Cunard (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting nonsense like how the book "explains [!] how people can comprehend the agonizing reaction and assist in attenuating it so that renegotiation can happen" takes us deep into fringe territory. Having puffery such as "This book is a wonderful mind-body connector" sourced to a lifestyle website is hardly encyclopedic. Huge pull-quotes in coloured boxes likewise is problematic. Saying your article is untouchable without consensus also speaks of a WP:OWNership problem. I have asked for more input at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the sentence to say, "The book's fourth section claims that people can comprehend the agonizing reaction and assist in attenuating it so that renegotiation can happen." This wording is accurate because it says the book claims this. – please explain how the quote from John Marzillier of the British Psychological Society is from a "fringe journa[l]". The British Psychological Society is not fringe. I have shortened the quote to mention only the most important information.Regarding this edit ("lifestyle website? undue weight to junk source"), according to this article from Chicago Tribune, Mandy Stadtmiller is a New York magazine columnist, wrote for the New York Post, and is publishing a book with Simon & Schuster imprint Gallery Books. Her review of the book in Time Inc.'s xoJane is worthy of inclusion and is not undue weight. xoJane is not a fringe source.The article is not untouchable. I appreciate your suggestions about how to improve the article (like your pointing out the book's fourth section would be fringe). But I do not want large amounts of sourced information to be removed without prior discussion about whether it's possible to reword it to comply with the policies and guidelines.Cunard (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your re-wording is still gobbledegook. You're aware Mandy Stadtmiller is a journalist/comedian, and xoJane is a lifestyle website: just because content is sourced does not make it neutral/due ("it's sourced" is the usual basis of POV-pushing). This article as a whole is legitimizing dubious nonsense and lacks a mainstream context. Your favoured version does not need to be "discussed" before it can be corrected. However, you have edit-warred to preserve your version. I await further eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for correcting the "fringe" assertion about John Marzillier of the British Psychological Society. I've seen pull quotes used in book articles before like at the featured article To Kill a Mockingbird. See To Kill a Mockingbird#Style and To Kill a Mockingbird#Themes for examples. I included the pull quote because I thought it'd be a good succinct summary of the book's thesis from a respected clinical psychologist.Yes, Mandy Stadtmiller is a journalist and comedian. Why does including a book review from her in a lifestyle magazine violate WP:NPOV? It is standard to include magazine reviews in book articles. I've shortened her mention in the review section. – two mainstream sources are:The review notes: The psychologist Peter Levine is a major figure in the trauma field. His earlier book, Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma (North Atlantic Books, 1997), aimed at a general readership, was very successful.The review criticizes the book's organization and notes: I believe the book is more appropriately used by professionals rather than directly by patients or clients.Neither of these sources reject the book's synopsis or consider the book "dubious nonsense", so I consider that to be the "mainstream context" and the mainstream view. But if any sources are found that have a differing view, I strongly support incorporating their views into the article to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.I've included information about the book's fourth section from Ruth P. Newton, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine to provide a "mainstream context".Cunard (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the inexpert opinion of a comedian/journalist due for an assessment of a book on trauma therapy? The first source you list is a review of another book entirely. Its one mention of this book you have copy/pasted here in its entirety. The Newton souce is useful, however most of your article is parroting nonsensical word salad from an alt-med journal. The mainstream context is that there is no evidence that somatic experiencing has any benefit whatsoever. Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clarifying that the journalist's view is inexpert for this topic. I've replaced it with the view of John Marzillier of the British Psychological Society. The first source I listed says the author is "a major figure in the trauma field" and the book is "very successful". There is no indication the first source rejects the book's premise. I agree the Newton source is useful. There is no indication that she rejects the book's premise either. – I've used Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine to source the book's synopsis. I do not object to anyone incorporating the mainstream context into the synopsis.Cunard (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the synopsis to remove content that relies on the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Cunard (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This journal is considered dubious in light of problems it has vis-a-vis WP:NFRINGE. It is reliable as a source of the author's opinions, but it is unclear why the author of that article has an opinion which is at all relevant to this page. jps (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the synopsis to remove content that relies on the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. The article no longer relies on that journal. Cunard (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

message: This is an article on a different book than the review that was being used. Per WP:ASTONISH I removed content which was sourced solely to that off-handed commentary. jps (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a mainstream book within serious circles, it's the silliest sort of popular self-help book. Wikipedia is meant to be a respectable encyclopedia reflecting accepted knowledge, not giving space to nonsense about "frozen residues of energy". Making assertions such as "Levine found that right before they are killed, prey completely lose the ability to move as their brains experience a deluge of raw painkillers" is bad: generally topics in science need WP:SCIRS and content that states or implies health effects need WP:MEDRS. Books that talk about "recalibrating your body map" are spouting the kind of pseudoscientific crap that we need to keep out of the encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandra Blakeslee's book accurately describes the types of assertions Levine makes in his book. It passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. No scientific or medical claim is being made in the "Synopsis" section. The point of the section is just to describe what the book says, not make a scientific or medical claim, so Blakeslee's source is appropriate.Levine's book's assertions are nonsense but that's what his book says so that's what the synopsis of his book should say. To make the synopsis reflect the mainstream view, content like this can be added and phrases like "Levine claims this but there is no proof" or "Levine asserts that but there is no evidence" can be added. This will have the benefit of both telling readers what the book says (the article currently does not do that, which as an encyclopedia article it should do) and telling readers that what the book says is unproven and without evidence.Cunard (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, you wrote in Wikipedia's voice that Levine "found" something, which implies actual discovery. Using one fringe source to relay credulously what another fringe source says does not give us a good article, it unduly legitimizes nonsense. If we can't qualify these notions with proper mainstream context, they don't belong here at all. Reliability alone does not mean stuff should be included (otherwise we'd soon be full of accounts of UFO abductions and ghost sightings too). Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot agree that Sandra Blakeslee's book is a fringe source. I hope the DRV participants I pinged can help with a compromise wording. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "How Body Maps in Your Brain Help You Do (Almost) Everything Better" - mainstream !!? I don't think a pop. sci. book by two unqualified people is mainstream to neuroscience; these notions are on the fringes of the discipline. For mainstream sources I'd be looking for textbooks, review articles in journals and the like. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From Sandra Blakeslee, she is "a science correspondent of over four decades for The New York Times and science author, specializing in neuroscience". She has sufficient background in the subject to accurately summarize what the book says. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's beside the point. We aren't going to use fringe sources that talk nonsense among themselves, because it unduly legitimizes that nonsense. We need WP:FRINDependent sources, otherwise it is not clear how that nonsense stands in relation to mainstream scholarly discourse: that gives us a WP:NPOV problem. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: John Marzillier review of a different book

message: What is this even meant to mean? Seems like jibberish to me. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the full quote from Ruth P. Newton, a professor at the University of California, San Diego. She wrote, "He suggests that energy stored in a traumatic moment is not as easily released for humans because of the triune structure of the brain with its contributing influences of emotions and intellect, which often override instinct."If the paraphrase is imprecise, please reword it to make it more clear.Cunard (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My question was, what does it mean. We are meant to be comprehensible to lay readers. What are they meant to understand from this? If it's nonsense, it's needs to come out. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more context from the graduate student Nancy example in the content you deleted here. Levine claims that people store energy when they have traumatic experiences, that energy is hard to release because of how the human brain is structured (emotions and intellect help override instinct), and that what he did with Nancy helped release that energy. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this "energy"? Are we in the realm of energy medicine? Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "energy" refers to pent up emotions and anxieties due to harrowing experiences. This is completely different from energy of energy medicine. Alex, please, you don't seem to know what the book is about.--Jondel (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

text: From Ruth P. Newton about Levine, "He believes that, although the ability to freeze is the more understudied survival technique, its role in human trauma cannot be overlooked. His premise is that the sudden immobility of a highly charged nervous system compresses energy that is then "stored" in the nervous system if not released." Cunard (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How in energy "compressed"? Isn't this just all pseudoscience? Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This pseudoscience is what Ruth P. Newton says Levine states in the book. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

text: It is nonsense until/unless there is RS explaining it. "Energy" may be a metaphor for emotions etc, but then sliding that into pseudoscientific concepts saying that such "energy" can be "compressed", "stored", "titrated", etc. is pure flapdoodle. Not surprisingly, there is zero evidence that this stuff is of any benefit. We need to be clear about that here. Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "release energy from a traumatic memory"?