Talk:Alexander Technique/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Opening sentence - neutral point of view

I have repeatedly tried to reformulate the opening sentence so that it is WP:NPOV, and have three times been reverted. On the last occasion, I used the formulation at F. Matthias Alexander, established by @Alexbrn: over two years ago, namely: is "an educational process said to recognize and overcome reactive, habitual limitations in movement and thinking." This too has been reverted, this time by Roxy the dog, who says in their edit reason it is "obfuscatory". I had to look that up! It means "intended to obscure the truth by confusion". That reason is invalid, as the edit does not obscure any truth. In fact it is presents key verifiable facts in a clear way, and has the benefit of allowing material relating to the validity and efficacy of the "technique" to be presented in the body of the article, without implying it is necessarily valid and true in the opening sentence. In other words, it is WP:NPOV, something we should be aiming for!

Alexbrn's formulation is also better in that it uses the word "recognize". Recognition - i.e. cognition - is a fundamental - I'd say the fundamental principle in Alexander's claims of how to educate people to bring about a better coordination: give a pupil the experiences which will create a cognition in them which will allow them to operate themselves better.

Roxy the dog should give reasons why a WP:NPOV introduction should not be used: say provide citations which show that all the key principles of the technique are scientifically and educationally sound. I'm talking non-anecdotal evidence. Yes there is anecodotal evidence of people being helped and gaining educational value from "Alexander Technique" experiences. That is why "said" is appropriate - because that evidence is anecdotal. It needs to be understood that instances of negative experiences with the "Technique" are likely to be under-reported, and this is a big reason why non-anecdotal evidence is vital. Also, because "the Alexander Technique" does not have a definitive definition, results of medical trials are unreliable, because it is unclear what is exactly being tested, unless the trial protocol explicity states what operating procedure and principles the "Alexander teachers" are using. It will not be possible to demonstrate that all key principles of Alexander are educationally sound, because not all his key principles were adequately defined. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Roxy reverted to the stable version of the article which was written and included in the article after long discussions. Wikipedia is collaborative. The fact that, with multiple editors working on this article the lead was left untouched over time is considered implied consensus for that version. Now consensus can change, but so far no one agrees with your changes. The editors commenting here agree the lead sentence is acceptable as is and your arguments are not convincing anyone differently.

This, 'It needs to be understood that instances of negative experiences with the "Technique" are likely to be under-reported,'... is a point of view. If you have good secondary sources that say this it could be added, but we cannot craft a sentence based on what is fundamentally your opinion. I would really recommend you recheck WP:NPOV, WP:OR for an extended understanding of neutral. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence

@Aliveness Cascade: You are edit warring a version in the lead based on your own criticism of the AT. That's not how we write Wikipedia articles. Criticism is best added through out the article and must be based on sources. This is already happening in this article. Your opinion of the technique is fine, of course, we all have opinions but that opinion must not underly the content you are adding and in this case are edit warring into the article. Further, the content you added is hard to understand and read where as, what is in the article now and in the first line/ first paragraph- where we are describing what makes the article subject notable-is easy to understand and read in terms of syntax. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: Let me quote you your own words, from the top of this page: "Who is edit warring who? Seems disingenuous to cite me for edit warring when I made a change and was reverted." - LOL! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil:I have tried reformulating the opening sentence to make the opening not tendentious. The so-called Alexander Technique is an "alternative" or "complementary" modality - it is not part of mainstream science or education - so simply to state that it *is* an "educational process" is making a positive judgement about it. What I tried to do is to step back from that, by substituting wording which simply says what it is promoted as - which is a fair and proper approach, and appropriate for Wikipedia. The current formulation of the opening sentence is itself unsourced, so I does not deserve to be repeatedly reinstated by yourself! The cited "source" (page 221, of Bloch - and I have that book opened at that very page right in front of me!) does not in fact provide a basis for any of that. Rather it is a page about witness statements in a trial about Alexander's work, none of which is pertinent. I disagree that the current (and actually unsourced) wording of "retrain habitual patterns of movement and posture" is clear and easy to understand! Further, the formulation of "educational process" (?source?) is of debatable value in another way. Education is a process, but a technique is a specific way in which something is achieved. "Technique" has a more specific meaning than "process", so why substitute the latter for the former? The current lead is very unsatisfactory for multiple reasons. So why not try and improve it yourself, rather than repeatedly re-instating unsourced and tendentious material?Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aliveness Cascade: The person who thinks the opening sentence is "tendentious" is you. There is no reason for me to change it if I agree with how it is written now. These are the concerns I have with your comment above.

Your definition of education is yours alone and is narrow. The Alexander Technique is a mainstream aspect of theatre programs across the world; it most certainly is mainstream education in theatre and saying the AT is an educational process is exactly right. Further education is not restricted to educational institutions. Even puppies are educated when they learn to heel, as I said your definition is limited and narrow. Then, you are trying to write this article based on your own definition of education. You state that unless the article lead complies with that definition and view that AT is, " a process that misleads, miseducates, confuses, and can create risk of actual harm." then that article lead sentence is tendentious. As an aside, tendentious on Wikipedia tends to refer to editing behaviour and not content.

The lead summarizes the article and its sources. Per Wikipedia, we don't have to source in the lead since we expect the content we are summarizing in the lead is sourced in the article body. The lead sentence we have does summarize content in the article.

Criticism these days on Wikipedia is best served marbled throughout the article. The criticism of the technique as it pertains to research is contained in the third paragraph and summarizes whatever else is in the article on the research.

No one is substituting process for technique or vice versa. The Alexander Technique is the name, process is how the AT works. (As another aside: To create a technical aspect of something I would use process. As a dance teacher I use the aspects of the technique which in process create an end product.)

If I didn't say this before. This article has been contentious. I am only one of many who worked on it. If you want to change something to this, the stable version, and are reverted, you, PER WP:BOLD can expect to be questioned, maybe reverted, and could have to deal and get agreement from those who support the stable version of the article.

Note that the third paragraph of the lead provides an overview o f the research on the technique which is the scientific evidence rather than opinion for usefulness or not usefulness. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

A strange thing to point out in this context, considering the key words in that paragraph are "believe", "lack of research to support", "maybe", "could", and "insufficient evidence".Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The content summarizes the research and sources which use the words, teachers and proponents who "believe". The research states there is insufficient evidence. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

NB I have deleted ten edits to this page due to those edits completely mangling Littleolive oil's edits. DO NOT DO THAT. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Littleolive oil:! As nearly all my replies to you have been deleted by a third party, I have had my time entirely wasted, and my right of reply removed. Wikipedia being as friendly as ever!! I won't futher waste my time here. If you want to read and engage with my replies, they are in the history. Good luck! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: If you reinstate them yourself, I'd be happy to continue the discussion. Good luck with the article! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, each party to this discussion has put their replies in distinct paragraphs. I haven't "mangled" anything. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You broke up another editor's comment with your replies, that's a big no no. I have no desire to argue this further; I just don't have the time given I agree with the stable version of the article and especially given that version has consensus. Best. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but I didn't break up any paragraphs, and I used indents, so it was all perfectly readable and attributable - anyone used to the internet can read such a thread tree. A polite note of guidance would have been appropriate! That's not on you, though. Thank you for explaining.

@Littleolive oil: Anyways, I'd be grateful if you'd answer my question (which was deleted). I'll repeat it: when you reverted my edit, your edit reason said "Based on source". What source please? As I pointed out, the only reference given in the lead for the first paragraph (Bloch, page 221) does not check out.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Next in your edit reason, you said, "The source does not talk about biomechanics." Actually, "biomechanics" is a good modern word for one of Alexander's chief concerns! Take this passage from Man's Supreme Inheritance, Chapter 6, Habits of Thought and Body:

"What John Doe lacked was a conscious and proper recognition of the right uses of the parts of his muscular mechanism, since while he still uses such parts wrongly, the performance of physical exercises will only increase the defects. He will, in fact, merely copy some other person in the performance of a particular exercise, copy him in the outward act, while his own consciousness of the act performed and the means and uses of his muscular mechanism will remain unaltered. Therefore, before he attempts any form of physical development, he must discover, or find some one who can discover for him, what his defects are in the uses indicated. When this has been done he must proceed to inhibit the guiding sensations which cause him to use the mechanism imperfectly ; he must apprehend the position of mechanical advantage, and then by using the new correct guiding sensations or orders, he will be able to bring about the proper use of his muscular mechanism with perfect ease. If the mechanical principle employed is a correct one, every movement will be made with a minimum of effort, and he will not be conscious of the slightest tension. In time a recognition will follow of the new and correct use of the mechanism, which use will then become provisionally established and be employed in the acts of everyday life." [Emphases mine]

Just as my edit said: "The Alexander Technique is a set of practices developed and promoted by Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869-1955) as a way a person can develop a better command of their biomechanics in the actions of living."Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As everyone can see, my edit contains no criticism whatsoever!!!! It's simply a succinct and objective statement of what Alexander's technique is about, without implying up front that the technique is effective and its principles true, as the material I had removed, namely the phrase "is an educational process" actually does. The important question of whether the technique is effective and its principles true can then be addressed in the body of the article. Can my edit be improved? Yes, of course, yes. But I believe my arguments for this general approach are sound and necessary, and this a step in the right direction, and editors should consider this approach and the reasons for it, and not simply revert back to a phrasing that has inherent problems. @Littleolive oil: Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your position which you are trying to base your writing on is not neutral and is an opinion. I have a long history of being and working with dancers and athletes so I am very familiar with biomechanics. We shouldn't use the word in relation to the technique unless the two are specifically sourced and connected in a single source. Take a look at WP:OR again.Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Compliance check - External link and Further reading entries

As Hipal noted, A Companion to the Alexander Technique this may not be Wikipedia compliant since this is self-published with no oversight. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:ELMAYBE "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" - so a site to be considered, no? Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's an online encyclopedia with inline citations, and each article has its sources listed at the bottom of the page. Therefore it is verifiable AND useful! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this publication, Principles of the Alexander Technique: What it is, How it Works, and What it Can Do for You, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, and this,What You Think Is What You Get: An Introductory Textbook for the Study of the Alexander Technique, ITM Publications, we don't already have so probably unneeded. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion here. Editors may want to summarize what they wrote at my talk page User_talk:Hipal#Alexander_Technique_edits. --Hipal (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't alternative medicine mentioned in lede?

I think this needs revisiting. --Hipal (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's an exercise technique. Most good theater schools use it. Can we stop trying to portray it as something it isn't. I can do push ups and it will correct my bicep strength and I can do planks to improve my core strength all of which affect my health but none of these is an alternative medicine. Alexander Technique impacts posture which doesn't make it a medical technique. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

From a quick glance, it's an exercise technique treated as alternative medicine in the UK, US, and Australia. --Hipal (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's treated within alternative medicine, I'd say, as most exercise is. To label this as alternative medicine would be to label and weight the fringe aspect of an exercise technique and to give it more prominence than it enjoys in the mainstream. I think there is a subtle difference. I have to say I was shocked to see this posture technique being treated like some outlandish fringe medical technique. In my experience within movement and theater it is a mainstream adjunct to acting and some dance training. I don't want to make a fuss over this, but I do think we should have agreement to include this in the lede with knowledge that doing so slants something mainstream towards a pejorative. I am not attached enough to get into huge discussions about this. I know, what I know in this field, and the change suggested would be a disservice and inaccuracy but won't change my own knowledge and experience. Just my two cents. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The AT profession presents what they do as an educational technique, not as an exercise technique! It is presented as a technique for teaching better co-ordination to a person. Now, there may be a question as to how and what they "teach" is based upon sound principles, but to characterize AT as an "exercise technique" is a wild wild wild mis-characterization! I also cannot believe anyone who thinks that has read any of Alexander's books! I would add that the Articles of Association for the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique (STAT - the original professional society) explicity call it the "Alexander Technique of Re-education", and "Alexander Technique" for short. (Re-education is used in a very similar sense very similar to how physiotherapists use it today, i.e. the retraining of a person's capacity for movement – with the caveat that Alexander's work was particularly aimed at the coordination of the whole "self" in activity – the mind, the senses, and the whole body together – and he took "pupils" whose problems originated from their misconceptions of how to move, or from bad habits of movement, as well as those whose problems were associated with injury or medical conditions – and indeed "pupils" who simply wanted to improve their coordination – and Alexander had his own ideas of how the whole self was co-ordinated, which he called "primary control", around which his practical technique was focused). For sure, to take a lesson in how to coordinate oneself better, one can expect to be mentally and physically exercised, but that does not make AT an exercise technique, especially not when it is explicitly said to be a teaching technique! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me define what I mean by exercise technique from someone who has spent her whole life as a high level athlete, coach, dancer, physical theater teacher and dance teacher. Education of the body in common and in general terms is exercising the body. This is what I mean when I talk about exercise here. I have dealt with this article before and at that time the impetus was to characterize AT as a kind of Fringe alternative medicine which, in the mainstream, it isn't seen that way. It is used in diverse programs to educate the body to help the body to move in a more functional way. Any exercise does this. I don't disagree with anything you said above. I believe you are misunderstanding what I meant when I said exercise... meaning of the body and it's movement. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I get you! Nevertheless, I think the general reader would interpret "exercise technique" simply as an activity aimed at improving conditioning. And Alexander himself did not accept that terminology for what he did. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I would never suggest this as wording for content; it was an explanation for Hipal. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Classic "Alexander Technique" involves hands-on manipulation and guidance by the teacher! That's not an exercise technique! Your "explanation" is very wrong. I recommend reading the man's four books (primary sources), and doing wider research of secondary sources (including writings by people who witnessed his technique firsthand), and please do not assume what is practised in dance schools is "it"!~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Why isn't alternative medicine mentioned in lede?". It's a fair question, seeing as Alexander was found by the Supreme Court of South Africa to have made quack statements in his books! He certainly did oversell the health benefits of better coordination, particulary at the beginning of his career! In my view, the fact that Alexander made quack statements must be included within the article! Nevertheless, to represent the article subject fairly, the article should also communicate that Alexander pulled back from that in later life, and, perhaps more importantly, AT professional societies today do not present the AT as curing cancer (for example!), they just make moderate claims of health benefits, via say improved posture, in much the same way that we know exercise and good biomechanics promote general health. It is also now the mainstream view that good biomechanics is important for health - to the extent that safe manner of lifting, for example, is now part of Health & Safety Law. Presenting the fact of historical quackery should not deflect the article from communicating that AT today is not presented as medicine (neither real medicine nor quackery). Both Alexander, and today's professonal AT societies, present "Alexander Technique" as an educational technique. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Also, anything in the lede should be summarising the main content of the article. It would be best then to address the fact of quackery in the article first, with sources. Editing the lede without reference to the main content is a classic mistake, which I have made myself, LOL! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Health claims are an aspect of the "Alexander Technique" phenomenon. They are rightly covered in the article! Alexander's book, Use of the Self, has a chapter called "Diagnosis and Medical Training", after all! So it can't just be treated as one might treat an "exercise technique".~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I am against characterizing this movement/ exercise/ posture-correction technique as some kind of fringe medicine technique which was the tone when I first started editing on this article. I also don't think alternative medicine is a mainstream description. One chapter in a book on the movement aspects is a small percentage of the overall information. But you and others should do what you feel is needed per weight. I am out of Wikipedia steam and have no desire to argue this further. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the answer is that it is not a medical technique (real or fake!). It is entirely possible that it is mainstream technique in the educational setting of performance schools, and a non-mainstream technique in the field of health (as a not fully-tested or fully-regulated Allied Health Service - see below), offered by a limited number of mainstream health providers, and otherwise available privately. This would seem to be the case! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also argue that AT is *not* mainstream in general education. If it were, it would be taught in physical education everywhere, for it is held out to be a technique for teaching better general coordination. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Movement re-education is a mainstream element of physiotherapy, which is an Allied Health Profession. Alexander Technique is held forth by the Alexander Technique profession to be a technique in re-education ("psychophysical re-education" is their more comprehensive term), but it was originated outside of physiotherapy, by someone who did not have medical or scientific training: a performance artist. Now, physiotherapy itself is not medicine, it is an Allied Health Service. If AT principles were sound, then, AT would be accepted as an Allied Health Service too (as well as an educational service), and be used by physiotherapists themselves. The question is: is its principles sound? The trouble for the AT profession, is that they've hung on to the coat-tails of their founder, and not fully engaged in scientific attitude and endeavour and integrated their activities with existing scientific knowledge and practise. Their professional bodies have not gone through their theory and practice with a scientific razor and chucked out the bunkum, or properly engaged in scientific technqiue to assess their theory and practice! STAT does not even define the "Alexander Technique", they just certify people as being qualified to teach "the technique outlined in Alexander's books". These are their fundamental failings! Without proposing a specific definite set of principles and practises, they cannot even put their existing practices to the test in a way that can actually verify them or not, or ever satisfy existing standards of therapeutic and educational practice. It's a damn shame, because I think there is real value in some elements of their work. I wish the AT profession would step up to the plate, and cut the bunkum, and go forward from here in a fully scientific manner! But to answer your question, Hipal, again, "Alternative medicine" and even "Complimentary Medicine" are not fitting terms. It's not medicine (real or fake)! It's held by AT professional societies to be an educational technique, but unfortunately it isn't one that has been scientifically formulated or sufficiently tested. I don't know what the term for that would be! But the situation can be described, as I have just done. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like many alt-med practices. I suggest identifying references for this, so we're not making decisions based upon unverified original research. --Hipal (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"A teacher must not make any kind of medical diagnosis or prescribe treatment for a pupil" ~ STAT code of Conduct, 2019.

"teachers of the Alexander technique ... do not diagnose, offer advice on or treat conditions that should be managed by a suitably qualified mainstream healthcare professional." ~ NHS, 2018 ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What's the point of these comments? --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You invited discussion on the question of "Why isn't alternative medicine mentioned in lede?". I'm pointing out, that in the UK at least, professional Alexander teachers neither diagnose or prescribe treatment for medical conditions. They are not allowed to. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So it's alternative medicine! Somehow, I don't think that was the conclusion you wanted to be drawn, but I see no other. --Hipal (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the only thing I want here is a logical conversation! I'm not going to get one, am I? ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If I can clarify anything, let me know. Bottom line is that independent sources are the only way of presenting a neutral viewpoint. This is not a soapbox or venue for promotion, and the article needs a rewrite in order to do so. --Hipal (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well good luck with that! I have repeatedly tried to reformulate the opening sentence to describe what the "technique" is promoted as, in order to make it neutral but I was repeatedly reverted. Because sources conflict, and there is no definitive statement of what the "technique" is, it is, in my view, the only approach that has integrity. That said, the topic of this discussion is "is it alternative medicine?", not a global rewrite. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

With regards to "alternative medicine" - everything I've said already! I have taken part in this "discussion" with good faith, to point out relevant matters. To summarise: it is principally held out by the profession to be an educational technique to teach improved co-ordination - its distingushing element being their notion of how human coordination is organised (via their idea of "primary control"). It is often *treated* under the CAM umbrella, for practical reasons, because of claims to health effects, and it has a history of support from some in the medical profession, and doctors sent patients to Alexander during his lifetime. If it did prove its validity, and thereby achieve mainstream acceptance, it would fit under the category of Allied Health Profession (because it's not medicine). ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult to find independent sources on the topic at all, but what we have suggests there are serious POV problems because we're drawing so heavily upon their own public relations. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite of lede

Hipal, why do you think wp:SOAP applies? I don't either practice or teach the Alexander Technique, and if you're gonna use wp:RECENTISM, the aetna, and Australian Department of Health citations should be removed too. If the article is going to mention which health insurance companies or departments of health don't cover the Alexander Technique, then I think it would make the most sense to also include which ones cover it, such as the NHS. Franciscouzo (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As a whole, it was an unexplained change in emphasis that undermines the encyclopedic value, so there's more NOT issues than just SOAP. --Hipal (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And I would argue the other way, the article as it is focuses too much on the missing evidence on some of its claims, when there's plenty of evidence it helps with neck and back pain, and the australian health deparment not providing coverage, when in the same document it says it does not provides coverage for yoga, I would argue yoga provides plenty of health benefits, just that it doesn't makes sense for the australian government to pay for it. Franciscouzo (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS and FRINGE apply. --Hipal (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DCE. Franciscouzo (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, why are you mentioning wp:MEDRS? I used a quote from the cited NHS article. Franciscouzo (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS: all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.

If you're going to throw DCE out, I think this discussion may be a waste of time. --Hipal (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, do you think the NHS is not a reliable secondary source?

What about https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02817.x? Franciscouzo (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If I thought it were unreliable, it would not be in the article. --Hipal (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I checked the NHS website on archive.org, and the quote "some NHS trusts now offer Alexander technique lessons as part of their outpatient pain clinics." has been present since at least 2013, so I don't think wp:RECENTISM applies, if you think wp:NOT applies, you'll have to provide a better argument than just mentioning it. Franciscouzo (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

We're at an impasse here. How about you make a proposal, backed by policy? --Hipal (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me be clear what I understand from the research I've done, there's evidence the Alexander Technique helps with back and neck pain, and with Parkinson's disease, and that the NHS provides lessons for it, and I'm not denying there's also plenty of claims from people that teach the Alexander Technique that are best at dubious and worst case scenario alternative medicine or pseudoscience. Can you tell me why do you think this paragraph isn't wp:NPOV:

As of 2015 there was evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique may be helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and could help people cope with Parkinson's disease. Some NHS trusts offer Alexander technique lessons as part of their outpatient pain clinics.[4] Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.[5][4] Both the American health insurance company Aetna, and the Australian Department of Health have conducted reviews and concluded that there is insufficient evidence for health claims to warrant insurance coverage.[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Franciscouzo (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The evidence is poor, as the references point out. Removing that (but there is a lack of research to support the claims) from the lede is a gross POV problem. De-emphasizing it within the lede is similarly problematic. Doing so without indicating it, and after this discussion has started, is very troubling.

As far as I understand, the areas of possible effect are notoriously difficult to test and treat, but we can get editors with medical expertise to weigh in if needed. --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as one cited review reports strong-evidence for helping chronic back pain, the phrasing (but there is a lack of research to support the claims) is *not* a good summary. @Hipal:@Franciscouzo: ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It summarizes the positions of all the MEDRS summaries that we have, correct? --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No it does not. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

NHS, Aetna, Australian health all do, right? That 2012 review will not meet MEDRS soon. What else do we have?

On a related note, As of 2015 there was evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique may be helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and could help people cope with Parkinson's disease. seems inappropriate given the quality of evidence, and what the sources actually say. --Hipal (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I declined the request for a third opinion here as there seems to be more than two editors involved now. Feel free to use other methods of dispute resolution if necessary. Thanks, pandakekok9 (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Somehow, Franciscouzo claims there's some sort of consensus from this discussion to justify this supported by attacks against me [1] made without evidence. It may be time to request a ban or block if this continues. --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support such a proposal, if it were made. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have years of experience editing wikipedia, so sorry if I'm not following the correct procedures. I'm not going to keep participating in this article, since it looks like I'm not welcome here, but I will argue that Hipal (talk · contribs) has taken wp:OWNERSHIP of this article, I have tried adding quotes from the NHS article, which is unarguably a quality secondary source, and have had those edits reverted. So I would welcome a third party or an admin to resolve this, since it looks like we're at an impasse. Franciscouzo (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing from the article. I'm sorry that you think it's appropriate to continue to attack me without evidence or despite it. --Hipal (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

[2] Franciscouzo (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a random diff to me. Why did you bring it up? --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of Twinkle to revert changes to Alexander Technique Article

Hello, I am new to the world of Wikipedia editing and thought to improve the content of the Wikipedia entry on the Alexander Technique as it has numerous deficiencies -- lack of clarity and lack of context among them. I noticed that not one half hour after making my initial edit, an editor (see history to learn whom this was) reverted all of my changes. This editor's wholesale and extremely rapid action seems to violate policies on Wikipedia. For instance under Twinkle it says "If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve." This was clearly not done.

The justification for the wholesale elimination of my edits given was "Changes to lead unsupported by body text." That is false, and not only based on the fact that the editor could not have discerned such a reason/basis in so short a time. In any event, the remainder of the article is also in need of clarification and refinement, and it is my intention to edit the body text as well. This is a multi-step process and it is too big to do in one go, so I began at the beginning with the intention of continuing shortly to the remainder of the article.

Before I revert the editor's reversion, I would appreciate some explanation of their conduct as an editor in this instance. I thank all readers of this posting, most of whom will be more experienced than myself, for their assistance and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chih Lo Lou (talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle is just a tool for making edits to the project easier, I would have made the same change, i.e. reverted your edit, using any of the editing tools available. The editor who makes changes takes responsibility for them no matter what editing tool, or indeed none.

My edsum, copied here - "Changes to lead unsupported by body text. see WP:LEAD" - explain my edit. I'd further explain as follows - WP:LEAD instructs us that the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the most notable points of the body text of the article. Your change, a WP:BOLD insertion of unsourced and unsupported text into the lead, is not acceptable.

The next step of the editing process is Discussion per the D of BRD WP:BRD Which is where we are at now, thanks to you opening this discussion here. Thanks btw. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC) -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive tone of your notes. I will attempt to begin the revision of this article through discussion here, and we will see how that goes. One of the big problems with the article is that it labels the Alexander Technique ("AT") as an alternative therapy. It makes this mistake in the lead ("...is a popular type of alternative therapy....[1]") and also in the body ("Alexander did not originally conceive of his technique as therapy, but it has become a form of alternative medicine.[1]") Both of these mistaken characterizations rely upon the same source [1] by Edzard Ernst, who is not a teacher or even a student of the AT.

As I tried to say in my revision to the article, the AT is an educational process (or learning method) that teaches people to inhibit habitual postural faults that are thought to cause problems such as back pain. Back pain can be lessened or eliminated by study of the AT not because the AT is a therapy, but because people learn to stop doing things that are harmful to their own well being. Therapy is curative, direct and specific; AT is preventive, indirect and general. Alexander himself called AT "the study of human reaction." STUDY.... not treatment.

No certified teacher of the AT would call their teaching therapy, although they would admit that STUDY of the AT is often beneficial to STUDENTS. AT students often do feel less pain because they learn to inhibit their faulty postural habits with progressively greater frequency and accuracy. Their posture often becomes more upright without strain. And there are sources to document these results, such as the BMJ study which is cited in the article in a completely inappropriate location to do with training rather than the AT's potential benefits (footnote 20).

Just because of Ernst's book -- and there are many books one could cite that do not make this same mistake -- the whole article is off target from the start. One does not have to abandon skepticism about the AT to at least describe it correctly. I welcome the skepticism, but abhor the inaccuracy. Can we start with this, please? Chih Lo Lou (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Chih Lo Lou as you are new to editing I would advise you to not start with a page such as this. There is a lot to learn and it's best learned in small bite size bits, even better if not on a page like this. Pick butterflies or a music group or something to hone your skills. I understand that you want to make a lot of changes, and yes you can't start in the lede and then assume that other editors are psychic and know that you are someday going to make changes to the body to support the lede. Start with the body. Also you can work on larger changes in your sandbox, then when ready copy/paste the text into the article. With this said, I seriously suggest not starting with a page that is considered fringe. The rules are more difficult than a page on a historical marker in your town or something. You are going to have to back everything up with citations from reliable sources and not your opinion on the matter. From what you wrote above it sounds like you are closely associated with AT and that already worries me, you say "no certified teacher" which means you are starting out by telling us your opinion. Wikipedia does not work that way, it is an encyclopedia and not an extension of your classroom. In the spirit of whatever season you want it to be, I'm suggesting that this is going to be a time sink. Sgerbic (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I heartily endorse Sgerbic's comments here, You have picked a difficult page to start your wiki career. If you look a little more carefully, you will find that the article is written based upon WP:RS (reliable sources), and despite your assessment, Edzard Ernst is one of the worlds experts on Alt-Med, and wikipedia rightfully treats his writings as very reliable. We will not be dismissing Ernst so easily. Good luck. -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chih Lo Lou: Firstly, I agree with the above editors that a controversial topic, where many people have vested interests to push, is a difficult one to start with. But the choice is yours, of course. If you decide to push on, you will have to make your points based on reliable sources, preferably that are independent of the subject (or at least don't have a conflict of interest). For example, the explanation you gave above of your own personal understanding is not something we can use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about any editor's personal understanding; it is about summarizing what the best available sources have to say.

Be especially careful of making sweeping statements such as "No certified teacher of the AT would call their teaching therapy" unless you can provide very solid evidence to show that somebody has surveyed every single teacher. In my own city I just did a very quick Google search and found three who talk about AT therapy and another two who talk about AT as "treatments". Reading through their web sites, they describe it very differently - some of them echo your description ("learning to move mindfully" or "rediscovering natural balance and poise through thinking in activity"), while some sound like different words for "treatment" ("an intelligent way to solve body problems" or "manage and overcome pain and injury" or "relieves problems such as back pain, neck ache, sore shoulders and other musculoskeletal problems"), some define it in religious terms ("in harmony with how we were designed"), some are just weird New Age / life coaching stuff (“a way to transform stress to joy” or "every thought we have registers somewhere in our muscles, so the way we think about ourselves is a vital element"), and some also claim to treat psychological disorders such as anxiety and depression. So is it possible that your understanding is not shared by all AT practitioners? The answer is: it does not matter, because your views (or mine, or any editor's) don't matter. Only the sources matter. Provide sources to support the change you would like to propose.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chih Lo Lou I see you are making changes to the article - you say as your reason for the edit that you will "provide greater accuracy in describing the way Alexander lessons proceed" and you are tweaking the wording. Are the changes you are making because that's what the citation says or is this based on your teaching experience? Because one of those two is going to get a revert if true. So speak up soon I don't have a copy of the book and have not read that journal article. Sgerbic (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to reply to the comments that have been triggered by my efforts to improve the Alexander Technique article on Wikipedia. Please note the following: 1. There seems to be a pervasive fear that I am trying to bias the article and make it a sort of "puff piece" rather than an information source. That is not true. If my fumbling early attempts have given you that impression, that impression is not consistent with my intent. 2. I am attempting to edit this article because it is a subject that interests me, a subject that I know something about, and it is an article in which I see problems that have mainly to do with accuracy. Those who have so righteously commented on my efforts are also ostensibly interested in accuracy, so I wonder "why all the combativeness and, sometimes, condescension?" 3. Just because someone is interested in a subject and knows something about it does not automatically make them an adversary of objectivity or of science -- or an adversary of you personally. I'm not claiming to be free of bias, but I am aware of my bias and am not trying to inject it into this article. I'm not sure I see that same level of awareness of bias in those who are critiquing my efforts so liberally without any hint of self examination in their comments. 4. The book that was cited as the source for the section I most recently edited (that section is the first paragraph of the "Method" section) does not appear to offer especially relevant support to the content of that section before I edited it. That is, the source appears to me to have always been lacking. I made modest edits to the text that I believe make the paragraph more accurate, but left the source unchanged. Since this has raised hackles I will clarify matters by changing the source as well to one that is more relevant and also compact, the NHS page on the Alexander Technique. Since the NHS is a reputable source, and since the text is more relevant to this section of the article, I hope that it resolves the concerns. Chih Lo Lou (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chih Lo Lou: - I think you're right; this topic has in the past sometimes been a battle ground so people might be a bit quick to bite - sorry for that. Keep responding in good faith and you will find they come around to working together to build the best possible article. In general, you should not remove material that is properly referenced. By all means add new material referenced to new, good sources. If you think the article does not properly reflect the source, it would be good to make the suggestion here first because sometimes there is a history of debate about the point which you won't have seen.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah - my concern is that you have never edited Wikipedia before and have decided that this is the page you are going to start with, just because you are interested. Hummm Also, you keep making edits to the article and marking them as minor edits. The last change you made was over 2K characters, that's not a minor edit. Trust me you will not end up with a puff piece. Your second edit on Wikipedia was to @Roxy the dog on his talk page accusing him of reverting your edit using something called Twinkle. So yeah, red flags are a waving. You said you know something about this practice and are trying to make it accurate, stick to the RS and we should be fine.Sgerbic (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

So can we get some help incorporating the requested changes? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Dance source

Lewis, K. (2006, 11). Understanding alexander technique. Dance Spirit, 10, 45. https://www.proquest.com/magazines/understanding-alexander-technique/docview/209305187/se-2 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Unclear what is required in the above sentence. -Roxy the dog 13:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This wiki is supposed to be developed for wikiproject dance, this is a source for such development 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Accusations

Accusing someone else of attacking you is inappropriate behavior on any article talk page. Either bring it up (with evidence in the form of diffs) on the user's talk page or file a report at WP:ANI. The next time I see this behavior on this page I will give the person doing it a final warning, and the next time after that I will file an ANI report. Knock it off, all of you. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog is harassing the page it looks like 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Continued accusations like that may result in a block or ban. --Hipal (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Technique: Therapy or Education?

Hello everyone, I wish to return to a controversial topic that is of fundamental importance to any discussion of the Alexander Technique (AT). This topic is how the AT ought to be classified.

Currently, Wikipedia classifies the AT as "alternative therapy." As I have already noted, Alexander himself -- the person who created this discipline and taught it for 60 years -- did not portray his Technique in that way. If the innovator himself does not express it that way, it is inaccurate for the Wikipedia article to label the AT as "therapy" without, at the very least, noting that Alexander classified it as "education" or "re-education." In Alexander's seminal work, "The Use of the Self," the word "education" appears 12 times while the word "therapy" never appears. John Dewey, a pioneering thinker in education, wrote of the AT "But the method is not one of remedy; it is one of constructive education." Alexander himself addresses the intersection of his Technique with the medical field at the start of Chapter 5 of The Use of the Self:

"For many years medical men have been sending their patients to me, because they know that I am experienced in examining conditions of use and in estimating the influence of these conditions upon functioning. I would say at once that I do not receive these cases as patients, but as pupils, inasmuch as I am not interested in disease or defects apart from their association with harmful conditions of use and functioning."

The phrase, "I would say at once that I do not receive these cases as patients, but as pupils..." clearly expresses Alexander's view of his own discipline. Pupils are engaging in a course of study to potentially alleviate health problems, but that doesn't make them "patients" or their course of study "therapy." Moreover, Alexander writes that "The real solution of the problem lies in the wide acceptance of the principle of prevention instead of 'cure,'..." Note that Alexander put the word 'cure' in quotes, and I would assert that prevention is not "treatment" or "therapy" but rather a strategy to avoid having need of treatment/therapy.

I could continue quoting Alexander or his most prominent successors, Walter Carrington and Patrick Macdonald, but I won't belabor the point that the current categorization of AT as "therapy" runs completely counter to its founder's viewpoint. I believe that viewpoint must be represented here in some manner for the article to be accurate, so now I turn to how this might be done.

There are two ways to address the article's inaccurate categorization of the AT. One is to recategorize the AT to put it under a more appropriate label. The categories [[3]] shown for Wikipedia entries include two more relevant possibilities. There's Education (under "Human Activities") or "Self Care" (under "Health and Fitness"). The self care category aligns well with how Walter Carrington explained the AT (see here), calling it "a method of self help."

The other way to address the issue is to, at minimum, include a section that makes the viewpoint of the founder and his leading disciples clear. This would at least permit the reader of the article to know how the AT was categorized by the most authoritative sources, i.e., those with the most experience and expertise in teaching the work.

My efforts to improve the Alexander Technique Wikipedia posting have attracted hostility and suspicion, but I hope those reading this note will at least allow for the possibility that I am making good-faith efforts to improve the article and not to harm it. Clumsiness and inexperience are not mortal sins, and they do not call for the permanent assumption that I am acting in bad faith. Nor is it a crime that I am paying attention to what interests me on Wikipedia rather than seeking to generalize my efforts and spend time on subjects that do not interest me. If you quickly and persistently ascribe bad faith and bias to me, please consider and tend to your own biases. Chih Lo Lou (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been doing this a bunch of years Chih Lo Lou and Every Single Time when a brand new editor who only edits one page that says "this is what interests me" and "I just want to start with this page because I like it" and "I'm not closely associated with this page I'm focused on" they turn out to be closely associated with the page. Either they were hired, they 'are' the person, they are closely associated with the person, they practice the alt-med or pseudoscience. When I point out that maybe they should learn to be a better editor by editing one of the tens of thousands of other Wikipedia pages that are also interesting and in need of help, they oddly never take that advice, they double down and continue insisting that this page is the only Wikipedia page they want to edit. Maybe you are the exception, time will tell, but already here you are on the talk page trying to tell us that the Alexander Technique should not be called alt-med because ... the person who created it didn't call it alt-med. Oh Boy, as we keep explaining to you, it does not work like that. That would be a primary source, we are looking for secondary sources that will talk about it in reliable sources ... like Edzard Ernst does. Again you are pulling quotes out of a book, "at the start of Chapter 5 of The Use of the Self" you just happened to have a copy of that book on your shelf? Is that a normal book to have lying around? We like books, don't get me wrong, it's just odd that you would have that book around and yet not be closely associated with this practice. Cult leaders don't call their religion a cult, cancer quacks don't call their cancer clinic a quack clinic, pseudoscience nonsense originators don't call their practice pseudoscience, grief vampire psychics don't call themselves cons, and alt-med practitioners don't call their medical technique alt-med. It is for notable secondary sources to decide how to define the practice and person. Otherwise we would all be what we claim to be, beautiful, funny, amazing human beings. Sgerbic (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There is intense hostility from some editors that evaluate this page to be about as legiatment as scientology; sadly their biases are extreme and understandable with the label of alternative medicine put on this Wiki; the situation has been bad for years now on this wiki and doesn't seem to have any improvement in sight. There is no problem highlighting medical criticisms but editors are ignoring the fact that the AT is being taught at many performing arts institutions in a variety of fields other than medicine (it's primary application if performing arts) and the editors of this page are bogged down with validating the most simple things but let inaccurate statements about who is teaching the AT in these instructions (for example the article says AT is taught by music teachers but only certified teachers can hold positions at university). I think the editors don't want to change the article unless it reflects negatively as it's been marked for wikiproject skepticism 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have not replied on this talk page for quite some time, hoping that more people would express their viewpoint on the question I raised. Unfortunately, there has been little "talk" in response to my proposal, and the lone reply is a rehash of why people with certain characteristics (like having access to relevant books!) should not bother to edit Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia doesn't exclude anyone from editing, and I'm not going to be excluded. And believe me, no one is paying me a penny for wading into this morass.

As for the subject matter of the article, which is the point of this "talk," very little has been offered in objection to what I wrote other than that the sources I cited were "primary" and that these therefore were unsuitable. So if "secondary" sources are the holy grail here, then I have one to offer. Please look at the NHS page on the Alexander Technique. The NHS page has over a dozen occurrences of the words "teach" and "teacher" and not one occurrence of the word "therapy." The word "lessons" also appears over a dozen times, and that is the correct term for the appointments students make to be taught by Alexander teachers. The NHS page also clearly, and appropriately, notes that most Alexander teachers "aren't medical professionals," correctly separating Alexander teaching from medical consultations. Thus, the NHS explanation of Alexander Technique is perfectly consistent with what F.M. Alexander himself, as well as his leading successors (Walter Carrington and Patrick Macdonald) wrote and taught.

It is wrong to treat the notion that Alexander Technique is "therapy" as a settled matter based on one single source when there are other credible sources categorizing Alexander as an educational process. I will draft a section that discusses the issue of how to categorize the Alexander Technique and post it here for comments before adding it to the article. Chih Lo Lou (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding, sorry if I haven't been clear. Yes I am suspious because you just happen to have these obscure books handy and the fact that the only page you have edited since opening this account November 24, 2021 is the Alexander Technique page (other than the time you posted on Roxy's talk page accusing him of something). Of course we want people with books to edit Wikipedia, I'm surrounded by books and probably most editors have also. What the issue is, is that Wikipedia editors can't do original research. Like when you said that we should look at the NHS page (which is kinda a primary source itself) and look at the 'occurrences of the words "teach" and "teacher" and not one occurrence of the word "therapy."' That is doing research and extrapolating information from a primary source. You are asking a Wikipedia editor to test something, something that will have an outcome that you already want the result to be. You want that result so you are looking for ways to find that result. That's not even a good test, that's not how science works, and Wikipedia editors DO NOT DO tests, science or otherwise.

What you are looking for is information from secondary reliable sources (something with journalist integrity is the way I explain it best) that is writing about AT from an "expert" view. Then you cite that. I understand that this is probably frustrating for you as it looks like I keep putting up fences. Which is why I keep telling you that you should put this page to the side, and go to other pages and learn how we do things here on Wikipedia. It isn't as easy as just getting information out of books and typing the content on the page and hitting save. Sgerbic (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Even Edzard Ernst writes Alexander "developed an educational programme". Full quote: "he developed an educational programme aimed at avoiding unnecessary muscular tension. Even though Alexander did not envisage his approach to become a therapy, it has in recent years become a popular alternative treatment". So to summarize Ernst's view: it was an educational programme/approach that has recently become a popular alternative treatment. That's from the Ernst source cited in the article. The "educational programme" bit is not, at the time of writing, used by the article, LOL!

If you value Ernst's take, note he writes in the same source "Alexander teachers closely observe their students, show them how to move with less strain and correct their posture". Therefore, if that is correct, it is an educational process, an educational modality, (which may have therapeutic benefits).

I would say education and therapy, in the case of Alex Tech, is a false dichotomy. In the same way that, in the case of physiotherapy, exercise and therapy is a false dichotomy. If the "origin story" of Alex Tech is to be taken at face value, then Alexander's procedures were therapeutic for his voice! So, Alex Tech has been used for therapeutic purposes since its purported origin.

To summarize, with Alex Tech, education and therapy is a false dichotomy, but its method is, if we credit Ernst, educational.

[All that said, the Ernst source is problematic in itself, as much of it is cribbed from this article. It should only be used with great care! I am using it here, to respond to the editors that highly esteem it].Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ernst, of course, looks at Alex Tech through a therapeutic lens. As another editor has repeatedly pointed out in these talk pages, Alex Tech is commonly used in performance schools (acting, dance, music) to teach students a better command of themselves in performance. So it is problematic to label Alex Tech simply as "therapy" (alternative or not), for these reasons too. Therapeutics is simply one application of Alex Tech. Now, whether what Alex Tech teachers teach is correct, and their educational endeavors are successful, are other questions. But the fact remains that therapeutics is one application of Alex Tech, not what it *is*. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha. cribbed from here?????? Mwahahahaha. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay I'm totally lost now. Is @Aliveness Cascade saying that Ernst has written an article about AT calling AT an "educational programme" so based on that the AT Wikipedia page should be changed to say that Ernst says AT is educational. BUT Aliveness is also saying that Ernst plagiarized the AT article to write his book? And that we can't use Ernst's book because it is a copy from the Wikipedia article? My head hurts, not getting it. Sgerbic (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm using Ernst because several editors here highly esteem him. The Ernst source cited in the article has been used selectively - to support "alternative therapy" - whilst the "educational process" bits have been disregarded in the current edit. Yes, unfortunately that particular Ernst source ("Alternative Medicine", Springer 2019) does seem to have used some material from this article. But how about this, an article from Edzard Ernst for GPonline, which certainly seems independently researched, and lists 7 academic references:

The Alexander technique is a process of psychophysical re-education to improve postural balance and coordination in order to move with minimal strain and maximum ease. ~ Edzard Ernst

Here's a recent academic quote, from different authors:

The Alexander Technique (AT) is an educational self-management approach which aims to provide people with the skills to recognise, understand, and change habits primarily impacting movement and posture

My own point, regarding the actual question that is the topic of this section, namely "Therapy or Education?", is that is a false dichotomy in the case of Alex Tech, just as "Therapy or Exercise?" would be a false dichotomy in the case of physiotherapy. I make the further point, that the article as it stands is misleading as pronouncing that Alex Tech is "alternative therapy", when therapeutics is only one application of Alex Tech. It is commonly used at performance schools (acting, music, dance) to help enable performers give better performances. For example: An Acting Teacher’s Take on What the Alexander Technique Can Do for You:

[Alexander Technique] is an extremely powerful practice of body-mind integration that pays dividends for actors on many levels.

... that's one of the most valuable things that the Alexander Technique can offer an actor: the ability to consciously promote physical openness and receptiveness, which go hand-in-hand with emotional openness and vulnerability.

Several seasoned editors of this article are very keen on positioning Alex Tech as "alternative therapy". They have their sources, and they are citing them, and that's all good. But there are other sources which tell a different story! The larger picture shows that therapeutics (successful or not, well-founded or not) is only one application of Alex Tech. And this fact has been flagged again and again by multiple editors. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The Alexander Technique is an educational method that helps individuals learn to correct inefficient or faulty movement and postural habits, reducing potentially harmful tension accumulation by changing how one conceptualizes and responds to the stimulus of movement; the AT is not a passive treatment but a method known within the AT community as mind-body re-education. Movement is a focus in learning the AT, however, the AT is generally taught as an educational system rather than movement therapy.

Williams, Angela The Alexander Technique, Complementary and Alternative Medicine Sourcebook, 6th Edition July 2018 978-0-7808-1632-9 pages 439-441

Woods C., Glover L., Woodman J. An Education for Life: The Process of Learning the Alexander Technique Kinesiology Review Volume 9: Issue 3 14 Aug 2020 https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2020-0020 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and there's this from Taber's medical dictionary online: "a form of bodily training that promotes postural health, esp. of the spine, head, and neck". [4]Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and there's this from the UK's Advertising Standards Authority: "The Alexander Technique is an educational method intended to support self-management of conditions such as back pain by improving posture through psycho physical re-education. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and there's this from Onstage Synergy: Integrative Alexander Technique Practice for Performing Artists by Cathy Madden: "An educational method used to improve performance, the Alexander Technique teaches people to replace unnecessary muscular and mental effort with consciously coordinated responses, maximizing effectiveness while also relieving, if necessary, any chronic stiffness or stress.".~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC) (Including this one as it's a neat description of Alex Tech's purpose, and its application in the performing arts. Not as a source for its efficacy!).~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors showing bias in regard to this article 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Given the lack of response to Aliveness Cascade's post, I propose the first paragraph of the lede be re-written along the following lines:

"The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is an educational method which aims to improve movement and posture through improved body awareness. It is claimed to improve performance in activities that require skilful coordination such acting, and to offer therapeutic effects through facilitating the self-management of conditions such as back and neck pain."

Your thoughts?

References

86.7.62.124 (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a WP:LEDEBOMB. tabers.com and backstage.com are very weak sources; the lede is meant to summarize the body. Alexbrn (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an accurate description, at least the first sentence is more accurate than the article description. Editors take note. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hard to see how the suggested paragraph is a lede Bomb. It summarises what is in the text and does so more comprehensively and accurately than the one it replaces.

In relation to the main article it refers directly to:—

• Section 1: Uses (in which Alex Tech's use in acting and musical performance is prominently noted)
• Section 2: Claims with regard to health effects
• Section 3: Method (in which Alex Tech is clearly described as an educational process throughout)
• Section 4: History

The Tabers quote doesn't seem to be essential, and I would say could be omitted. I was under the impression, though, that Tabers is a reputable and well established medical dictionary. Happy to be enlightened if this is not the case.

Agree Backstage is not great. There are other references that could be used to show use by performers, for example: this from BMC

Finally, Section 1 of the main text needs expanding, I suggest an Template:Expand_section is inserted for now to make that clear.

Rastalked (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What is "Alex Tech"? It appears to be a kind of electrical wiring conduit. Is the same person (with this unusual wording) using multiple accounts (and IPs) here? Alexbrn (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the second time I have posted. I posted earlier today from my phone and hence not signed in. Please respond to the points raised, which were offered in good faith. Rastalked (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I see. Articles should be based on secondary sources. I think per Cochrane/Aetna/Aus Dept. of health we need to continue call this a therapy. The lede also has to mention the lack of evidence supporting the claims made for AT, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I was not intending to replace the whole lede, just the first paragraph leaving the rest as is.

I think there may be a sensible compromise to be had about the 'alternative therapy' versus 'education' question which might put it to bed for good, which would be to everyone's advantage! It seems to me that reasonable references have been found to support both positions. Clearly some sources describe it as alternative therapy while others say it is an educational approach (sometimes the same person says both in different sources, e.g Ernst). Also the way that Alex Tech is described in the body of the article is as 'something that is taught and learned and put into practice' (education) rather than 'something that is done to you' (therapy), so the article seen as a whole currently reads in a bit of an odd and inconsistent way.

Given the apparently irreconcilable difference of opinion about which sources to go with, perhaps this conflict should be acknowledged and addressed head-on thus:—

"The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), aims to improve movement and posture through teaching principles related to posture, movement and attention which can then be applied in daily life. It is claimed to improve performance in activities such as music and acting, and to offer therapeutic benefits through facilitating the self-management of conditions such as back and neck pain. It is generally taught in a series of one-to-one or group lessons, and is therefore described by its proponents and others [references here] as an educational method. However some experts [references here] point to claims as to the therapeutic benefits of the practice and have therefore classified it as a form of alternative therapy."

This replaces only the first paragraph of the lede, the rest stays as is

That's just a rough draft, but as a concept?

Rastalked (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds rather promotional. Please be aware of WP:COI/WP:MEDCOI and make any necessary declarations. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I teach the Alexander Technique, so yes I have a bias, happy to acknowledge that. To be honest I don't read it as promotional, but I may well be missing it, so happy to tone anything down if you could point out what it is that concerns you. I'm sure that the basic sense could be kept in a neutral, non-promotional way. Rastalked (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue is it's like a pitch, and it airs a lot of benefits when it seems the consensus in reliable sources is AT isn't really effective for improving human health in any way. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I propose moving a line about the lack of evidence from the third paragraph of the lede up to this new first paragraph, and have removed as much extraneous explanation as possible. I have used 'claims' rather than stated things as facts where there is insufficient evidence to do so. So the Lede as a whole would now read:—

"The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a practice which aims to improve postural balance and coordination. It is used in the fields of music and drama education, and is also claimed by its proponents to address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.[5][6][5][6]. It is taught in one-to-one or group lessons and is therefore described by its proponents and others [references here] as an educational method. However some experts [references here] point to its claims to offer therapeutic benefits and have therefore classified it as a form of alternative therapy."

Alexander began developing his technique's principles in the 1890s[3] in an attempt to address his own voice loss during public speaking.[2]: 34–35  He credited his method with allowing him to pursue his passion for performing Shakespearean recitations.[4]

As of 2021, the UK National Health Service cites evidence that the Alexander Technique may be helpful for long-term back pain and for long-term neck pain, and that it could help people cope with Parkinson's disease.[6] Both the American health-insurance company Aetna and the Australian Department of Health have conducted reviews and concluded that there is insufficient evidence for the technique's health claims to warrant insurance coverage.[5][7]"

Rastalked (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this latest proposed text by Rastalked is a good change, and much better and more accurate and informative than the current lead. However, I would change the last sentence of the first paragraph to: "Nevertheless, as individuals undertake lessons for purported health benefits, it is also characterized and treated as an alternative therapy." [refs here] ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Propose this because it's not just "some experts" who categorize it thus: the scientific and medical communities generally tend to do so, and this is the reason.

Propose tweaking this further, so it is explicit that it is only a proportion (all be it a good proportion) of people that use it for health benefits: "as many individuals who undertake lessons do so for its purported health benefits" ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also delete the "therefore", as that seems like original research (and inaccurate). So simply: "It is taught in one-to-one or group lessons and is described by its proponents and others [references here] as an educational method." The article itself should take into account sources which call it a technique of education, specifically sensory-motor education, which is used with the intent of giving a person an heuristic experience of better coordination. My point is it is not called "education" because it "it is taught in one-to-one or group lessons". It would be "education" because (some sources say) it is used to teach better coordination, and how-to work to improve coordination on one's own.~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Rastalked: for your proposals and endeavors to improve the article.

For convenience, here are my proposed edits to Rastalked's proposal put in place:

"The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a practice which aims to improve postural balance and coordination. It is used in the fields of music and drama education, and is also claimed by its proponents to address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.[5][6][5][6]. It is taught in one-to-one or group lessons, and is described by its proponents and others [references here] as an educational method. Nevertheless, as many individuals who undertake lessons do so for its purported health benefits, it is also characterized and treated as an alternative therapy. [refs here]" ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

But I dispute the phrase, taken from the current article, "is also claimed by its proponents to address a variety of health conditions". My issue is the phrase "address". I would replace it with "help". Alex Tech teaching does not address "a variety of health conditions". It is a technique intended for the teaching of better coordination, and my understanding is that this is what an Alex Tech teacher principally does: they address their pupils' patterns of coordination, and endeavor to give them an experience of better coordination, and also build a pupil's skills to consciously direct their activities with improved coordination. If their pupil develops an improved standard of coordination and this happens to help some health complaint they have, that's a benefit of their improved coordination, but the health complaint is not what an Alex Tech teacher addresses (as I understand it). Hence I would change "address" to "help", and add "by improving their coordination". At the very least I would change "address" to "help". As it is now, "address" badly mischaracterizes what Alex Tech teaching is held out to be. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A proposed re-edit to address both the above concern, and the fact that is also called a self-help tool:

"The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a practice which aims to improve postural balance and coordination. It is used in the fields of music and drama education, as well as being available privately as an alternative healthcare practice. Its proponents claim that good coordination, taught by Alexander Technique, can help a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.[refs] It is taught in one-to-one or group lessons, and is described by its proponents and others variously, as an educational method,[refs] or self-help tool.[refs] It is also classified as an alternative therapy,[refs] as many individuals who undertake lessons do so for its purported health benefits."~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Have to agree here, AT is miscategoized as alternative medicine 68.129.197.221 (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Pertinent advice

These all have useful advice:

• WP:OVERSIMPLIFY
• WP:Oversimplification
• WP:CONFLICTING
• WP:These are not original research#Conflict between sources

~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it would be better to see if some kind of agreement can be reached around the basic concept before splitting hairs about the details ...

Rastalked (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I present my take. That's what I do. I thank you again for your proposal, I agree with its basic outline, and I did my best to explain reasons for my proposed tweaks so they can be assessed on their merits. If I thought any of them were "splitting hairs" I wouldn't have spent the time presenting them and explaining them. Agreement cannot be reached around "the basic concept" of "Alexander Technique" itself, because there is no definitive definition of "the Alexander Technique" - the man himself didn't make one - and both its proponents today and investigative scientists speak of "Alexander Technique" in different ways - so the different substantiated uses of the term, e.g. education, self-help method, alternative therapy, need to all be presented (as per the advice linked to above). ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

None of those are policy. Probably the best bet is to give most weight to the WP:BESTSOURCES. What, for example, does Cochrane say? Alexbrn (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have brought multiple actual citations with quotes to this discussion, which enables discussion. Please do likewise! "What does Cochrane say?". Please bring a citation and quote so yourself! It seems to me disruptive to repeatedly emphasize sources, without actually bringing them! "What does Cochrane say?" - you say it like it's some authority, rather than one site where academic research papers are posted, like many others. "Cochrane" says nothing itself, it simply hosts papers on systematic reviews. I can see one paper on Alexander Technique there, and I can see no reason whatever to elevate its "intro description" of "the Alexander Technique" above any other academic paper! But for what it's worth, here it is: "'The Alexander technique' is a taught form of therapy involving a series of movements designed to correct posture and bring the body into natural alignment with the object of helping it to function efficiently, and is reported to aid relaxation." So it's just another one that supports both sides of education/therapy question. But to re-iterate, it's only one of many "intro descriptions" in academic papers, and has no weight more than others. Plus all of these "intro descriptions" in academic papers reporting research into health outcomes demonstrate a high-tendency to see "Alexander Technique" through a therapeutic lens, no doubt because that is what they are looking at. As already established, Alexander Technique is used educationally in performing arts schools.~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Cochrane reviews are golden sources so it does have more weight than various lesser sources, and as WP:BESTSOURCES says, a way to avoid POV is to lean on the best quality sources. Following policy is always a good idea. "Taught form of therapy" then. I see the other very strong secondary source (the Aus review) has "Alexander technique is a type of taught physical therapy ...". Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is better but still leaves unaddressed the fact that Alex Tech is often used in non-therapeutic settings, and for completely non-therapeutic purposes--for example to help someone play the violin better, or learn to juggle, or to improve their swimming.

The difficulty, I think, is that medical sources will obviously speak to therapeutic applications. But a medical writer may be completely unaware that this other aspect even exists. How to acknowledge this other aspect?

Rastalked (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Musician use is covered by some academic literature. PMID:25344325 is not the greatest source, but could be usable with attribution, for example. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see my post below "Suggested Rewrite of Entire Page" for peer-reviewed sources on musician use. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews found evidence in support of AT in other areas than asthma https://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a884.short 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

I noticed the ip has been removing others' comments. I've done my best to restore everything that I could find, but I've not looked prior to [5]. Some look like they could be accidents [6][7]. I don't see how this could be accidental. Apologies for any confusion or anything I've missed. --Hipal (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

New to editing wikis; was informed of rules and done my best to follow them. Thanks. In any case my intention here is not to fight with biased editors but to make some meaningful progress on this poor wiki 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)