Talk:Alexander Technique

Rewrite of lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why isn't alternative medicine mentioned in lede?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accusations

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

Use of Twinkle to revert changes to Alexander Technique Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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