Talk:Alexander Technique
(Redirected from Talk:Alexander technique)
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Bon courage in topic First sentence - no teacher would agree with
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alexander Technique article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Daily page views
|
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 September 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Need additional input
editMy points are being ignored and stonewalled; please other editors some additional feedback? 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- You could always post at WP:FT/N to get HUNDREDs of eyes. Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the new lede looks pretty good, how could we work in mind body intervention without disrupting your tingling fringe senses? 2604:CA00:16B:9E4F:0:0:665:BBD7 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is truly a WP:DEADHORSE judging by the archives stuffed with discussion of it. There seems to be a WP:POVSOURCING issue with the desire to 'work in' certain wording, then finding the sources to match. You can post to WP:FT/N if you want wide input. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- The wording is what most accurately describes the subject of the wiki; it seems that proving the subject as invalid is more important than describing the subject accurately to some editors. Which program fits better with the mission if wikipedia? 72.89.19.118 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- You can post to WP:FT/N if you want wide input. Bon courage (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also it's not even the wording I would choose it's the most accurate category that describes AT under the banner of alt med. provided by wiki 72.89.19.118 (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've been following these discussions, and I agree with Bon courage et al. It feels to me very much like a DEADHORSE situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NPOVN#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project (GSoW). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why isn't this article semi'd? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good question. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- ANI may be a better venue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good question. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- The wording is what most accurately describes the subject of the wiki; it seems that proving the subject as invalid is more important than describing the subject accurately to some editors. Which program fits better with the mission if wikipedia? 72.89.19.118 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is truly a WP:DEADHORSE judging by the archives stuffed with discussion of it. There seems to be a WP:POVSOURCING issue with the desire to 'work in' certain wording, then finding the sources to match. You can post to WP:FT/N if you want wide input. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the new lede looks pretty good, how could we work in mind body intervention without disrupting your tingling fringe senses? 2604:CA00:16B:9E4F:0:0:665:BBD7 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Incorporating concepts from mindfulness
editI'm unclear how "incorporating concepts from mindfulness" is due in the lede without mention elsewhere in the article, nor how Alexander was able to access and incorporate such concepts in its development. Instead, this sounds like an after-the-fact categorization and rationalization of the practice. - Hipal (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's mentioned in the SBM piece cited, and also in this one.[1] We don't mirror other definitional stuff between lede body and it seems harmless enough. I agree it probably is a retro-fit to try and surf the mindfulness wave of a few years ago. Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be in the first sentence then. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have no strong preference for my edit - have at it! Bon courage (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- How's this?
- The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a type of alternative therapy incorporating concepts from mindfulness.[1][2] It is based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems.[1][3]: 221 The American National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health classifies it as a "Complementary Psychological and Physical Health Approach" (mind-body intervention). [4] When used together with mainstream methods AT is considered complementary, when used in place of conventional medicine, it's considered alternative.[4] 2600:4040:9144:8500:C178:4813:C963:A4F (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for seeing that mindfulness is an important part of classifying AT. 2600:4040:9144:8500:C178:4813:C963:A4F (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be in the first sentence then. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
ee150was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
aus17was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
blochwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
NCCIH3/10/2023was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- The WP:LEDE summarizes and introduces the article. Because this isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, the addition to the lede is problematic. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well obviously the article is lacking a lot of meat that was hacked out in previous edits and not replaced with anything beyond Ernst for a while. As Bon Courage pointed out there is support in the sourcing and every independent source on AT calls it a "mind-body" method. 2600:4040:913E:EF00:C178:4813:C963:A4F (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Either way it is a nearly content-free descriptor which doesn't belong in the lead. We should be using the opening lines to explain what it actually is, not to put in marketing buzzwords. While we're at it the quotes attributed to the NCCIH (a famously fringe body) should be cut as well. MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agree on all counts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- These are the only sources that give any kind of specific descriptors. You guys are on a mission to make the wiki as vague and meaningless as possible. Mind-body practices, somatics, mindfulness, MECPs are all nearly synonymous. What is a generic term is alternative med/.therapy, complementary therapy... Those labels surely do apply but a more specific description should follow. 2604:CA00:17C:1B94:0:0:663:ED88 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Quickly sweeping away entire fields of study? 2604:CA00:17C:1B94:0:0:663:ED88 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agree on all counts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Either way it is a nearly content-free descriptor which doesn't belong in the lead. We should be using the opening lines to explain what it actually is, not to put in marketing buzzwords. While we're at it the quotes attributed to the NCCIH (a famously fringe body) should be cut as well. MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
First sentence - no teacher would agree with
editRegarding the second half of the first sentence of this article: ¨is a type of alternative therapy based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems.¨ I believe I can safely say that no Alexander technique teacher would agree with this statement. Typically it is not referred to as a therapy, the use of the word posture will mislead the reader, and AT is not focussed on relieving specific health problems but rather on changing global habits. What about this sentence: ¨The Alexander Technique (AT) is an approach to changing habits of postural support, muscle tension, movement, attention, and reactivity.¨ ( https://alexandertechniquescience.com/general-at/what-is-alexander-technique/ ) 213.93.108.91 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- This has been discussed ad nauseam; see this Talk page and its archives. As a 'real world' check I look online at what AT vendors are offering and straight away see it being touted for asthma,[2] Looks to me like a classic Motte and bailey fallacy is in play. When challenged, AT vendors are like 'me!? medical!? oh no!" but left to their own devices they are happy to advertise with medical claims. Bon courage (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)