|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
As of right now, this article makes no sense. What I've gathered so far is that 1) it has something to do with Capoeira, 2) it has something to do with (presumably left-)anarchy. Then there's a whole lot of mumbo jumbo. If anyone understands what the article says, please take the time and rewrite it so the rest of the world can understand too! =) 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the title should probably be "somatherapy" and both "soma therapy" and "somaterapia" should link to it. I don't know how to do this.
The reasons I think it should be titled "somatherapy" is that is the literal english translation of "somaterapia" and also because it is similar to the term "psychotherapy" in that it is one word. Right now, the portuguese name is the title on the english page, which I think should be corrected, but I think both "somaterapia" and "soma therapy" are likely search terms for people looking for "somatherapy" and therefore should link directly to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC).
It seems whoever did the npov dispute ignored the instructions "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." I think the tag should be removed until it is clarified. Sarsnic (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
"The originality of Soma stems from the fusion of pedagogy and politics within the therapeutic process, in which pleasure and freedom construct the notion of health which combats the neurosis of capitalism in our globalised society." Real NPOV there. Why does this article have no sources, and does it read like it's been written by the guy who invented this therapy? Also, is there any evidence it actually works, or any sources to support any of this? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added back the POV tag due to phraseology like that cited above. The article reads like a brochure for a somatherapy school and cites no third-party resources. Seeing as this seems to have been an issue since 2007 at least, the tag is justifiable in order to call attention to these long-standing pov problems. Senor D (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC).