Jump to content

Talk:Gokhale Method/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Endorsements

In this edit User:Farang Rak Tham notes that "The Gokhale Method has earned praise from the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, doctors from the Mayo Clinic and the Stanford..") That is supposedly supported by an article in the Winnipeg Free Press. I feel obliged to point out that it is unlikely in the extreme that the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons endorsed the Gokhale method, because there is no American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The source where the Winnipeg Free press got their info might have been the website of the subject, http://gokhalemethod.com/american_association_orthopaedic_surgeons_book_testimonial which incorrectly states the name of the academy and lacks a credible source too. There is the similarly named American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and the American Orthopaedic Association none of whom have endorsed the Gokhale method at all. One article reviews the book, but the Academy hasn't stated an opinion of the method. It is blatantly false and misleading to claim that the medical community has praised the method. Mduvekot (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please note that the source stated this, not me, nor do I run the Gokhale website, so perhaps we do not need to get to "blatantly" yet. But thanks for the catch, I am going to filter the article for sources with little fact-checking.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh sorry, in case that wasn't clear: I meant the Gokhale website, I didn't mean to imply you had a COI or something. Thanks for checking. Could you also have a look at the claim that the book won the National Book Award? I can't find any evidence of that either. Mduvekot (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I am on it. Coming back to the surgeons, it seems there is an AAOS article about the subject, although I don't know how specific it is. It was already in the external links. I remember adding it myself, but can't remember where I got it from. I can't access the article though, nor can I find a DOI number.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see that you already linked this above. If you can access this source, perhaps you'd care to summarize it there is anything useful in it, apart from the endorsement, that pertains to the subject.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Couldn't find a National Book Award. Must have been rumour.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
http://gokhalemethod.com/esther_gokhale states three awards the book has won. Sources: https://www.forewordreviews.com/awards/winners/2008/health/ http://www.nautilusbookawards.com/2009_GOLD_AWARD_WINNERS.html http://www.ippyawards.com/107/medalists/2009-medalists 78.34.232.219 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting information to add, but I have not yet been able to find much secondary source information about those awards that would make them notable enough to include. I could be wrong though, and because of that, have started a discussion about the Nautilus Book Awards and Independent Publisher Book Awards at the WikiProject Awards and Prizes. Feel free to join in.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements, continued

Looking at the article content vs the sources, my impression is that this is promotion through original research to give undue weight to content that I don't see as suitable a topic where medical claims apply. I think it would be best to remove it, find better sources, and work more closely to the better sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I have rephrased some content now, and removed the Winnipeg source. As for praise from the medical community, this is not supported by reliable sources. The only thing the NPR article does state is that "doctors in the Bay Area refer hundreds of patients to Gokhale", which in fairness, could be added. But i'll leave that to the sceptics to decide. Nor more Winnipeg for me, haha.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and will anyone let me know if the tags in and above the article still apply? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The medical community has taken note and shown interest in the method is what the content has been changed to. I don't see this as an improvement. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Rephrased again, almost quoting the source. Are we still talking about verifiability here or is there some other problem here? Also added time parameter (for video report).--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how the source can possibly be reliable for such content, at least not content for an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
As for the larger issues, this simply isn't a neutral encyclopedia article, written from any broader perspective. Instead, it reads like a public relations piece, presenting opinions as facts, and highlighting trivia to give a sense of expertise and knowledge for Gokhale. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The rising interest is not actually a medical claim, now is it? It simply describes a rising interest, the section clearly states that the method has not been scientifically proven. And personally, I do not think you should tag a sentence as "failed to verify" if the source is the problem, not the summary of it. The current tag refers to an incorrect summary of a source, not the source itself. If you want a more reliable source, you should tag for that. But as I said, I do not think that you need a review of tons of peer-reviewed medical studies to describe a rising interest in a therapy form. I have now quoted two news papers to support that claim, both of which are not exactly tabloids.
If there are other issues with the article, please be specific, and perhaps start a new section.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
"The rising interest" appears to be nothing but marketing. Wikipedia is not a venue for marketing. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It pertains to the notability of the subject. It is mentioned in several sources quoted, among which ABC and NY Times.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

To start, please quote the sources that present a historical perspective clearly demonstrating that "rising interest" is something other than promotional hype. Once we have those, then we can find what this "interest" actually is. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I admit that the sentence describing positive interest could be more specific, but i wouldn't say it is WP:PEACOCK.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Potential sources

I'm trying to find high-quality sources to give us broader (and necessary) perspective on the subject. My initial impression is that there's little beyond Gokhale's marketing efforts. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I have added Latimer's opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article is about a method to solve back pain, not a scientific theory, but for the sake of argument, please quote where the article or the database linked establishes that the theory behind the Gokhale Method is a fringe theory.--Farang Rak Tham (talk)
Please review WP:FRINGE. I believe the responses to the NPR article establishes it, not that it isn't obvious. Please point to anything at all that demonstrates her claims, approach, and the method are "mainstream views". --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Maharty DC (September 2012). "The history of lower back pain: a look "back" through the centuries". Prim. Care. 39 (3): 463–70. PMID 22958555. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2012.06.002.
    Used in Low back pain#History. Might be useful in establishing the actual, mainstream views. I'd expect there are others in the same article that we could use. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Wikipedia policy. Since the Gokhale method has not been studied yet, we would have to do some research of our own to conclude whether it is fringe or mainstream. Whatever the case may be, looking at the coverage, it is notable. With regard to the review that you mentioned, concluding that the NPR article was "satisfactory", doesn't really prove anything.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
We're not going to do our own research. We follow what reliable sources say. If no sources exist that can support a claim, we leave that claim out of the article. No WP:OR, and no WP:SYNTHMduvekot (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Maharty's article has been an interesting read, but deals with slightly different questions. It relates the history of back treatment from ancient times, but does not address the same questions as Gokhale, so the fringe question will still remain unanswered for now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you bring up notability. It's irrelevant as far as I can tell.
I'm not clear that you understand what fringe means. If you don't think that Maharty demonstrates mainstream thinking, then you either need to get up to speed given that there are general sanctions on the topic, or avoid it altogether. Working on topics under general sanctions requires a good understanding of all relevant policies. --Ronz (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A certain level of notability would imply that even if it were fringe, it should be on Wikipedia, per WP:FRINGE. But that is not for me to decide. I am not going to do any research of my own, you misunderstood my intent, Mduvekot. I simply meant to state that scientific mainstream articles could be read to establish whether Gokhale goes against mainstream science. Maharty is mainstream science, of course, why would it not be? But I am stating that I found it difficult to make any comparisons with Gokhale's theories, because they deal with different questions.

At this point it might be useful to state that state once more that I am not in any way affiliated with the Gokhale Method, and have not even joined any of her activities. In fact, I am not even involved in the practice of alternative medicine. i normally write articles about Buddhism, and wrote this article out of sheer interest in the method. If it should be deleted because it is fringe or for other reasons, then so be it, although at this point, I would not yet support such action. With regard to any criticism directed at me rather than the content here, perhaps this can be put on my talk page instead, so we keep things focused. With regard to whether this article is fringe, shall we continue this discussion in one place, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Gokhale Method? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

detailed review

In response to earlier requests, I'll give a detailed review, addressing each section. I have named the sources, so that they are easier to refer to. This is going to take a while.

History

  • Kriegman 2014 does not mention sciatica or several spinal disc herniations.
Moved citation number to correct position.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Doucleff 2015 mentions that "Gokhale had a herniated disc" not several spinal disc herniations.
Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Schoenfeld 2013 does not say that "She based the method on her insights gained at the Aplomb Institute", it says that Ms. Gokhale is not the first to suggest that changing posture is the key to a healthy spine, and lists the the Alexander Technique Aplomb Institute as precursors. It does not mention Feldenkrais.
  • Vaswani 2017 also doesn't mention Feldenkrais.
These things are mentioned in some sources cited in the article, I have to look it up, and insert the correct source.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Found it: these are mentioned in Wallace 2013. I have added a citation.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wallace 2013, in the Financial times gets one thing right: she grew up in India.
I am not certain what you would like to have corrected here. Could you be more specific?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Khaleeli 2015 confirms that she says she spent more than 10 years researching remote communities from Ecuador to India and gives their source; Doucleff 2015, so why not use just that in stead of the Guardian.
Okay, fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I will correct the information not supported. I have to check these details.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

up next: Features Mduvekot (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Features

  • The claim that Gokhale's method is "different from the postures recommended by many forms of physical therapy" is not supported by Schoenfeld 2013 and Doucleff 2017. First of all, it is not clear what those "many forms of physical therapy" are. Doucleff mentions Alexander and Feldenkrais as "physiotherapy methods", but does not explain how they are different. Schoenfeld does contrast J shape recommended by Gokhale to the neutral pelvis recommended in Pilates and some physical therapy, but does not say what those therapies are. Pilates is not a physical therapy. Mduvekot (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I am removing this for the time being, unless you suggest a different way of summarizing this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added Gokhale's own book, which does mention dancing.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Workshops are not a feature of the method.
Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Liver stagnation, aka "Liver Qi Stagnation" is not a recognized medical condition, but a term used by acupuncturist and practitioners of TCM that has no basis in science. Mduvekot (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A third party citation for the claim that Gokhale wrote a book is redundant. Just cite the book itself.
Done. But the dvd is not mentioned in Gokhale's book, so I am keeping the third-party source.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • McMorris does say something about shoes, but it's entirely trivial. High heels are bad for your feet. Who knew? It does not say that choosing footwear is part of the lessons.
Replaced by Gokhale's book.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Bayless 2016 discusses good posture for texting, but does not mention Gokhale
I think I got the wrong article. I've removed the content and reference for the time being.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It is true that What Doctors Don't Tell You says what the article claims, but I have my doubts about the reliability of that source. For medical articles, we trust what qualified medical professionals tell us, per WP:MEDRS.
Answered below.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hobelsberger 2013 does not sat that "ultimate aim of teaching the Gokhale Method is to make the method widespread and thereby change the very culture of posture, with parents and teachers playing an active and exemplary rol in educating children in posture". It quotes her as saying that " Kinder ahmen ihre Eltern nach" (children mimic their parents). Mduvekot (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This is partly covered by Bryant: I have added a quote which is also in the transcript. As for the Hobelsberger part, I have rephrased this .--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the What Doctors Don't Tell You reference (Montana; Bowman; Baniel. "The end of back pain". What Doctors Don't Tell You. Retrieved April 21, 2017.) as unreliable. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The reason I added the opinion of What doctors don't tell you is that it was a review that was not promotional, and was in fact critical about the method. I felt it had a useful function for the content of the article because of its criticism, although I understand it is strictly speaking not reliable. As for the other points, I will address them.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment. WDDTY is not reliable. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Reception

Moved.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I find the claim "taught at many well-known companies such as Google and Facebook" troubling. I don't doubt that she has given a class there, but to elevate what is a widespread practise at technology companies to something more meaningful than "we offer a free class on improving your posture" is unjustified. (My colleagues and I have been offered free cranio-sacral therapy and reiki by a well-meaning HR person without any medical qualifications at at large technology company to deal with the effects of sitting at at computer for long periods of time). Neither Google not Facebook officially endorse the method, and frankly, neither in is a position to do so, as they have no medical knowledge.
Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what "traditional medical community" is. It is vague weasel-language. If there is a notable expert, or an organization who endorses the method, identify them.
I understand what you are coming from. Those two points does look promotional. But then again, sources like the New York Times article do describe the method as a new trend, and sooner or later we have to ask ourselves whether that should somehow be reflected in the article. I'll try to find specifics.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Rephrased now. Specific experts can be found, but they are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page, so will probably be dismissed as irrelevant.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we're making any progress with the rephrasing and qualifying. The sources provide no context, and seem to be use parroting Gokhale's p.r. with less detail. Any noteworthy influence to the medical community should at least have some context. I've removed it as poorly sourced and inherently promotional. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The fact that the method has not been studied does not belong in the reception section, and should probably be mentioned elsewhere, perhaps under a new heading.
Rephrased the heading.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sure I saw a quote by Gokhale where she did say that "sitting is the new smoking", so she hasn't spoken out against that.
I don't think she agrees with that, so please let me know where you found that information. If you are referring to the title of the article in the External Links section, those are not her words.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I think she was misquoted. It would be inconsistent with everything else she's said and the fact that she's selling a chair that "celebrates the philosophy that sitting is a natural healthy activity".[1] Mduvekot (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I have added a quote and a time parameter to the citations to back up the statement.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think she may have MENTIONED the phrase "sitting is the new smoking", to contradict it, not to agree with it. She says in numerous places that sitting is okay, or not so bad, or even that it's good, it protects you from strain. One example is "Walk This Way" on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtQ1VqGGU74 She mentions, I think in her book, that there are people sitting on the ground all day in marketplaces who have good body usage and spinal health, and in the above cited talk she shows a slide, referring to some article somewhere, that shows that Western manual laborers have more back problems than sedentary workers (but tribal people do much better than either).Wood Monkey 20:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodog (talk • contribs)

Added.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Gokhale Pain Free™ Chair". Gokhale Method®. Retrieved 1 September 2017.

Biographical details of Gokhale

To the extent that they clarify Esther Gokhale's medical qualifications, we ought to know what academic credentials Gokhale has. I've seen mentions that she has studied at Harvard, Princeton and Stanford, but no clear, unambiguous statement that she graduated, from where, and with which degree. It is often repeated that she has qualifications as a biochemist, but it is not clear if she has a degree, and if so from which university. Mduvekot (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this can be checked. Anyway, thanks for all your efforts, I will work on it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it, given how it's misleading and smacks of puffery. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
In fairness, I'd like to state here that no editor has ever added any credentials with regard to Harvard or other universities to the article, but Mduvekot was probably only referring to the statement that Gokhale is a biochemist. This statement is actually supported by both the New York Times and the Guardian articles cited in the article. But since Gokhale herself hardly ever refers to her background as biochemist as an inspiration to the Gokhale method, it does not seem relevant. The discipline of acupuncture should be in there, however, because it has influenced the method. The word acupuncturist has no academic connotations, and it don't see any reason why it would violate WP:PEACOCK or WP:NEUTRALITY.
Ronz, it would be better to explain which policies or guidelines are violated or not met when addressing these issues, rather than using expletives.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
On a more personal note, I need to focus my attention to a review of an article I have nominated. I will be returning to the Gokhale Method article to improve it after that review is finished, which will probably take no more than seven days.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The discipline of acupuncture should be in there, however, because it has influenced the method. Says who?
I've used no expletives. Please retract the statement that I have, and remember to WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I've requested help at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gokhale_Method given the article content and discussions too closely mirror problems common in other alt-med topics. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The word acupuncturist is merely a description of a profession Gokhale has, and is useful because it pertains to the background of the creator of the method. Please cite a policy or explain the reason why it is not correct to mention this. I am willing to learn or make adjustments to the article, but I need to have a reason to. If I wrote she was a firefighter or a police officer, would you also delete that?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to not include profession and training as long as its reliably sourced and short-short since the article is abut the system not the teacher-since her background pertains to and informs about the techniques/techniques. As well, her book is a pertinent source for how she views or describes her own system but should not be included in WP's voice but rather with a citation inline as the author's position. If it is included as a source in the article it should not be included as Further Reading. Some added thoughts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC))

But only if there's independent coverage, otherwise we'd be straying into WP:PROFRINGE territory. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Fringe does not suggest that a primary source cannot be used. In the case where a system has been devised the system can be described in the voice of the person who devised it as a means to understand where the system had its beginning. Sometimes, not always, this is pertinent information. In this case I'm not saying that we should use this source just that there is a case to be made for using it, that is, that we could if the article would be better with the addition of this from-the horse's-mouth explanation. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC))
There are two instances when Gokhale's book is used here as a primary source: to back up the statement that the method incorporates dance, and to state that a book was written about the subject. Let me know if adjustments are required.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say she has written a book or DVD which lands us into the land of advertising. The reader can find that out easily on their own and we then don't become an advert. As for the dance addition it seems fine to me. I'm only one editor so this isn't a consensus position just an opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC))
Previously, it was a third-party source mentioning that Gokhale wrote a book about the subject, and the title of the book was not mentioned. But above, in the point-by-point evaluation of the article, it has been suggested that the book of Gokhale be quoted instead:
A third party citation for the claim that Gokhale wrote a book is redundant. Just cite the book itself.
In my opinion, best practice would be to mention she wrote a book about the subject, and source that with a third-party source to prevent advertising.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the second instance of the primary source (book Gokhale) now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Jotting down a few items for later followup (I cannot recall if I found independent sources): It looks like she has a biochemistry bachelor's from Princeton, 1982. She received her acupuncture degree in 1984 from San Francisco School of Oriental Medicine. I'd run across something about San Francisco School of Oriental Medicine had shut down many years ago, but cannot find it again, nor much else about it outside of Gokhale's pr. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I've forgotten where the Feldenkrais training info came from. I think a source made a correction. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Lede

Currently, the lede states, The method proposes certain patterns that exist in the way people in pre-modern and less industrialized societies move and adopt posture—patterns which also exist among older babies and toddlers. These patterns, which Gokhale calls primal posture, can be learned through practice. I think this needs a rewrite, as it doesn't make clear that these are all claims based upon in-world thinking and language without regard to the actual research in the area of posture and the associated medical topics. Compare to the similar topics of Alexander Technique (similar problems too), Feldenkrais Method, and Rolfing. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Um; in other words, it hasn't been demonstrated that these patterns exist, and can be er, modified by the technique? -Roxy the dog. bark 23:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"The method proposes" indicates in-world thinking. If there is research in this area it can be included but comparisons to other research on posture and associated medical topics if not explicitly connected directly to this topic is OR and synthesis.The topic must stand on its own; if it can't then notability is a problem. We aren't here, seems to me, to discredit this or any other technique just to lay our what is in the sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC))
If you are of the opinion that no alternative medicine should be included on Wikipedia, then please discuss this at an appropriate page for that. Please don't make this article the scapegoat for problems with alternative medicine articles. Let's try to keep things focused.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
If you are of the opinion... Please drop it. The general sanctions that apply here include behavioral policy.
Re The method proposes: While it does indicate this, it does so extremely poorly and needs to be changed.
I believe FRINGE requires us to present the mainstream view on the topic, and to avoid presenting fringe viewpoints as anything else.
No, no one is here to discredit it. The real problems are in hyping it and accepting their viewpoints without a wider context. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Ronz, what do you propose? Deletion? Tagging? Rewriting? Your wish is my command, just let me know how to proceed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I said from the beginning that it needs a rewrite. Feldenkrais Method and Rolfing are good examples to follow. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I gave it a shot. I'd like to review all the sources more carefully to see if there's a way to follow Feldenkrais Method and Rolfing more closely. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think its fine. @Farang Rak Tham: what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. More neutral.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the sources

I want to at least get started reviewing the current sources. I'll get around to listing them individually with details, but looking over the first five they all look rather poor given this article falls under FRINGE and MEDRS. Gokhale makes all sorts of claims, and has had a well-prepared press kit for reporters for many years. The first five sources all appear to have bought into her claims without question. The NPR article seems the best of them, and I'd already found criticisms of it listed above. My questions at this point are: Do we have any references at all written by a journalist specializing in science- or medical-reporting? Are journalists simply using the press kit to create an easy public interest article? --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question "Are journalists simply using the press kit to create an easy public interest article"? is that I have neither any proof nor any doubt that that is the case. Mduvekot (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but we can decide which sources tend toward WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAP vs those trying to give historical, scientific, medical, or other context.
The Santa Barbara Independent is a puff piece.
The New York Times piece is strange. Written by a freelance journalist, it looks more like a public interest article yet was published in the business section. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The only reliable source of criticism of the NPR article thus far provided on this talk page rated the NPR article as "satisfactory". Please post links to the other reliable sources that you are referring to as "criticisms", so we can follow.
I have not been able to found any further reliable sources about the subject on Google News or Google Scholar, but I am willing to help find them with some hints.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I'll make a complete list later. If you want to list all the sources beforehand, I'll add to it.
I'm guessing that none of the sources that support her claims are written from any larger context.
Also, I'm finding no information about her publisher at all. I thought it might be vanity imprint, and it may be, but it seems more like this is a case of self-publishing with assistance from other companies (publishers, printers, distributors http://www.ipgbook.com/pendo-press-publisher-PDO.php, etc). Basically, I think she worked with her contacts at Stanford to create her own publishing company. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The Financial Times piece is the initial article for "The Fit Executive" column by Wallace. Wallace's wrote one article prior for The Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/86dcab6e-26c7-11e3-9dc0-00144feab7de . Wallace has written a number of subsequent articles about back problems since without mention of Gokhale. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I am sure that every source in the article eventually can be criticized in one way or the other, and you have obviously made your point. But i think it would now be more constructive to find better or more reliable sources. You are a much more experienced editor than me, but I cannot really follow where you are aiming for. If you want an AfD discussion, please start one and we can get it over with.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

unsourced content

With this edit, Ronz added content that cannot be found in any of the sources cited. I have reverted this, but Ronz has readded this back in. Ronz believes this is mainstream scientific opinion, but has not provided any sources for it yet. If anyone has any reliable sources for this, please help, or we have to remove this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry I didn't include it from the start. I was hoping to get some response from the comments above and from FTN. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gokhale_Method/Archive_1&oldid=1216355924"