Talk:Waking the Tiger

[untitled]
For a March 2005 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Waking the Tiger. For an April redeletion debate see Votes for deletion/Waking the Tiger 2. It was also on Votes for Undeletion in April.

Talk:Walking the Tiger/Archive:Votes for deletion:How to heal traumas

Talk:Waking the Tiger/Archive:Votes for Undeletion

What do you guys say to a VFD for the third time? Just for fun?--Jondel 05:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Gay Nigger Association of America went through about 5 or 6. --SPUI (talk) 05:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. I 'm sorry I suggested it. It might really happen.--Jondel 05:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sourcces

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

NPOV
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)
 * 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 Deletion review/Log/2017 May 20. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Huge pull-quotes from fringe journals in colored boxes likewise is problematic. – 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 and To Kill a Mockingbird 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. This article as a whole is legitimizing dubious nonsense and lacks a mainstream context. – 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. The mainstream context is that there is no evidence that somatic experiencing has any benefit whatsoever. – 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)
 * 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)

Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
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)
 * 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)

John Marzillier review of a different book
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)


 * Here are three diffs of content sourced to John Marzillier being removed:First diff: "This is not a review of the book. If we were writing an article on the other book or the author, it would be an appropriate source, but as it is, this is not extensive enough to be useful."Second diff: "removed because this is not a review of the book and this misleads readers into thinking it is"Third diff: "Neither of these points are made in the auxiliary review of a DIFFERENT BOOK." Here is the source:  The article notes: "In an Unspoken Voice: How the Body Releases Trauma and Restores Goodness Peter Levine 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. In it he promoted the idea that the way to help those affected by trauma was not through talking but through action. Somatic Experiencing, as he has calls it, combines body awareness work with a sensitive assessment of the psychological causes of trauma. It is not enough, and in fact it may make people worse, to ask people to relive traumas purely verbally. The body needs to be involved so that physical actions that were inhibited are re-enacted in therapy and latent energy can be discharged. In Waking the Tiger Levine’s notion of ‘energy’ was relatively undeveloped, a weakness in his model. In this new book he goes a long way to correcting that by drawing upon recent advances in brain functioning. [The remaining content is about Levine's other book.]" Here are my responses to the three diffs:I am unaware of any policy or guideline requiring only full-fledged reviews of the book to be used. I do not think the review is "not extensive enough to be useful". The review says that Waking the Tiger's "notion of 'energy' was relatively undeveloped" and says the book "was very successful". I consider this useful information for readers . I likewise consider the Psychology Today source useful in that it notes Waking the Tiger is a "seminal book" in which Levine tells readers "we can learn much about trauma from observing animals in the wild".</li><li>The quotation box does not say or imply the source is a book review, so I do not see how it can be misleading to reviewers. I've seen pull quotes used in book articles before like at the featured article To Kill a Mockingbird. See To Kill a Mockingbird and To Kill a Mockingbird 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.</li><li>The Marzillier citations were removed from these two sentences: "Peter Levine argues in the book that it is through action instead of talking that people can assist others who are struggling with psychological trauma. He presents the somatic experiencing approach." It is very clear from the quotation above that these points are made in this source. The Wikipedia text is supported by this quotation from the source: "In it he promoted the idea that the way to help those affected by trauma was not through talking but through action. Somatic Experiencing, as he has calls it, combines body awareness work with a sensitive assessment of the psychological causes of trauma."</li></ol>Cunard (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The 'British Psychology Society section 'is' extensive enough to be of use. While the review is of another book, that book is an extension of Waking the Tiger and two whole paragraphs where provided as a review for the same.--Jondel (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging Deletion review/Log/2017 May 20 participants:, , , , , , , , and . I'm interested to hear your thoughts about the use in this article of John Marzillier's review of another book. I don't think WP:ASTONISH is violated when a book review for In an Unspoken Voice is used to source content about the book Waking the Tiger. The article's text does not say or imply that the book review is of Waking the Tiger. The book review contains five sentences of coverage about Waking the Tiger. If anyone is able to help copyedit or expand the article, I'd be grateful. An editor has suggested renominating the article for deletion, so I'd like the article to be improved to the extent possible before an AfD happens. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is NO requirement that content discussing book A in a review of book B be excluded from the article on book A. WP:ASTONISH is completely irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jclemens on this.--Jondel (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Missed pinging one DRV participant: . Cunard (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see the point if we're talking about notability purposes that the article should be primarily about the topic in question. It does strike me as a somewhat odd position to take though that the article must be primarily about the topic in question to be used to verify something in the article.  I think there were other potentially valid editorial reasons to remove that particular phrase from the article, but in general I'd have to say that remarks about secondary topics in an otherwise reliable source are fine as far as WP:V is concerned.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC).
 * I concur with Lankiveil on this.— S Marshall T/C 16:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, , , and , for sharing your thoughts. I've restored the content and the sources. Cunard (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Much of the book's synopsis was removed here. The content was cited to:<ul><li></li></ul> This is not a fringe source. It is a book by Sandra Blakeslee, who has been a science correspondent at The New York Times for four decades. I believe it accurately describes what the book is about. It is not a fringe journal like Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. If the article does not give appropriate weight to the mainstream view, then additions like this should resolve that. Why is it inappropriate to describe in the Wikipedia article what the book is about using a mainstream book by a The New York Times science correspondent once such appropriate weight to the mainstream view is given? Cunard (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sandra Blakeslee's book accurately describes the types of assertions Levine makes in his book. It passes 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"release energy from a traumatic memory"?
What is this even meant to mean? Seems like jibberish to me. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * What is this "energy"? Are we in the realm of energy medicine? Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * How in energy "compressed"? Isn't this just all pseudoscience? Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This pseudoscience is what Ruth P. Newton says Levine states in the book. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A form of catharsis or release occurs. You feel 'lighter', spontaneous and are able to focus and are more aware. Without this release you're like a zombie on the outside, staring into space, panicky or get anxieties. --Jondel (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Alex, you don't understand. The energy is pent up emotional tensions, fears and anxieties resulting from harrowing or horrible experiences like war, losing a job/loved one, being bullied or attacked, etc. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean you should label it as gibberish or nonsense.--Jondel (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

How do you describe anxieties? Your muscles tense up and breathing is irregular like 'compressed(emotional) energy' Levine is doing his best to describe phenomenon of the psyche associated with trauma such as emotional tension, discomfort, disturbances. The muscle tensions due to anxieties and other emotions are easily understood as compressions. You seem to do a good job of undermining sources provided but the book is well known among trauma-healing circles.--Jondel (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like the word 'energy' how about stigma? This may not qualify as an RS but if WtT is of no benefit Grace in this article wouldn't recommend it to a firefighter heal his stigma-trauma.--Jondel (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)