Talk:Feldenkrais Method
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Bon courage in topic Non-RS blog source
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feldenkrais Method article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Non-RS blog source
editBlogs are not reliable sources. I recommnend this is removed. re WP:RS Anna (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Blogs by established experts can be used as reliable sources, and David Gorski is an established expert on altmed. MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- That would be WP:RSP#ScienceBlogs. Great for WP:PARITY wrt fringe topics, such as this. Bon courage (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do wonder how much WP:PARITY applies when there are four systematic reviews present in that article that cover the subject with actual rigor. Are we really in need of skeptical potshots when there is actual science going on? Ocaasi t | c 12:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most altmeds have plenty of "science going on" even, still, homeopathy.[1] Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the pseudoscience, I'm talking about the mainstream WP:MEDRS reviews. Ocaasi t | c 12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The point is, there are mainstream MEDRS reviews of all kinds of woo. It doesn't stop them being woo. The idea that wiggling your legs will help with autism is just quackery, so some WP:PARITY on this seems appropriate & necessary. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the pseudoscience, I'm talking about the mainstream WP:MEDRS reviews. Ocaasi t | c 12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose that depends on if the 'actual science' is being published in junk journals such as the ones mentioned above in the 'Missing systematic reviews' talk section. MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, no, the FOUR systematic reviews we already cite IN the article. Ocaasi t | c 12:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Blog source in this case is criticising a blog, a blogger and a website, not Feldenkrais. David Gorski is not saying he knows anything about Feldrenkrais. Anna (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that rather the point? That the official blog of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston was routinely promoting dubious stuff. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Blog source in this case is criticising a blog, a blogger and a website, not Feldenkrais. David Gorski is not saying he knows anything about Feldrenkrais. Anna (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, no, the FOUR systematic reviews we already cite IN the article. Ocaasi t | c 12:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most altmeds have plenty of "science going on" even, still, homeopathy.[1] Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do wonder how much WP:PARITY applies when there are four systematic reviews present in that article that cover the subject with actual rigor. Are we really in need of skeptical potshots when there is actual science going on? Ocaasi t | c 12:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
As you know, the article is nothing to do with our personal opinions or impressions or tastes. This is to do with sourcing. The critique of the Anderson Centre's webpage. He's not an "expert" on Feldenkrais or anything to do with it Anna (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- He's an expert on fringe medicine, quackery and pseudoscience and he is "reliable" for his own view, no? Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)