Talk:Feldenkrais Method/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

example of blind person learning to play piano

To amplify the example of a blind person learning to play the piano. Suppose this person learns to play well. Then he or she studies with a master and learns to play even better. It does not follow that the earlier playing was bad or that learning to play better is a treatment for it. Instead of focussing on specific skills like piano playing, Feldenkrais addressed our overall general abilities, the most general of which is movement itself. Changes to our most general ability are overall changes and can be undertaken without thinking about correcting or curing or healing anything. When a child learns to crawl that is a positive stage in its learning to walk. When it learns to walk the child does not cure itself of a negative state of crawling nor does it leave crawling behind as it learns to walk. Instead it develops crawling into walking as it improves its mobility and freedom in the world. In other words, things do not have to be wrong in order for us to want to do better. If that were so we would have no great musicians, no great actors, no great surgeons, no great artists, no great anything. Mediocrity would not just be the norm. It would be the rule. TB

body image

Discussion about body image: the article describes body image first as arrangements of motor and sensory cortices, and mentions the homonoculus. This implies that CHANGES in body image somehow change the arrangement, which I don't think is true at all. A body image as I understand it has to do with our *conceptual* understanding of how our body "works", which is different than, and far more sophisticated than, a picture of a homonculous. I think this section could be greatly improved by giving a better and truer definition of body image. Ratsrcute 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible linkspam

There are a large number of links in this article appear to violate WP:EL and WP:SPAM. To change this, I propose removing the Influence on Somatics section and all links in the Resources and External links section that are to sites that "primarily exist to sell products or services" (which at a cursory glance appears to be almost all of them). --Ronz 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Influence on Somatics after someone reverted it without discussion. --Ronz 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the whole bottom section there is a bit muddled. I'd argue that, for example, Aikido and Eutony are far less relevant to this article than the things which were deleted - which were all specific derivations from the Feldenkrais method. I'm not sure they belong here either - but maybe rather an overview of the development of somatic methods and which influenced what on the common somatics page or similar? --KineticScientist 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

After Influence on Somatics was restored again without discussion, I've removed all the questionable external links. --Ronz 15:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed almost all the items from the "Resources and External links" section that appeared to violate WP:EL and/or WP:SPAM. If I removed a source for the page, the specific reference should be added into a References section with author, date, etc. I removed links to non-English sites as well. --Ronz 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored the links, allowing for proper discussion with the many authors of this article. The links you deleted were official non-profit guilds for the Feldenkrais method. They provide unique value not in the article and they are not spam. They satisfy both WP:EL and WP:SPAM and they satisfy the common sense of the many authors of this article. Some of the links are also sources for the article (I know 'cos I wrote much of the article). The sites provide neutral and accurate information that supports the article and provide the most useful external value you could for this article. Great care was taken by the original authors to provide the best and most neutral links possible.

Oddly, the one link you left at the bottom is the most dubious of all the links. Why did you leave this one dubious link? 211.26.207.79 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And, oddly, you put a personal attack in your edit comment. Not appreciated. Commenting and editing anonymously doesn't help address the issue either. Since you claim to have written most of the article, then why not properly reference it? --Ronz 15:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving on... (At least we have the beginnings of a discussion, which is appreciated.) I suggest actual resources be listed as such, separated from external links so there is less confusion about what the links are and to make the article follow WP:V and WP:RS. As I understand, foreign-language links should be removed unless they're being used for sources, though I haven't tracked down policy and guidelines on this. --Ronz 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your ideas about listing actual resources, external links and references, I completely agree with you. Please go ahead and do something constructive for the article. 211.26.207.79 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I already did. --Ronz 14:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be civil? Wholesale deleting other peoples edits is very aggressive behaviour, and is discouraged on Wikipedia. You even stated that you only deleted the XL's in response to someone else's edit that you didn't like (stated above). Again, this is not civil. In general, you are too new to wikipedia to be effectively implementing linkspam policies. We do not need vigilantism and I'm sure you'll be formally warned if you continue deleting article content without actually making additive edits.

Consider whether you might have some information to actually want to add to an article somewhere? It's easy to come in and delete other peoples work, but it takes real effort, commitment, and positive character to actually add knowledge to wikipedia. I'm sure you'll agree with the thousands of editors that edit this way. Just give it a try.

Blessings. 211.27.117.141 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

More personal attacks? Sorry you don't like my editing. Sorry you don't like my pointing out a potential problem, proposing a solution, giving plenty of time for discussion, compromising on my proposal after discussion, then going through with the rest of my proposal. If this isn't positive enough for you, too bad. I'm not the one making repeated personal attacks here. --Ronz 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As requested, by Ronz, I am summarizing a discussion about external links on the page for the Feldenkrais Method. Very simply, I put up a link to a page within a site that contains unique article about the Feldenkrais Method that I believed expands the understanding of topics not discussed on the main page. The link was removed as spam. I initiated a discussion with person who removed the link I posted making the following points:

- the official sites linked provide a lot of access to articles on the Method, as well as to merchandise such tapes, books, CDs and DVDs. - the last two sites currently posted are "non-official" sites and offer commercial services such as courses and merchandise. My point was that as an issue of fairness, either complete reliance on such information and access to merchandise be left to the official sites meaning removal of all private sites selling education or merchandiseOR the link I posted which was no more commercial than the others be also allowed as it contains real information not displayed on other sites. Teacher58 05:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Teacher58

Influences

I've restored the influences section since there are plenty of reasons to expand this section. Please expand or edit the section accordingly. I've removed the external links, which will alleviate any concerns. 58.178.100.66 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

CAM Therapy

I've restored the sentence on CAM Therapy in the introduction because it seems obvious to me that people who aren't part of the Feldenkrais clique need a proper context for it. Feldenkrais \is almost universally marketed as a therapy at therapeutic centres. Please reword the sentence if you see it can be improved. The intention is still to contextualise Feldenkrais realistically according to how it is actually used in communities (and not strictly according to what Feldenkrais' says). 58.178.103.56 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I reverted a series of edits by a new, anonymous editor made multiple changes that I feel made the section confusing, as well as introduced unsourced claims and assertions that I feel violate WP:NPOV, and clearly go against current consensus and WP:LEAD. A user that has made no other contributions to this article has reverted my change against consensus. --Ronz 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The contentious series of edits by 128.12.150.10 are these. These were reverted by you with the edit comment: rv to last by SmackBot - far more clear, removed unsources claims, assertions, pov, etc.

• I see this as a problematic statement (POV): "The implementaiotn of physical aspects improves many clinical conditions (...) However, the important fact remains, that the changes achived through this work have ramifications and applicaitons far beyond physical improvement alone, as they directly and positively impact cognitive and psychological process."

• I specifically found this change elucidating as compared with the previous text: "The Feldenkrais Method is defined as a learning method, first and foremost: a learning about the self and self-image in the world, through the utilization of physical movement. Movement as the definition and reflection of internal thought process. Therefore, it is a vehicle to improve performance at any level - from severe disorder to highly professional performance." This might warrant a reference, but I don't think it's appropriate simply to strike it.

• References to Ida Pauline Rolf, F. Matthias Alexander, and Milton Erickson were removed. I'm sure this could be discussed.

• An example of how an exercise in the Feldenkrais method can be developed spanning several paragraphs was deleted. I'm sure this could be discussed as well.

• Details on the historical development of the Feldenkrais Method were clearly an improvement, but one might request a citation of sources.

All in all I see issues with the anonymous editor's contribution, however, I do not think it is a good way of dealing with these simply to revert. That precludes integrating valuable elements that are thrown out without at all having been acknowledged. It is unlikely that other editors will go into the details of a deleted edit of such complexity as the one in question.

I trust we can resolve this matter from this point on to the satisfaction of all concerned editors. __meco 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you've decided to discuss the matter rather than simply revert! --Ronz 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now made an edit to deal with the first two issues I have listed. I will leave the rest for now. Maybe others wish to do some follow-up with regards to these or other issues. __meco 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, I think all viewpoints not discussed in detail in the rest of the article should be removed from the introduction. This includes much of what you've written. --Ronz 15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds kinda legalistic to me. It appears rather obvious to me that the distinction between introduction and the rest of the article is blurred, so I would suggest instead that this be worked at from that angle instead of summarily defining all text in front of the first section header as "the introduction." Also, I'm unsure what you are referring to as "much of what you've written" as I haven't contributed anything to the article other than editing other people's contributions, and the points I have enumerated here on the talk page apply to several sections, only the first two points deal with text in the first section. __meco 16:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Much of what you've written" - Sorry. In my rush to give you a reply, I had a hard time distinguishing who made what edits to the lead and when. It's the changes to the lead you made through the revert that I'm concerned about, changes that were from the ip. You removed some of the worst of them, so we're making progress. --Ronz 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

some suggestions

[ This section has been moved from top of page - please add new topics at the bottom, thanks... --Parsifal _Hello 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC) ]

I'm a trainee in the Feldenkrais method. This article has many problems. It's not well organized and contains a lot of questionable statements. The introduction is very technical and could include language that addresses more the person who wants to understand in simple terms what the method could do for them.

Note, however, that writing generally about the Feldenkrais Method is difficult, because every practitioner has their own 'take'. Ask 50 practitioners to describe the method in one paragraph, and you'll get 50 different answers. So my proposal is that we structure the article around Moshe's own words. For example, the book The Potent Self is something Moshe wrote for a general audience. We could organize the article around that book, using the same sorts of language and examples. Of course it would be shorter. But by sticking with Moshe's language and conception, we stand a chance of some consensus, and might just write a useful articulate article at the same time. Ratsrcute 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your suggestion in general, though I don't think it needs to result in a shorter article, it will just take some time to get it properly referenced. His other book, The Elusive Obvious also has much to offer in this regard.

You are welcome proceed with improving the page. The main thing to keep in mind is the importance of references - you can read about that in this core policy page: WP:Verifiable. We can use the books of Feldenkrais, and it would also be good to find books written by others about his method. We could probably find some of those using Google Books, or maybe you already know of some. Using inline footnotes (wikimarkup instructions here) is a good way to support the content with the references. Thanks for your suggestions, I look forward to the progress of the article. --Parsifal _Hello 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. One of my thoughts is the possibility that the introduction deliberately takes several perspectives. For example, it would say something like 'The Feldenkrais Method is difficult to sum up in one sentence. From a theoretical point of view, it is a method for expanding and refining the use of the self through awareness. From a practical point of view, it attracts people with chronic pain, neurological limitations...TBD. Because it uses movement as the primary vehicle for gaining awareness, it is directly applicable to disorders that arise from restricted or habitually poor movement. But as a process for gaining awareness, it can expand one's responses to emotions, relationships, and intellectual tasks.'

Of course, what's there (the first paragraph) isn't bad, except an awkward phrase here or there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratsrcute (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Those seem like good ideas. Currently, my Wiki-time is limited so I won't be able to discuss the details much, though I do keep an eye on this page and will help out when I can. I encourage you to be bold, and proceed with making edits to improve the article. You don't need to discuss the edits first, unless you want to, other than in situations where there is an ongoing dispute about content. Some articles have a lot of activity happening fast, but some articles change slowly. You can see the list of edits that have been made by clicking the "history" tab at the top of the page. If you click the history tab of the talk page, you'll find the talk page history. To see the history of the article edits, go to the article page and then click the history tab.

All the technical details aside, when you are ready, just go ahead and make the changes in the article. If someone doesn't agree, they might change it back - if that happens, don't take it personally. Here's are a couple good articles that describe the process: Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, and WP:CONSENSUS. But you don't need to read them first, you're welcome to dive in and start editing... --Parsifal _Hello 06:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "Instead of directly working a change to the physical body, they are working with the nervous system and enabling discovery of new choices." Sounds like New Age nonsense, not an encyclopedia article. (Anon July 7 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.106 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Good health is a matter of positive functioning"

This statement is vague. I'm changing it to "Good health means functioning well---working well, having satisfying relationships, able to access a full range of responses to any situation---as opposed to health in a medical sense, or in any sense divorced from how humans actually function in day-to-day life." I'm not sure if this is what the original author intended, but we can discuss.

--Ratsrcute 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Overview"

I have edited overview to hopefully make it read better. Two sentences were removed because they were incoherence, I agree that they were but thought they were hinting at an important point. Hopefully my rewriting is coherent. Sorry for the bad edit submition I hit return whilst describing the changes I made.

Charleskenyon (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

I removed the external links section because once again it was being used too much for promotion. See WP:ELNO #14 and #5, and a lesser extent #1 and #4. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Spanglej (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I am new to Wikipedia, and plan to start by helping with the Feldenkrais Method page as well as the Moshe Feldenkrais page. The purpose of this section is to outline a number of possibilities I see for improving the Feldenkrais Method page. I will make some of these changes myself, and will seek assistance with some other items.

First, thanks to those who have previously contributed content to these pages. There has been a lot of work done, and it is appreciated.

As a student of the Method, I know that there is a great deal more quality content that can be added to this page, and I will be looking for others in the Feldenkrais community to contribute their knowledge and expertise to the project.

Here are my suggestions so far:

• It would be good to have a phonetic spelling of "Feldenkrais" after it is first mentioned

Relevant pages seem to be Template:Audio and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/PronunciationCanncann (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• It should be clarified that colloquially, the Feldenkrais Method is referred to as "Feldenkrais". I also wonder whether the article should apply a consistent approach to naming the method. Would it be appropriate to explain that the Method is usually referred to simply as "Feldenkrais" and then subsequently to use "Feldenkrais" rather than "the Feldenkrais Method". This would certainly make it more readable. It is potentially confusing differentiating between Feldenkrais the man and Feldenkrais the method. I would perhaps suggest that the Method page could use Feldenkrais to refer to the method, and "Moshé" or "Moshé Feldenkrais" to refer to the man. Similarly, the biographical page could use Feldenkrais to refer to the man, and "the Method" or "the Feldenkrais Method" to refer to the method.

I have made a minor adjustment in the first sentence. Perhaps this is enough. Canncann (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think that characterising the method as a somatic educational system, though perhaps correct, is not the most understandable way to describe the method in the fist sentence, particularly since the link with which this term is associated is to Somatics, not to somatic pedagogies per se. It seems to me that the method is perhaps a "pedagogy in the field of somatics" rather than a "somatic educational system".

I have changed the hyperlink so it only links the word "somatic". I think this probably is enough.Canncann (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Currently the page states "The Feldenkrais Method aims to improve movement repertoire, aiming to expand and refine the use of the self through awareness, in order to reduce pain or limitations in movement, and promote general well-being." I suggest this sentence is a little confusing because both the intended outcomes and the means to achieve those outcomes are all called "aims" of the method. It also includes a reference to the idea of "self-use" which, although common amongst teachers and students, is not a commonly understood phrase. I propose to rewrite the sentence as follows: "Feldenkrais aims to reduce pain or limitations in movement, to improve physical function, and to promote general wellbeing by increasing the student's awareness of themselves and by expanding the student's movement repertoire."

Done Canncann (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I note earlier conversations about the characterisation of the method as part of the field of "complementary and alternative medicine", and note that the sentence in the introductory paragraph now refers to integrative medicine and complementary medicine. I think this issue deserves another revision. As an interim measure, I have provided a minor edit to clarify the sense in which the method could be considered to fall within these fields. But I am not satisfied with my revision. In fact I think the issue deserves a whole new section under a heading like "The Feldenkrais Method as a treatment". I know that Feldenkrais is practiced by many physiotherapists in Australia, and it would be great if someone could find a reputable source that points to this fact so that we could expand the discussion on how the Method is used in a mainstream therapeutic context.
• It would be great if we could find an English language source for the comment on the Swedish healthcare system. Currently the page states "the method is practised within the normal healthcare system", but it is not clear what the "normal" system is, and also implies that anything else would be "abnormal".
• I think that the Approach section actually belongs in the Moshe Feldenkrais page rather than this one. It is a discussion of his approach, rather than anything specific about the method. I know it is a blurry distinction, but I think that the approach of the Method is best described under the headings of ATM and FI.
• There is no mention of the evolution of the method - the fact that it started with FI, and then that ATM was developed later. It would be great if someone who knows of some documentary evidence of this history could insert a section on the history of the Method itself.
• There is no mention that Awareness Through Movement and Functional Integration are registered trademarks.
• The scientific studies section could easily be built up. It would be great if others could help with that.
• The profession section could have more detail on which countries have guilds, how these guilds work with the IFF etc.
• the profession section doesn't say what practitioners are called, and the fact that you get an interim accreditation to teach ATM half way through your course.
• Have any of the guilds ever surveyed their members to find out what their professional backgrounds are? Such statistics would be very useful in illustrating the diversity of practitioners.
• There is no mention of professional journals and who publishes them
• There are no images! Can anyone help? Perhaps the IFF? Canncann (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• There are no direct quotes from Moshe.
• There could be a section on "Key Concepts" or something like that. What I have in mind is a place to discuss some of the idiosyncratic language that we use in the Method: things like "self-use", "organisation", "self-image" and so forth. Canncann (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Phonetic Spelling

• It would be good to have a phonetic spelling of "Feldenkrais" after it is first mentioned

Relevant pages seem to be Template:Audio and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/PronunciationCanncann (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Feldenkrais As A "Normal" Healthcare Practice

It would be great if we could find an English language source for the comment on the Swedish healthcare system. Currently the page states "the method is practised within the normal healthcare system", but it is not clear what the "normal" system is, and also implies that anything else would be "abnormal".

I note earlier conversations about the characterisation of the method as part of the field of "complementary and alternative medicine", and note that the sentence in the introductory paragraph now refers to integrative medicine and complementary medicine. I think this issue deserves another revision. As an interim measure, I have provided a minor edit to clarify the sense in which the method could be considered to fall within these fields. But I am not satisfied with my revision. In fact I think the issue deserves a whole new section under a heading like "The Feldenkrais Method as a treatment". I know that Feldenkrais is practiced by many physiotherapists in Australia, and it would be great if someone could find a reputable source that points to this fact so that we could expand the discussion on how the Method is used in a mainstream therapeutic context. Canncann (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• In Austria the law text ASVG §135 http://www.jusline.at/135._Ärztliche_Hilfe_ASVG.html lists what is medical intervention and "within the normal healthcare system". In Austria the Feldenkrais Method is not listed as such, even though some ill-informed practitioners keep saying it is. (Alfons) 217.25.116.50 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Use and presentation of individual studies

The recent rewrites to the "Scientific studies" section gives undue weight to the studies and irrelevant information about the studies. It needs a complete rewrite per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Thanks for your comment. I am pretty new to Wikipedia, so I am more than happy to be referred to these policies. I have edited the section again. Please let me know if you think there are still issues. As there is a shortage of secondary research on the Feldenkrais Method, and since there are no controversies that I am aware of, I think it is reasonable to cite some primary research. However, I have included an extra sentence about the lack of research so that the context does not exaggerate the authority of the studies. Happy to chat further.  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canncann (talk • contribs) 06:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Much improved. --Ronz (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to detail the studies that showed Feldenkrais to have no impact or negative impact, as well as those that show positive results, otherwise we wind up with non-representative positive bias. Span (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Span, I am all for removing non-representative bias, but the fact is that all published research, with the exception of the "no change" result already mentioned in the systematic review section, have shown positive results. If you can find any research to the contrary, I will be happy to post it. Canncann (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa - looking at the material in question, a lot of it was sourced to primary studies and promoting a much more positive impression of the Method than the systematic review. That review is really our only WP:MEDRS-compliant source. I have removed the other stuff accordingly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK Alexbrn, I take your point regarding referencing primary studies. In light of the fact that the number of published studies has more than doubled since that systematic review was published, it is actually less accurate and less informative than it was before - a perverse outcome from the Wikipedia policy. Canncann (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything new that's reliable (per WP:MEDRS) so that we can use it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I found another systematic review, and have will shortly update the evidence section accordingly. Tillersaurus (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's in EBCAM which is a notorious junk journal, and of no use to us. Alexbrn (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, can you please clarify what you mean by "notorious junk journal" and who "us" is? Can you refer me to a specific Wikipedia policy that prohibits the use of studies from that Journal? It is a peer reviewed systematic review of randomised controlled trials, and seems to me to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Moreover, the Australian Government's review was not peer reviewed, was a review based on policy rather than scientific objectives and methodologies, and only included data that was available at the time of the review. The systematic review you refer to appears to be both more recent, more thorough and more credible than the current reference to the Australian Government Review, so I will change it accordingly. Please advise if you can point to any specific flaw in the systematic review. Canncann (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)is at the other end of the specr

See WP:FRIND. EBCAM is published by Hindawi Publishing Corporation and has a poor reputation. We should use reliable sources. A publication by the Aus. Department of Health is at the other end of the spectrum, a good source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Influence on Somatics

A section called "influence on somatics" was added without any references, and with a range of broken links and inappropriate hyperlinks. I have deleted it, but paste the text here in case someone wants to improve the content and reinstate it:

Somatic disciplines influenced by Feldenkrais include: Hanna Somatics (Thomas Hanna), Rubenfeld Synergy (Ilana Rubenfeld), Tellington Touch (Linda Tellington-Jones), Anat Baniel Method (Anat Baniel), Bones for Life (Ruty Alon), (ChildSpace) (Chava Shelhav), Sounder Sleep System (Michael Krugman), Zen Bodytherapy (William S. Leigh), Psychophysical Method (Robert Masters), Relaxercise (Mark Reese & David Zemach-Bersin), The Embodied Life (Russell Delman), Core Movement Integration (Josef Dellagrotte), FlexAware (Steven Shafarman), Change Your Age (Frank Wildman) and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canncann (talk • contribs) 07:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. It's nothing but spam. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed another spam section referencing somatics and Alan Questel. It had no functioning links, and the would-be links that were there were not consistent with content policies. Canncann (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point, this article mentions influences on Feldenkrais but doesn't talk about how it influenced other methods. I think that first edit was meant in good faith.... it just shows an amateur understanding of WP. In addition to needing a source, we wouldn't link to those as weblinks but rather as wikilinks. --Karinpower (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Assumptions about Research

I appreciate the work Alexbrn and others have done to remove references to primary studies, as well as information that is biased or misleading. With a similar intention, my recent edit to the lead is an attempt to improve the accuracy of the statement being made. My intention is not to make make the article more positive or negative.

The statement I replaced doesn't accurately represent the findings of the Australian Government report cited. As well, the report itself recognizes multiple limitations to the scope of studies included in the review, as well as multiple potential sources of bias for the overview (see pages 59-62 of the report). Therefore, based on the cited source it cannot be claimed that no good evidence exists. What can be stated accurately is what I included in my edit. A similar edit should either be made to the wording in the Effectiveness section or the edit I made should possibly be moved there. Either way, there may be a way to make it more concise while retaining accuracy.Roywaters (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no good evidence (and a lot of rubbishy evidence): that is the summary. There should be a bit more detail in the body than the lede. We need to be careful not to imply that Feldenkrais is "just" awaiting validating research. The context is that it is a therapy which is promoted with various claims which are not supported by reality, and so is quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your assessment of the summary. It doesn't state that there is no good evidence, nor does it refer to the research that does exist as rubbish. It speaks to limitations in the research available. Again, it also references limitations to the scope of research included. I agree that we need to be careful not the imply that Feldenkrais is "just" awaiting validating research. My edit didn't make that claim or imply that in any way. The language I used was taken from the cited source as clearly stated that we cannot accurately assess medical claims at this time. That was the conclusion of the authors and is written directly in the source. When you start taking about "rubbishy evidence" and "quackery" it begins to sound as though you may be injecting bias or interpretation. We need to be careful in an attempt to remove positive bias (of which there is a great deal in the history of edits throughout the article), that we don't introduce negative bias or misrepresent the cited source. Roywaters (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If anyone would like to propose edits that will make the information more accurate or concise, please do so. Simply reverting to the previous wording, however, is not acceptable as it is not accurate per the cited source.Roywaters (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so you're edit warring your change in. Beware: this can get you blocked. The original wording is a fair summary of the article body (and its referenced sources) for our lay audience. The context in EBM is that therapies are assumed not to work until and unless evidence is produced to the contrary. BTW, do you have a conflict of interest to declare? Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(Add) you are also POV-pushing by making Wikipedia say that we don't know whether Feldenkreis is effective because of the lack of research; it is likely, given what we know from the sources, that it is because there is no such evidence to be found. You are incorrect about the source not saying no good evidence exists because it states "There is a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of Feldenkrais for the improvement of health outcomes for any clinical condition". The research that does exist is of poor quality, limited in scope and at risk of bias so yes it is "rubbishy". Alexbrn (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not attempting to wage edit war, nor am I acting in bad faith. I hope you will approach my edits with that assumption so we can have a productive discussion and work toward the best result possible. The fact that I am a Feldenkrais Practitioner doesn't mean that my edits are invalid. I have an interest in people being able to access accurate information about the Feldenkrais Method. Had I wanted to hide the fact that I'm a practitioner I surely wouldn't have signed up for a Wikipedia account using my real name. Back to the edits: I will not revert your edit again as it's clear you will just do the same. I do not believe the existing wording, however, accurately represents the findings in the referenced source. I am also not attempting to POV-push. The authors state in the conclusion "The effectiveness of Feldenkrais for the improvement of health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain. The available evidence is limited by the small number of RCTs in this field." That is very similar to the edit I made. Even if you disagree with me, I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith on my part (which I believe is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia).Roywaters (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Good faith is not a problem; however people with COIs editing in good faith are often blind to their bias. We have to summarize the article body, and we have to be faithful to the entire source, and not pick bits out. The source makes the point in its general comments that the reason why the effectiveness of these therapies in unknown may be because of poor research, or may be simply be because they do not work (most notably this is true for homeopathy). We must not "close down" the latter of these two by stating in Wikipedia's voice that the lack of certain effect is "because" of the poor research when the source explicitly does not make that causal link. What we have is a neutral summary of the state of affairs which is aligned with the overall spirit of the Aus report. Getting into the weeds of why the research is not good is probably too much detail for an encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that we don't want to imply that once high quality research is done it will show positive results. Simply stating that there is "no good evidence", however, can lead members of the lay audience to infer that research has been done and it yielded negative results. That was, in fact, what prompted me to review the article in the first place. Multiple students of the Feldenkrais Method asked me over time about that specific wording in the article and all three made the same assumption... again, that research had been conducted and it yielded negative results. I explained to them that, had that been the case, the article surely would have stated clearly that studies had shown it to not be effective. There must be a way to clarify the fact that no good research has been done to help keep this confusion from occurring in the minds of readers.Roywaters (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(Add) That was the intent of my original edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roywaters (talk • contribs) 10:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(Add) I would also like some clarification on your point about the reason the effectiveness is uncertain. Regardless of whether or not something works for a specific outcome, once high quality research is done, you will be able to answer the question of whether or not it's effective. Therefore, wouldn't it be accurate to say "Because high quality research on X has not been done, we don't know how effective it is". This statement would be true regardless of whether or not X worked, would it not? Stating that you are awaiting research to know whether or not something is effective does not imply that the results of the research will be positive.Roywaters (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You generally can't "disprove" a therapy's effectiveness, you can only find lack of effect. We find that over and again in altmed that the field descends into pathological science trying to investigate every single aspect and so hold the door open to effectiveness (acupuncture springs to mind). As the Aus report says, there are reasons to suppose that implausible therapies (and, as obvious pseudoscience, Feldenkrais falls into that category) simply may not work. We have to leave that possibility open: it is an implication that we want and your students are making reasonable assumptions based on it: a win for Wikipedia! Likewise there is some slim chance that this stuff works and research might uncover its worth: we leave that (slim) possibility open by simply stating not that "Feldenkrais does not work" but that "there is no good evidence". It's true, it's accurate, and it's neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to the way I worded and framed the edit. You are correct that stating "The effectiveness of Feldenkrais for the improvement of clinical health outcomes is uncertain because the available evidence is limited" implies that until there is more evidence there will be uncertainty... leaving the door open indefinitely. That was sloppy thinking on my part.

I agree with your statement that it's a "win" for Wikipedia when people assume the Method may not provide specific health benefits. That skepticism is healthy and good when there isn't supporting evidence. The assumption I was attempting to clear up with my edit, however, wasn’t about whether or not the Method is offers specific health benefits. The assumption those students expressed to me is that good quality research had been done. The article doesn’t state this, but they each independently made that inaccurate assumption. When they read “no evidence” they, as lay people, took it to mean “research has been done and it provided no evidence”. And I believe there is a significant difference between there being no evidence after a body of research has been conducted and saying it when there hasn't been any high quality research done. Neither case adds support to the claims being made, but the former significantly decreases the plausibility of any claims as compared to the latter, does it not?

It's clear you have experience dealing with altmed and I empathize with your apparent disdain for many of the practices lumped under that broad category. Still, it's important to recognize that there are differences within altmed as to the plausibility of various practices and the claims made about them. Many of us trained in the Feldenkrais Method do not like some of the health claims made and I often find myself explaining to people who come to me that I am not a therapist and don’t do therapeutic work. Still, it is plausible that learning how to move in a more bio-mechanically efficient way could lead to positive health outcomes. Even if there is yet medical evidence to support the idea, it is plausible. As well, after looking up articles for both pseudoscience and quackery, I can’t say I agree with your use of them in reference to this Method. The claims generally made are plausible and testable. And I don't know the basis of your belief that there is a "slim chance" evidence will be found in support of health claims. As long as you aren't letting it overly influence your editorial decisions, though, I respect your personal beliefs on the matter.

I will not push to edit the lead. You are correct that it is accurate as it stands. My concern, originally and still, is that without reference to the current state of research it can lead to incorrect assumptions (in this case the state of research at the time the review was conducted). What do you think about simply including something in the Effectiveness section? This was done, for example, in the article on the Alexander Technique where it was stated that "no good body of supporting research existed." Roywaters (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputed language

Same discussion was happening at another article - discussion is at its Talk page Talk:Alexander_technique#Disputed_language. Jytdog (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The word "good" is not used anywhere in the Australian study. It's a non-scientific term. It refers to morals, religion, likes, and dislikes. It has emotional connotations. It should be struck from the lead. "...no medical evidence" will suffice. Tapered (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say you are making a good argument, but you aren't.  :) and i think you know exactly what i mean when i say "good" there. I really don't understand where you are coming from. This is a poorly studied technique and there is no scientific evidence that it can do the things people say it can do - there is a lot of "belief" in it. In any case it is not accurate to say there is no evidence about this - there is some crappy evidence that you can't use to make evaluations with. It is just that there is no good evidence. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't address the linguistic weighting issue I've raised. It's a too lengthy example of "label and dismiss." Better to address the issue of one word--good. Tapered (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Two more points. You began with mockery--that's not Wikipedian. The word "crappy" appears exactly as often as "good" in the Australian study. Zero times. Tapered (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the concerns here.

My concerns are that FRINGE and the source were not being taken into account. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The word "good" is entirely valid in context. This is not about value judgments, it's about quality of evidence. Most forms of quackery have two kinds of evidence: supportive evidence that is of poor methodological quality, and very often has undeclared conflicts of interest, and good quality evidence that shows it to be wrong. I am happy with no credible evidence as an alternative form, but there is not really any problem to fix here. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Tapered I am sorry that you took as mockery. I didn't mean it that way. Your argument was not good. I was being very direct. I was also making a very clear argument that the use of "good" in a statement like "that's a good argument" is well understood and not about morals or likes. You knew exactly what I meant.

And about "the word appearing" thing. We do not copy/paste or plagiarize in WP, so whether the word appears or not, is not a relevant argument. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's not mockery, may I be struck by lightning. As for the rest, WP:NPOV actually uses the term, "good research," which term I disagree with emphatically, but I don't tilt at windmills, at least not after a windmill is apparent. Tapered (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I really didn't mean it that way. I even put a smilely face. It is hard to control tone in writing and again, I am sorry you felt mocked. That wasn't my intent. Your argument was just not good. Please don't get struck by lightening. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Changes

MZepelin please discuss your proposed changes. They are not gaining acceptance, so you need to come discuss them. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytodg Thanks for alerting me to this talk page - I didn't know about it! I am totally open to discussing any content that I wrote that is viewed as POV pushing, and I already removed the sentence that I expect is most likely to be viewed that way. I did not understand though why my article would be totally reverted, given that it included neutral language describing the organizational structure of the Feldenkrais Method, and included many current and verifiable citations. For instance, I expanded the discussion of the Australian study to include actual quotations from it, which I think is more accurate than paraphrasing the study. Any advice welcome! Thanks! MZepelin (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. Many of the sources you are using are not independent. Please stop using them. This is a general criteria for reliable source, per the plain sourcing guideline, WP:RS. On top of that you keep removing the WP:MEDRS-sourced content that says that says this is not effective for any health issue, and adding stuff promoting health benefits, and so your changes are getting rejected out of hand. (content about health needs to be sourced according to WP:MEDRS, which is parallel with WP:RS. If you want to talk about this method as pure "Bodywork" with no health effects, you would not be getting so many objections.Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure! I see what you're saying and can work on the independent sources with regard to medical references. Why delete what I put up about the organizational structure of the Feldenkrais Method though? The total reversion of my edits makes me feel that the reversion was not actually considered on a point by point basis, when several of the things that I put up were neutral and properly cited.MZepelin (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for talking. it is more wise to make changes piecemeal. if you make a bunch of changes at once and there is significant dross with the gold, it all goes. it is all still there in the history do you don't have to do it over per se. you can copy it easily. just really try to avoid sources with "feldenkrais" in the URL. independent sources are what we want, for everything in WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytodg Hello! I've been away for several months. I would very much like to improve the Feldenkrais Method article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's own rating scale has it at a C/C- level, and it compares very poorly to the Alexander Technique page, despite Feldenkrais and Alexander being widely recognized as similar techniques (for instance, this article has 3 sections and 4 references, where Alexander has 7 sections and 22 references). Because there have already been so many reversed changes on this page, I wanted to write before I make any edits, asking for you, :Alexbrn  :Ronz and any other experienced Wikipedia editors for your help in improving this page. In fact, I wonder if it wouldn't be easier for me to propose edits here, in the "Talk" section, first, so that we can come to consensus first? I don't mind making the edits and having them reversed sometimes too, it's just that I'd like to head into this process with a feeling of mutuality rather than one of suspicion or contentiousness. I will do my best to respect Wikipedia guidelines but would benefit immensely from the help of more experienced editors. Thanks - look forward to your responses! MZepelin (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan, but do go ahead with any changes that you think will be uncontentious. Anything else, make a proposal that indicates what sources support it. Hopefully this will get us through the logjam you identify. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Ronz - I'm about to post a new section on history. I'll start a separate talk thread for discussion after I make the changes. MZepelin (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of evidence regarding clinical effectiveness

RE this diff, my edit was based on the conclusions of the currently cited 'ideal' MEDRS [1]:

Conclusions The effectiveness of Feldenkrais for the improvement of health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain. The available evidence is limited by the small number of RCTs in this field. Individual studies were small in size, and likely to be insufficiently powered to detect a statistically significant outcome. Significant research gaps exist and there is no solid evidence base on which to make recommendations. ...

Implications for practice

The effectiveness of Feldenkrais on improving health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain. There is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Little or no data have been reported within SRs on the safety or cost-effectiveness of Feldenkrais. Therefore the safety, quality, or cost-effectiveness of Feldenkrais is unknown. Evidence from high-quality studies designed and reported using rigorous and controlled methods is required before any conclusions regarding the use of Feldenkrais can be made. [my underlining]

From my experience as a medical writer in EBM and in collaborating on WP:MED articles, including GA and FA, I believe that the wording proposed in the reverted diff provides a rather more NPOV reflection of the authors' conclusions.

Disclaimer: my interest in Feledenkrais is mainly linked to its use in contemporary dance (and theatrical movement) training. I have no COI to declare. 81.129.188.226 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

your content: "Due to a lack of reliable medical evidence, it is unclear whether the Feldenkrais method can confer any clinical benefits."

existing content: "There is no good medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method confers any health benefits and it is not known if it is safe or cost-effective"

Your version is not an improvement; it is just frankly hair splitting and less clear English. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it is not known whether Feldenkrais method confers any health benefits (not merely that it is not known if it is safe or cost-effective). That's genuinely different, imo, and I don't think it's "hair-splitting": it would be fallacious to imply (indirectly) that absence of evidence of a plausible hypothesis (i.e. that a movement-awareness learning technique based on scientific, not FRINGE, premises may potentially offer clinical benefits) due to lack of valid studies is equivalent to positive evidence of absence. Genuinely NPOV wording can be difficult to achieve. 81.129.188.226 (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not here to speculate, but report what the sources say in light of WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, and other relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not speculating (the point is: hypotheses of efficacy in various clinical settings/populations remain to be adequately tested - and that's a methodological consideration reported by the authors of the study, not speculation!), and I don't think it is really FRINGE, given that Moshé Feldenkrais was scientifically informed. Fwiw, I have a background in evidence-based medicine, and I did not expect this gf edit either to be controversial, or to merit these sorts of comments... Anyway, my gf concern about this is on the record. (More worrying perhaps, regarding WP:WEIGHT etc, would probably be this section... but that's another page, and - as much as I love Wikipedia - I'm not prepared to get involved in this sort of talk-page humiliation). 81.129.188.226 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"given that Moshé Feldenkrais was scientifically informed"... I don't see how that's a "given" at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I also read the MEDRS in detail and thought that the summary in this article was potentially misleading, as the general public have difficulty distinguishing between lack of evidence of efficacy and evidence of no efficacy. If the wording difference is considered 'hair-splitting', i.e. trivial, then there is no reason to object to it. In the absence of further discussion on this here over the last few months I have partly made the proposed change but retained the original caveat about safety & cost-effectiveness. Ben Finn (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It was better before. For example you say the lack of efficacy is "Due to a lack of reliable medical evidence", but it may equally well be "due to" the fact that FM simply does not work: as the source makes clear, many of these altmed therapies are implausible. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

History Section

Dear fellow editors, I've just created a "History" section for this article. I was unsure whether the citations to web pages of the International Feldenkrais Federation or Feldenkrais Guild of North America are valid in this context, or if they are considered biased sources, but I was not sure what else to use to cite the history of Feldenkrais's organizational development, which seems to me to be an important part of its general history. I've cited all but one of the books I know concerning history of Feldenkrais Method, with Reese's biography standing out for its depth and quality of research. MZepelin (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ronz - I'd like next to create a section on the Feldenkrais Method's influences - before I proceed to that, do you have any feedback about the history section? Thanks!MZepelin (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

My biggest concern is the lack of third-party sources. Given how long Feldenkrais has been around, I certainly expect there are better sources to draw upon. As is, the section seems too WP:SOAPy, exactly what we expect when using such sources.

Why are there no sources for the first paragraph? Likewise the paragraph about the books? --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi ::Ronz Thanks for your feedback! I didn't cite sources for the first paragraph because I figured the hyperlinks would be enough, although, now that I look, Mabel Todd's page does not discuss her teenage injury. In any case, I'm happy to add citations for all three of them. Likewise I will look for book reviews as citations for the books paragraph.

In terms of third-party sources and avoiding WP:SOAP, could you point me to other, more-or-less similar Wikipedia articles that I could use for comparison's sake? I just had the thought that Andrew Taylor Still might make for a good comparison, but it looks to me quite similar, that most of the citations come from sources related to osteopathy.MZepelin (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want to compare with other articles, look through the WP:GA list.

For the first paragraph, my concern was "Similar to other somatic methods...". That comparison is likely to be considered WP:SYN if not sourced. Same for "Feldenkrais developed the conceptual framework of his method in part through the publication of six books...". --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz - okay thanks - the WP:SYN section helped me to understand your concerns much better - I've got a few revisions and citation changes planned for the history section, and I'll keep avoiding synthesis in mind when I start the section on influencesMZepelin (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Influences

I created a new section for influences on the Feldenkrais Method. So far I've covered the martial arts, Hasidic Judaism, and Gurdjieff. I intend to add material on other scientists and somatics teachers who influenced Feldenkrais, as well. Any feedback is welcome. If anyone can let me know how to make linkable references, that would be great! I tried to figure it out through the Wiki-help pages but was unable to thus far. I can also look for help at the Teahouse forum.MZepelin (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like an advertisement. I think removal is in order. --Ronz (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz Which sentences in particular read like an advertisement to you? I'm happy to work on them more if you provide me with some more detail about your perceptions. ThanksMZepelin (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The sources and the weight given them are the problem, which is why I suggest removal rather than editing. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz Can you be more specific? There are seven different sources used in the influences section. Also, per Jytdog's advice in the "Changes" section of the Talk page, I added the section one sentence at a time, so that it would be possible to delete or edit individual sentences instead of the entire section. Thanks!MZepelin (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources appear too close to the subject matter and look to be ultimately from Feldenkrais himself. It's fluff, promotional in nature that tells us little (nothing?) about Feldenkrais Method, just lots about what Feldenkrais wants others to think about him. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ronz - Well again I'm not sure where to start based on your comment, since you don't differentiate between the seven sources. Two of them are indeed writings by Moshe Feldenkrais, so I understand your concern there that they could be biased. On the other hand, since he was the creator of the method, it seems reasonable that some of his own words be used to describe it - is there a Wikipedia policy for this that you could point me to? The Gustl Marlock "Handbook of Body Psychotherapy and Somatic Psychology" is highly respected in the field of somatics - it contains about 100 essays and is almost 900 pages long, and it has been in print in German for about 12 years and was translated into English last year. Patricia Buchanan's article is a professional article by a Ph.D in a publicly available online journal - if you disagree with specific points in the article, that's fine and I'm happy to discuss them, but dismissing the article whole-hog seems odd to me. Mark Reese was indeed a student of Moshe Feldenkrais, but he was also a PhD and a published writer, and his biography is the most comprehensive scholarly work on somatics of which I am aware. It may not be ideal to use a source by a student of Moshe, though I've noted that the Wikipedia article on Wilhelm Reich, which is designated a "good article," relies heavily on "Fury on Earth," the biography by Myron Sharaf, who was a student and colleague of Reich's. I am continuing to look for third-party sources on Feldenkrais and have found a few that I will use as time permits - if you can point me toward others, that would be great!MZepelin (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

evidence should be included; edits are misrepresenting what purported claims of Feldenkrais actually are

Valid research should be included as such. Your constant reverting of my efforts have not allowed me to include the following randomized, controlled study: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1021301801292

Please stop reverting. I'm a fellow skeptic of alternative medicine - however a reputable, peer reviewed study belongs in this article.

The sentence about the lack of evidence for medical claims seems to imply that the Feldenkrais community is making medical claims and predicting outcomes. This, however, misrepresents the work and the community unnecessarily. Practitioners are trained not to diagnose or make claims of the work's effectiveness. Positive results of the work are seen only as benefits of the method's working model, and are not held up as claims for its effectiveness in specific areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.171.88 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That journal article is a primary source (an RCT) and so not reliable per WP:MEDRS. The sources we do use for lack of effectiveness are reliable. Wikipedia must follow what the best sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation of the disabled worker. How is that not a secondary source? And again, your anti-quack train (I'm usually on with you) purports that Feldenkrais is making some sort of claim about it's health benefits as a precedence for its practice. It side-steps the very nature of what it is - and instead presents it as if it belongs alongside actual, definitive quack practices who make preposterous claims.

Please read and understand WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for further info. Note the Australian DoH review mentions "Notably, those reviews evaluated the effect of interventions on outcomes such as pain, physical function, improved movement and wellbeing, and including conditions which proponents claim the Feldenkrais method may benefit" - these conditions are e.g. post-stroke motor skills and fibromyalgia. In real life some trivial googling will confirm FM is being promotoed and sold for these conditions. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the changes. Besides the MEDRS violation, it's cherry picking and outright original research to further a point of view not in the sources themselves. --Ronz (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what proponents say. Those proponents may include, or may consist entirely, of people who have no understanding of the Method at all. The Feldenkrais Profession itself is seeking a representation of its work which makes clear that medical results are incidental. If Wikipedia believes it must include a statement that illustrates the lack of evidence correlating medical results with the work, then it also must, if the article is to be accurate, make it clear that this is not a stated goal of the Feldenkrais Method. Any claims to the contrary are covered by the first statement. Without the second, Wikipedia is inadvertently promoting bias. Adam Cole108.71.44.80 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.44.80 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources? --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The two primary representatives of the Method are the International Feldenkrais Federation: http://feldenkrais-method.org/iff/standards-of-practice/ and the Feldenkrais Guild of North America: http://www.feldenkrais.com/whatis Adam Cole 2602:306:C472:C500:6593:F48D:FC34:F5DE (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

These are self-published primary sources which lack WP:FRINDependence, usable - if at all - for mention of what Feldenkrais promoters like to say about themselves and their offerings. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand the objection. The issue I am addressing is not what the Method is, which must be verified through external sources, but what proponents claim it is. In this case, I am presenting sources which demonstrate that the governing organization is not making claims that the Feldenkrais Method is a kind of medical procedure. If the article implies in the sentence in question that the governing body is misrepresenting its work, then it is an inaccurate article at risk of promoting bias. I would suggest that another sentence is needed to clarify. Adam Cole 2602:306:C472:C500:587:F68F:24C9:F1C4 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The supposed "governing body" is not a trustworthy source for anything other that what message it wants to promote, which may or may not have any bearing on reality. Proponents do make therapeutic claims, as independent sources confirm (or if you wish, see for yourself with basic googling - not that that matters for our purposes). Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article currently implies that <all> proponents of the Feldenkrais Method make claims that Feldenkrais is a kind of medicine. The sources I provided as requested demonstrate that those who certify practitioners are discouraging those claims. The article is only partially accurate and is promoting bias. Adam Cole2602:306:C472:C500:587:F68F:24C9:F1C4 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what sources? If you mean feldenkrais.com that's obviously not reliable for independently reporting on this topic. Besides, practitioners surely believe what they do has some mental or physical effect so we are in the realm of health. Or are you saying that FM has no effect whatsoever? Alexbrn (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're genuinely asking my opinion on this. I'm happy to at least explain my view here in the hopes that I can make myself clear. The IFF and FGNA have the same goal as you: to explain in clear terms what the Method is and what it does, as well as clear up misconceptions about what it does not do. If they do not act responsibly in this way, the work is misappropriated by people who take one weekend workshop and then call themselves Feldenkrais Practitioners, then misrepresent the work in simplistic terms for their own purposes. These efforts lead to the results you'll see on Google Searches. Because the Wikipedia article is the first thing that many people see when they Google search Feldenkrais, I want the article to contain information that gives people a sense of what the most responsible members of the profession, in particular the representative body that certifies practitioners after a four-year training, believe and say the work is. Beyond that, it is completely fair to follow with statements indicating the dearth of research proving it. I hope this answer isn't too long, and that you find it reasonable. Regarding your second question, practitioners do believe what they do has a mental and physical effect, which is to assist clients in better organizing themselves through their skeleton to perform with a minimum of effort. By your rigorous standards, there is insufficient research to answer the question of whether or not it works in this way. If you were to include both of these ideas, leaving out references to medicine, you would be more accurately defining the work for the general public. I appreciate your taking the time to read my long post. Adam Cole 2602:306:C472:C500:A06D:7172:31D4:1067 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't juxtapose a primary source's claim with a conflicting secondary source's claim, because that violates WP:SYNTH. Especially if sources contradict each other, we have to go by the higher quality (i.e., independent--among other things) sources. We'd need an independent and reliable secondary source explicitly pointing out the difference between what individual practitioners may claim vs the governing agency in order to offer that kind of interpretation in the article. —PermStrump(talk) 05:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you please identify the primary source and the secondary source you are referring to above so that I can understand what you mean? Adam Cole 2602:306:C472:C500:158:55C1:9812:6DB2 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC) It seems to me that the primary source's claim is in alignment with the secondary source's claim. The primary source, the IFF, says "The Feldenkrais Method is 'A'." The secondary source, the case study, says, "The Feldenkrais Method is not 'B'" I am explaining that the primary source is not claiming that the Feldenkrais Method is 'B.' Without that clarification, someone might believe that the two sources are contradicting one another. Adam Cole 108.71.44.80 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi Alexbrn - I wanted to start a talk section since I see that you got involved in recent changes. I apologize that there have been so many attempts, I'm assuming mostly by Feldenkrais practitioners, to edit the page without having knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines. I am a Feldenkrais practitioner and am doing my best to encourage other practitioners not to make hasty changes and start edit-warring, but rather to study Wikipedia guidelines if they want to be involved with making edits. At the same time, it seems to me that the appearance of the word "quackery" is swinging too far in the other direction. Wikipedia's definition of quackery involves "questionable diagnostic tests," and Feldenkrais practitioners do not make diagnosis whatsoever. It also involves "refuted" treatments, whereas the medical literature on Feldenkrais indicates that studies have been rare and of poor methodological quality, not that they indicate no benefit. Thanks for your time and once again, I'm sorry for all of the poorly considered editsMZepelin (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

We follow the sources. As you are a practitioner you may have a WP:COI and I would urge you not to edit the article directly. If this therapy is nonsense (as seems clear), and people are profiting from selling it on a false prospectus, then "quackery" is pretty obviously on the table, no? Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn - I will now join the many who have come through this page before, who find trying to maintain a civil discourse while editing the page too difficult. Please note that my "talk" entries always begin with a "hi," while yours and others usually begin with a declarative accusation, implicit or explicit. There is a level of passive-aggressiveness and condescension from you and other editors of this page that I would never tolerate in my professional life, and I will no longer tolerate it here. Before I became a practitioner, the Feldenkrais Method helped relieve me of terrible, years-long chronic pain from a neck injury, pain that multiple methods of mainstream treatment had been unable to help. My injury is too severe to ever be "cured," but Feldenkrais helped me learn how to live and work with it in a way nothing else has. I am a professional editor and a PhD candidate with extensive interests in the history of science. I am friends with neurologists, nurses, physical therapists and others who manage to work in mainstream medicine without becoming blindly, insultingly antagonistic toward methods that are not part of it. If that puts me in the "quackery" camp, then I'm happy to be there.MZepelin (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Better to WP:FOC. Your personal views, beliefs and advocacies are of course of no weight for article content. (If by "professional editor" you mean you are being paid to edit here, you will need to be aware of WP:PAID). Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everybody! I came to see what is said about the Feldenkrais Method and found a disappointing article. In the article there is very little about what the Feldenkrais Method is. For example, there is no description to the two main techniques Awareness Through Movement (ATM) and Functional Integration (FI). There is some history about the development of the method and something about where it took influences from. Lots of space in the beginning and the end is devoted to whether the method has some effects on health. That may of course be an interesting question to a potential reader, but would it be first nice to know what the Feldenkrais Method is? After reading the article, a reader without previous knowledge will have no clue. Oleondre (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn has added the strange reference to the opinion blog by David Gorski, who obviously has no knowledge of the method, mistakes it for yoga, and who in his text even admits that he does not understand what he has been reading about the Feldenkrais Method (asking "What the hell does that mean?"). Please Alexbrn, can you explain why the article should have references like this? Why should an encyclopedia contain any material from people, who do not know what they are talking about? The question is not, whether you like or dislike something. You can write about Hitler without liking him, but writing without knowning much of Hitler sounds strange. A good principle in criticizing something is to first make sure, you know what you are criticizing.Oleondre (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There is the quote: 'The Feldenkaris Guild of North America claims that the Feldenkrais method allows people to "rediscover [their] innate capacity for graceful, efficient movement" and that "These improvements will often generalize to enhance functioning in other aspects of [their] life".[3]'. Reference 3 is to Gorski's opinion blog entry, not to a publication by The Feldenkrais Guild. These kind of references are very bad; you should always refer to the original text if it is available.Oleondre (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please Alexbrn fix this reference.

The references to Gorski's opinion blog entry should be removed (as I did yesterday) as well as mentions about yoga and quackery, because the latter is a very loaded term. The article should contain descriptions of ATM and FI with proper references to these. Oleondre (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Gorski source is good per WP:PARITY. If you have other good sources please declare them! Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There is wide consensus on Wikipedia that Gorski's perspective is often useful for WP:FRINGE medical treatments ("alternative", "complementary", "integrative" medicine).

This consensus is stated exactly where?Oleondre (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(A bit of a tangent: Shouldn't this article be categorized and clearly identify in the lede that this is an alt-med treatment?)

"Quackery" is often used in describing alt-med treatments for which there is little or no good reason to believe the health claims.

Given the highly promotional nature of most in-world descriptions of Feldenkrais Method, I think it best to find and use independent sources when available so we can keep the promotional nature in check and so we don't give too much weight to their perspective given the fringe nature of their claims. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I strongly disagree. Gorski admits that he does not know what Feldenkrais is. He seems to be in the opinion that it is quackery. How does he know that? In his opinion blog entry he quotes some text stating: "Prior to his findings, most people believed it was difficult to retrain the body to do an already-learned activity once a person reached a certain age. But, Feldenkrais concluded the brain continues to develop throughout life and retains the ability to relearn. His findings have been confirmed by research in neuroscience." and then says "Uh, no. No they haven’t". David Gorski seems to think that brain does not develop throughout the life or does not retain the ability to relearn. So, he does not seem to be aware of neuroscience of the last 20 years or so. Why would you like to quote someone who is so out of touch of the development of science. Later, Gorski writes: "So I looked at that bane of woo-meister claims, PubMed. Unfortunately I couldn’t find any evidence that the Feldenkrais method has been “confirmed by by research in neuroscience,” at least not any neuroscience published in the peer-reviewed literature indexed on PubMed.". Now he either does not understand what he is reading or he edits on purpose the quote now to claim that "the Feldenkrais Method is confirmed by research in neuroscience", whereas the original was talking about Moshe Feldenkrais' ideas about the development of brain and learning. So, instead of trying to find out what he is writing about, he builds a strawman. I must say that I am very disappointment if this kind of material is in par with Wikipedia's guidelines. I am an university teacher for 30 years and in scientific writing this would not be accepted. Oleondre (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please learn how to indent your comments properly here, as you are messing up this page. Gorski is an expert on fringe medical topics, and good to cite here. To repeat, if you have good sources for other perspectives, declare them. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How can someone be an expert on something that he does not know anything about? Alexbrn. You cannot criticize intelligently anything that you do not understand.Oleondre (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We need sources, not your opinions. Are there any new ones? If not, we're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Alexbrn, you misunderstood, we just need to remove this one questionable opinion blog entry reference.Oleondre (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the criticisms of the Gorski source need to be backed with policy-based rationale and additional sources as required of those policies. I've already pointed out policies for keeping it, as has Alexbrn. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I see a double standard here. Can't you understand that a reference to a hastily written opinion blog entry by someone who does not know anything about the subject matter and has a chip on his shoulder is unacceptable no matter what the Wikipedia policy says? That would not be accepted in any scientific writing. The Australian Government's report is a neutral source and can be referred here. Why do you insist on keeping the Gorski reference? Do you have some agenda here?Oleondre (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Ronz has an agenda here ... The Gorski source is fine per WP:PARITY and offers us a useful independent view on FM, especially some of its whackier aspects Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn can you tell, what do you actually know about the Feldenkrais Method, and anatomy, physiology, movement, and neuroscience in general? Looking at your own blog, I did not find anything to that direction. What are the 'whackier aspects' of the Feldenkrais Method and how did you know about them?Oleondre (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

From the good sources we use. Wikipedia doesn't run off the views of editors - we are humble servants conveying knowledge from good sources per our WP:PAGs. That is what an encyclopedia is. If you want to write about how wonderful FM is from your own perspective start a blog or something. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Alexbrn you have so far quite clearly shown, that you have a bias here. I have not demanded any content to be added about how wonderful FM is. I just want a balanced, neutral tone to this article. Already in the second sentence of the article there is a non-neutral tone: "The therapy is claimed to repair impaired connections between the brain and body and so improve body movement and psychological state.[1]". This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, see especially 2.8 Words to watch; the word "claim" is used as an example of words to watch. Oleondre (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

But "claim" is fine to use when we are talking about actual, err, claims. As we are here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn can you refer a policy that states so, when WP:NPOV says exactly the opposite? Claim is neutral in the area of law, not here. As 2.8 Words to watch says: "For example, the word "claim" is an expression of doubt; when used as in "John claimed he had not eaten the pie", it can imply he had in fact eaten the pie. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to promote one position over another". Is there something here, that you do not understand? Oleondre (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There are no forbidden words. The word claim is used here carefully: we need to say it because the claims of FM are nonsense according to our sources, and not honestly conveying that to our reader would not be neutral (and we are mirroring the use of "claimed" in the source). Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please Alexbrn, state exactly, which are 'our sources' that you are referring to and who is this 'we' you are continuosly writing about? Oleondre (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

we = us editors; our sources = the sources we cite in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please list the numbers of the references you are talking about and what do you think they show. Oleondre (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't be silly; you can see that by reading our article. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you do not seem to be able to make a distinction between two different cases of non-existing scientific evidence: 1) good quality scientific tests where made, but no evidence was found and 2) no good quality scientific tests where made. The latter case implies that nobody knows, whether an effect exists or not. If you have read the Australian Goverment report you should know that we have hear the latter case. So your claim about 'nonsense' just shows your incapability of making this distinction or that you are biased.Oleondre (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In EBM, the assumption has to be something doesn't work unless there is evidence to the contrary. Every dodgy treatment on the planet is defended with the cry that it only needs that perfect test to come along to validate the mumbo-jumbo. Meanwhile, if people make unevidenced claims about it and sell it, then we're into the realm of quackery. There is no good evidence for FM despite the claims made for it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If there is no evidence, it suffices to say that in neutral language. Wikipedia editors should not be patronizing the readers and force feeding the right way to think instead of just neutrally describing topics and letting the readers draw the conclusions themselves. Oleondre (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Setting aside the claim of quackery, if you want to improve the quality of the article, you could include a description of Awareness Through Movement (ATM) and Functional Integration (FI), the two main techniques in the Feldenkrais Method. You can easily find descriptions of these, for example, in http://www.feldenkrais.com/awareness and http://www.feldenkrais.com/functional-integration Oleondre (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem I find working on this article is that all the Feldenkrais in-world material is highly promotional, full of jargon, and hard to separate the claims from what is actually done. It's pretty much inherently unencyclopedic. Third-party descriptions would be a great help, but I'm not finding any. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you look at the description of ATM I linked? Do you find it highly promotional or using jargon? By the way, according to the history of this wikipedia article, it used to contain better material, for example, description of ATM and FI, but someone deleted those for some reason.Oleondre (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see independent sources for this kind of stuff to be sure we are not giving WP:UNDUE weight to it. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you find it highly promotional or using jargon? Yes on both counts to both examples. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please give examples.Oleondre (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you've been asked to present your arguments in terms of our policies and guidelines. If you're not doing so, don't expect editors to spend further time trying to determine if your personal opinions have any relevance here. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have pointed out that this article is against WP:NPOV above. However, Alexbrn and you don't seem to care about the policies, if they are against your personal agendas. Shame, shame. Oleondre (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Find some third-party sources demonstrating whatever problem you feel exists, and elaborate on the POV concerns. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please learn the difference between asserting somethign based on personal belief that is disputed by others vastly more experienced with Wikipedia, and "pointing out". You are a believer. Wikipedia is not a believer or an unbeliever, Wikipedia follows the reliable independent sources. Which in this case make it plain that Feldenkrais was simply wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow Guy, your incredibly high level of experience has given your the skill of Telepathy, so you can tell what I am just like that.Oleondre (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars

I am another Feldenkrais program graduate (1994) who is mystified by the aggressively negative content of this wikipedia entry. Someone obviously has an axe to grind, describing this as "quackery" or comparing it to yoga! Why is the method described as exercise? This is COMPLETELY erroneous. It is not exercise -- practitioners, the Feldenkrais Guild, and Moshe Feldenkrais himself have never described or promoted it as such. Alexbrn, why are you describing it this way? Do you have any personal experience at all with this? If not, what gives you the right to mislead people with this description? Feldenkrais is not based on a medical model, and is not described or promoted in any literature as a cure or a therapy, so why is it being judged in this way? And why were my edits which included quotes from Dr Andrew Weil, a respected health expert, removed? The bias is very obvious and totally unacceptable. Playon51 (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We follow good sources. Weil is not a good source for anything much. Feldenkrais is promoted for medical conditions as our sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually being supported by Weil is a solid indication that it's bogus. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy, that's an unfair statement and it indicates a bias on your part toward over-categorizing things. While Weil certainly has his own lens which causes us not to put much weight in his evaluations, it is patently false that his approval means something is not valid. Now back to the subject....

There are several different issues raised by your comment, Playon51. I agree that there are some problems with the current wording of the article. "Exercise therapy" is certainly not the correct description; exercise implies some combination of cardio, strength, flexibility, etc. Feldenkrais is attempting to retrain movement patterns, so we could say that it is a movement therapy, or better yet, a type of "somatics"/"somatic education." In fact Feldenkrais is one of the most classic examples of somatic education.

Regarding medical, actually Alexbrn is right, at least for part of it. On WP, any non-medical method that is promoted for health benefits can be fairly considered as "alternative medicine" and that means there will be a statement assessing whether there are adequate meta-studies to recommend it as having potential health benefits; in most cases there are not, even for methods that are well-regarded by the public. However, I do not think that Feldenkrais is pseudoscience and certainly not quackery (a word that should be reserved for very extreme situations), and I don't think that Gorski's offhanded and careless critique belongs in an encyclopedic article.--Karinpower (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The term "somatic education" is in-universe jargon. General readers haven't a clue what it means. We should follow the terms used by independent sources. Alexbrn (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"Movement education" would be a suitable compromise. It could still link to the Somatics article. Even if readers haven't heard of somatic education, that is exactly what Feldenkrais is, no getting around that. But, somatic education is sort of a sub-class of movement education so that would work. What sources say it is a type of exercise?--Karinpower (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Karinpower this is getting waaay ahead of things. Playon made it clear that they have not engaged with the sources in our article nor with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for sourcing and content. The current content solidly reflects the sources, and both the content and sources are well grounded in policy and guideline. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

While this user may not be experienced or ready to edit this page in a meaningful way, the problem of the use of "exercise" is a real one. It's a misunderstanding, and it should be corrected. I ask again, what sources state that it is a type of "exercise therapy"? "Exercise therapy" isn't even a real term; it redirects to "physical therapy."--Karinpower (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Feldendkreis Association people put "movement education" within the field of physical therapy: "Unlike traditional physical therapy, the Feldenkrais Method is not about improving strength or flexibility. Instead, the Feldenkrais Method focuses on refining the ease of a movement, and on helping your child sense where they are in space with greater clarity. " So our current link to physical therapy is fine. that quote is from this godawful thing about autism. I had never read that before and all I have to say is motherfucking snake oil. I am angry now and am going to walk away from Wikipedia for a while. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. "Unlike traditional physical therapy" is contrasting their method vs. PT. I could see how you could read the use of the word "traditional" to imply that Feld. is a non-traditional form of PT, but I do not think that is what is meant. As to this article, I haven't seen this before either, and I understand your recoil to it as the claims seem unreasonable. Yet, I've done some reading about the autonomic nervous system (Ex. The Body Keeps the Score) and there is some evidence to suggest that certain ways of working with movement, sensory input, and social interaction can help regulate the balance between sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. That imbalance plays a big role in autism and sensory processing disorders, so actually I think it's plausible that a movement retraining method could be helpful. Of course it would be helpful to see some clinical trials on it.

Back to the topic, do any sources actually use terms like "exercise therapy"? I'm not seeing grounds for the objection to "movement therapy" with a wikilink to somatic education.--Karinpower (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"there is some evidence for blah blah" is extremely different from the complete load of evil fucking bullshit on that website. That is fucking evil. Autistic parents are often desperate and writing that sloppy garbage to convince those parents to spend the time/energy/money they have on feldenkreis is evil. It is not ambiguous. Fuck them to hell. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I totally hear your anger. I agree that those parents are a vulnerable population, and if this was indeed worthless, then it would be an absolute sin to promote it to them. But, I don't think that's the case. I suspect that most alt-med practitioners, while lacking in clinical trials, do make meaningful observations about how/whether/who their work can help. The claim this article makes is plausible based on the wiring of the nervous system.

About your edit to the page - Thanks for trying to address the "exercise" wording problem. That edit does not work, though, as PT is a licensed profession and Feld does not exist within it. Most Feld practitioners are not PT's. To say Feld. is a type of PT is simply incorrect. Back to the drawing board.--Karinpower (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the history. Moshe hurt his knee and devised a physical therapy to fix it. Not rocket science to figure out the field this falls in. We are not going to accept some neologism devised by woo pushers. (and yeah, Feldenkreis per se is outside the professional field of PT) Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Physical therapy is a specific discipline. With licensing. That means that the boundaries of what is PT is pretty clearly defined. The physical therapy article shows the scope of that field. To say that something is a type of PT means that one must hold a PT license to practice it.

The history section cites the same not-available source as the lede. I'd still like to see if any sources say it is "exercise therapy" or "physical therapy." --Karinpower (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Feldenkrais is not taught, licensed, or described as physical therapy in any Feldenkrais literature or training program. It is not described as "therapy" by its founder, nor is it labelled as therapy in any Feldenkrais promotional material. To describe it as such on the Wikipedia page is an arbitrary decision made by people with zero experience of the work. I would like to question Alexbrn as to why David Gorski's opinions should have more weight than the opinions of people such Dr. Weil (no matter what your opinion of him, he is licensed a physician), anthropologist Margaret Mead, or former Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion for example? All of whom have, unlike the gatekeepers of this page and David Gorski, have had direct experience with Feldenkrais' work and have been quoted positively on the subject. However, were I to add these positive quotes to the page, they would instantly be edited into oblivion under the current regime. Why is it so that Margaret Mead could not be quoted while some guy named David Gorski can?

I myself, while a Feldenkrais graduate, am not currently a practitioner, so I have no career to defend and no monetary interest in this matter. I do, however, have around thirty years of direct experience with this work. I join this discussion because I am upset to see such a biased, negative portrayal of a method that has positively benefited thousands of people, myself included. I don't think the spirit of wikipedia is being upheld here - open, collective and collaborative development for Wikipedia entries. It is obvious that there is a anti-alternative treatment agenda at play, with some extremely controlling people setting themselves up as gatekeepers for the truth. The hostile, dismissive comments from the editors and their camp followers on this talk page speak for themselves. Playon51 (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Playon, you are new to WP. You have to learn that we do not care who you say you are (we have no way of verifying it and we don't want to). You cannot just write how you feel here and expect anyone to listen. The only authorities here are reliable sources (as defined in WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) and the policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior. That's it. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Playon51, would you please share those quotes from those various people here on the Talk page? This is an appropriate place for a discussion about which ones warrant inclusion. I agree that if Gorski is included, then WP:PARITY indicates that others - who are better known than Gorski - can be included. --Karinpower (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:PARITY with respect to the WP:PSCI policy, Karinpower. Please re-read it. No, we do not do celebrity endorsements in WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly we need to take care not to give undue weight, but Gorski is far from a major source. Including him opens up what can be included in terms of parity. And it is absolutely appropriate to encourage a new editor to share information on the Talk page so it can be considered and discussed - even if that is simply an explanation of why things won't be included. --Karinpower (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, that is not how PARITY works. PARITY allows us to use sources like Gorski for PSCI stuff where mainstream medicine won't touch it with a ten foot pole. That's it. It is not helpful to a new editor to lead them to believe that celebrity endorsements have some value in WP.

Some one such as Margaret Mead is so much a "celebrity" that her opinions are not permitted on the page? Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Including him opens up what can be included" <- this is a complete mis-statement of our WP:PAGs. Editors are reminded these pages are subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

We have plenty of better critical sources than an online blog. --Karinpower (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ScienceBlogs is not really just an "online [?] blog" (multiple contributors, invitation only). What critical sources do you have in mind? Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

From wikipedia guidelines --"Citing your own organization, such as a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high quality systematic reviews is generally acceptable — if it is done to improve coverage of a topic, and not with the sole purpose of driving traffic to your site." And yet, if I am to post quotes from various practitioners' sites, or the Feldenkrais Guild site, you will instantly remove them. What gives David Gorski's opinion any more weight that anyone else? What his expertise on the subject? Has he had any experience whatsoever with Feldenkrais? Has he attended a training program, or done any of the work himself? What is there to support his opinion that Feldenkrais is "quackery"? Has he studied the method? There are thousands of people who have, yet their views are banned? Wikipedia guidelines on Biased or opinionated sources reads as, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Disallowing any positive views of Feldenkrais' work would seem to indicate that the gatekeepers of this page are willfully ignoring their own rules. The policy in this case seems to censorship, pure and simple, as the editors do not allow for any differing viewpoints.Playon51 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are some random testimonials -- a google search for "Feldenkrais Testimonials" will return links to hundreds of them:

It is fantastic, as a medical doctor, to be able to offer my patients a healing echnique that not only will address their specific musculoskeletal problems, but will also help prevent uture injuries and teach them about their bodies. - Lisa Capaldini, MD (Voted 'Best Doctor', SF Bay Guardian, 2006)

"The Awareness Through Movement classes have been immensely useful to me and have lasting effects. In order to avoid knee surgery, I was told I would have to learn to walk again (differently). Feldenkrais FI and ATMs together have made that possible over time. Every class, no matter which, leaves me feeling looser, straighter, more flexible, more at ease in my body." – L. Hutcheon, University Professor Emeritus, U of T

"This is the most sophisticated and effective method I have seen for the prevention and reversal of deterioration of function." Margaret Mead, Ph.D., anthropologist

“I was very skeptical about (Feldenkrais practitioner) Donna at first. After seeing what what Donna has done with my daughter in the past several weeks versus what PT at Hershey Medical Center has done for her in 6 months – hands down, Donna has my praise!” Jere Flowers, Father of a Teenager dealing with “complex regional pain syndrome”

"My life completely changed for the better. I went from being completely unable to works and in constant strong pain due to an injury to my back, to being able to return to a normal life and remain pain free. This was after the doctors had given up on me. Feldenkrais is simply miraculous!" Cherie Ferhman, Designer and Writer

"I keep coming to class because it is something I enjoy doing for my well being. I started in August of ‘92 when I was experiencing a lot of stiffness, pain and difficulty in walking. (Now) I enjoy walking and don’t experience the stiffness after sitting like I used to. The orthopedic surgeon was ready to operate. That no longer is necessary. I have enjoyed the variety and gifts of seven different Feldenkrais practitioners over the years." Shirley Kaiser, High School Counselor

Can the editors explain why David Gorski's opinion carries more weight than some of these people? It's worth pointing out that in contrast to both Mr. Gorski and the editors of this page, the people quoted above have had direct experience with this work.Playon51 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

We already explained above why Gorski is acceptable per PSCI and PARITY. As mentioned above we do not do celebrity endorsements; we do not pull random comments out of blogs either. The latter is absolutely an "unreliable source" in WP - see WP:USERGENERATED. The content you are proposing is promotional and off-mission. The mission of Wikipedia is described in WP:NOT. Please read it. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The guideline you cited ("Citing your own organization, such as a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high quality systematic reviews is generally acceptable...") - is from WP:MEDRS, in the section on COI. What that section is about is, say someone who worked at the NCI wanted to add content to WP about cancer, based on the NCI website and sourced to the NCI website; the community trusts that the NCI provides reliable information about cancer -- that would be great. If they added content about how great the NCI itself, that would not be OK. If someone random joe owned a website "hereisthedealwithcancer.com" and wanted to add content to WP about cancer cited to his or her website, that would not be OK. That is the story there. The Feldenkreis organization is not a governmental health agency nor is it a major medical or scientific body. It is also not independent of the subject. It is not considered reliable in WP for content about health. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So, do you consider Margaret Mead merely a "celebrity" rather than a respected scientist simply because she is better known than David Gorski? You have not answered any of my questions as to why people like yourself and Mr Gorski, who have no real knowledge of this work, are more qualified to to describe it, let alone pass judgement on it, than those who do have such knowledge and direct experience? "We do not pull random comments out of blogs..." -- yet this seems to be exactly what you have done by quoting Gorski's opinion that this work is "quackery". It also seems absurd to accuse people of using "jargon" while the medical profession itself has more jargon than just about any other. I believe that you and the other gatekeepers here are guilty of "lawyering", arguing your rules (which according to wikipedia itself, are actually principles) while actually negating the spirit of wikipedia, which once again, is supposed to be a project of collaboration. The collective attitudes displayed here would seem to prevent the possibility of rational consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playon51 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

We discuss content based on reliable sources (as defined in WP's guidelines) and the content policies and guidelines. There is more to say - I will say that on your Talk page as it is not about improving the article, which is what this page is for. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

text for source Examining Holistic Medicine?

This source doesn't have an online preview, nor is it available from my local library. Perhaps because it is so old - 1989. I'd like to view it because other sources contradict the idea that this method is "exercise" and I want to see if that language is used in this source that is cited, or if that is simply a misinterpretation. This source is only cited for very general info about the method so it can easily be replaced with other sources that are more available. Thanks in advance if anyone can provide a quotation. --Karinpower (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I can dig it out, give me a few days. The availability of a source does not affect its suitability for use in WP. Alexbrn (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. The question is really whether the source is offering something that other sources don't. It's a pretty old source. Those two characteristics would determine whether it should be included, the availability problem is easily neutralized by including a quote in the citation. --Karinpower (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For a description of FM, age doesn't matter unless FM has changed (do sources say it changed?). Alexbrn (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This source calls FM "a system of exercise therapy". I have added a quotation. Make of that what you will. Alexbrn (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

tags

User:FoCuSandLeArN you tagged the article here a couple days ago for NOTHOWTO, OR, and primary sources. I can kind of see the last one, but would you please point out where you saw OR and HOWTO? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and de-tagged for now, in absence of an explanation. Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarify criticism

I would like to suggest to clarify that the statement by David Gorski is not on the method but on the promotional description of it. Ronz, Alexbrn are you ok with this?

David Gorski has written that the promotional description of the Method provided by the Feldenkrais Guild of North America makes it appear to him to be a form of "glorifed yoga" and as if "the Feldenkrais method borders on quackery".[5]

--Hjanetzek (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No because it's reading things into the source which the source doesn't say. Alexbrn (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you specify which part of the statement is not backed by the source? Hjanetzek (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's simpler to see what the source does say rather than what it doesn't. Our current article reflects it accurately. Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No it does not. It should be made clear that his opinion is based on the promotional description that he found on the feldenkrais.com website and a single citation picked from M.D. Anderson. Hjanetzek (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

He mentions the 34 references and Carroll's work too. Alexbrn (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

curl http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/05/md-anderson-enters-the-blogosphere-and-g/ | grep Carroll returns nothing (just like ctrl+f 'Carroll' on that page). Are you talking about this text? This is the reference for the statement in question Hjanetzek (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

*nix can't read. Carroll is the author of this piece Gorski links prior to his quackery judgement. Alexbrn (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the Skeptics Dictionary - ok. Which are the 34 references? Hjanetzek (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The ones Gorski mentions. ("I did find 34 references, but a lot of them were in the CAM literature, and none of them were in any neuroscience journals that I could find") So the idea he based his view on a single web site simply isn't in the source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

David Gorskis citation regarding neuroscience says that Feldenkrais, based on his findings, concluded that the brain is able to develop throughout life. I hope you can agree that this is now studied in neuroscience as neuroplasticity: Prior to his findings, most people believed it was difficult to retrain the body to do an already-learned activity once a person reached a certain age. But, Feldenkrais concluded the brain continues to develop throughout life and retains the ability to relearn. His findings have been confirmed by research in neuroscience. David Gorski interprets it as saying that the Feldenkrais Method itself has been confirmed by research in neuroscience. Unfortunately I couldn’t find any evidence that the Feldenkrais method has been “confirmed by by[sic] research in neuroscience”. If he cannot find any research on this topic it does not invalidate the cited statement that neuroplasticity has been confirmed by neuroscience. Hjanetzek (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there any proposed edit now? Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to look further into the arguments that back the cited statements before refining the article. I'm still under the impression that his commentary in this case only provides a weakly funded opinion.

His conclusion that Feldenkrais is like 'glorified yoga' is based on the fact that he cannot find any evidence against this claim provided by the information in the promotional description of M.D. Anderson. This seems to be a flawed argument, or did I miss something? It also shows some ignorance as he certainly could have come up with a more accurate description if he looked into any of the 34 research papers that he found.

Furthermore, he fails to give a reason why Feldenkrais appears to him as a form of yoga. The 'glorified' aspect that he sees is certainly due to his use of promotional material.Hjanetzek (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Gorski is a noted skeptic & commentator on altmed. His view is due. Alexbrn (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Even he has the chance to be mistaken sometimes. So let's please look at his arguments.Hjanetzek (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We cannot know his inner thoughts and trace his entire reasoning, so that would be futile. His view is his view and wet give it as such. It's fine. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

How about:

David Gorski has written that according to the promotional material he found the Method appears to him like "glorified yoga" and that a reference in the Skeptic's Dictionary supports him to believe that "the Feldenkrais method borders on quackery".[5]

Have you looked at that Dictionary entry? Other entries may be good, but this one seems to provide only a weak analogy equating three practices based on the common property that they consider the feeling of changes of the length of the legs, concluding that Feldenkrais is the same 'Miraculous Deception' as faith healing and acupuncture? (All that based on a single anecdotal report about one person in the case of Feldenkrais.) Hjanetzek (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

No because that inserts conjecture in such a way as to undermine the source. Like any rational person Gorski will recognize the FM as the woo it obviously is. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I see you have found your infallible authority figures Hjanetzek (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this could be of help to you https://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/07/03/how-to-limit-groupthink-in-the-skeptical-community/ Good luck! Hjanetzek (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This is by a professor for theoretical computer science at Princeton who in the end could resolve his RSI issues with FM after having tried many other options. Is he irrational? Is it just coincidence? http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arora/feldenkrais.html http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arora/RSI.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjanetzek (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Hjanetzek (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion. No one cares if you or anyone thinks the princeton person is rational or not. Do not continue making arguments like that. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This was meant to be in reply to Alexbrn for calling me not rational if I do not subscribe to his point of view.Hjanetzek (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not replying further. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Alexbrn with his myth busting machine gun(Gorski) holds the fort on Wikipedia. Considering how much work that is to keep up with it's probably asked for too much to investigate and admit some collateral damage.Hjanetzek (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any good faith purpose to continuing this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted by Alexbrns accusation. I will get back to his first sentence to show that the change I suggested is not a conjecture but directly deducible from the source (or improve it otherwise).Hjanetzek (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Another source

I came across these two similar review articles by Christopher Plastaras: [1] [2]. In them supporting evidence for FM can be found: "Lundblad and colleagues found that the Feldenkrais group showed significant decreases in neck and shoulder complaints and in disability during leisure time" (example from the first article). Let's see about including them in the FM article. Thanks. (Pinging Ronz, Alexbrn) Anon20170803 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Additions I just made to "Further Reading"

Hi--

I was surprised to see that Norman Doidge, MD's book, The Brain's Way of Healing, which I added to the "Further Reading" section about a month ago, was removed.

I've put the book back in, and I hope it will stay.

I've also added a blog just published (Oct. 30, 2017, "Trying the Feldenkrais Method for Chronic Pain") in the New York Times by Jane E. Brody, I hope it will also stay.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the tone of the existing article. One of my long-time clients wrote in an email, after coming across the entry—a former librarian—"Sure seems like it was written by a person with a grudge." I must agree.

As I myself am a Feldenkrais teacher, I've refrained from actively editing this entry until now; however, I feel it's appropriate to add published references from independent sources and reputable publishers, such as Norman Doidge, MD, and Penguin Books, and Jane E. Brody, long-time New York Times columnist.

My training includes studying biology, chemistry, and physics. I'm the daughter of a physician and a research chemist.

I'm deeply committed to the scientific method, to accuracy, and to the extent humanly possible, objectivity. I hope other editors of this page share my commitment. sparklehouse (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In general it is better to actually deploy sources to generate content. But please don't use the Dodge book as that is dodgey. You have been trying to add that for a while and it will keep being pushed back out. The NYT blog piece is not MEDRS - we don't use popular media for health content. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Edzart Ernst´s BLOG post discussing research on the FM and the SR by Hillier and Worley from 2015

I´ve just re-discovered this BLOG post by Edzart Ernst discussing the SR by Hillier & Worley 2015 that was published after the Australian Government Report currently cited as the summary of available evidence for efficacy of the Feldenkrais Method.

I´m intrigued by the differences in description of the FM and the general attitude of Prof. Ernst´s text reviewing the evolution of studies of the FM compared to some of the material currently present in the wikipedia article. Curious how the most active editors of this article would advise to include Ernst´s perspective as well as the most recent publications not yet referenced. Swiltsch (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing multiple copies of the review. I think https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275229217_The_Effectiveness_of_the_Feldenkrais_Method_A_Systematic_Review_of_the_Evidence is generally available.

Anyone know the reputation of the publisher, Hindawi Publishing Corporation's Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine? --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's junk. Alexbrn (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong paraphrasing of a source in the beginning of the article

The first sentence

The Feldenkrais Method is a mind-body approach devised by Moshé Feldenkrais (1904–1984) that claims to reorganize connections between the brain and body and so improve body movement and psychological state.[1]

is incorrect. [1] is Standards of Practice. International Feldenkrais Federation. If you take a look at [1], you can verify that it does not say anything about the brain or connections between the brain and the body. As such, [1] is a good source describing what Feldenkrais is claimed to be, but it should be paraphrased correctly. Oleondre (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article body, where this is sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is still a reference to [1]; please remove it, because that source does not say anything about connections between the brain and the body. In addition [1] states 1. The Method is not a medical, massage, bodywork, or therapeutic technique. The Method is a learning process. Stating that FM is 'exercise therapy' is factually wrong and using [1] as a reference to this is adding an insult to the injury. You are for some reason on a quest to give an utterly negative and wrong impression on FM, which you know nothing about; at least be honest enough and please do not distort, what the International Feldenkrais Federation states.Oleondre (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Eh? The lede sentence is not cited to a source. But as has been discussed before, "exercise therapy" is a sourced phrases. It's a good phrase too in that it means something to lay readers (our actual audience), while stuff like "somatic education regime" is WP:INUNIVERSE gobbledegook proponents want to use for promoting their woo, which will baffle our readership. Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Another source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I came across these two similar review articles by Christopher Plastaras: [1] [2]. In them supporting evidence for FM can be found: "Lundblad and colleagues found that the Feldenkrais group showed significant decreases in neck and shoulder complaints and in disability during leisure time" (example from the first article). Let's see about including them in the FM article. Thanks. (Pinging Ronz, Alexbrn) Anon20170803 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The first article is out-of-date (2011). The second is quite old too, but says these CAM offerings are only supported by weak evidence. Alexbrn (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The 2011 article not out of date: There are 12 references in the article that were published before 2011, Gorski D (6 August 2009) for example. We could start pruning some of these to make sure the article is still up to date (WP:MEDDATE) Anon20170803 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:MEDDATE. Our reviews for biomedical information should be younger than 5 years old when available. That recommendation does not apply to general sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reread my comment... I referenced WP:MEDDATE. WP:MEDDATE states that those guidelines may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is made. No where in WP:MEDDATE does it say that articles less than 5 years old are not allowed, the first bullet point instructs us to try to find newer sources. Please don't WP:WL. I presented an article that gives good info on FM. It's published in a respectable journal and is a secondary source. It should be in Wikipedia, even if your personal opinions disagree with what it says. Anon20170803 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We have more recent secondaries, so no need to use out of date ones. The effect would be WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair point, we have recently peer-reviewed third-party secondary-sources. Since this is the case, why does WP:PARITY still hold for Gorski D? Anon20170803 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The Gorski source is not WP:MEDRS and is not being used for WP:Biomedical information. Per WP:PSCI we are required to make the dubious nature of dubious thing plain so the source is useful for introducing the quackery aspect of FM. I don't believe we have sources saying it's less quacky now - rather the opposite. I'd not be opposed to using a more recent source to fulfill our WP:NPOV obligations. Alexbrn (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

How can you say FM is dubious, when you know nothing about FM? It is absurd that a person wants to write about a subject, but refuses to learn anything about it. You are a software engineer, which in no way qualifies you to present any judgement about FM. Gorski doesn't know anything about FM either. Refusing to remove the Gorski reference just shows your malicious motives.Oleondre (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to change consensus, it's best to avoid attacking editors who disagree with you. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian review

User:Gren0ui11e, the content about the health effects has been heavily negotiated (please see discussions in the archives - really, please do). In my view the details about the Australian review are UNDUE and somewhat argumentative. Others may have other opinions, but this should be discussed. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, it is important to have the context of the review and be accurate about the claims and basis of those claims. A good discussion will also point accurately to the deficiencies, to wit, only 3 RCT's noted in the Australian review. Perhaps a specific article on studies looking at this are important? Could you point to where in the discussions it is at? Gren0ui11e (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk. We will see what others say. The archives are linked above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you point to a date in the archives? Gren0ui11e (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I will not. There is one archive for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the entirety of the health effects review. I do not see any comprehensive "heavily negotiated" agreement. The review by Hillier points to the studies that had been done at the time of her review. There are a number of RCT's that did show benefit but were poorly done. The present text of "no good medical evidence" should be replaced by "uncertain due to a lack of rigorous large randomized controlled trials" which is actually in line with what they say?Gren0ui11e (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The heavy negotiations occurred here, at the talk page and through editing. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have read the entirety of the talk page history. I see nothing that in my mind looks like "heavy negotiation" among multiple editors with an intent to create the most accurate content possible here. Even if there were previous negotiations, that does not remedy the highly flawed and innaccurate present content.Gren0ui11e (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

More accuracy by correctly specifically describing the method; include current studies.

Just a note to whoever has been writing this page:

1. Feldenkrais is not an exercise therapy. It is a learning model similar to yoga, which build awareness and helps people learn how to move better through exploration. This is important, as the definition of Feldenkrais as an "exercise therapy" is entirely incorrect and places it in the medical model. Susan Hillier and Anthony Worley explain this as an "experiential process or set of processes, whereby an individual or a group could be guided through a series of movement- and sensation-based explorations. The purpose of these explorations was to practise the nonlinear process of sensing the difference between two or more options to achieve the stated movement task, and making a discernment about which may feel easier, that is to say, performed with less effort." This helps the nervous system discern more possibilities for moving easier. <ref.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4408630/.

User:Alexbrn removed it as "Rmv. junk source".

Let's have a look at that in a bit more detail. The main author, Susan Hillier, is currently Dean: Research, Health Sciences Divisional Office, University of South Australia, and also affiliated with the Sansom Institute of Health Research at UniSA [2][3]. She's been cited over 2400 times, and has also helped write a number of Cochrane reviews (eg [4]), mostly in the field of rehabilitative medicine. The article itself was peer-reviewed, and is in "Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine", a journal with impact factor of 1.931 and ranked as #14 by Scimago in its field [5]. I think calling this a "junk source" is absurd. Consequently, after a short period to allow discussion here, I will put it back in. Machine Zeit (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

References

It's a junk source. Fringe content, published by Hindawi Publishing Corporation and not MEDLINE-indexed. Edzard Ernst is good on why this journal is a locus of quackery.[6]. It's the opposite of what we want. Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh, not the best journal, probably not the worst. It is MEDLINE-indexed [7]. Is it Wikipedia policy to never cite this journal, or is it just you? Machine Zeit (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty good candidate for the worst journal. I say it's not MEDLINE-indexed because it is not. I'm not sure how your PUBMED search result bears on that question? Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I've always thought Hindawi journals are a bit weird; there's a lot of good stuff in there but it's mixed. On the other hand they did well in the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting. Thanks for the Ernst post, that's good to know. Machine Zeit (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How do you check if it's indexed? Maybe I'm uninformed but I thought PUBMED == MEDLINE. Machine Zeit (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There are probably many ways: I look at the NLM record.[8] Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You didn't respond to whether it is Wikipedia policy to not cite articles from this journal in general. Clearly there are hundreds of articles that do; are they wrong to do that? (and are you going to clean them up?) If they are not wrong but it is decided on a case by case basis, then what are the criteria? I would argue that the most-recent (and largest scale) meta-analysis on this topic is important enough to be included even if there are concerns about the journal; unless there is a blanket decision (and enforced policy) to consistently exclude that journal. Machine Zeit (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As a source for MEDRS claims, I agree it shouldn't be used. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Machine Zeit: It's a basic tenet of WP:RS the our sources must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is even more acute for health information. So why would we use one of the most disreputable journals on the planet? Alexbrn (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ernst 2005 meta-analysis

Alternate meta-analysis: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-2004-834763 Critique away...

References

Machine Zeit (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A 2005 pubilication fails MEDS as being too likely that's it's outdated. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to a specific rule about how old articles have to be to fail MEDRS? I would prefer to quote both it and Hillier's 2015, of course. In the absence of anything newer, this is still the most recent review. Machine Zeit (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you move on. --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, Ronz, you're not even trying to be civil. I am trying to improve the article by adding the best info I can find - which, for a medical article, is a meta-analysis of RCTs. Even if you completely disagree with the details, perhaps you can agree with this in principle. Do you think there is a problem with there being exactly zero peer-reviewed journal articles cited here? (and zero RCTs, and zero reviews) Instead of telling me to move on, why don't you propose a way to improve the article? Machine Zeit (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing incivil about it. You obviously have taken offense at a suggestion. Please don't misrepresent it as something it is not. See WP:FOC and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. --Ronz (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't taken offense at all. I would politely decline your suggestion. I think the article needs a lot of work, and I'm happy to work on it; I see no reason to move on. Machine Zeit (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and de-escalation. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: Okay, I looked carefully through the WP:MEDDATE guidelines. (a) "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published. " - I think this is definitely an area where "few reviews are published"; the article currently contains zero reviews, and it is hard enough to find any reviews in the literature (b) "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." - There was a newer review but some editors have brought up concerns about the journal it was published. In any case the newer review does not appear to represent a major change of opinion. Ernst 2005: "Conclusion: The evidence for the FM is encouraging but, due to the paucity and low quality of studies, by no means compelling." vs Hillier 2015: "Conclusions: There is further promising evidence that the FM may be effective for a varied population interested in improving functions such as balance. Careful monitoring of individual impact is required given the varied evidence at a group level and the relatively poor quality of studies to date." It does not appear that "expert opinion has changed" or old review has been "superseded". Because of (a) and (b), the Ernst 2005 review should be included. Machine Zeit (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

We have MEDRS from the Australian Department fof Health, which is newer. No need to reach back for old stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Effectiveness studies

Roxy the dog reverted the addition of two sources on the basis of WP:PRIMARY. While the use of these sources to support Crumblord's conclusion was an improper synthesis of information per WP:OP, it appears to me that they are still reliable sources that could be included in the article, to the sole and limited extent of relating those specific findings. Would this be satisfactory? Ibadibam (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS Roxy, the dog. wooF 04:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Is there a particular part of the guideline that especially applies to this case? Ibadibam (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There's some text in bold at the top which is hard to miss ... Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I'm not asking about the general application of the guideline, but rather whether there is some part of the guideline that disqualifies these sources from WP:MEDPRI, which provides leeway to describe certain individual studies until such content can be replaced with a citation of a more comprehensive secondary source. Ibadibam (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are not reliable for health content, and are only used in exceptional circumstances. So in this case too. See WP:WHYMEDRS for background and WP:MEDFAQ (in progress) for more. WP:MEDPRI does not give "leeway" to use unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Dance and movement training

"In 2015, the Australian Government's Department of Health published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by health insurance." This single review has been responsible for the cockeyed view of several movement modalities in use in dance studios and in theater training. The language David Gorski objects to in his rather sarcastic review misunderstands the language which is not esoteric but both old fashioned and is similar to language used in the field of dance by dance teachers to describe both the outer aspects of dance and movement and its corresponding less visible aspects which impact the emotional psychological aspects of the dancer. There are, as there was in Alexander Technique multiple articles in dance related publications describing use of this method in impacting movers/dancers. That a single review looking for health related medical benefits in order to insure is almost insignificant. I wouldn't expect the techniques to impact health related medical benefits beyond, as one later review suggests, for example, in balance which is only peripheral to a health related impact anyway. We don't have research investigating dance studios and what experienced dance people are using to impact their dancers. The article is not balanced but is slanted towards a review rather than including the dance studio related material on this topic. We are treating this subject as if its importance is the relationship between some wacky spiritual practice and hard science as Gorski seems to suggest. That's the wrong playing field; its a movement technique. As dancers and any artist knows movement and technique impact and are impacted by the mind. That's what we are dealing with here, that's what the literature describes and per weight a review that relates this to science is only a small part of this topic. The article should be adjusted accordingly. Unless editors here are dancers or have taught dancers I would suspect this is quite foreign to you. Maybe take that in consideration. Littleolive oil (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. We're not going to stop using a reliable source because of the supposed existence of other reliable sources (you suggest none). If they really exist, produce them. A bit of trivial googling shows that FM is marketed hard for health benefits. Alexbrn (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No one, as is clear, is arguing against the reliable source; no one is suggesting we stop using a source because we have others. I mention weight. I am suggesting that balance be maintained. I am suggesting that the Australian review as a source taken alone creates the mistaken idea and tone in the article that scientific research is the only way to view this. And this is the same issue we had with the Alexander Technique. This is a movement modality and there are publications which reference its use in dance, a form of movement. I argued this on the Alexander Technique article. It was pretty much a waste of time. I'm not going to fight you on this. I've been down this road before. But I also will make clear my concerns. I'm telling you that there are two ways to look at this. This article is slanted one way with David Gorski's quote providing an insight into a lack of knowledge about movement and dance studio techniques and environments while providing an extreme and sarcastic tone which is kind of ugly and pretty much inaccurate. I'm not on a soapbox here pushing an idea. This is weighted wrongfully and I don't have the stomach to fight it. I'm telling you with my background in movement and dance you have it wrong. Littleolive oil (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"Argument" without sources is a waste of time. What are these mythical good sources we're not using? Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Alex I want to apologize for my tone. I am frustrated but did not mean to take that out on anyone here.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about the sources. First, this method has been written about in terms of dance, theater, and voice training. It is used as is the Alexander Technique, Pilates, Laban movement vocabulary and other modalities in studios all over North America if not in the world. I do not as a dance teacher look at research to find out what works in the dance studio in part because there is so little and it is almost impossible to study or to analyze as science rather than what it is which is art and performance; I see it, try it and chart its usefulness. There is also another aspect that includes researching health benefits. We have one review maybe two if we look at this [9] which although published in a journal we might not accept for a serious health condition, here, because the methodology looks good and the outcome for health borders on movement rather than illness or wellness, while the claim in the outcome is very modest, I would consider it rather than throw it out outright with out consideration.

So there are two aspects to an article on this method. I'm adding a few of sources which indicate the use of the method in terms of movement, theatre. I don't have the time or inclination to search archives for articles archived in dance and dance teacher publications, although here is one article which I'm adding just for information with out suggesting it might be a reliable source for Wikipedia [10]

Publications dance, movement, theater... simple Amazon search:

[11]

[12]

[13]

Finally, David Gorski's quote is undue weight for a view that pertains to a misreading of what this method is. I wouldn't expect to understand oncology or to provide an opinion on what it is, so beyond an analysis of a research review I doubt an oncologist is a reliable source for a movement method. I won't say more or discuss this more; I don't have the time but did post here in the hope that those writing this article could see their way to first understanding more completely what they are writing about, and second, that they will balance the article to indicate that understanding. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't know about the performance aspect, but Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a strong candidate for the most direputable journal on the planet. We have - on the other hand - a perfectly good source from Australia and Gorski's view is due given the strong quackery streak to this stuff. If you want to add material on performance and there are indeed good source - I am not totally convinced - then that would be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have agreed the review I mentioned is problematic and have no problem excluding it. David Gorski's quote is a different matter on multiple levels. First the content in the article cherry picks the most sensationalist words and phrases which in my mind is not encyclopedic. Worse though is that Gorski references The Skeptic's Dictionary to poke fun at what is just an example of visualization or a better term, imagery, rather than actually research the idea and term. Actually it's not faith healing but is a well accepted and used technique used by athletes and dancers to both improve performance and even help the physical body learn. There's a fair amount of literature on the use of imagery in sport and dance and has been for along time. It is mainstream. As a former high level athlete, coach, and dance teacher I am familiar with the benefits and the use in mainstream teaching/coaching. I don't mind in the least that Gorski is ignorant of this; if he doesn't work in this field why would he know this or need to know it, but what I mind is that a scientist uses Skeptic's Dictionary to support his position rather than actually look for concrete information about what is being described (actually even this is none of my business) but what concerns me is that view is added in cherry picked terms to one of our articles. That's not NPOV content. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• • This is a recent article/study in Nature with outlines further how imagery is used in motor skill acquisition; there is a range of how imagery is used and is being studied, this is one. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Scientific Reports (dodgy) is not Nature (respectable) - there is a recurrent pattern of WP:PROFRINGE editors here making exactly this misrepresentation though. So far as I can see there is no sourced evidence that the Feldenkrais Method® is of any benefit for anything, despite the many marketing claims made by those selling it. If this is wrong, produce the sources saying so. Until then, we reflect properly sceptical sources, like Gorski. Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry my error....rushing and don't look carefully enough. And the Fringe word rears its ugly head. Alex I have no desire to try and convince you of this, I know the path, and I won't be adding anything to this article because I don't have the stomach or time to play the game. I don't need to, and I will not spend my time trying to convince anyone of something that is common knowledge in the movement/sports field. Imagery training is a well documented technique; what Skeptic's dictionary is describing and what Gorski is calling woo is just imagery training. I was attempting to give an example, not a source, of what is being done in the professional fields that use this kind of training and where the research is going; imagery training is mainstream. I think what editors object too is obvious, at least what I object to. Cherry picking and sensationalist language is not OK and it tells the reader almost nothing except to possibly shut down further interest, and that's deliberate. Gorski's use of the Skeptic's dictionary is not OK; more sensationalism and poorly encyclopedic although I know skeptic leaning editors support it. I respect you as an editor but the old worn out arguments–Fringe POV pushers, its all about marketing claims is missing the point. Those who write, teach, heal or whatever make money doing so. We cannot from on high decide who should make money and who shouldn't. I gave you three publications on the use of Feldenkrais in several aspects of movement and performance. In the fields I work in it is useful and respected. If this article pushes a view that relies on cherry picked sensationalism so be it. Pilates, Alexander Technique, and many other modalities for improving the well being and skill of dancers, movers, actors will continue to be used no matter what the Wikipedia articles say. Especially anyone with an ounce of intelligence will not be turned away by cherry picked sensationalist statements based on Gorski's blog, but will walk away wondering how such content is encyclopedic. An article must demonstrate the literature so pejorative content is to be expected but such content should be well sourced to secondary sources written by someone who at least knows something about the application of modalities in the movement field. Best.Littleolive oil (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• • I've removed this article from my watch list. So don't take a lack of response as ignoring you or anyone else. Just don't have the time to deal with this further.Littleolive oil (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Big mistake checking back for copy edit errors. This is silly. I took time I didn't have to explain. I added information here to offer explanation for my position before adding content that would be removed and the usual subsequent contentious arguments and of course name calling- Fringe POV pusher. Alex I've edited with you before; its the same every time. I do realize you believe you are protecting the encyclopedia. Your mind was made up. You were already calling me names. Do I really want to spend the time to prepare sources only to have you remove the content when you did not even really address the concerns. Why would I do that with limited time knowing you had made up your mind and I would be reverted? I saw your mind was made up that you weren't going to allow change so I walked away while trying to remain friendly. This is why I cannot stomach this kind of thing anymore. I work in a field that uses additional modalities and I have tried to work on Wikipedia articles that deal with those articles. My attitude isn't trolling; its frustration with editors who control articles. I have learned not to care about the accuracy of Wikipedia content when I can't do anything about it, to preserve my health and time. I assume your integrity, too bad you can't assume mine. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Australian thing but the Gorski quotation is problematic. The article provides no context as to who he is or why his opinion matters. The citation is of his own blog, discussing his opinion of another blog. He uses strawman arguments, debunking claims that don't actually appear to have been made by anyone, and applying standards of medical review to an activity that is not and does not claim to be a form of medical treatment. Ibadibam (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The Gorski citation is not "of his own blog". Science-Based Medicine is RS and useful for WP:PARITY purposes in fringe topic areas such as this. As has been discussed here before in the real world outlandish claims are made for the FM (e.g. in regard to autism, or that it can "cure" chronic back pain - quackery in other words). Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about a citation of Gorski's blog on ScienceBlogs.com, not SBM. As far as I can tell there's no editorial process. It's just one expert's opinion piece. Surely we can find more rigorous criticism of Feldenkrais. Ibadibam (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Feldenkrais science?

Probably the best thing to improve would be the definition of Feldenkrais. It's not "exercise therapy" and your source for that is not a Feldenkrais practitioner. A minimum of respect would be allowing the first sentence to be written by one.

I appreciate the editor wants sourced science, but often medical skeptics don't understand what happens in real clinical practice whether a licensed doctor or a holistic/alternative one.

Consider a psychiatrist prescribing antidepressants. There's some medical evidence they help but it's fairly weak considering how widely they're used and how much they cost. [14]

What happens in a clinical setting? A patient tries several antidepressants, finding that some do nothing, others cause harm, and finally an effective one is found. Often the effective one brings astonishing benefits considering that science can only find small benefits on average.

There are probably rigorous studies showing benefit to Feldenkrais, but I haven't studied this in detail. Feldenkrais exists in the realm of personal exploration and learning, just like 90% of clinical psychiatry. The principles of learning are all based on the facts of physiology and neurology, but in the end, a person doing Feldenknrais benefits from having experienced how they work from the first person... again, just like clinical psychiatry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc1127 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

“Junk Source”, “POV”?

Hello, Long time user, first time editor... I recently made an edit to this page and was initially reverted as “POV”, then again as “Junk Source.” I’d like to open a dialogue to understand how these classifications are determined and also how I can be helpful. We’re told to “be bold”, but then our contributions are immediately dismissed as “junk”. Please help. Thanks, --Sgtgalvin (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources must be reputable. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is notorious as perhaps the least reputable journal on the planet.[15] Any health claims need very strong sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I’ll have to be more scrupulous with the medical references. I’m also planning to update my profile soon with any potential conflicts of interest. That said, it occurs to me that I believe Moshe Feldenkrais would not have classified his method as medicine, but I’m not entirely sure how to relay that bit of information with a good reference. Maybe I can find something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtgalvin (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Question Related to This Article

Under the heading, "Effectiveness and Reception", it says:

David Gorski has written that the Method bears similarities to faith healing, is like "glorified yoga", and that it "borders on quackery".[4]

If I'm reading WP:YESPOV correctly, it seems to me this quote by itself is not only slightly judgmental (going against the "prefer nonjudgmental language" principle), but also represents a one-sided point of view from an outspoken skeptic (contradicting the "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" principle.) I'm still learning here and I recognize this has been a contentious topic already (judging by the changelist). I read Dr. Gorski's blogpost and noticed he also calls Reflexology "quackery", but there is no equivalent reference in the Reflexology article.

There are already plenty of references in the Feldenkrais Method article indicating the lack of research for the Method, with all the pertinent disclaimers included as well. As such, I do not believe this kind of reference, while a valid opinion, is in keeping with the principles of NPOV and should either be removed or rewritten.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Sgtgalvin (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Gorski's opinions are often used to provide a skeptical, medical viewpoint, especially when no better sources are available. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The point is that Gorski is not just a medical or skeptical viewpoint, but a judgmental and biased one. The lack of better sources doesn't justify using a biased one. Jc1127 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, and biased doesn't mean bad. --Ronz (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I see. So, it really is just the lack of reliable sources for the opposing view that prevents the representation of it. Thanks for the quick reply. --Sgtgalvin (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "opposing view".

It's a reliable source, so I'm not sure what you mean by "the lack of reliable sources".

Independent sources are important in topics like this. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

And in this context, the addition of Norman Doidge's opinions [16] seems like an attempt at false balance. --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

And taking the opinion out of the context of the reference is probably a POV violation. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain this better? How providing a different scientific view is false balance? Thanks. --37.163.155.214 (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want explained, nor what "scientific view" you are refering to. Specific examples or ask more focused questions would help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I am asking why is it ok to write one single phrase from a single oncologist while Doidge's thought on Feldenkrais Method are a false balance. I was answering to your statement: "And in this context, the addition of Norman Doidge's opinions [17] seems like an attempt at false balance". I hope this question is focused enough. Thank you for your time. Centrifuga (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Ronz. Here are my responses:

The opposing view in this case is less skeptical. As someone who wants to know more about this method, I find it beneficial to have a reference leading me to more. (For what it's worth, I think that evidence-based research is absolutely necessary and should certainly stay.)

I'm referring to the lack of reliable sources for research on this topic. i.e. Questionable peer-reviews.

I agree. I thought Science-based Medicine was a good independent source for this.

I was simply trying to represent the viewpoint from another professional in the field to provide 'better' balance to the "Effectiveness and Reception." It is not an attempt at false balance, but rather, an attempt to provide better balance.

Can you clarify what you mean by "taking the opinion out of context?" I've read Doidge's book (part of the reason I'm here) and the quote in Hall's article seemed like a great representation of Doidge's opinion.

Thanks again. --Sgtgalvin (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, sorry for making any edits without discussing them here first. I'll wait for more consensus (and understanding on my part) before making any more major edits. --Sgtgalvin (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Responding to Centrifuga: False balance: Placing a reliable skeptical viewpoint against in-world enthusiasm: I applaud his enthusiasm, his passion for his subject, and his desire to help suffering patients; but I think he is holding out false hopes that promise more than is justified by the current evidence. He is recommending some very questionable treatments and he’s asking for a great commitment of time and effort (and sometimes money!) that might not do the patient any good. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

More

There appears to be a concerted effort to remove references to Norman Doidge's book "The Brain that Changes itself" and a while restoring a comments made in a blog post by an oncologist who is not an expert in the field. PianoPedagogue (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Dodge's book is not a reputable source. Science-Based Medicine on the other hand is a respected source for fringe/pseudoscience topics, such as this, and so is suitable for our purposes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would a book authored by a leading expert in brain science not be considered a reputable source, but a blog post posted under a pseudonym be considered acceptable? Why is an oncologist considered an authority on neuroscience? PianoPedagogue (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS for the sourcing requirements for statements in the field of biomedicine; Doidge's book falls way short, and is possibly fringe. Gorski is an expert on fringe medicine and his (unremarkable, not "neuroscientific") view offers some independent commentary, useful per WP:PARITY to give our readers some idea of what this stuff is like. Alexbrn (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"The Brain That Changes Itself" is a professional book written by an expert (top faculty positions at CAMH, Columbia U) in the relevant field from a respected publisher (Viking). It has been reviewed in dozens of publications including major newspapers (New York Times, The Guardian) and scientific journals (The American Society of Bioethics).

Gorski is an oncologist who wrote a blog post responding to his perusal of a webpage. It is not a review article, article in a reputable journal, academic or professional book, or a guideline/positional statement from a national or international body. PianoPedagogue (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's lay press. A "review article" is not required to compare Feldenkrais and yoga, but for statements about neuroscience something WP:MEDRS would be appropriate - and for many claims in this WP:FRINGE space, a WP:REDFLAG flies. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC about citation in Effectiveness and Reception

Is a blog post considered a reliable and neutral source? PianoPedagogue (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• It depends. Relevant WP:PAGs for this topic would be WP:BLOGS and WP:PARITY. For an acknowledged expert on fringe medicine (David Gorski) making an observations on the Feldenkrais Method, use is appropriate as discussed here before - and it constitutes some of the rare independent sourcing on this topic, so is due for a sentence or two. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Putting this into context: The referenced blog post was written under a pen name and did not represent any significant study of the subject. The only reason we are aware of the identity of the author is because he was "outed." Under WP:BLOGS that would make it an opinion piece at best. I understand WP:PARITY calls for proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints to be made clear. A semi-anonymous online rant doesn't seem like an acceptable source for any article, however. The standard should be higher. PianoPedagogue (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you link me to the semi anonymous online rant? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Gorski is quite transparent about his nom du plume, used when he blogs.[18] Alexbrn (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. When a semi anonymous online rant was mentioned, I had no idea that Gorski was supposed to be the ranter. Gorski is an entirely acceptable source when he is writing in his field of debunking nonsense, something he is well respected for. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Gorski is transparent 'now.' The blog post can be seen here: https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/05/md-anderson-enters-the-blogosphere-and-g. I appreciate the need to continue the discussion. I'm really hoping to hear from not just the voices of editors who have worked on the article, but outside input as well. PianoPedagogue (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I am an editor who has never worked on this article. I agree with Alexbrn and Roxy the dog. In particular, scienceblogs.com did not just make claims about the Feldenkrais Method,[19] It accurately quoted the Feldenkrais website.[20][21][22] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

If you're going to write an RfC that's not immediately rejected, please:

1. Identify the content in the article.
2. Identify the reference.
3. Link to related discussions.
4. Present the question in a neutral manner.
5. Demonstrate an understanding of the relevant policies.

Could you please respond to each? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure!

1. The content of the article is: "David Gorski has written that the Method bears similarities to faith healing, is like "glorified yoga", and that it "borders on quackery".[4]
2. the reference is: Gorski D (6 August 2009). "M.D. Anderson enters the blogosphere–and goes woo". Scienceblogs—Respectful Insolence. https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/05/md-anderson-enters-the-blogosphere-and-g
3. related discussions can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Feldenkrais_Method
4. The question is "Is a blog post considered a reliable and neutral source?"
5. Relavant policies would be WP:BLOGS Does this blog rise to the level of reliable source? Does this blog constitute an opinion piece? How does the fact the blog was posted under a pen name affect its reliability? WP:PARITY Is the need for proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints so broad that blogs post, which have not gone through any kind of review process, should be included in Wikipedia articles? PianoPedagogue (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• The source is reliable, so this is a non-issue: Gorski is obviously a reliable source for Gorski's view. We use expert blogs a lot for fringe topics, so if this is an attempt to change Wikipedia-wide policy, this is not the place for that discussion. Whether ScienceBlogs is reliable in general has already been the subject of much community discussion, see WP:RSP. Here, we have a subject-matter expert on fringe science, commenting on fringe science so WP:PARITY is a consideration. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

PianoPedagogue, thanks for the responses. A search of WP:RSN seems to make this discussion moot. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP states that "there is no consensus on the reliability of Science Blogs in general." A search of WP:RSN confirms this. PianoPedagogue (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If you search specifically for the blog and author in question, which you should have done from the start, you'll see why I think this is a waste of time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stay on the specifics of this particular citation rather than delving in whole Gorski controversy.That's a conversation well beyond the scope of this little article. PianoPedagogue (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're purposely ignoring consensus, then this is a waste of time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please, discuss the issue of whether this blog post meets wikipedia standards rather than trying to stifle the conversation WP:TEND. PianoPedagogue (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

First, please learn to indent your comments properly. And yes, this blog meets Wikipedia standards as multiple editors have already showed you. I suggest that you also read WP:LISTEN.--McSly (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hearing from the same four voices who have reverted the article since the citation was added in 2017 is not a consensus or an RfC. WP:CANVASS WP:CONS PianoPedagogue (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

PianoPedagogue, it's a well-discussed source, discussed here and at RSN. ArbEnf applies. Please be more careful. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That the Wisconsin and Australian policy papers are already cited in the article would suggest the addition of blog post is simply a way to promote Gorski, rather than a substantive contribution. PianoPedagogue (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Feldenkrais Method claimed to treat Autism

• Moving Beyond Limits: Children with Autism --Feldenkrais.com
• How the Feldenkrais Method can Benefit Children with Autism --Feldenkraisguild.com

If that's not enough, it is also claimed that the Feldenkrais Method will make you a better musician,[23] a better actor,[24] is an effective treatment for children with Down Syndrome, [25] Cerebral Palsy,[26] Muscular dystrophy,[27] ADHD,[28] Stroke,[29] Congenital hip dysplasia,[30] Microcephaly,[31] Hydrocephaly, Spina Bifida, Traumatic birth injury, Brachial plexus injury, Hypoxic brain damage, Autism spectrum disorders, Torticollis, Undiagnosed developmental delays, Multiple disabilities, Sensory Processing Difficulties, Hypotonia causing global developmental delay, and Dystonia.[32] It can even be an effective treatment for a poodle that had a stroke![33]

In fact, you can google "Feldenkrais [any disease]" and find claims that Feldenkrais is an effective treatment for that condition. "Feldenkrais alzheimer's"? Individuals With Dementia Learn New Habits and Empowered Through the Feldenkrais method. "Feldenkrais erectile disfunction"? Enhancing Sexuality Through the Feldenkrais Method. "Feldenkrais heart failure"? Healing the Heart: the Feldenkrais Part "Feldenkrais anger?" Anger and the Feldenkrais Method .

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like it's bordering on quackery - just as well we cite a source saying that. It appears we have been under attack for a while from Feldenkrais sellers upset such candour tarnishes their brand; what a waste of editors' time that has been! Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Just in case anyone has any doubts, here is an evaluations from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services:[34]

"Please find below a statement of our determination as to whether or not the committee views Feldenkrais Therapy as a proven and effective treatment for children with autism spectrum disorder and/or other developmental disabilities... it is the decision of the committee that Feldenkrais Therapy does not have a high-quality empirical study in which participants were clearly identified as having an autism spectrum disorder or developmental disability and no authoritative bodies have recognized the treatment as having emerging evidence, therefore qualifies as a Level 4 - Insufficient Evidence Treatment."

The whole thing is worth reading (we get mentioned!) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Good find. Reputable sources in this area are rare so this helps - I have added. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I certainly hoping you are not including me when you write, "Feldenkrais sellers upset such candour tarnishes their brand." I'm am not a Feldenkrais practitioner nor do I receive any benefit, financial or otherwise from the Feldenkrais Method. To suggest otherwise is ad hominem, bordering on libelous. PianoPedagogue (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about you personally. Here is the general rule; whenever there is a Wikipedia page about some group that claims to be doing medicine but are actually quacks trying to make money off the gullible (Ayurveda, Feldenkrais Method, Homeopathy, Oil pulling, Young blood transfusion, Urine therapy...) someone comes along and attempts to get Wikipedia to stop saying negative things about the practice. Often they are practitioners; as Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". That being said, sometimes the person who wants to whitewash the topic is a patient or just a True Believer. We don't, as a rule, make any assumptions as to which is the case and we do as a rule (it's an actual rule: WP:AGF) take their word for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

... except we wont go scaling the Reichstag in super-hero suits, as the dry cleaning wear and tear makes the colours fade. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy Macon. I have now had multiple messages left in the 'talk' section of my page implying that I have a conflict of interest and that I had edited an article before under a different account. Neither of which is accurate or true. I'm interested in having a discussion of the article's content and sourcing, not to have my integrity questioned. If we could go back to discussing the topic at hand that would be appreciated. PianoPedagogue (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That's to be expected, given the fact that your edit history is identical to that of someone with a conflict of interest. The reason I am accepting your claims to not have a COI at face value is that it doesn't matter. You are not going to succeed in your quest to stop us from calling the Feldenkrais Method what reliable sources call it -- quackery and pseudoscience. See the section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia outlines a process for resolving disputes WP:DRR. I intend to go forward with that process. Now if we could please follow wiki's guidelines and

1. stay on topic WP:TALK#TOPIC
2. end the meta conversation WP:TALK#NOMETA
3. be positive WP:TALK#NOMETA
4. stay objective WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE
5. deal with facts WP:TALK#FACTS
6. discuss edits WP:TALK#DISCUSS
7. comment on content, not the contributer
8. keep discussions focused WP:EXHAUST
9. don't bite the newcomers PianoPedagogue (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As you are aware of them, please follow them. Withdraw your RfC, and write a proper one if you want, linking all relevant past discussions on the topic. It would also help if you redacted all past comments of yours that are well outside this guideline and related policies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, thank you for your suggestion. I will with withdraw and begin a new RfC using the outline you suggested. I will be happy to redact my comments if others are will to join me. My preference would be to focus on content, not people. PianoPedagogue (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)