Talk:Alexander Technique/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Lack of research

Can whoever is undoing my edit which notes that references 4 and 5 both essentially state that there is insufficient research to make claims one way or another about Alexander Technique's effectiveness in areas aside from back and neck pain and Parkinsons explain why they are doing so.

I dispute the claim that to point this out is not neutral. Firstly because it is clearly the truth, and secondly because in my edit I noted the possibility that the claims of efficacy made by Alexander Technique Teachers may or may not be true (i.e. "there is little medical evidence as to whether or not") which is neutral language and viewpoint. In fact I contend that this is more neutral than the way it read previously, which could have encouraged the inattentive reader to come to the conclusion that these claims had been disproved rather than simply not proved one way or another. My edit adds relevant information which is supported by the references and makes the current status of research and truth claims clearer, and I see no valid reason to disallow it. I would say that a comment about the current scope of the research is entirely relevant and appropriate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasforte (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Three editors have undone your edit so far. You want the text to read:

• "There is some evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique is helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and that it may help people cope with Parkinson's disease. Due to lack of research there is little medical evidence as to whether or not it helps with the other medical conditions that advocates promote it for."

If the second sentence were true, then we could reasonably conclude that the reason why there is not much evidence whether it helps or not is simply because of a lack of research. However, if it actually doesn't help with a particular condition, no amount of research will prove that, because of the problem of proving a negative. The default position for evidence-based medicine is that a treatment is considered ineffective in the absence of good quality evidence showing that it is effective; and we shouldn't be implying that it might turn out to be effective if only somebody did more research.

It is perfectly true that when more research is done, we may be able to draw firmer conclusions, but until then Wikipedia is not the place to speculate on what might be. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, well how about this then:

″There is some evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique is helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and that it may help people cope with Parkinson's disease. Very little research has been done on testing the efficacy of the Alexander Technique in treating conditions other than back and neck pain and Parkinsons. There can therefore be no medical evidence that it helps with the other conditions which advocates promote it for.″

That should make us both happy unless I'm missing something?

Rasforte (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see I was missing something, it's slipped in again there. How about this?

"There is some evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique is helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and that it may help people cope with Parkinson's disease, but no good medical evidence that it helps with the wide variety of other medical conditions that advocates promote it for. To date there has been little scientific research into the Alexander Technique's efficacy in treating conditions other than back and neck pain and Parkinson's."

Rasforte (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to be stuck with the notion that lots of research = evidence of effectiveness. The two things are quite different and have little correlation across medicine as a whole. The version you now propose clearly implies the conclusion that a lot of research has been done into the effect of AT in treating back and neck pain. There hasn't. It's just that the little research that has been done has demonstrated effectiveness clearly enough for both NHS Choices and the Australian Department of Health to be convinced of that (albeit with somewhat differing conclusions about long-term effects). The difference between "back and neck pain and Parkinson's" and "the wide variety of other medical conditions that advocates promote it for" is that AT has been shown to be effective for the former and not shown to be effective for the latter (by the standards of WP:MEDRS). Particularly given that the lead has to summarise the body of the text, what do you find unsatisfactory about

• "There is some evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique is helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and that it may help people cope with Parkinson's disease, but no good medical evidence that it helps with the wide variety of other medical conditions that advocates promote it for."?

Apart from the preposition at the end of the sentence, it seems to me to be a very tidy summary of what's in the Health effects section. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

———————

No I am absolutely not stuck with the notion that lots of research = evidence of effectiveness. I do not think that, it is not what I am saying, and you are putting words in my mouth. Please don't assume you know what I am thinking or what my intentions here are. I am in fact quite open to the possibility that 'lots of research' might quite possibly fail to support some or all of the additional claims being made by Alexander Teachers, and I am not threatened by that thought.

I don't find the statement "There is some evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique is helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and that it may help people cope with Parkinson's disease, but no good medical evidence that it helps with the wide variety of other medical conditions that advocates promote it for" unsatisfactory--because it is true! That is why I included it in its entirety in my (second) suggested edit. However it is also true that research into this field has so far been very limited, and I think that the scope of existing research is relevant to the topic, and relevant to many readers. I can see no reason why a statement briefly outlining the current status of research in the field is either biased or irrelevant. Such questions are actually fairly central to any field of study--what has been looked at and what has not? I ask in turn why you are so unwilling to countenance a statement which is entirely truthful, adds additional information, and is supported by the references in question?

On a different note, I think that the phrase 'wide variety of claims' should be struck out because it is imprecise, and a little emotive and subjective. I therefore suggest the following:

"There is some evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique is helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and that it may help people cope with Parkinson's disease, but no good medical evidence that it helps with the other medical conditions that advocates promote it for. To date there has been little scientific research into the Alexander Technique's efficacy in treating conditions other than back and neck pain and Parkinson's."

This is a simple statement of fact, the language is not biased, and I don't think there is any reason why any normally intelligent person reading it would be lead to think that because there has been no research the claims in question must be true. It doesn't say that, or anything like that, and I note that the writers of the reports referenced didn't seem to have any qualms about pointing out this lack of research, or to feel that it was going to mislead anyone in the way you seem so worried about.

Rasforte (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) On the contrary, when you say "To date there has been little scientific research into the Alexander Technique's efficacy in treating conditions other than back and neck pain and Parkinson's" you are without doubt implying that there has been more scientific research into back and neck pain and Parkinson's. Those are the words you used and it's rather disingenuous to try to claim otherwise. I don't need to read your mind to read what you have written.

(2) If you don't find the current statement an unsatisfactory summary of the Health effects section, then why are you trying to change it?

(3) Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarises the body of the article: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". If you don't accept that central tenet of writing Wikipedia articles, then I don't see how we can have a meaningful discussion. So what part of the article do your proposals summarise?

(4) Research is anything but central to many topics, although it is important in medicine. But even in medicine, you only need look at Traditional Chinese medicine to see that research is only of peripheral impact on the entire field. Anyway, I don't see that there's much for an encyclopedia to say about research into the health effects of the Alexander Technique. "There's very little" would be about all that would be WP:DUE, and frankly, that doesn't inform the reader much.

(5) I would say that "the wide variety of other medical conditions" is a better summary of "asthma ... headaches, osteoarthritis, insomnia or stress ... chronic musculoskeletal pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, and generalised anxiety disorder" than "the other medical conditions" that you propose, but perhaps others will agree with you rather than me.

(6) Your proposal is not a simple statement of fact, because it's not simple and it's not fact. Let me clarify this, as it seems you didn't understand the first time. There's no discernible difference in the amount of scientific research on AT's effectiveness against any of the conditions mentioned. There's no "other than back and neck pain and Parkinson's" exclusion from the small amount of research done. Also, we don't need qualifiers like "To date". Will the reader think that we mean "up to the turn of the century" if we don't include a qualifier? No, of course not. What the qualifier actually does is suggest that "up till now, there's been little research; but at some time in the future, there will a lot more research." There's nothing to justify the sort of crystal-ball gazing that you propose.

(7) You've made 38 edits so far (almost all to this talk page - can I recommend the [Preview] button?). I've made rather more than that so I hope you'll forgive me when I claim to have a little more experience in dealing with POV-pushing than you. It's all too easy to see speculation on possible future research - as you'll find in just about every medical study done - as a promise of future potential for this-or-that new treatment or wonder drug, when it's actually nothing more than the authors laying the groundwork for their next research grant application. This speculation inevitably gets seized on by the POV-pusher who wants to keep open the possibility that conclusive proof of the treatment/drug/technique's effectiveness is just around the corner. I don't think you're a POV-pusher, but I do think your suggestions open the door for others to insert all sorts of undue speculations into a Research section. I don't think the two sources we're looking at are sufficient to support such a section. --RexxS (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

_______________________________

(1) See 6

(2) I was not saying that "I don't find the current statement an unsatisfactory summary of the Health Effects section", I was saying that I thought the statement was true in itself, but incomplete. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

(3) I realise that my suggested edit is perhaps more long-winded than it needs to be for the lead. I have written an amended version, below.

(4) I was referring to fields of academic interest, obviously, and it can be seen that the Alexander Technique is of academic interest because (a) the academy clearly IS taking an interest, as shown by the fact that there has been research already and calls for further research to be done, and b) as a form of CAM the AT is coming under investigation from state regulators etc., which opens it up to academic scrutiny.

(5) 'Wide variety' is subjective and rhetorical, and adds nothing useful to the article. It is not necessary for the sense to be clear. There are so-called 'therapies' which claim a much wider remit than this, and compared to these the AT's claims are relatively narrow.

(6) Forgive me for being obtuse but I don't see what you are driving at here, apologies if I am misunderstanding what you are saying, and perhaps I am very stupid but it is not making sense to me. The sources being cited make it very clear that there is insufficient research into AT's efficacy for helping with anything other than back/neck pain and Parkinson's. This is because to my knowledge there have been NO experimental studies into most of the claims made for the AT. Nada (if I am wrong about this please enlighten me as I would genuinely love to read them). The difference between 'some studies' (for back pain and Parkinsons) and 'no studies' (for the others) is hardly trivial.

(NB I have just noticed that according to Op. Cit., research has also suggested the Alexander technique may improve general long-term pain and stammering, perhaps the lead/body need to be updated to reflect this?)

Regarding the words "To date", this was not intended to imply that there will be future research. If they bother you I would be quite happy to remove them.

(7) I am not familiar with this editing system, and yes, the vast majority of those edits were corrections to my own posts—I will try to be more careful in future.

I am not speculating about future research. I am simply trying to make it clearer that there has not been any research into many of the claims made, which is a different situation to there having been research that failed to show a healing effect—which could easily be the message that a casual reader takes away from the passage in question as it stands. I think this difference is quite clear and pertinent, and I don't see any reason why saying it should be a problem. The point of an encyclopaedia article is to not to stop information that is there in the cited sources from being published in order to prevent it being viewed or used in a way you don't like by third parties. That is another problem, which comes from a different agenda and I don't think it is relevant to this discussion.

So I now suggest the following edit:

"There is some evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique is helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and that it may help people cope with Parkinson's disease. For all other clinical conditions, the effectiveness of the Alexander Technique is uncertain, due to insufficient evidence."

This is not biased or leading language and is taken DIRECTLY from one of the sources cited (4). It makes it clear that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the health claims being made, which (I think) is what you want, so caveat emptor and all that. And it makes it clear that there is insufficient evidence to come to a definite conclusion one way or another, which is what *I* want. If we are using that article as a source of authority then it should be acceptable to cite it. It says what it says.

Rasforte (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with RexxS's very thorough explanation. The proposed change would have the effect of POV-pushing for the reasons stated. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

_____________________

Thank you Alexbrn, please note my further response to RexxS

Rasforte (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I did. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rasforte writing WP:TEXTWALL does not help you. Please review what RexxS, a very experienced editor, is telling you. Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed it carefully. I can see there was a potential problem around the wording I originally used. I also understand that the lead is supposed to be a summary, and so what I wrote was unnecessarily long. I think I have addressed these in the latest suggestion. I am saying that the fact that no research has been done on many of the claims made by AT teachers is important context. I am not trying to argue (or imply) that the lack of research is an any way an indication that the claims being made are true 'but for a lack of research'. And I am quoting directly, and in fact more accurately than the original post the conclusions of the sources being cited.

I have changed what I originally suggested four times in the light of feedback, and I am approaching this in good faith. Given the above, please can you explain to me what is still wrong with the following:

"There is some evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique is helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and that it may help people cope with Parkinson's disease. For all other clinical conditions, the effectiveness of the Alexander Technique is uncertain, due to insufficient evidence."

I am happy to learn, and I apologise for the initial 'edit war', it had been a bad day and I was feeling reactive. But I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the edit request I am making in its current form. It may be that the body of the article would need a slight tweak to include the above more specifically, would it be better if I started there, and then edited the lead? Is that part of the problem?

Rasforte (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You are omitting the wider context from the report (the evidence is poor) and from EBM/science generally: things are assumed to be ineffective unless shown otherwise. The "it might not work but we can't know for certain" approach is one used to push, or excuse, quackery. To be clear for AT we're talking about it being promoted and sold for benefits it does not have, so we are deep into the area of health fraud and quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

arbitary break

There's a differentiation between two viewpoints here that is not being made and needs to be. On the one hand there is the 'current state of knowledge' viewpoint (in this case the straight-forward fact that no one knows for sure whether or not AT is effective for the conditions in question because no one has tested it). There is also the 'doctors' viewpoint, which is relevant in practical contexts, which is to assume that a treatment is ineffective unless proved otherwise. Clearly this is not a viewpoint based on the 'truth'. It as, as you say, an assumption made for the sake of patient welfare in clinical settings.

I think there needs to be some clarity about the difference between these two viewpoints, because it's not sensible that one is not able to draw attention to the fact that no research has been done in many of these areas and more is needed, in spite of the fact that this is exactly what several of the cited and reputable sources on the page are saying very clearly. Where and how would I draw attention to this lack of research and the need for it? At the moment it feels like the lack of clarity around this is resulting in a bit of unintentional censorship—i.e one is simply not allowed to say certain things related to the state of research and evidence base. Should this go in another section? Is that the problem? Or does the difference between these viewpoints need to be made explicit? Or is not talking about the state of research in such cases an official Wikipedia policy? If so can you point me to where I can read about this? Rasforte (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The notion that "more research is needed" is... somebody's opinion. Why do we need research on this? It is true that we can't say that AT is useful or not useful for a bunch of conditions unless more research is done, but that is true of about a bazillion things and is not worth saying. But saying that "more research is needed" in a WP article is just advocacy and see WP:NOTADVOCACY. We just describe what is, simply, and we focus on what is enduring. That is what encyclopedias do. Jytdog (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite, "more research is needed" is a useless phrase which is why MOS:MED cautions against using it. Alexbrn (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a reality-based, mainstream perspective and does not indulge in logic-games to air speculative ideas. And for questions of treatment efficacy that means a medical, EBM perspective. From this perspective AT is an ineffective treatment for many (most) conditions where it's claimed to help. To the question "Does AT help treat xxxx condition?" the current answer is "no" and/or no to the extent that it's not worthy of insurance payouts. This purely theoretical "might do" plays no part in mainstream thinking. Russell's teapot "might" exist. But in reality it doesn't. Alexbrn (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In order to keep it brief I wasn't expressing the whole thought: I should have said more specifically that "more research would be needed to establish whether or not these claims are true".

We are not talking about '"a bazillion other things", we are talking about the state of research evidence regarding things which are directly discussed in the section of the entry we are talking about, and in the sources cited to support it. If these things themselves are "worth saying" then the scientific research around that, or the lack of it, is obviously relevant, and it is disingenuous to suggest it is not.

It is absolutely absurd to suggest that "might do" plays no part in mainstream thinking. The entire scientific project is based on finding out if things which "might" be true actually are—that's what science essentially is, testing hypotheses, and suggestions for "further research needed" are part of every research paper.

I was not aware that the purpose of Wikipedia was to assist in insurance payouts. It is here to give a balanced view of things, which clearly includes both the viewpoints I mentioned.

repeat my question and would appreciate a straight answer: is not talking about the state of research in such cases an official Wikipedia policy? Or is it just the personal preference of the editors of this page? And if it is official policy please you point me to where I can read about this? Rasforte (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We sometimes have a "Research directions" section. But as has been said above, this topic lacks sufficient sources to merit one. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What sort of sources would be needed to merit one? The ones I have read are quite clear and specific in suggesting appropriate research directions. How big does it need to be to be? There are significant gaps in research; these have been identified by relevant sources cited in the text: I don't see reason why more resources are required to write a brief section along those lines. Is the statement that there are not sufficient sources to merit such a section based on fact, on Wikipedea policy, or on personal opinion and preference? It's not as if I'm suggesting an essay, a few lines would suffice. Rasforte (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

why don't you propose something here so we can see what you have in mind. Jytdog (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally we would need good secondary sources focused on research activity for AT. Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog. I would be happy to do so if I can be confident that it will receive a fair hearing. I don't want to put the effort in to have it dismissed out of hand if there are people around here who simply don't wish such material to appear for ideological reasons. What I have in mind is simply a brief statement (which could just as well be included in the 'Health Effects' section) outlining what has been said about where further research would be needed to prove efficacy. While I appreciate that there are people who have an intense dislike of CAM the fact is that Governments in the West are increasingly interested in both monitoring and assessing its effectiveness, and incorporating it into more mainstream settings where where it is found to be effective—which makes it of mainstream interest regardless of the opinions of its detractors.

Alexbrn I think it's important that there is some pragmatism here. If you are the one setting the bar it's easy enough to set it high enough to prevent people jumping over. There is a little of the sort of material you mention, but obviously for such a tiny field with such a small research base there is not going to be the same amount or quality of secondary of material that you would find in more 'mainstream' places. You have to start from where you are, with the material you have, and it is perfectly straightforward to put in provisos about the limitations of the material if that is felt necessary. Rasforte (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Provide some well-sourced content showing there is something to say. going round and round about theoretical stuff is pointless. please read the WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, in the main I have been responding to what others have said to me, which has sometimes been quite voluminous itself, and I don't thing that is a fair assessment of how I have been behaving (if that is what you are implying).

However, I'm going to take a break from this, I will go away and have a think about such an addition and come back in due course. I may be some time.... Rasforte (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line, to use a too, well worn phrase is that in an encyclopedia and especially in dealing with scientific research we must use language that is as close to the sources as is possible. Study authors use language that is very precise and specifically selected to describe the results of a very specific study studies/reviews. We cannot extrapolate anything from that language and study. Mainstream thinking as in the cmt above " "that "might do" plays no part in mainstream thinking" " for example, is not the purview of an encyclopedia's content on specific research since it summarizes opinion outside the source/sources cited. For newer authors to the encyclopedia, which does not mean ignorant of science, we as an encyclopedia are confined to the narrow and very precise information of the sources.No more no less. If a specific source says, no evidence; that's all we have and all we can cite. No evidence means nothing else for our purposes, but no evidence.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

Actually that is not true at all. We find high quality sources and summarize them, and per NPOV we give the most WEIGHT to what is mainstream. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, and I don't disagree with you. I am saying we cannot extend content or meaning in an article beyond what is in the sources. I am not talking about the selection of sources per their weight per the mainstream or how we choose to deal with that content, both part of the editorial process of choosing and summarizing content. I am saying our language cannot suggest beyond the sources. I am also saying that specificity of language can be more critical when dealing with the language of a study or review. This is how WP operates.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

must use language that is as close to the sources as is possible ← absolutely not, for as well as creating possible plagiarism issues the language in specialist sources can be difficult to understand or - worse - misleading (a kind of false friend) when transplanted into a lay text like Wikipedia. The "more research is needed" wording is a classic case in point. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course we use language as close to sources as we can, and that implies because we are familiar with, of course, Wikipedia, that we are not creating copyvio problems and are sourcing and quoting to avoid plagiarism concerns. And of course, the language has to be understandable for the lay reader. I would assume we all know these things. The "more evidence" issue is an issue not because its plagiarized text or because we are adding content that is too close to the source, or because the words are hard to understand, but because a newer editor is extrapolating from the source and suggesting more than the source indicates - a common and understandable error with newer editors especially those who are well educated. Wikipedia is not a selection of academic papers.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

Reading my cmt above; it almost sounds sarcastic which wasn't meant. Apology for any sense of sarcasm.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

I always thought that the phrase "more research is needed" was code for "don't cut off my funding" -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We'd have to source that or its OR...:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

Ownership

Alexbrn had reverted for no good reason content that is grammatically and syntactically superior to what is in place. Meaning was not changed. Blatant ownership. This article as noted by yourself is under DS. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC))

Best to write plainly in plain English, with fewer words preferred to many and clear meaning preferred to smudgier efforts. If you really think you didn't change the meaning then I suggest taking a closer look. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

As long as you are promoting that last version with its dubious grammar and difficult to understand meaning while promoting plain English nothing more to discuss except ownership issues. And no, meaning was not changed(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC))

The current text is in fine modern English. Perhaps you could try and explain what your wording "the technique helps a wide variety of other medical conditions" means. Helps them how? Helps them be more aggressive? Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should check and see who added that phrase and ask him what he meant. As I said, I did not change meaning that was already there and I made sure to double check meaning with sources. Fine modern English? I doubt you believe that unless you are recreating what we hear on a street corner instead of in writing an encyclopedia. Feel free.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC))

It was your phrase in your edit. It makes no sense. As to "street corners" that all sounds a bit snobbish. We write in modern English not some form we think might have existed in the nineteenth century! Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Littletolive oil, how is " ... and that it may helpful in coping with ... " gramatically and syntactically superior to what is in place? That is the state the article was in after your last edit. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

People who tend to overuse a particular phrase ought to be open to rewording. here Alexbrn has added or restored this phrase to dozens of articles on alternative medicine, often in a way that is WP:SYNTH to what the MEDRS-compliant sources say. It is important to read the source material and consider the nuances of what they way; it is often an exaggeration to use "fine modern English" in a way that actually oversimplifies or distorts meaning. Montanabw^(talk) 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a good summary here; yours, that you keep pushing, isn't. You need to follow your own advice and accurately reflect the totality of the source material. Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that was me. Nor is it synth. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence

Per "but evidence as of 2013 is of low to moderate quality". There are multiple definitions and qualifiers for the word "evidence". If context in the article implies meaning enough - scientific- I'm fine with that, although I do believe we should specifically qualify the word as it is used here, for the reader.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC))

Generally a POV-push tactic. For example suggesting other kinds of supposed evidence (e.g. "testimonial" evidence) is worth it. What other kind of evidence could there be than scientific wrt treatment efficacy claims, that matter? Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We have specifically discussed the AT as having evidence of usefulness in theater/dance which is not researched. Being explicit for the general reader is not a POV push nor is delineating the effects of the technique which we have identified as being two sided. As I said its fine either way ,but I wanted to make the point.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC))

You didn't answer my question. Alexbrn (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Alex, "low to moderate quality" is, at least in one place where I used it, direct from the source cited. Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Your edit note was ludicrous. "Observational evidence" (i.e. a case study or anecdote) is a form of scientific evidence - the lowest kind. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Listen carefully. I explained my position above. What I see and read is not the question. Clarifying for the reader is. Its a really simple point. Define explicitly what we mean by evidence for the reader who may not be familiar with the language of science and especially in an article that is not a science-based article. You're both welcome to reframe the points I made, but I'm not too interested in pursuing that line of discussion. And yes, maybe AGF should be considered.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC))

Listen carefully. When we write about health in Wikipedia, only one kind of evidence is relevant. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is not, in the main, about health. It has at the very least a dual focus. Twisting and reframing cmts, name calling, and gross incivility to push one view is a editorial mistake and is non-neutral.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC))

The content you edited, is, about health. It is the content, not the article, that matters. Like I said way above if you want to expand the content about use of AT in acting, knock yourself out. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't need your permission to edit this article. The article does matter. I did cmt in good faith to explain why I entered a simple adjective to describe a single word. You and Alex have blown this up out of proportion to the initial good faith cmt and twisted the whole issue to look like something it is not. You have already been asked by a respected editor to stop personalizing discussion here. This is battle ground behaviour and ownership.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC))

I never said nor implied that you needed my permission to do anything. I am urging you to generate the content you say is so important instead of arguing over the content you say is not important. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Let's get back to the point; even on health articles, there is more than one type of evidence, and for the lay reader, it is important to clarify if we are talking about scientific, peer-reviewed studies, or anecdote, or preliminary observations or whatever. You also need to strike condescending remarks like "Listen carefully." We are not small children here. We are equals and need to take a more respectful tone. Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding "scientific" is basically putting scare-quotes around it, which is a very common alt-med advocacy tactic that tends to frame science as something bizarre and abstract - and dismissable. It is the same move as saying "western science." You are travelling in really bad company by making this argument. The more you do it, the more you locate yourself outside of the mainstream consensus in Wikipedia itself. That is your decision of course, if you want to keep going that route. About the "striking" thing, I was responding to L.o.O. in kind. You need to actually read what people are writing. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You need to quit it with the personal attacks. I am not in any way implying a "bizarre" claim. I'm saying what the evidence is; if it is legally-admissible evidence in a court of law, I'd call it legally admissible evidence. We had this discussion at other articles, and this has been explained to you before. If it is anecdotal or observational evidence, I'd say that is what it was - with wikilinks. If it was tinfoil helmet stuff where a MEDRS source stated "no credible evidence exists" I'd say that. What I am not going to do is exaggerate -- or minimize-- what the sources assess it to be. Your threats of "You are travelling in really bad company... and forward need to be struck. You are implying that I hold beliefs I do not hold, and you also seem to assume that you are aways right here. Your block record says otherwise. Now knock it off and focus on the source material. Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I just can't get over what you wrote here. I am not going to reply. But just wow. Jytdog (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

All editors of this section could do well to take the time to read and consider deeply, if nothing else, the relevant chapters of Alexander's four books to gain understanding of his own position regarding "health benefits" of AT, which should not be misunderstood. Thanks to all for the brave attempts to make sense here. It's not simple. P0mbal (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am going to park this source here at talk. It might have some potential. Montanabw^(talk) 09:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

More accurate reflection of sources

• Comparing two versions:

...but there is little medical evidence that indicates the technique helps a wide variety of other medical conditions.

and reversion to this

Despite promotion by advocates, there is no good medical evidence that indicates the technique helps a wide variety of other medical conditions.

• The source says:

"There's currently little evidence to suggest the Alexander technique can help improve other health conditions, including asthma, headaches, osteoarthritis, difficulty sleeping (insomnia) and stress.

There is no source for:

Despite promotion by advocates

• This version

but there is little medical evidence that indicates the technique helps a wide variety of other medical conditions

is the most accurate. so the question is, why is it being reverted?(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

See extensive discussion above, where these very topics are addressed. You can't just pick some words out of a source but need to take all of the sources into account when summarizing: specifically the claims that advocates make for AT which aren't evidence and the fact the the existing evidence is poor. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Given your confusing reverts - first you reverted and removed my version, then when Jytdog decided my version was fine you left it alone and now are reverting back to my version- I think my question is called for here. I do believe little evidence reflects the sources better than no evidence and that Montana has a point. Advocates for the technique is probably fine on rechecking the sources, although "teachers" seems to be used more often. I'm fine with the version in place given I edited it somewhat, but your confusing reverts led me to ask the questions here which are not clearly dealt with above.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

Nobody is putting "no" evidence, so that is a complete red herring. There is some insufficient evidence, and none of it high-quality for the matter in hand. In the context of whether a treatment is effective or not as a healthcare product, that is what matters. I'm glad you are happy with the current version since it seems we have consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No, its not a red herring it was a pointer to a phrase with implied " good medical" left out of my cmt which was unclear so I'll clarify, "no good medical evidence" is what I should have written. I believe that the wording Montana is using is appropriate per the sources, but so is what is in place now. Either is fine. I think Montana raised some issues which needed to be clarified whatever version was in place and however much I had edited a version, even if finally agreed on by editors here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

Glad you're happy :-) Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out here that the phrase from Littleolive oil vis. "no good medical evidence" is, in wikipedia terms a synonym for "No evidence" when discussing health claims per WP:MEDRS. Personally I would prefer "no evidence" but I don't think consensus agrees with me. I of course hold with consensus. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And again, "no good" is WP:SYNTH of the source. Sources are very careful in their wording. "No evidence" is inaccurate; there is "evidence" - the question is what type. A word like "good" is ambiguous. By whose standard? Science? Alternative medicine? Law? Magic? The reason we don't want to say "no good evidence" as, Mendaliv‎ explained to Alexbrn in an exhaustive discussion at another article, is because it is imprecise and overbroad. If there is even one study out there, the statement "no" is defeated. If there are "no peer-reviewed studies published in mainstream scientific journals," or "only anecdotal evidence to support," that would be OK to say -- IF the source said that. (If we say it, it's SYNTH) Here, the source says "little evidence," and that is as far as we can go unless we drill down into the deeper NHS studies (which probably say something like, "a review of X hundred peer-reviewed articles found Y on the topic of foo, which, due to small sample size and lack of objective controls, were largely inconclusive." This "no good evidence" is just lazy shorthand and needs to not be used anywhere except where that is the conclusion of the sources cited. Montanabw^(talk) 02:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong, and multiple experienced editors have endorsed the neutral wording - please review the discussions above. Whatever the balance of opinions, the correct way to proceed is not to edit war by repeatedly trying to impose your version against consensus, or trying to ping your wiki-friends to get a posse going - a type of problem behavior you have been associated with before. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been editing WP for 10 years, and you are bullying people with your WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. Your phrasing is inaccurate and doesn't reflect the sources, thus it is WP:SYNTH. Perhaps we need a RfC to settle the matter. Montanabw^(talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever is at stake for you in this, what you are doing is very bad for WP. If there is no good evidence for X, there is no good evidence for it. What you are advocating for here leaves WP wide open for editors like the POV-pusher who just swung through this very article. Let it go. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing at stake here other than to have an accurate statement in the article that does not exaggerate in either direction. We are talking about the difference between "little" and "no". I've explained my position. One source says, "There's currently little evidence to suggest the Alexander technique can help improve other health conditions" The other says assorted things along the line of "there is a clear lack of high-quality research available." I am willing to open an RfC on this question if we need to, but really, I think that we don't need to keep fighting over one word when the sources are so clear. Montanabw^(talk) 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That is just not true. You have raised this at other articles and for some reason you have chosen to "go to the mattresses" on this one. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

At other articles, we reached a compromise that worked. Just trying for that here. One. "Little." Word. Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, at "other articles" (I assume you mean the Horse Therapy stuff) I gave up because you and your wiki-friends were giving it both barrels and I couldn't be arsed to argue, reckoning that at least the article wasn't the disaster area (esp. wrt autism) that you had been pushing for earlier. Fascinating you satisfied yourself that was consensus! Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not a frozen state. As I said above Montana has a point. The issue is how to respect her point and discuss it without starting in on the insults. Some of my own points: I compromised on what I thought was accurate wording. If the wording can be more accurate it can be discussed. We can't word an article because we are afraid someone will see it as an opening for disruptive editing. We edit to be accurate. Period. By the way who is the POV pusher who just swung through this article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC))

Look at the edit history; it is obvious. We do edit to be accurate, in plain language. Period. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sure that you and others edit to be accurate, but let me explain what I mean. While editing, if an editor has in mind that an editor "leaves WP wide open for editors like the POV-pusher..." then the edit is not just about the accuracy of the edit; there's an underlying view that influences that edit. Montana is suggesting that the language in the article is not accurate. She makes some good points, she has a right to do that, and she has a right to do that without the added pressure of a viewpoint that sees her edit as damaging to Wikipedia. I'm not saying someone else can't or shouldn't have that in mind; I'm saying everyone's experience is different and they all have a right to edit within policy in line with their own honest experiences. Short for this is AGF. In my mind her language is more accurate for the few sources we have than what's in place, while the content in place now can be read as definitive when the the situation with the research, while weak for some physical ailments, is not definitive. I'm not sure what the answer is - perhaps a completely new way of describing the research that walks past either of the two sentences we have now. Compromise means both sides bend, and maybe that can happen with new language.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC))

Several editors, including experienced WPMED folk, agree with the current wording. One editor is repeatedly trying to force a change away from it. We could ask at WT:MED but I suspect it would waste less time if a WP:STICK was dropped. Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that sticks should be dropped. We are, at this point, discussing a one word change: “little.” I’ve made the case for it above and need not repeat it. The change is entirely appropriate, but as I have said, if an RfC would settle the matter we can do that do, though it would be a time sink for a single word change. Montanabw^(talk) 06:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your case is flawed, since (as others have said above) we need, in the lede, to summarize all the evidence which is mentioned in the body, and characterized by its lack of quality as well as its quantity. Just saying "little" fails to cover the first of these aspects. We should stick with the "very tidy summary" that every editor here except you is content to have. I am glad you recognize that an RfC would be a time sink, should you choose to keep on wielding that WP:STICK, but at least it beats edit warring with specious edit summaries. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves, Alex, I did use more detailed phrasing from the Australian source in some earlier edits, but you reverted that in favor of inserting “no good evidence,” which is a favorite phrase of yours and not what the sources themselves said. It does not matter if you can round up several of your supporters to agree that you can continue to use the same timeworn phrase across multiple articles and call it “consensus”— it’s still SYNTH. So unless you would like to file an RfC, or continue to engage in misattributing the motives of other editors I think it is time you let this go. Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You were proposing an RfC, but now you've gone back to edit-warring and lame personal attacks? Sorry, that's not the way it works here. If you can't drop the stick try some kind of WP:DR ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Concur with Alexbrn; this has been extensively discussed before with multiple sources, not just cherry picking favored wording from one of them. Some compromise wording is probably workable here, e.g.: "Despite promotion by advocates, there is little evidence, and no good medical evidence, that indicates the technique helps a wide variety of other conditions." The problem with vying "little evidence to suggest" and "no good medical evidence that indicates" against each other is that they are not the same evidence. The latter is subject to WP:MEDRS (yes, including for veterinary medical topics); anecdotal claims are not, but are not medical evidence; the fact that there's limited anecdotal evidence for efficacy outside one application does not mean there's any reliable medical evidence of this. It's our volunteer "job" here to summarize and piece together facts from all the sources we can find, and put it together in a sensible, encyclopedic way, taking especially care not to misinterpret or manufacture medical claims. This is not WP:Original research, it's standard operating procedure. Novel synthesis is the making up of conclusions from disparate facts, conclusions that cannot be found in any reliable sources at all, e.g. that because one study showed a minor lowering of incidence of condition X while treating condition Y that the treatment actually affected condition X. That's up to a medical journal literature review to tell us, after they've eliminated things like statistical error, etc., and seen that later studies have reproduced the results of the initial research. PS: Going through the article, I don't see that it relates to horses, so I'm not sure why they were being brought into the conversation above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Horse reference is a previous pissing match. The issue here is that there is not a disagreement on the reliability of the sources, but there is a disagreement on whether the phrase “no good evidence” is over-synthesizing the generally very-carefully-worded langauge from the sources. There is a need to not go overboard in snarking at “advocates,” or exaggeration in either direction. I’m also tired of the tag-teaming, threats, and personal attacks of these same two editors every time someone disagrees with them. We had the discussion down to a disagreement on one single word (“little” versus “no”) and if they can’t even compromise on that, we are heading rapidly for the twilight zone. Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That's funny as the content changed in this edit didn't say anything about "good evidence" before the edit. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I took a second look after that last round of BRD and your last edited version actually did look better than I originally thought, save for some awkward phrasing, which I tried to polish up. I did not see in the NHS source that it had both “little” and “no,” but if you really cannot live without “little or no” I suppose we really do have to wind this down. Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should go back to adding "no good evidence". If there is no compromise, there is no compromise. What will it be, I wonder. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, they are les mots justes here. I wouldn't mind "little or no evidence" either. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we are probably done here; I can live with the version that is up as of this edit, in the spirit of compromise and good faith. That said, for the record, the NHS source said "little." I offered a compromise to add "no" because it seemed to be so veddy, veddy important to others. But to say "no good evidence" is NOT a compromise, as that is the go-to that appears a bit too often on WP. So, I will leave this be for now, but also for the record I do have to say that "suggest" is less POV than "makes claims". The word "claims" or "makes a claim" implies a POV-tone that the individual making the statement is wrong (which you can certainly believe, but the final verdict is not in, so at this point it's an opinion.) But I think that WP:LAST suggests that it is now time for me to graciously acquiese and allow the remaining editors to get in one last shot. Montanabw^(talk) 21:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

if we are done we are done. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the conversation, but for the intro/summary I would suggest removing the first two sentences (of the evidence paragraph) and leaving it as "There is evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique is helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and may help people cope with Parkinson's disease, but little evidence that it helps any other medical conditions.[5]" (The Aussie source would be relocated to support that sentence as well.) This one line sums it up nicely, and all the additional detail is in the "Health Benefits" section. As it currently stands, the statement about what advocates say is unsourced and vague so my proposed edit fixes that by removing it. Also, no need to wax on about low quality studies, they simply get disregarded. Any comments?--Karinpower (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The advocacy stuff is sourced, and needs to stay. Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see your point... you are saying that the citation applies to both the first and second lines of that paragraph in the intro, not just the second line. That sort of confusion is inherent to in-line citations. I still think that line is vague and doesn't add much. A pithier summary of the evidence in the intro is appropriate, without mentioning 2013 (specifics like this might belong in the article, but not in the intro) or low-quality studies. We typically just ignore poor evidence rather than mentioning it. And, it's odd to say that the effectiveness is in question because in the next sentence, we state that there is evidence for effectiveness with 3 specific health problems. Given that, we should say exactly what the last line of that paragraph says - effective for 3 conditions, little/no evidence for other conditions. That's an appropriate summary for evidence for an intro. --Karinpower (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The "Alexander Technique", like Reiki, is Pseudoscience. There are no peer-reviewed scientific trials to validate its efficacy, none at all. I am not interested in the back-and-forth bickering that has been going on with respect to this, but the bottom line is that the pseudoscience aspect needs to be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.125.172 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you please identify a source for the claim, perhaps a version of the article that included the information as well? --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, hadn't thought of this aspect before, but AT does have an entry in Williams' encyclopedia:

• William F. Williams (2 December 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-1-135-95522-9.

I suppose that makes sense, since AT seems to be a.n.other variety of the "muscle tweaking is the root of all things" bollocks that we find in other related pseudosciences. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Nonono, it's manipulating fascia bollocks, or sticking hot pins in people bollocks that is the root of all things. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think by "manipulating fascia bollocks" you are referring to the likes of "cranial osteopathy" which is something else.--Penbat (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

From personal experience of someone who has had Alexander lessons, I get a very similar impact from assuming the squatting posture from time to time. The Alexander technique seems to be a contrived attempt by Westerners to replicate the effect of squatting while being unable in most cases to actually squat in a stable manner (unlike many Easterners). I hasten so say that I am not claiming significant health benefits by either squatting or the Alexander technique.--Penbat (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

So ... what about it. Is AT a pseudoscience? Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External Link?

I noticed this article has no external link. Of course it's optional but it's a handy resource to provide. However a quick Google doesn't produce a single central AT website. Candidates seem to be: http://www.ati-net.com/ (seems to be international), http://www.amsatonline.org/ (American), and http://alexandertechnique.co.uk/ (European). WP:EL recommends that EL's be kept to a minimum; generally 1-2 is preferable. Anyone care to evaluate this websites and state a preference for how to handle the EL, if any? I would tend to just cite the first one. --Karinpower (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need any, especially commercial ones. Unless there's something at dmoz? Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think all three of these are membership organizations, which are valid (vs. an individual business). DMOZ isn't super helpful, the first page of entries are mostly individual businesses, or membership groups that are very regionally specific (ex Washington DC). --Karinpower (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think leave it them. Those sites are likely to be full of unreliable health information (I checked the first; it was) and so are prohibited as ELs. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable?

This was removed as not verifiable.

...a systematic review by Woodman and Moore (2012)[].

The Australian review cites this review as moderate in quality, and possibly the only review that dealt with studies before 2008 a more comprehensive view. With a change in wording I see no reason to not add this review.

Why is this review not verifiable? Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

References

How does it verify the text "The most comprehensive guide to the scientific evidence for the efficacy of Alexander Technique lessons is a systematic review by Woodman and Moore"? The review (which we already cite) has been superseded by some later work in most respects too. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Good. I see the review is used elsewhere, and I did suggest changing the text to reflect the review. However, its used elsewhere so end of discussion.Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

Note, content was originally added by STATRG here, reverted by Alxbrn here, added back by STATRG this edit, removed by me here, added back by STATRG here and removed again by me here. On STATRG's Talk page, I left a welcome message and a note about OR for STATRG here. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Update done

in this dif. I used quotes extensively since we seem unable to agree on paraphrasing. This approach usually resolves differences on that front. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sad that this was necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This change, at least, reflects the source accurately which is what I was requesting. While there may be an overabundance of quoted text at least we now have accuracy. I am fine with this change.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC))

There was a bit of overuse of the word "claim," I did a bit of wikignoming on that. Yeah, we won't be a featured article any time soon, but that works well enough for now to settle the immediate issue. Montanabw^(talk) 21:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Note

big bolus of unsourced content was added back in 2009 in this dif. Need to see where that come from... Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That section has a few sources now. Looks like it is mostly descriptive. Probably no rush there, as it describes concepts, makes no scientific claims. Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

there is never a rush. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to change wording

Who is edit warring who? Seems disingenuous to cite me for edit warring when I made a change and was reverted. I cited the review conclusions specific to the technique, that's how we best serve science, the review, and the encyclopedia. I can't fight tag teaming nor do I want to.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

LittleOliveOil we negotiated the heck out of this above - a long and unpleasant negotiation - but we finally reached a point where everyone was happy enough and not too unhappy. Unilaterally reopening that, especially with no prior discussion, is a prime example of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and is just disruptive. If - and I hope you think long and hard about it - you really want to re-open this negotiation again, please start a discussion here, taking into account the work we already did. Again I find it remarkable that you have said over and over that the key aspects of Alexander are about theater/dance and not about health (dif, first comment here, here, here, here, but every single edit you have made to the article has been to this stuff about health benefits or the lack thereof. Every one of the 27.

but please do really consider if you want to re-open the discussion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We did not discuss this section and the specific wording which reflects the conclusions reviewers reached on the technique. We were discussing the lead.

What I said is that the technique is a long-used technique in theater and that the research is less dominant than is AT use in a practical setting in theater ( summarizing myself). I am working on an article as a whole , so in that light, whatever my views are I am attempting to deal with the research in a forthright and accurate way. The information I added was specific and very specific to the reviewers own words. The words edit warred in place were not and were as far as I can see sourced to a blog. Jytdog do not threaten me, and do not mischaracterize my actions or try to make them what they are not. You reverted a good faith edit as did Alexbrn. As I said above but I'll repeat it, I have no interest in a discussion in which my actions are mischaracterized, and where there is tag teaming. What is tendentious are the efforts to mischaracterize this technique, one that is so mainstream in the theater world as to be blatantly obvious to anyone who has any kind of experience in theater /dance. I understand some editors here do not have this kind of experience, but what is not acceptable is to paint pictures that are false both of the topic area and the editors editing here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

I'd add. I have no interest in this technique's health benefits outside of the posture that is necessary for healthy and effective movement in a performance format. I had no interest in the research, did not even know there was any, and had no idea the technique was being touted for its other health benefits. Its use, lets call it clinical, is clear. So no I didn't come to this article trying to skew the research as is implied by some editors and Jytdog above, and could care less personally; it doesn't impact me in a personal way. However, the bias exhibited here in terms of wanting to make sure the technique is characterized as a pseudoscience when its not a science, its a movement technique, and when it looks like there is legitimate research connected to the technique is mind boggling. I can only wonder with real amazement as to how a movement technique has come under the thumb of the pseudoscience fighters.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

Is it a pseudoscience? Awaiting comment in the thread above! Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No interest in getting into a discussion when editors start mischaracterizing. I've said what I have to say, but I will ask you a question. Is an apple pseudoscience or is it that there is a possibility that research on that apple, just a fruit and a food, could be pseudoscientific? Science is the tool and the servant not the master. I was shocked to hear a physician here say medicine is science. I find that broad brush approach surprising. Medicine, I hope, is a healing modality; its servant along with the physician is science. Pseudoscience theories according to Wikipedia, "...characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods." Few people eating apples or teaching a movement technique as is taught all over the world with AT are carrying on scientific research. As with apple eating there may be good research on AT and there may be research which does not comply with scientific standards and methods. Pseudoscience is possible with both. Neither the apple nor the AT technique are pseudoscientific in and of themselves, and the while science behind eating the apple serves the apple and its benefits, the apple is not in and of itself science. Since you and others have allowed reviews on the study of the AT into this article I have to assume that per our RS you consider these reviews to be science not pseudoscience. Perhaps you have discarded other research as not compliant with good scientific standards-pseudoscience.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

Following the analogy, this article isn't about apples, but a concoction made from apples that's notable for health claims about it. --Ronz (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

In my view AT is notable for its use by people in the performing arts to help them be more aware of their bodies so they can perform better. The claims about "health benefits" are fringey and are not a big deal overall, and are appropriately WEIGHTed in the article. The fuss over the lack of evidence that it is good for much healthwise (treating any actual disease or condition) is hard for me to understand. This is not like acupuncture or something. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes and its notable because of its world wide use not because of the research on it. I agree. I wouldn't expect to find health benefits from what is basically a posture technique beyond the kinds of effects good posture and good balance bring. Fringe may be a better word to describe its research at this point in time.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

section header sidebar

section header sidebar

LittleOlive Oil. The edit that was reverted, after which you opened this section, was this, shown via redaction marks: An Australian review concluded that the Alexander Technique might help alleviate lower back pain in the short-term (up to 3 months) but that the safety and cost-effectiveness of the treatment was not established. It considered the The Australian review concluded there is insufficient evidence for conclusions to be poor drawn in regards to other clinical conditions. When you opened this section, here, you named it "Edit warring, tag teaming?" I changed the header here with edit note: "More neutral header" to "Health claims redux" In this edit, you changed the header to "Attempt to change wording per source" and your edit note read: "Mischaracterization. Again.This was never about health effects, but simply about closer wording to source" The content you edited was about health. Again, every single edit you have made to the article has been to this stuff about health benefits or the lack thereof. Every one of the 27. I have recorded the diffs here. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC) I edited content to reword the review conclusions to be closer to what the source says. To say the edit was about health is a broad generalization which could be used almost anywhere and for anyone on this article, and ultimately mischaracterizes my edit. Are syntax changes about health? What are you trying to do Jytdog?(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)) Every edit you have made to this article to date has been exactly this - contesting the description of how the lack of evidence for health effects to treat diseases/conditions is described. Every one. Protest all you want. If I need to use these diffs to stop your disruption, your misrepresentations, including the one you just made again (you changed far more than "syntax"), will be obvious to everyone. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The wording "poor" was not agreed to and it is not what the source says. the source says "insufficient." So let's stay with the source. Very few words. Please also maintain civility and do not threaten other editors. Montanabw^(talk) 07:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not interested in stirring up old stuff, just think the content "poor" exceeds what the source says. It's WP:SYNTH. The evidence might be poor, it might be great, but we can't make that assessment; we need to stay within the parameters of the source, which said "insufficient." Perhaps rather than the old phrasing, we can just agree to replace the word "poor" with the word "insufficient" (and any minor adjustments of surrounding words to make grammatical sense). Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are not interested in stirring up old stuff, then this conversation would not have been restarted for the second time, by you. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content, not personalities. There were some active edits by some drive-bys, I looked back at older edits and saw that we did have a synth problem in that sentence. I suggest it be changed to better match the source. Montanabw^(talk) 09:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Am discussing behavior, not personalities. See my initial note in this section above. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Behavior is indistinguishable from "personalities" in this situation. Please focus on CONTENT. Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You have to stop insisting the section and content was discussed; it wasn't. The lead was discussed; this content was not. Furthermore, mischaracterizing what an editor says and does as you did with me is the worst kind of personal attack. And you did personalize this conversation above when you said to Montana, "If you are not interested in stirring up old stuff, then this conversation would not have been restarted for the second time, by you." Deal with the edit and the legitimate question of why wording for the conclusion which accurately summarizes the conclusions in the review has been superseded by another version which is further from the wording of the review and possibly OR. This is such a simple thing why the big fuss. What do you gain by representing the review this way? And no I have no interest in reverting you, but I am concerned about accuracy in what is going on here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC))

if there is something that has changed in the literature that make this actually worth revisiting, that would make sense. This is indeed a very minor thing and I have no desire to repeat what we went through earlier, especially for no good reason., "i happened to look at this again and gee i really don't like where we ended up" is not a great reason. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing. Please don't.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC))

please reread Montanabw's comment here; yes i paraphrased that. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your "paraphrase", Jytdog, was overbroad and exceeded what the source stated. Returning to the CONTENT discussion, I suggest we change the section "It considered the evidence to be poor" to either read, "It concluded there was insufficient evidence for conclusions to be drawn in regards to other clinical conditions," or "It considered the evidence insufficient." Take your pick, but the study did not say the evidence was "poor" -- it said there wasn't enough of it to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

• as i said if some new sources were being introduced that drove a change i would be happy to discuss new content based on them. I don't see any point in re-opening the very ugly discussion we had above. "i see SYN now" is not real convincing when we together beat all of this to death not too long ago. it was good enough for all of us then, and nothing has changed. please respect the work we already did.

On the other hand if you really want to renegotiate this, we can do that. I have some more sources I can bring that will allow even stronger language about the the lack of evidence for AT for various diseases/conditions. It hasn't been worth my time to generate that content but if you really want to re-open this, then I'll just do a rewrite with the additional sources. I would rather spend my time elsewhere. but what would you like to have happen here? Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is a threat - keep on discussing this and I will bring in more sources which indicate a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of AT. Unfortunately, what this indicates is that you are determined to see a simple sentence which accurately summarizes the conclusions of the review as positive rather than just the clear and neutral edit that references a source correctly- a non-neutral position on your part. Further have you forgotten that I indicated above, "I wouldn't expect to find health benefits from what is basically a posture technique beyond the kinds of effects good posture and good balance bring." Why would I care if you have more evidence about AT's lack of evidence unless that content and also any other content entered into the article violates weight. I don't like to be threatened Jytdog. You are skirting an issue here by attempting to intimidate and mischaracterize the editors and the discussion. That's not great!(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC))

We are not "renegotiating" anything. In my case, in the prior rounds of dispute over this article, I either missed that one, or it simply was lost in the walls and walls of text that were spent here. To me, this is almost like a discussion over whether to fix a typo — We are looking at a single source and a single sentence with an eye to making our phrasing line up with the content. In a normal situation, this would be a small wikignoming edit. I believe that within the article space, WP:POINT is applicable. There already is an accepted general agreement —even if reached through a combination of compromise and fatigue rather than consensus—that the article is stable. We have an error that I believe constitutes SYNTH. I think that error should be corrected. Now, shall we return to the discussion of the word "poor" versus the word "insufficient"? I see no reason to disrupt the entire article over this small issue. Montanabw^(talk)

adding sourced content is a threat? strange. OK it seems there is a strong desire to renegotiate. I will go ahead and work on the new sourced content and we can revisit then, when there is some new basis for discussion. will take a bit of time. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Do not make assumptions about other people's motives. A desire to change one sentence or even word was not a request to "renegotiate" an entire section. Your changes were pretty WP:POINTy, and normally you can write better than this, but if you are content with the new phrasing and it calms you down, then we only need to do minor text cleanup. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No discussion of motives. You were explicit in wanting to re-open discussion about this section, which we did beat to death not long ago. You wanted to renegotiate it. So here we are. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Mainly I edited the first paragraph that gets changed around constantly...and did some switching around of sentences in "principles" area, grouping sentences in Primary Control over to the "Direction" area. Pretty much I tried to remove writing that implied there is some sort of a "right" or "correct" way to move, which creates an assumption for students that is tricky to deal with when they come for lessons. Also removed writing from those who attempted to endorse themselves as THE particularly qualified group of A.T. teachers. (There are many professional peer membership groups worldwide of A.T. and they are all reputable.) (I'm the Alexander Technique teacher who wrote the first Wiki from a stub on Alexander Technique decades ago.) Sorry, I couldn't remember my loggin details when I got into editing. It's Franis Engel 2605:E000:D40C:F600:A01F:71E9:F349:FFC7 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC) who did that last edit...

Aetna?

In the section Health effects, how is an unsigned citation, not published in a medical journal and on an insurance company webpage, meeting WP:MEDRS standards? Not only that, the references that mention the Alexander technique in the citation are old and stale from 2000 and 2003. The cited paragraph should be deleted. Ward20 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

For poorly studied alt med practices like AT sometimes insurance company evaluations are our best sources for reviews of the evidence. See WP:PARITY Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not a generally accepted standard. WP:MEDRS states, " literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations." Not only that, the Alexander Technique information on the Aetna page dates decades before the latest WP:MEDRS citations found some benefit for some medical conditions for the Alexander Technique.

Also, your reversion was NOT neutral. The wording reverted was very faithful to the content of the citation given. The present wording uses a partial wording for the citation talking about vague claims. Then in the next paragraph an editorial statement refers back to the fist citation and gives the impression all claims are not true as it leads into a proposed use that hasn't evidence of efficacy from a different citation. This is WP:SYNTH to fabricate a Non neutral point of view. Please self revert as the present wording is WP:POV pushing. Ward20 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You will find it is pretty common on alt med topics, when there is a lack of reviews in the biomedical literature. WP:PARITY is widely used. There is no SYN here. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm very concerned about SYNTH, POV, and MEDRS problems here, especially for content like Studies have found that the technique is beneficial for some afflictions, but other medical conditions have not been tested rigorously to show support for its use. It's replacement with Some advocates for the Alexander technique have claimed it can help people with many kinds of health conditions. seems a much better presentation given the sources and the policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If you review the history of this talk page you will see that it is all the result of a lot of ... negotiating and has been scrutinized intensely. Of course please feel free to improve but please edit carefully. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

New research report from Univ or York, UK in Annals of Internal Medicine

Here is a reference to an articl in The Annals of Internal Medicine of a study sourced from the University of York, UK

MacPherson, Hugh; Tilbrook, Helen; Richmond, Stewart; et al. (University of York) (2015). "Alexander Technique Lessons or Acupuncture Sessions for Persons With Chronic Neck Pain."". Annals of Internal Medicine (163 (9)): 653. doi:10.7326/M15-0667. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |layurl= ignored (help)

It basically shows Alexander Technique and Acupuncture are more effective when used in addition to standard physiotherapy. Redwolfe (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Usefulness for actors in lead

I'll add content to the lead that pertains to actors and theater in the next few days. There is preponderance (weight) of information in sources in this area; I'll probably add a little more content to the article's body before dealing with the lead.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

Rework per sources to be more complete

I've reworked the lead, first-few sentences to reflect the sources and technique more completely. As it was we were trying to explain the technique in a very short form and were leaving the explanation a bit unfinished and awkward. Hopefully I've been able to put the several versions tested in the lead together along with an understanding of the source content to be a more complete explanation.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC))

Kudos for trying to make some progress on this.

retrains habitual patterns of movement and posture Seems a bit too like putting an in-world claim into Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Try addition. Does that solve the problem?(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

"impact" is less definitive than "improves" since it is neither positive nor negative but simply means "effects". However, I'm fine with either word.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

except that "effects" is a noun. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we use effects I suggested we use impacts and that impacts can mean effects... but effects if used here would be a verb. There are a very few instances where effect can be a verb; its tricky so I wouldn't suggest using it here.Impacts is more neutral than improves because it is not positive or negative which is why I suggested it, but as I said either is fine with me (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

Just looking at this afresh, the first few sentences seem to be saying the same thing with just different wording. Needs condensing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree; I had a sense of redundancy last night but was too tired to look at it more than I did. I've reworded this morning, and hope this is an improvement.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

2nd sentence isn't quite right either.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

Fixed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

• @Jytdog:. I'll be reverting your edit. The content was very specifically edited to both make sure content was in Wikipedia's voice per Alexbrn's cmt above and to describe the technique in as complete a way as possible while also summarizing. As well your comment to quit fiddling was patronizing and ignorant and would be for even a new editor but doubly so for an experienced editor. Your summary is provocative and introduces battleground behavior in a discussion that was peaceful and productive. And by the way copy editing to get meaning just right while trying to take into account the content added by other editors and comments here is what collaborative editing is. You didn't even bother to post on this talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

The content was overly fussy and repetitive but this small change is OKish. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I would disagree strongly; it wasn't repetitive. Retraining movement patterns and posture is the result of using the technique and references the technique's use. Spatial awareness another aspect of the technique, references the mover and deals with her awareness of the body. Alexander believed overall health could be affected another important aspect. All three have to be mentioned to have a complete summary.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

Its easier for me to write something from scratch. It takes much longer, for me at least, and the result may be less clear, to try and use/integrate what other editors have left behind into what I'm writing. For me this is respectful of other editors. If you can figure out a way of making my edits less complex or fussy as you said, be my guest. I'm attached to the meaning, but not my own edits.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

• • Support Bellagio99 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

its fine now. it doesn't repeat itself. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple Issues: Insufficient citation, original research, and non-neutral point of view.

With apologies to editors who have worked hard on this article, I have added the above tags at the top of the article, indicating its deficiencies and failure to meet key wikipedia policies.

I wish I had time to work to bring the article into compliance myself, but drawing attention to where it needs work is all I can do now. I hope this will focus interested editors to improve the article. I appreciate that the nature of the subject matter may makes this seem a particularly hard challenge, but frame claims as claims, and I bet things will fall into place.

The current section on "primary control" exemplifies problems throughout the article: claims presented as facts (non-neutrality), a lack of citation (a total lack in this section), and original research in place of where reliably-sourced information needs to be (with this section being a pure slice of "original research"). — Aliveness Cascade (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a silly set of tags, undeserved. I'm posting here to remind myself that the next time I see this I should delete the tags, if nobody has already done so. The article is reasonable, and doesn't need this poorly explained badge of shame. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Change of order in 'Health Effects' section

I've changed the order of paragraphs in the 'Health Effects' section. It seems more natural to start with the health effects that are supported by evidence, and then move onto health effects which aren't (after all, if they aren't supported by evidence, they're not really 'health effects' - more like 'health non-effects'). I've also removed the line stating 'Proponents of the Alexander technique often claim it can help people with a wide range of health conditions.' This is a direct copy and paste from the citation here (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alexander-technique/), however the citation does not itself cite any sources for this statement. However, if this is alright, this statement could be re-instated into the wiki article, it just doesn't seem properly supported by the citation given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.96.125 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's an improvement. The NHS typically doesn'y cite sources, but they are a high-quality source we can use. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)