Talk:Kneeling chair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The main section looks derived from http://www.kneechair.org/, supporting the claim that it's written like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.135.250 (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the parameters of the page[edit]

Wenttomowameadow suggested that I post proposed alternative content on a separate page for others to evaluate.

I would like to do so but would first appreciate an opportunity to discuss the basis for my concerns about the current page - and how we might resolve these issues.

  1. The page only lists a small number of studies and does not list the most important of these.
  2. The page lists each of the studies it names as equivalent - which is absurd, since many of the studies are completely confounded, overly limited or irrelevant.
  3. The page greatly misrepresents the research. One reason for this is that it only focuses on a single issue (namely lumbar lordosis of the spine) and neglecting all other issues - such as for example the loads on the knees topic I wrote, which was deleted.

    For example, when I previously added a section about the controversy regarding loads on the knees - and provided either the medline links to the associated abstracts, or links to the downloadable pdfs (for hard to find or unpublished papers), that entire section was deleted outright as spam, even though I made clear that I was perfectly willing to transfer content i had on my own website at this link [1] to the Wikipedia page. (I have no concerns about whether the content is on my website or Wikipedias, as long as the content I contribute is not unfairly hacked to pieces.)

  4. The page fails to distinguish between the original Balans chair and generic "kneeling chairs". Wenttomowameadow went so far as to reject the concept of a companion page that is specific to the Balans chair. This is important for several reasons:
    1. The Balans chair is a patented design concept that is based on extensive research. Manufacturers of the Balans chair must conform to the inventors' strict criteria. Kneeling chairs on the other hand are not at all subject to this stricture.
    2. With only a couple of exceptions, the scientific research on kneeling chairs has used the Balans chair - which may be quite different than other kneeling chairs. This is an important distinction that is being shut out by rejecting the Balans page and forwarding it to the kneeling page.
As far as I can tell, the above was added by Rani Lueder 20:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC). The signature, automatically added, was somehow deleted. I cleaned up the formatting to make it more readable. SlowJog (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of content[edit]

[Transcript of the kneeling chair chat to this point between Rani Lueder and Wenttomowameadow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rani_Lueder/Kneeling_chair] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The active conversation is at User talk: Rani Lueder#Kneeling Chair. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just some advice. Rani Lueder does seem to have better sources, but this page has to be self-contained. We cannot use Harvard references to external bibliographies. Also keep in mind that by integrating/transferring your research here, you "irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". I'm talking about sentences like "Although the research findings varied, the majority demonstrated improvements in lumbar lordosis – that is, a shift towards more neutral postures". Such summaries are taken verbatim from that webpage. I assume Rani Lueder originated that material, but you cannot transfer any such formulations to Wikipedia without relaxing the copyright, see this page for details. The alternative is to treat the material as an external source, just the way we treat any other copyrighted material: summarize the cited studies here with original formulations and acknowledge Lueder's page either by an external link or by stating more explicitly that this review is based on sources he collected. Regards, Vesal (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back, Vesal. By better links, I think you are referring to the page on my own website at http://www.humanics-es.com/balans-abstracts.htm#ergonomics ? I only ask because I didn't think there was a link anywhere to it, but I must have missed it. I don't understand the comment about the use of Harvard in citations - it doesn't show up anywhere in the page that I find using Ctr-F With one exception related to an unpublished paper, the only time I mentioned secondary citations is when I found it necessary to clarify when someone cited another study incorrectly. I also hand-scanned some papers that are hard to find and free of copyright in order to make these available to the reader.

Regarding your other comment, yes, the paragraphs I added were summary paragraphs from the review of the literature I wrote - which was followed by the discussion of each of the studies relevant to that subtopic. I had added a link to that paper just to provide a basis for the conclusions, but Wentto deleted it. I don't know of any other reviews that were as thorough - I honestly put every single citation that has ever mentioned the Balans in an English language review of the literature, and some in other languages. This is the link to the pdf. I was given no restrictions on what I could write, positive or negative in writing it.

http://www.humanics-es.com/BalansErgonomicsReview.pdf

Best, Rani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The odds are mindbogglingly low that those papers you scanned are free of copyright! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Orange Mike, thanks for getting back. I don't understand your comment, though. I posted some articles on my web page at this link http://www.humanics-es.com/balans-abstracts.htm#ergonomics But none of these are copyrighted. Most of the cites only list the abstract and links to the original sources - Medline and the publisher. The page also includes paragraphs that summarize the studies in each section that I extracted from a paper I wrote that is at this link. http://www.humanics-es.com/BalansErgonomicsReview.pdf I am well aware that my act of posting the content on this website will have copyright implications of my own content (I lose the copyright to what I post) - however, I am willing to do this in order to correct inaccuracies in this page. Does that make sense or am I still not understanding your point? Best, Rani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph[edit]

Requested photograph added.   — Lee J Haywood 22:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Edward 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Bold text''''Bold text'Bold text'''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.23.66 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Opsvik[edit]

For some reason I don't quite understand, there has been some edit warring regarding Opsvik's original design. I've now added no less than four references, one of which is in itself a compilation press of clippings. The sources are all reliable, e.g. Der Spiegel, Germany's leading magazine, and Store Norske Leksikon, Norway's leading online encyclopedia — after Wikipedia, of course! Asav (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wenttomowameadow seems to take offense to any reference to Peter Opsvik, who - along with Chris Mengschoel - invented the chair concept. I fail to see the point of making any changes to the page, as Wenttomowameadow suggested, since he automatically removes even the slighted edit I make. Honestly, I fail to see how he can call my brief mention of the name of the inventor of the kneeling chair - on a page about the kneeling chair - as spam. He obviously has an agenda. People I know in the industry seem to believe he has a kneeling chair website. If this is true, it is totally inexplicable because the references he keeps - as opposed to the ones he deleted that I added - represent such a poor reflection of the research and the design concept. Rani Lueder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silliness. I removed edits without sources as per the basic guidelines that Rani apparently still hasn't read despite prompting. An apparent conflict of interest was dealt with in a manner considered appropriate by other editors (primarily on Rani's talk page), during which time I chose to ignore the accusations by Rani that we've seen repeated above. There is no edit war here. Asav, I don't really understand what you're posting here to ask (if anything), because it's obvious that appropriate, cited material can be added to articles without fear of reversion. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with Rani's edit history and the discussion on the talk page where I am encouraging the editor to incorporate their expertise in an appropriate way. The body of edits from Rani that I reverted consisted of unbiased research being replaced with pro-Balans research referenced to the editor's own web site.
Of course, none of this is actually necessary to explain why I reverted the recent unsourced edit with questionable importance. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still believe that the origin of an invention bears some importance; just as it's prudent to mention James Watt's condenser in the article on steam engines. But I think we all agree that the last addition is sufficiently well documented to warrant its place in the lede, so we can just leave it at that! Asav (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have no problem with the properly-sourced edit. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of use[edit]

If possible, could someone add a picture of this being used? I completely failed to visualize how this type of chair is used, so I think a supplementary or replacement picture of this being used would contribute to the value of this article.

205.201.254.71 (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree with this article[edit]

It says that the only function of the kneeling part is to prevent falling out. I think this is false. The function is to divide the weight between the knees and the buttocks so that the buttocks doesn't take the brunt of all the force.

In sitting, if the butt is supporting all that weight there is bound to be back pain for many. You therefore have to divide the weight, which can be done by elbow support, supporting your body with the elbows on the table, leaning your torso on the table, etc. Diving the weight to the knees seems to be good idea too, though I have never tried one of these chairs yet.

Kneeli (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why citation needed after "it is not proven"...?[edit]

"However, it is not proven that kneeling chairs are an optimal solution.[citation needed]"

If it is proven, then supply evidence. It is illogical to ask for a citation that something has not been proven. 69.173.110.244 (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising and References[edit]

This article was reading like an advertisement with irrelevant info about Buddhists and too many name checks including brand names. I have thus removed some info from the history section which is need of expansion or removal.

I have also marked the article as needing more medical references since it makes multiple medical claims yet I'm not sure that there is one single source in there that complies with WP:MEDRS. Generally the quality of references appear quite bad as well, with many references in foreign languages (not ideal as of WP:V, one reference that I removed to a personal blog, etc.Levelledout (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kneeling chair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altering summary of Lander 1987[edit]

>concluded that their experimental data “do not support the manufacturer’s claim that the Balans chair is likely to decrease complaints of [lower-back pain]”\

Misleading at worst, irrelevant at best. Judging from the abstract, this study has nothing to say about effects on lower back pain. It was a tiny study run on a small set of healthy subjects after a mere thirty minutes of use. These people would have been unlikely to report any back pain one way or the other in either case, even if they'd been sitting on, like, the worst chair ever.

Also, I don't know how many people ever expected a chair like this to have an immediate effect on their back pain? Asking after 30 minutes seems really really silly to me. I'd expect it to take weeks of daily use before we could measure its effects. Even if it were only preventative it would still be a useful innovation.

Myas012 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kneeling chair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kneeling_chair&oldid=1218940498"