Talk:Alexander Technique/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

AT is not Alternative Therapy

Alexander Technique teachers do not claim that AT cures ailments or is a replacement for standard medical care. AT is an educational method that involves direct participation from the student, not a passive treatment where we administer a “magic pill”. I believe just about everyone in the AT community would agree with me on this one! Murbanek97 (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

There are RS that classify AT as AM. That's why we do it. It's a bit hard for you to overcome that hurdle. Do you have multiple RS that specifically say otherwise? If so, let's look at them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure, I would first need to know what criteria RS’ use to classify AT as AM so I can properly respond to that point. Murbanek97 (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

For you to do that, you would have to engage in forbidden original research. It largely makes no difference to us. It's simply none of our business. Here we document what RS say and do not seek to fix what seems wrong to us or contradicts our opinions. Neither do we try to settle on some absolutely correct definition of what is "true" about the matter, as "truth" varies from person to person. We are more interested in what is verifiable in reliable sources, then we try to document the sides of the subject, for and against, that are described in RS. We ignore fringe or unreliable sources. They have no weight here.

For your topic here, you can search the article (Control F) for the word "alternative". You will see it appears in the sources several times, which is also why it appears in the article and we classify AT as AM. They do it, so we do it. There is no way around that obstacle for you. If there has been debate about that issue in RS, then find those sources, bring them here, point out the wordings in the sources, and then we can document that discussion or dispute. Such content is valuable in our articles. That's your homework. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

For now though there’s this article from the NCCIH:https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name

This article on the NCCIH web page lists Alexander Technique as a psychological/physical type of complementary therapy. An alternative therapy is defined as any therapy that is used as a replacement for standard care, correct? I’m curious to know how the RS’ you have cited have come to the conclusion that alternative medical treatment is the goal of the Alexander Technique. Murbanek97 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the Ernzt ref? That's your homework!!! - Roxy the dog 06:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not read that specific source but I’m familiar with Ernzt’s work. He believes it’s inappropriate to label the Alexander Technique as a replacement to modern medicine and AT teachers overwhelmingly agree. Is there more context i am missing? I’d love to know how I can better understand his feelings on the claims he feels that AT teachers make about the technique. TefCur93 (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Murbanek97, using that source, you might be able to build a case for us classifying it as complementary sometimes, which is when alternative methods are used together with (complementary) mainstream methods. They are not mainstream. They are still the same alternative methods, but are being used "with" mainstream methods. That's why the term CAM is often used. It's an umbrella term. Alternative can be used alone or "with", and when "with", it's called "complementary", and that "with" is with a doctor's treatment. A physician or other licensed mainstream health care professional is involved. Most AT therapists work alone, not with physicians, so they are using it as a strictly "alternative" therapy. So it can be used as both alternative and complementary, depending on whether or not a physician is involved. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

NCCIH though, not a good WP:FRIND source for anything in the altmed space. Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is that? It’s a government website. Murbanek97 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My argument is the same argument as that of the NCCIH which is that complementary and alternative therapies are completely distinct from one another in their application. I’d be curious to see your source showing that a therapy must be mainstream and must directly involve a healthcare professional in order to be considered complementary. https://alexandertechniquescience.com/at-science/at-clinical/ Here’s another disclaimer from some AT research scientists as well. Murbanek97 (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Much discussed. See here for example. It's a source to avoid. Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

How about this one then? This site is run by AT research scientists. https://alexandertechniquescience.com/at-science/at-clinical/ Murbanek97 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Even worse. For fringe topics we need WP:FRIND sources. Bon courage (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, you would need them to be independent and unbiased sources, exactly. The site exists to lay out scientific studies related to what AT teachers do in very specific contexts and to work towards creating a model that can explain the studies’ findings, and it comes with a massive disclaimer that this is not a replacement for medical science and that more research is needed to truly understand what AT teachers do. I understand if you can’t get past the fact that these research scientists are also Alexander Technique teachers but I wonder if it might say something that you would agree with every single word they wrote in that disclaimer, regardless of whether or not you think AT works. Murbanek97 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Good sources might be biased. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia is only really interested in summarizing accepted knowledge about topics as seen from a mainstream stance. Bon courage (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

What makes a source mainstream and who gets to decide those parameters? Murbanek97 (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Me. But seriously, WP:FRINGE tells you all about it. Bon courage (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with every single word written in that article you linked. That still doesn’t change my point that there is no evidence to suggest that AT teachers are giving the technique undue weight in the context of their clients’ medical practice. You are suggesting that in order for AT’s points to be defensible that they would have to claim no therapeutic benefits to AT whatsoever, even if a student may experience them. And that’s the key here- teachers can’t control every aspect of how their students internalize AT but they can influence it very strongly through clear language, and it is made perfectly clear to all teachers upon entering their training courses and eventually earning their teaching certificates that this is not a replacement for modern medicine. TefCur93 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This is murbanek btw, had to switch usernames. TefCur93 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really. All I'm saying is we reflect high quality mainstream sources – I'm not interested in debating it as that's not out job. 08:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

And I’m not interested in debating against mainstream sources either! The issue is that this community currently misses the mark on describing the true categorical difference in application of a specific therapy between complementary and alternative use. An alternative therapy is used as a REPLACEMENT for medical treatment while a complementary therapy is used as another strategy someone can put in their “toolkit” as a supplement to standard treatment. This idea that this distinction has anything other to do with application is one that I have not heard anyone on this site back up with a citation. I know that the NCCIH agrees with this characterization but I know you’re not a fan of that site. TefCur93 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added this to the lead (based on what I have added to the body):

"The American National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health classifies it as a "psychological and physical" complementary approach to health when used with mainstream methods."

That means it is both alternative and complementary, depending on whether it's being used with mainstream medicine or alone, and both situations exist. So it is not mainstream, and one cannot say it is never "alternative". Individual AT practitioners who use it in their practices are using it as alternative, but if they are working with a physician, then it complements the physician's methods and is classified as "complementary".

Note that the NCCIH website is not being used as a MEDRS site for claims of effectiveness, but only for an official government classification. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• It is a permanent feature of this page that AT boosters arrive engaging in the Motte-and-bailey fallacy by saying AT is "only" a gentle exercise/education thing. Yet a quick look at the real world[1] shows it is being sold targeting specific medical conditions (e.g. chronic neck pain). This is why the sources are as they are, and we follow them accordingly, Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean by “targeting” medical conditions? AT teachers strive to teach, not heal. If a student receives therapeutic effects from the technique those effects are completely independent of the educational process of learning AT. Murbanek97 (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Treating chronic pain is seen as therapeutic in the mainstream. And AT vies for insurance money as a medical intervention. Basically, if you want to say AT in "not" alternative therapy, you need an independent high-quality source saying that. Bon courage (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Bingo! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 08:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  "And AT vies for insurance money as a medical intervention" No it does not. 71.105.120.254 (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  This argument is disingenuous, many various mindfulness techniques address back pain (i.e. MBSR which is a similar practice which has similar clinical trials) and are not seen as AM. 2600:4040:9126:6300:5D24:53A0:7C60:4D5E (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a great start! Thank you for being patient with me learning the ropes of this Wikipedia process, I’m happy to continue discussions like this as needed. Murbanek97 (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Woodman & Moore 2012

This systematic review is what the NHS statement on AT seems to be based on. If it's good enough for the NHS it should be enough for Wikipedia. 107.127.46.10 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Any reason this review is left out but a now 20 year old one by Ernst is cited? There have been a number of trials since the 2003 Ernst review, most notable Little 2008 published in the BMJ which is cited in Woodman & Moore (2012). Not to mention Ernst himself has written more favorably about the AT since 2003 including commenting on the systematic reviews of Klein (2014) and Woodman & Moore (2012) citing continued skepticism unless you are a musician or have back pain (in light of the aforementioned reviews missing from the wiki). 2600:4040:9129:9200:9056:7758:DD78:DEAD (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Arguments of edits

It seems the problem is that editors won't allow any of the evidence in support of the Alexander technique of which there is a fair amount. It is ironic that many editors are complaining of POV issues in the edits that they're denying but at the same time are pushing a skeptical POV by cherry picking inclusion of certain research and systematic review. Many of the editors disclose their bias in their own talk pages or have been forced to anyway. By all means include all of the skeptical evidence but also include the evidence for. Especially in cases where it is not a medical application, i.e. drama, music and dance in higher education. 107.127.46.32 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Any reliable source that's missing? Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a source that lists Alexander Technique as a complementary therapy and not alternative therapy. AT teachers do not claim to cure illness or replace modern medicine, there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise.https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name Murbanek97 (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Some editors seem to have a blanket definition of AM/CM/IM as quackery and little discrimination for what is what unfortunately. 2600:4040:9129:9200:9056:7758:DD78:DEAD (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

A model for this wiki

https://www.physio-pedia.com/Alexander_Technique 2600:4040:9121:4400:1D87:6F75:2DE7:16C2 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

What, illiterate garbage? Bon courage (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful info you can be more specific about how the linked definition is not accurate, or words that cause concern. Do you have an alt definition to propose? D1doherty (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

How about the first sentence? Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty accurate description of AT and it’s purpose with links to sources. Would need to see if they stand up as WP:RS. It avoids medical claims that seem to trigger concerns. When you say “a model”, do you mean it’s an example of how the AT article could be written? I think the flow could be refined. D1doherty (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It obviously a garbage source, SPS and seemingly machine-translated or from a poor AI. Bon courage (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Other than the odd tone that would need to be improved, are there any statements that you believe are not true? D1doherty (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea, but neutral articles are based on the WP:BESTSOURCES, not semi-literate random websites. Bon courage (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. We are making progress. You don’t see any factual errors and we’ve moved from “illiterate garbage” to “semi-illiterate” based on the first sentence. I believe the author was offering it as an example of the type of info to include, not a polished article. I’ll see if I can clean it up, for further discussion. D1doherty (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed my draft until I hear back from the author.

D1doherty (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a huge copyright violation from an unreliable source. Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence for AT being used as an Alternative for any mainstream treatment

Subject. Relevant opening sentence: When used "in place of" conventional medicine, it's considered "alternative".

A definition of AM has no place in the article, especially as AT isn't AM. 2600:4040:9126:6300:5D24:53A0:7C60:4D5E (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources identify it as a form of alternative medicine. End of story. Editorial opinions do not trump that fact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There are just as many RSs that identify it as an awareness/mindfulness/educational method; there is no consensus on this point, even among AT practitioners, and the voice of Wikipedia is being used (mainly by vocal AM skeptics) to make it seem as if there is one on the matter. 2600:4040:9129:9200:9056:7758:DD78:DEAD (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Can it be both? If the reliable sources cite it from different contexts/perspectives, then can the consensus can be that both are true? D1doherty (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, I would point to MBSR as a parallel example that should receive similar treatment as this page and vice versa. 2600:4040:9129:9200:9056:7758:DD78:DEAD (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Valjean ? Who are the reliable sources you claim are reliable ? You claim other peoples sources are opinions and your reliable sources are reliable. What nonsense. 45.148.15.125 (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Addition RS

The following excerpt is from this textbook: Moroz, A., Cohler, M. H., & Schulman, R. A. (2011). Body Work and Movement Therapies. In Pain Procedures in Clinical Practice (Third Edition, pp. 212–213). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4160-3779-8.10021-1

Alexander technique is a methodology for the treatment of chronic illness or conditions due to stress. Although it does not cure any of the conditions, Alexander technique does manage to make the condition less taxing on the afflicted individual. In general, the technique works through psychosensory education; the afflicted individuals are taught by teachers of Alexander technique to identify habits that may be the cause of unnecessary and extra discomfort. Interestingly, Alexander technique does not involve any exercises or forms of meditation; it is essentially a system of self-analysis and eventually, one of self-care.

The Alexander technique generally applies to individuals with neurologic and musculoskeletal problems. Typical afflictions and conditions that Alexander technique can help include pain management, chronic fatigue syndrome, disc herniation, sciatica, osteoporosis, stenosis, occupational injuries, and strains of musicians, dancers, computer workers, and singers.

The origin of Alexander technique is rooted in the personal experiences of Frederick Matthias Alexander. Born in 1869, he eventually became a Shakespearean recitalist at age 19. However, he experienced recurrent laryngitis. The medical help he sought was unable to identify the cause of his condition. Alexander managed to overcome his problem by being consciously aware of himself while he spoke. He discovered that by doing so, he could release the tension in his body and be more relaxed while he spoke. The key to his method rests in the focus of the moment, or having active sensory awareness, rather than focusing on the product, the outcome of the moment.

In practice, the Alexander technique involves a one-to-one lesson between the student and the teacher, in which the teacher aids the student in identifying his or her own unwanted tensions and reactions, allowing the student to eventually develop self-care. The teachers of Alexander technique emphasize everyday activities, which include reading, sitting, lying down, and so on. By doing so, the student goes through each of the Alexander technique stages: the means-whereby (process over product, conscious awareness in action), non-endgaining/inhibition (non-doing, non-interference), and direction (carrying out clear intention to move).

In Maher's 2004 article analyzing scientific evidence for various physical treatments of low back pain, he groups the Alexander technique with other therapies of "unknown efficacy" given the paucity of high-quality clinical trials evaluating it. Alexander technique has been shown to be effective when it is part of a multidisciplinary approach to chronic lower back pain.

Alexander technique has been shown to be effective when it is part of a multidisciplinary approach to chronic lower back pain. Elkayam and colleagues in Israel found significant reductions in pain after a 4-week program of back school, psychological intervention, chiropractic manipulation, Alexander technique, and acupuncture. Using the VAS, pain ratings dropped from a mean of 7.02 to 4.67 and were maintained for 6 months following treatment. Yet the researchers did not identify the contributions of the different modalities, and thus, no conclusions can be made about any of them individually. Researchers in the United Kingdom performed a systematic review of controlled clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of the Alexander technique. In their search of various sources, two trials were methodologically sound and clinically relevant. One of those addresses pain, an unpublished trial by Vickers of patients with chronic mechanical low back pain.

When compared to controls who received weekly self-help meetings, there seemed to be pain improvement in the experimental group at 3-month follow-up. However, more recently, Little and colleagues reported the results of an RCT to determine the effectiveness of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage for chronic and recurrent back pain. The 579 participants in the trial (average age 45 years) reported an average of 279 days of pain in the past year. The participants were assigned to receive either normal care (control), 6 sessions of massage, or 6 or 24 lessons on the Alexander technique. Half of the patients in each of these groups also received a prescription for exercise from a doctor as well as behavioral counseling from a nurse. At follow-up after 3 months, the patients in the massage and Alexander technique groups reported statistically significant fewer days with back pain in the previous month when compared with the control group. The patients who received 24 sessions of Alexander technique had the greatest mean decrease in days with back pain with an average of 16 fewer days. The exercise prescription group also showed a modest effect, decreasing the number of days with pain in a month by 6. In addition, at 1-year follow-up, the group who received 24 lessons in Alexander technique continued to have significantly fewer days with pain (a mean of 18 fewer days). The participants who had received 6 lessons on Alexander technique or massage also had significantly fewer days with pain (10 fewer and 7 fewer, respectively). At 1 year, however, the exercise group failed to show significantly fewer days with pain. This high-quality study gives strong support for the long-term benefits of the Alexander technique. The fact that those participants who received only six sessions still had nearly as few days of back pain as the group who received 24 sessions may indicate the powerful nature of this method. However, this is just one clinical trial and more need to be performed.

References

Irwin MR, Olmstead R, Oxman MN. Augmenting immune responses to varicella zoster virus in older adults: A randomized, controlled trial of Tai Chi. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(4):511-517.

Elkayam O, Ben Itzhak S, Avrahami E, et al. Multidisciplinary approach to chronic back pain: prognostic elements of the outcome. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1996;14:281-288.

Maher CG. Effective physical treatment for chronic low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35:57

Ernst E, Canter PH. The Alexander technique: A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2003;10:325-329

Little P, Lewith G, Webley F, et al. Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain. BMJ. 2008;337:A884. 2600:4040:9123:1300:4447:B8EF:F495:86C7 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty old, but does at least confirm the proponents of this stuff push it as a hardcore medical intervention. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no evidence AT is "pushed as a hardcore medical intervention", what would it be replacing? 162.120.138.193 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be replacing anything (non-woo physical therapy maybe), for "chronic fatigue syndrome, disc herniation, sciatica, osteoporosis, stenosis, occupational injuries ..." Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

More specific description of AT in intro

As is:

The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a type of alternative therapy for stress-related chronic conditions based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems. It does not attempt to cure the underlying cause(s), but teaches people how to avoid bad habits which might exacerbate their condition.

Proposed changed:

The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a type of Mind–body intervention for stress-related chronic conditions based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems. It does not attempt to cure the underlying cause(s), but teaches people how to avoid bad habits which might exacerbate their condition.

Both link to Alternative Medicine and the banner is still present. "Mind-body intervention" more accurately and specifically describes Alexander Technique than an Alternative therapy (which mind-body intervention is clearly form of if you look at the relevant wiki. 2600:4040:9126:EC00:59F4:7781:EC5D:3CD3 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

References

I think 'Mind–body intervention' is in-universe jargon our readers won't understand; let's stick with the mainstream view. Bon courage (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's one click away from its definition linked within Wikipedia. Do you have a legitimate reason beyond your typical vandalism of this page? The edit is made in good faith within attempt to improve the articles specificity. 2604:CA00:160:6944:0:0:1260:9D7 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

'Mind–body intervention' is clearly listed in the Alternative Medicine banner that's present on the page, it's very clear it's labeled and links to Alternative Medicine. Every source I can see on AT calls it a mind-body method/technique and there's clearly a category for that.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_interventions 2600:4040:9126:EC00:59F4:7781:EC5D:3CD3 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the first reference places it as altmed. Anyway, since your 'vandalism' comment show trolling, it's time to ignore. Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: a now-reverted post, I'm "another editor", and my opinion is that I agree with Bon courage. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems UNDUE and FRINGE to change it as proposed. --Hipal (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

1. The historical anecdotes belong in the history section.

2. Mind-body intervention and alt therapy are interchangeable as far as I can tell, the former is more specific and relevant to the subject of the wiki

3. It's supported by the source provided and others in the wiki. 2600:4040:9126:EC00:59F4:7781:EC5D:3CD3 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• This seems to be a recurrent request. Maybe we need a FAQ? Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Gee I wonder why? Maybe because the consensus is different than what is represented in the wiki, duh. 2600:4040:9126:EC00:59F4:7781:EC5D:3CD3 (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

AT Included in NICE Guidelines

1.7.4 Consider the Alexander Technique for people with Parkinson's disease who are experiencing balance or motor function problems. [2017]

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng71

Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window.

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Parkinson disease is covered (including in the lede even). Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't mention NICE and nice is on par with Cochrane which is used as justification against AT's effectiveness. The article is misleading as is. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This is looking more and more like trolling or incompetence, either of which would be bad. The article does mention NICE. Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC); stricken 18:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is NICE cited in the wiki? 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, we don't mention NICE by name, but it is what is meant when we say the NHS cites evidence. Bon courage (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Because of trolling or incompetence? 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus

Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs.

Clearly there are conflicts between the NICE & NHS and Cochrane and Atena reviews; this should be reflected in a section that states that there is not clear scientific consensus about efficacy at this time and present the NHS, NICE, and Systematic review of Woodman 2012 on one side with the Ernst and insurance reviews on the other. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

To make statement about 'scientific consensus' sources are needed which meet WP:RS/AC. Bon courage (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, there isn't one. The RS/AC that have made statements on AT don't agree. From WP:RS/AC:

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

I.e. According to systematic reviews of Klien et al. 2014 and Woodman et al. 2012 blah blah, According to insurance reviews, According to infamous alt med. critic Ernst blah blah... 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What we do is correct. Follow the sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorporated the high quality source (NICE) into the article. 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Could I get some help fixing the citation, it says title empty and I'm not sure how to fix it. Title for the NICE guidelines should be: Parkinson’s disease in adults

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng71 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Why we need to add 2017 guidance when the guided Health Authority has a 2021 statement beat me. But it's harmless enough. So, added (without ref-breaking syntax errors). Bon courage (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2012 Systematic review

Strong evidence exists for the effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons for chronic back pain and moderate evidence in Parkinson's-associated disability. Preliminary evidence suggests that Alexander Technique lessons may lead to improvements in balance skills in the elderly, in general chronic pain, posture, respiratory function and stuttering, but there is insufficient evidence to support recommendations in these areas.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22171910/ 2604:CA00:169:49C3:0:0:1260:A704 (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Science moved on. Bon courage (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

To say that more clearly, there should be more recent systematic reviews, that we should give more weight to. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The wiki currently heavily relies on a review from 2003... 2012 is not old. Wiki project skepticism is running a muck on this wiki. 2604:CA00:16C:24C1:0:0:861:93B0 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What 2003 source would that be? Do you want to involve WP:SKEP? I guess this topic would be in scope for them. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ernst 2003... 2604:CA00:16C:24C1:0:0:861:93B0 (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh? The string "2003" is nowhere in the article. Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's because Ernst, Edzard (2019). Alternative Medicine – A Critical Assessment of 150 Modalities. Springer. pp. 153–154, (the section on AT) is mostly a reprint of his 2003 review (what's cited in the wiki):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14707481/

If you actually read the 153-154 of the 2019 Ernst review, he cites Woodman 2012 (as it's the most substantial review of AT trials since his 2003 review and generally). Ernst is far more positive in his 2019 review than this wiki's tone suggests. 2600:4040:9120:A00:61C4:67D8:4D38:A376 (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

So you were wrong. If something's published in 2019 it's from 2019. If you disagree with the experts about what science they cite in these modern publications, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Perhaps take it up with the publishers and get back to us when they're withdrawn? Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

So I'm confused... Woodman 2012 which is cited favorably by Ernst 2019 as only systematic review of trials isn't new enough for Wikipedia? That's the majority of what Ernst is reporting in the 2019 paper is from Woodman 2012. In light of that the largest RCT on AT to date of AT (Little et. al 2008). I think the wiki reflects his 2003 review more than the updated 2019 review and Woodman should be included as a source in the wiki. 2604:CA00:16C:24C1:0:0:861:93B0 (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are confused. Ernst's book is not really suitable for hard biomedicine, which is why it is not used for them. We have better WP:MEDRS sources for that. It's fine for background Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You're dancing around the issue that Woodman 2012 is a RS suitable for inclusion in the wiki. As even the king of Alr med skeptics Ernst approves of it in the 2019 book review. 2604:CA00:169:2D6D:0:0:A61:E804 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's out-of-date for us. Ernst can do what he likes making his secondary sources; we're writing a tertiary source in accord with the English Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. Since everything you've said is either irrelevant or wrong, I think we're done here, and I shall not respond further unless substantial new information is offered. Bon courage (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is the Wiki policy page that says 2012 is out of the relevant date range for MEDRS when it's the most recent (and only true) systematic review. 2600:4040:912F:3F00:2CF1:E21C:D293:7392 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is you are cherry picking skeptical sources and rejecting neutral and favorable conclusions from reliable sources. 2600:4040:912F:3F00:2CF1:E21C:D293:7392 (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Ernst's book is not really suitable for hard biomedicine" Who's talking about hard biomedicine, this is a mind-body awareness technique like MBSR compare the treatment of the two wikis and you'll see what this one should look like. 2600:4040:912F:3F00:2CF1:E21C:D293:7392 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Well where is the standard that 2012 is old in the wiki RS outline? 2604:CA00:178:2236:0:0:860:F63F (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

contd.

Woodman & Moore (2012) is peer reviewed in a reputable journal (not on Beall's list etc.). It's the only systematic review of trials of AT other than Ernst & Canter (2003). Ernst (2019) is not a systematic review but a book on Alt. Med. which includes Woodman & Moore because it's the only systematic review of trials.

From MED:RS Guidelines -

"Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews."

By this standard Little et. al (2008) published in the BMJ should be included as the most cited seminal RTC which has been replicated multiple times.

"Many treatments or proposed treatments lack good research into their efficacy and safety. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find, while unreliable sources are readily available. When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used."

"High-quality textbooks can be a good source to start an article, and often include general overviews of a field or subject. However, books generally move slower than journal sources, and are often several years behind the current state of evidence. This makes using up-to-date books even more important."

According to the MED:RS page, Ernst 2019 is getting to be at the end of the window of relevance and it's more important that books be up to date than systematic reviews according the the wiki policy.

"Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines."

The UK's NHS cites and created its guidelines around Woodman & Moore (2012) and I guarantee their standards are higher than wikipedia for reliable sources.

From https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)

Again it seems like skeptical editors are letting their personal bias' cloud their judgement. 2600:4040:912F:2F00:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Answered above. The NHS page is not a 'guideline'. Bon courage (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You did not answer any of the below:

Woodman & Moore (2012) is peer reviewed in a reputable journal (not on Beall's list etc.). It's the only systematic review of trials of AT other than Ernst & Canter (2003). Ernst (2019) is not a systematic review but a book on Alt. Med. which includes Woodman & Moore because it's the only systematic review of trials.

From MED:RS Guidelines -

"Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews."

By this standard Little et. al (2008) published in the BMJ should be included as the most cited seminal RTC which has been replicated multiple times.

"Many treatments or proposed treatments lack good research into their efficacy and safety. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find, while unreliable sources are readily available. When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used."

"High-quality textbooks can be a good source to start an article, and often include general overviews of a field or subject. However, books generally move slower than journal sources, and are often several years behind the current state of evidence. This makes using up-to-date books even more important."

According to the MED:RS page, Ernst 2019 is getting to be at the end of the window of relevance and it's more important that books be up to date than systematic reviews according the the wiki policy.

"Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines." 2600:4040:912F:2F00:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If the NHS page isn't a guideline what is it? 2600:4040:912F:2F00:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A public information page. NHS Guidelines come from nice.org.uk. Bon courage (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Fine, re: NHS. I'm still not conviced by your reasoning re: wiki policy on Woodman 2012 as Woodman & Moore (2012) is peer reviewed in a reputable journal (not on Beall's list etc.). It's the only systematic review of trials of AT other than Ernst & Canter (2003). Ernst (2019) is not a systematic review but a book on Alt. Med. which includes Woodman & Moore because it's the only systematic review of trials.

From MED:RS Guidelines -

"Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews."

By this standard Little et. al (2008) published in the BMJ should be included as the most cited seminal RTC which has been replicated multiple times.

"Many treatments or proposed treatments lack good research into their efficacy and safety. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find, while unreliable sources are readily available. When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used."

"High-quality textbooks can be a good source to start an article, and often include general overviews of a field or subject. However, books generally move slower than journal sources, and are often several years behind the current state of evidence. This makes using up-to-date books even more important."

According to the MED:RS page, Ernst 2019 is getting to be at the end of the window of relevance and it's more important that books be up to date than systematic reviews according the the wiki policy. 2600:4040:912F:2F00:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources are a no-no. We have the recent Australian review from a major medical org. No need to scrape up older sources. Can somebody close this? Bon courage (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Woodman & Moore (2012) is a systematic review of trials in a reputable journal (not on Beall's list etc.) There are obviously conflicts among reputable sources, UK's NHS and Woodman & Moore (2012) vs the recent Australian review and Ernst (2019). There seems to be a conflation by editors between research validity and insurance coverage and because of the apparent bias of some editors the debate on research validity is not reflected but rather insurance coverage is highlighted which should arguably be a separate topic. 2600:4040:9132:1900:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

My initial comment was all that need to be said: the science has moved on. Ernst is only used for general background, and is not time-specific. We're not going to undercut more recent knowledge with old stuff. Bon courage (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Your condescending tone is not helpful. I'm attempting to add RSs in good faith. The more recent 'reviews' are for determining cost-benefit for insurance companies, this was the main point of inquiry in the BMJ study Little et al. 2008 (which is the main source for all systematic reviews since 2008). The purpose of Woodman & Moore(2012) was different than the insurance reviews, "Complementary medicine and alternative approaches to chronic and intractable health conditions are increasingly being used, and require critical evaluation ... The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate available evidence for the effectiveness and safety of instruction in the Alexander Technique in health-related conditions."

Again suitability for insurance coverage and validity are two separate topics, and it should be reflected that way in the wiki. If insurance coverage was the criterion, there are some pain clinics that have covered the AT in the UK under the NHS. 2600:4040:9132:1900:C085:BD4C:9659:DA0E (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to be seen as attempting to add RSs in good faith, then best stop making comments like Your condescending tone is not helpful.

Re suitability for insurance coverage and validity are two separate topics: Says who? --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Says me and it's obvious. "Science moved on" is not only an oversimplification, it's not true and not productive or helpful and improving the wiki. I'm not here to argue about tone, stop stonewalling. 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"It's useless, so we're not paying for it". Seems the Aus DOH rather closely coupled efficacy and health insurance considerations. So there is that. Sources matter. Bon courage (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That's some pretty bad paraphrasing, maybe ChatGPT could do a better job? 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Australian government named the Alexander Technique as a practice that would not qualify for insurance subsidy, saying this step would "ensure taxpayer funds are expended appropriately and not directed to therapies lacking evidence". Bon courage (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Useless and early stages of research are not the same, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence so to speak; not to mention there are systematic reviews and acceptance guidelines (NICE) that are being ignored because of a misperception of AT as alt. med. by members of wiki project skepticism mostly. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Such accusations and assumptions are inappropriate. Continued comments like this may result in a ban or block. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Do you have another idea why systematic reviews and acceptance guidelines (NICE) have been routinely ignored in the editing of this page when so much scrutiny is given to sources it on a regular basis (easily seen in the history of the page) 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm commenting about your comments and behavior, yes. Please review WP:TALK, and keep your comments on content, not editors. --Hipal (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems that some think this wiki is interchangeable with Chinese medicine which is obviously not correct, see below. What do you suggest? 2600:4040:9124:3E00:9458:26A7:10AB:56F0 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Model of AT Research Topic

The wiki on dance therapy offers a nice model for how to present the research on Alexander technique, in the "research" topic section.

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dance_therapy 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

A "C" class article tagged for neutrality and sourcing problems? Err, no. Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

An article on a niche therapy with a little research. Exactly how the wiki should be on such an article. Notice that there is no designation of alternative medicine. Also take note that the research is more infantile than Alexander, as far as I know there are no systematic reviews whereas there are multiple for Alexander, Woodman 2012 and Klien 2014.

It presents the individual studies which should be allowed here on this wiki. It's only that certain editors seem to have have a particular problem against this particular topic. 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a word for that... It starts with a B but we're not allowed to say it here. 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want an example of a WP:GA for altmed, try Homeopathy. Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem is that editors here are looking at alt-med articles as examples. Many arts practices have therapeutic effects, IE dance therapy. That doesn't make them alt-med. The way this article is portrayed is that the Alexander technique is an alternative medicine rather than something that came out of the arts, namely acting and is still majority part of the arts i.e. it's taught at basically every high level music and drama school and many dance schools.

There's a huge discrepancy and how these two (dance therapy and Alexander technique) disciplines are being treated. The dance therapy article while it has problems, is a far better way to present the research in a growing body of knowledge. 2604:CA00:178:3545:0:0:C61:DADB (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I fixed up the Dance therapy article to remove the worst of the "problems" you mention. However, Wikipedia articles follow the WP:PAGs, not the precedent set by other poor articles. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

" Through the unity of the body, mind, and spirit, DMT provides a sense of wholeness to all individuals. " Yet it is less woo than AT?

According to WP:PAGs Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; this wiki reads like a skeptic's review as much as an encyclopedia article. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is AT alt. med. and that isn't? There is some very strange double standard with regards to AT. It's got a lot more research validity than any of the Alt. Med. practices listed in that category. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's what every alt-med proponent says about their own brand. Other alt-med articles may be in a poor shape, that doesn't mean we should worsen this one. Bon courage (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

1.7.4 Consider the Alexander Technique for people with Parkinson's disease who are experiencing balance or motor function problems. [2017]

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng71

Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window.

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Is every alt-med included in NICE guidelines and have systematic reviews of RCTs published in peer reviewed journals? I appreciate your skepticism of alt. med. generally; there's tons of trash out there but AT isn't that.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22171910/ 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait until you hear about acupuncture! We already cover the Parkinson Disease evidence. Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Acupuncture is traditional medicine and a completely different category. No one is positing a mystical energy force in AT. 2600:4040:9124:A900:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Loads of RCTs though (which is your metric). Bon courage (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No, my metric is systematic reviews, which is the same as Ernst and Wikipedia if you read the RSs pages. I understand RCTs are not reported on in Wikipedia, but there are also two systematic reviews, one of which is in the wiki (Klien 2014) but there is unreasonable opposition to the other, Woodman (2012). 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

PUBMED lists 244 systematic reviews for acupuncture.[2] Bon courage (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are you on about acupuncture? Do you have a particular world-view that makes you see all under researched things as equal to acupuncture? 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Because you were claiming AT had more 'research validity' than other altmeds because of the incredible amount of research. Bon courage (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A. For things like acupuncture which are historical cultural practices, research validity is almost besides the point in my opinion.

B. Clearly AT is not a historical or cultural practice and as such are in very different categories. 2600:4040:9126:3500:DFF:C328:4199:A921 (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Is that the sound of goalposts being moved? It was you who invoked "Alt. Med. practices listed in that category".[3] No true altmed Scotsman, it seems! Bon courage (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As I have said many times, the proper comparison for AT in reality (not in editors minds) is MBSR. Another evidence based Mind-body intervention. 2600:4040:9126:3500:5897:7C0D:80DB:47D6 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mindfulness-based_stress_reduction 2600:4040:9126:3500:5897:7C0D:80DB:47D6 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Another dreadful article, but your novel comparison is of no use to this article, Bon courage (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And the comparison with acupuncture is more apt? Regardless of the quality of the wiki (something that's on editors); the actual practice described is similar to MBSR. The point is to describe what it is, something that goes out the window when you make wild comparisons to Chinese medicine. 2600:4040:9124:3E00:9458:26A7:10AB:56F0 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It was you who literally invoked "any of the Alt. Med. practices listed in that category" for comparison. Acupuncture is one of those. You keep moving the goalposts. Bon courage (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make the wiki specific enough that people can tell what it is. Mind-body intervention under the Alt. Med. banner is more specific to AT as it has a mindfulness component. It should also have the Mindfulness banner like the MBSR wiki (and like that one arguably should not be marked Alt. Med. but I'm outvoted I guess even though it's voiced regularly on the talk page that it is practice more in the field of education than therapy [music, dance, drama schools, primary schools in UK as mindfulness etc.]). The wiki as is focuses on the narrow minority of AT using it as complementary medicine (Parkinsons, Back pain sufferers, people with motor problems that haven't been solved by other available treatments). Only one or two sentences about it's use in education as the RS standards for that content seem to be being held to the same standard as MED:RS because the catoegicial confusion in classifying AT. What exactly it is, is even up for debate which perhaps could be written about in a section in the wiki. 2600:4040:9121:B00:7156:F061:F313:FFBC (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The banner should read "Mindfulness" not Alt. Med. for this wiki. My point all along is that you've miscategoized it. MBSR which is basically the same thing in practice gets the mindfulness banner and AT gets Alt. Med.; why? 2600:4040:9124:3E00:9458:26A7:10AB:56F0 (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Awww so you are advocating that MBSR should have the alt med banner, I get it now. Thanks. Sgerbic (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

AT should get the mindfulness banner. MBSR is often practiced by psychiatrists... There are a lot of good papers on it. 2600:4040:9121:B00:7156:F061:F313:FFBC (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you actually read this talk page? We have been waiting for a very long time for those "good papers on it" and you say there are "a lot"? Why then do we keep getting papers suggested that aren't good. Bring on the "good papers"! Sgerbic (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not the talk page for MBSR, nor do I care what you think of the papers. I'm aware of some systematic reviews of MBSR that look promising.

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project (GSoW) seems to have an agenda with regards to these types of pages, do you have an opinion on that? 2600:4040:9121:B00:E10A:804D:C22B:7EA0 (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Again my point is to bring the mindfulness banner to this wiki. 2600:4040:9121:B00:E10A:804D:C22B:7EA0 (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's a good one: Anheyer, D., Haller, H., Barth, J., Lauche, R., Dobos, G., & Cramer, H. (2017). Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Treating Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of internal medicine, 166(11), 799–807. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-1997 2600:4040:9121:B00:E10A:804D:C22B:7EA0 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

AT is basically Mindfulness in activity

The AT has strong similarities with movement-based embodied cognitive practices (MECPs) such as Yoga (Schlinger, 2006), Qigong (Posadzki, 2009), and Tai Chi (Schmalzl, 2014); as well as more modern derivatives including variations on ‘mindfulness,’ (Siegel., 2007; Stern, 2021) like Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) (Anheyer, 2017). There are also correlations with various ‘somatic education/therapy’ methods (Kim, 2018).

Stern J. (2021). The Alexander Technique: Mindfulness in Movement Relieves Suffering Alternative and Complementary Therapies Volume: 27 Issue 1: February 11, 10-13. http://doi.org/10.1089/act.2020.29307.jcs

Posadzki P. (2009). Qi Gong exercises through the lens of the Alexander Technique: A conceptual congruence. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 1(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2009.04.001

Schmalzl, L., Crane-Godreau, M., & Payne, P. (2014). Movement-based embodied contemplative practices: Definitions and paradigms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00205

Schlinger, Marcy (2006). Feldenkrais Method, Alexander Technique, and Yoga—Body Awareness Therapy in the Performing Arts Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Clinics V.17,4 P865-875

Siegel, D. (2007). Mindfulness training and neural integration: differentiation of distinct streams of awareness and the cultivation of well-being. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(4), 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm034

Anheyer, D., Haller, H., Barth, J., Lauche, R., Dobos, G., & Cramer, H. (2017). Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Treating Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of internal medicine, 166(11), 799–807. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-1997

Kim, S., (2018). Exploring the field application of combined cognitive-motor program with mild cognitive impairment elderly patients. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation, 14(5), 817–820. https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.1836418.209 2600:4040:9121:B00:E10A:804D:C22B:7EA0 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Rather than dumping a load of crapp-o sources/irrelevant sources, is there ONE single quality, independent secondary source saying explicitly that AT is mindfulness? From a quick search it seems some practitioners want to hitch themselves to the (more successful) mindfulness bandwagon, others not. Bon courage (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The two below explicitly, but long windedly, say as much. Stern (2021) is much more recent if that matters.

Stern J. (2021). The Alexander Technique: Mindfulness in Movement Relieves Suffering Alternative and Complementary Therapies Volume: 27 Issue 1: February 11, 10-13. http://doi.org/10.1089/act.2020.29307.jcs

Posadzki P. (2009). Qi Gong exercises through the lens of the Alexander Technique: A conceptual congruence. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 1(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2009.04.001 72.89.19.118 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are both crappy journals. Could you provide an explicit quotation? If it's as you say, that should be easy right? Bon courage (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

From Stern J. (2021), "The [Alexander] Technique is a mindfulness-based approach to improving posture and mobility, reducing muscular tension and maintaining beautiful posture and alignment. The Alexander Technique elicits psychophysical integration."

As I mentioned in a previous edit attempt, AT is more of a "mind-body intervention" than an "alt. therapy". (psychophysical = mind-body in AT lingo) 72.89.19.118 (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

PS also in Stern 2021 is clarifies that AT is complementary to physical therapy, not an alternative for it as you previously stated, Stern is a NY state licensed PT. 72.89.19.118 (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It's an altmed journal, so not useful for this. Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

From the lede: The American National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health classifies it as a "psychological and physical"

aka Mind-body; why the resistance to classifying it as a Mind-body method/intervention (seems to be how it's classified 99% of the time from a cursory search) 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems the current sources should be enough for the change anyway. 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

None is good; we value independent sources not altmed/in-universe ones. Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts? 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a peer reviewed journal, your personal opinion of "in-universe" is quite narrow. Report the content without editorializing the wiki based on what you consider "in-universe" please. 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think MED:RS applies here, no medical claims are being made, just looking to classify AT as a mindfulness-based mind-body intervention 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Who said MEDRS? Bon courage (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If AT is alt. med. why can't alt. med journals be used to classify it? I really don't understand your stonewalling of giving a basic description of the AT other than a vague blanket definition of Alt. Med.; it's really anti-informational 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Because WP:FRIND. We want to describe things in the way the wider world sees them, not use the jargon from the fringe group. So, e.g. antivax people aren't called vaccine safety advocates (as they style themselves). Bon courage (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There are RCTs and Systematic Reviews, it's evidence based, there is no safety concerns with mindfulness, it's not antivax idiots... Really the BS until proven not is a high bar for little researched things 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Lede proposal

proposed text

The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a type of Mind–body intervention based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems. The American National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health classifies it as a "psychological and physical" complementary approach to health when used "together with" mainstream methods. When used "in place of" conventional medicine, it's considered an alternative therapy. Mind–body intervention, complementary, alternative therapy all link directly to Alt. Med. wiki and there is still the banner. Is it not abundantly clear still that it's alt med? With this lede, it more actually describes the type of alt med specifically as Mind-body intervention primarily and alt therapy secondarily to reflect the reality of AT practice while still making it abundantly clear it's alt med. 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) References

This is just what you've been proposing above, and it's not an improvement for the reasons given. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Reject per the extremely lengthy discussions. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussions have not been in good faith because of associations with https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVN#Guerilla_Skepticism_on_Wikipedia_project_(GSoW) 72.89.19.118 (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If you cast WP:ASPERSIONs at good faith edits one more time, you are unlikely to continue having editing privileges on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)