User talk:Numus

Welcome!

Hello, Numus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Absentis 21:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somatic Experiencing[edit]

I've noticed you added the literature references to this article, which is great. The best way to cite sources is to link them throughout the article, and not just list them at the end. You can read how to properly cite sources by reading the manual of style. (I'd do this myself, but I'm not familiar with what information comes from which book.) Absentis 21:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your question on my talk page. Absentis 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References?[edit]

Hi Absentis. About the literature references, I don't know what you mean by "the best way to cite sources is to link them throughout the article". I have 2 direct citations, where I have actually written the page numbers of the book (is that what you mean?). As to other references: the article is, of course, an extremely short overview of 1) a whole, broad theory about the psycho-biology of human survival, and 2) perhaps especially of methods of treatment developed on the basis of the theory, and on the basis of therapeutic experience and practice.

My point is, it's an overview, a synopsis that attempts to faithfully (and objectively) describe the method. It's not in itself a scientific article. If one were to base the article on direct citations, joining them together with meaningful text, it would take 10 or 50 times the amount of text, and would tend to become unhandy to read - is what I myself think. Reading some of the literature from the list at the bottom of the article, on the other hand, would give a good idea of what Somatic Experiencing is about.

So, to ask the question that bothered me as I added the list: should I rather have called the list a "Literature List" than a list of "References"? Somehow the difference escapes me. Numus 14:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all hi and welcome to Wikipedia! You might find some guidance on how to list books that are not really sources at Wikipedia:Citing sources. I'm not 100% familiar on how to cite a book to be honest (I only found this explanation, but usually we use inline citations. That is, after each claim likely to be challenged, you add the reference. Look up Wikipedia:Footnotes for some help on our reference markup. If you need further help, please don't hesitate to post on my talk page or to put {{helpme}} followed by your question on this page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the article which exemplify what I mean by citations linked within the article. As for the direct citations, having the page numbers the quotes come from is great. At the end of the sentence, you'll now see a number. When you click on it, you'll be brought down to the references section. That information was added using the "Ref" tags. You can read about how to use them at Wikipedia:Footnotes.

Other places that could benefit from a reference is to cite where the definitions of "pendulation", "titration", "resources", "shock trauma" and "developmental trauma" come from, since it seems that SE practitioners may have a differnet definition for these words than which is normally found in a dictionary. Considering referencing the first time they were used or defined.

I've moved the rest of the books into a 'further reading' section. They should stay there until they're specifically referenced.

As it stands (and as far as I can tell), the article has a WP:NPOV since it doesn't make any unverified claims. I'd like to thank you for your work on making it an objective summary. It's all too common for people to push their own agenda, especially in terms of whichever therapy they find most effective. So again, thank you, and I hope that I've been able to help. If I've been unclear in anything I've said, or if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. Absentis 18:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somatic Experiencing[edit]

Don't panic. I admit that I made an error in judgement. On the first glance it looked like a piece of cookbook. Now I agree that it describes principles of the approach. Please provide referencs for each paragraph. This is not a common knowledge. `'Míkka 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. developmental trauma, shock trauma are missing. `'Míkka 03:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]