Talk:Body memory

message: "The idea is pseudoscientific as there is no known means by which tissues other than the brain are capable of storing memories"
That's wrong given: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18779997
Much of those "memory" incidents may be coincidence or wishful thinking but claiming "no known means" is wrong based on current scientific knowledge.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.24.123.50 (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: No known means?

message: I believe the article would be improved if it recognized that sometimes the term "body memory" has a quite different meaning than is provided as the introduction for this article.  I believe the term sometimes refers to the things we do that we do not realize we are doing at the time, like when we scratch something that itches even when we are trying not to scratch that vulnerable spot because scratching it is just making it worse.
 
We do many things that we are not thinking about.  I have to stop and check my body to see if I'm slumping, or crossing my legs.  I type but don't pay attention to the letters I type.  I concentrate on the words.  I speak, without noticing how my tongue forms certain sounds differently than other terms.  I believe the term "body memory" or "bodily memory" is used to talk about such instances and, at the very least, we should change the initial definition so that Wikipedia does not imply otherwise.
But I am new to this process and too busy right now to put more effort into it at the moment, except perhaps to give a quick example just by googling the term "Body memory" and pointing to one of the first pages I go to:
Consider, then, this example: 
I also want to make a comment on MaxMangel's remarks below.  I judge from his remark that he represents the original author of this page on Body Memory.  In his comments here on Talk he recognizes at least some weaknesses in his article, and says he'll come back and correct them, but that was 2006, and 2006 was 6 years ago.  Someone, perhaps me at a later time (sigh) should clean up this article.  And maybe Wikipedia should note it as needing some work.  Wikipedia is too good, too important to all of us, for us not to note the acknowledged weaknesses at least on the main page. Jolanza (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page only discusses the positive view of "Body Memory" with only a single line against this idea, and even that line was written in a way to make “Body Memories” sound good.  This article is written as if “Body Memory” was a fact not a theory.  Yet, the American Medical association and American Psychiatric Association all dispute the very notion of Body memory.  Also, the Federal Court System has concluded that “Body Memories” cannot be used as evidence in trial and is not scientifically valid.
To be Neutral more information on how this is a Theory and that the medical community disputes the very existence of “Body Memories”, need to be included.  It need to be re-written to include a more balanced view.ARTEST4ECHO 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure who you are arguing with. Please keep your posts here confined to discussion of how to improve this article. You have made significant changes that do not match the look and feel of how wikipedia articles are presented. Please take the time to peruse more articles on the wiki to see what I mean and fix the problem. Also, the article cannot have sentences that contradict each other. Also, please remember the wiki rules for verifiability - so source any of your statements that might be consindered controversial. I don't want to have to come back to this article and remove all your edits because your statements were biased and unsourced. MaxMangel 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You failed to improve your changes so I reverted most of them. Please read the rules on how to edit articles properly before trying again. MaxMangel 00:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is ridiculous. I have done a rewrite based on some logic of my own. Since this is entirely a pseudo-science theory that any third-grader could dispute, there aren't a lot of "sources" available at this point to discuss it. The only related link given was broken, so we might just as well delete this article. Herunar (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This

message: The term Body Memory as used by clinicians who work with trauma survivors basically refers to physiological response, feeling and energy that is dissociated from its original time and place, often due to psychogenic amnesia. A simple example: surges of adrenaline triggered by memories related to the circumstances in which a trauma occurred. IE. a vet sitting at a drive-thru window hears a car backfire and his fight or flight response kicks in. Other uses of the word, sure. But uh, the most common usage has nothing to do with the rather ludicrous pseudoscience given at the top of the page. 
West world 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience conflated with clinical term

message: I've reverted the page per WP:PROVEIT, as well as removing the see also section per WP:ALSO WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted per [[WP:PROVEIT]] 

message: Edit  13:58, 15 January 2009 by Bodymemoryglobal copied text verbatim from articles including but not limited to http://www.globalhealingtherapies.com/article_bmr_phenom.html and http://www.globalhealingseminars.com/article_bmr_intro.html . Шизомби (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I find it strange that in the "Skepticism" section the quote by "Susan E. Smith" mentions nothing about the fact that she finds Body memory an "unfounded "dysfunctionality" theories" see here.  This article is so extremely POV in favor of Body memory that the Skepticism section itself mentions nothing about the skeptic’s dislike of the subject.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better now.  The way it was written before "Susan E. Smith" seemed to be a supporter of the idea.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism section 

message: I would like to re-address the above "Cellular memory" discussion.  I propose that we spit the two definitions, "Epigenetics" vs. "Cellular Memory hypothesis", by moving the "Cellular Memory hypothesis" into this page.
I think the combination of the two definitions is inappropriate.  It gives the second a POVish implied scientific backing.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  One is a scientific field the other is  Pseudoscience.  They should not be on the same page.  
I think that "Cellular Memory hypothesis" should be incorporated into body memory.  I do agree there is a difference, but that difference is insignificant, and can be easily addressed and the two hypotheses merged. The "layer" issue user:Pod3CD had can be addressed by opening a new ==Cellular Memory== subsection and starting it out with the following:
:"Cellular Memory is an addational hypothesis that memories can be stored outside the brain.  However, unlike Body memory, the Cellular Memory hypothesizes that these memories are stored in all the cells of human bodies, not in the bodies’ organs."
Then the Cellular memory page can become a disambiguation page saying:
:Cellular Memory can refer to:
:*A term used in the field of epigenetics
EPIGENETIC REGULATION OF CELLULAR MEMORY BY THE POLYCOMB AND TRITHORAX GROUP PROTEINS.  
:*The "Cellular Memory" hypothesis that memories can be stored in the cells of human bodies.
:*A data storage devices used in cellular phones
Then any additional information can be included here.  I also think this will actually help 
Body memory because there are several "Further Reading" and "references" that can help support this page, which is seriously lacking in source information. Several actually refer to the "organ  layer” (transplants) not the "Cell layer" that user:Pod3CD refers to, so if there is a difference, the documentation for "cellular layer” is actually incorrect anyway.
--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this merge.  While ignorant of a lot of the psychological subtleties in these concepts, I do feel they are similar enough to be merged. The two articles as they previously existed were short on detail and confusing to the casual reader.  I would avoid a adjective-laden hatnote, though.  It's a confusing way to start an article.  On another note, I am removing the "Books" section, as Body memory doesn't write books (although, if one received a hand transplant from an author....).  I believe we should go ahead. The Interior (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second the merge suggestion as these ideas overlap quite closely. MatthewTStone (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All done, I think.  I'm not 100% sure of what the issues that The Interior wanted me to avoid were, so if I did mess up, please fix them.  I removed any broken links and broken references (of which there were many) and me.  Lastly, I archived the talk page since all the talk page information now no longer apples to that page, now being a disambiguation page.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have an opinion on the split or dab page, but the notion should clearly be labelled pseudoscience, news stories should not be part of the external links or further reading, the "organ transplant" template shouldn't be here since it's a fringe theory that organs transplant memories, and the idea should be briefly described and the mainstream position given.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Cellular Memory hypothesis" into "Body Memory" 

message: I've placed a cleanup tag on this article. The current debunking agenda of this article has led to a ridiculous explanation of body memory; of course that's not true, it's completely implausible. See 's very sane critique above at #Pseudoscience_conflated_with_clinical_term. There are reasonable explanations for something akin to "body memory" based on understanding of trauma and the nervous system. Bessel Van der Kolk's book "The Body Keeps the Score" discusses this nicely, and references many studies. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Body_Keeps_the_Score.html?id=3Q3UAgAAQBAJ
:Additional problem: 4 of 5 sources are "pseudoscience"/Skeptic sources. More balanced sourcing needed to flesh out this article. But fundamentally, the description of body memory needs to be completely reconsidered. --Karinpower (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Debunking" agenda for this article 

message: Okay. First, let me just tell you that I am not some body memory fanboy. But this article does not even remotely explain what the current definition of body memory is. 
The current definition of body memory is not very controversial, and perhaps this should page should be renamed to "Body Memory Hypothesis." 
Body memory is just a term used by PTSD therapists and patients to describe the physiological reaction when we have flashback. "As Peter Levine has explained, body memories can be described as a physical reexperiencing of the traumatic event(s). In other words, your nervous system and your body experience the feelings and sensations you experienced during the original traumatic event." You are back in combat. You are being raped again. THAT'S what a body memory is. It is the physiological portion of a flashback. That is what we mean when we say body memories. 
Not to mention that 4 out of the 5 sources are from a pseudoscience source. 1 is from a source about flatworms. This is not what survivors are looking for when we search for body memory.
I think that it would be particularly helpful for survivors that you rename and differentiate this, especially since this is not the common usage of the term. 47.153.29.247 (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have some notion of what sources (reliable sources) are, yet you haven't included any for your edit proposal or your points of view which remain unsubstantiated. If you create an account you'll be taken through a series of steps which will refer you to some links on policies, which you may find useful for putting forward proposals on talk pages next time! Edaham (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is certainly not neutral. At all.  

message: I think this topic could be covered a lot better. Currently in the process of making an attempt at that. I'm not opposed to collaborative research, in fact it's great and usually results in a far better product at the end. If you're interested please let me know. My editing is not done off site but it will be done in a sandbox. I'll be keeping tabs on the page so that any new edits between me starting to work and alerting the talk page that I'm complete.
If my research turns up significant material for that purpose I'll engage a full rewrite and paste in of all material. If I can't locate enought for that I'll just make some live changes and generally preserve the current, kind of sad and small, state of the page.
Please relay comments, concerns, and etc... to me. CheersRap Chart Mike (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I found enough to take this into a full rework. I preserved the useful parts of the article with some rewording and updated with more current information. Hopefully it spurs some attention and others improve further. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Also, Not super sure if this still qualifies as a pseudoscience article as written? Not going to remove the tag though. Something like that ought to be discussed first. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite research in progress