Hello everyone, I wish to return to a controversial topic that is of fundamental importance to any discussion of the Alexander Technique (AT). This topic is how the AT ought to be classified.
Currently, Wikipedia classifies the AT as "alternative therapy." As I have already noted, Alexander himself -- the person who created this discipline and taught it for 60 years -- did not portray his Technique in that way. If the innovator himself does not express it that way, it is inaccurate for the Wikipedia article to label the AT as "therapy" without, at the very least, noting that Alexander classified it as "education" or "re-education." In Alexander's seminal work, "The Use of the Self," the word "education" appears 12 times while the word "therapy" never appears. John Dewey, a pioneering thinker in education, wrote of the AT "But the method is not one of remedy; it is one of constructive education." Alexander himself addresses the intersection of his Technique with the medical field at the start of Chapter 5 of The Use of the Self:
"For many years medical men have been sending their patients to me, because they know that I am experienced in examining conditions of use and in estimating the influence of these conditions upon functioning. I would say at once that I do not receive these cases as patients, but as pupils, inasmuch as I am not interested in disease or defects apart from their association with harmful conditions of use and functioning."
The phrase, "I would say at once that I do not receive these cases as patients, but as pupils..." clearly expresses Alexander's view of his own discipline. Pupils are engaging in a course of study to potentially alleviate health problems, but that doesn't make them "patients" or their course of study "therapy." Moreover, Alexander writes that "The real solution of the problem lies in the wide acceptance of the principle of prevention instead of 'cure,'..." Note that Alexander put the word 'cure' in quotes, and I would assert that prevention is not "treatment" or "therapy" but rather a strategy to avoid having need of treatment/therapy.
I could continue quoting Alexander or his most prominent successors, Walter Carrington and Patrick Macdonald, but I won't belabor the point that the current categorization of AT as "therapy" runs completely counter to its founder's viewpoint. I believe that viewpoint must be represented here in some manner for the article to be accurate, so now I turn to how this might be done.
There are two ways to address the article's inaccurate categorization of the AT. One is to recategorize the AT to put it under a more appropriate label. The categories [] shown for Wikipedia entries include two more relevant possibilities. There's Education (under "Human Activities") or "Self Care" (under "Health and Fitness"). The self care category aligns well with how Walter Carrington explained the AT (see here), calling it "a method of self help."
The other way to address the issue is to, at minimum, include a section that makes the viewpoint of the founder and his leading disciples clear. This would at least permit the reader of the article to know how the AT was categorized by the most authoritative sources, i.e., those with the most experience and expertise in teaching the work.
My efforts to improve the Alexander Technique Wikipedia posting have attracted hostility and suspicion, but I hope those reading this note will at least allow for the possibility that I am making good-faith efforts to improve the article and not to harm it. Clumsiness and inexperience are not mortal sins, and they do not call for the permanent assumption that I am acting in bad faith. Nor is it a crime that I am paying attention to what interests me on Wikipedia rather than seeking to generalize my efforts and spend time on subjects that do not interest me. If you quickly and persistently ascribe bad faith and bias to me, please consider and tend to your own biases.
Chih Lo Lou (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- I've been doing this a bunch of years Chih Lo Lou and Every Single Time when a brand new editor who only edits one page that says "this is what interests me" and "I just want to start with this page because I like it" and "I'm not closely associated with this page I'm focused on" they turn out to be closely associated with the page. Either they were hired, they 'are' the person, they are closely associated with the person, they practice the alt-med or pseudoscience. When I point out that maybe they should learn to be a better editor by editing one of the tens of thousands of other Wikipedia pages that are also interesting and in need of help, they oddly never take that advice, they double down and continue insisting that this page is the only Wikipedia page they want to edit. Maybe you are the exception, time will tell, but already here you are on the talk page trying to tell us that the Alexander Technique should not be called alt-med because ... the person who created it didn't call it alt-med. Oh Boy, as we keep explaining to you, it does not work like that. That would be a primary source, we are looking for secondary sources that will talk about it in reliable sources ... like Edzard Ernst does. Again you are pulling quotes out of a book, "at the start of Chapter 5 of The Use of the Self" you just happened to have a copy of that book on your shelf? Is that a normal book to have lying around? We like books, don't get me wrong, it's just odd that you would have that book around and yet not be closely associated with this practice. Cult leaders don't call their religion a cult, cancer quacks don't call their cancer clinic a quack clinic, pseudoscience nonsense originators don't call their practice pseudoscience, grief vampire psychics don't call themselves cons, and alt-med practitioners don't call their medical technique alt-med. It is for notable secondary sources to decide how to define the practice and person. Otherwise we would all be what we claim to be, beautiful, funny, amazing human beings. Sgerbic (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- There is intense hostility from some editors that evaluate this page to be about as legiatment as scientology; sadly their biases are extreme and understandable with the label of alternative medicine put on this Wiki; the situation has been bad for years now on this wiki and doesn't seem to have any improvement in sight. There is no problem highlighting medical criticisms but editors are ignoring the fact that the AT is being taught at many performing arts institutions in a variety of fields other than medicine (it's primary application if performing arts) and the editors of this page are bogged down with validating the most simple things but let inaccurate statements about who is teaching the AT in these instructions (for example the article says AT is taught by music teachers but only certified teachers can hold positions at university). I think the editors don't want to change the article unless it reflects negatively as it's been marked for wikiproject skepticism 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I have not replied on this talk page for quite some time, hoping that more people would express their viewpoint on the question I raised. Unfortunately, there has been little "talk" in response to my proposal, and the lone reply is a rehash of why people with certain characteristics (like having access to relevant books!) should not bother to edit Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia doesn't exclude anyone from editing, and I'm not going to be excluded. And believe me, no one is paying me a penny for wading into this morass.
As for the subject matter of the article, which is the point of this "talk," very little has been offered in objection to what I wrote other than that the sources I cited were "primary" and that these therefore were unsuitable. So if "secondary" sources are the holy grail here, then I have one to offer. Please look at the NHS page on the Alexander Technique. The NHS page has over a dozen occurrences of the words "teach" and "teacher" and not one occurrence of the word "therapy." The word "lessons" also appears over a dozen times, and that is the correct term for the appointments students make to be taught by Alexander teachers. The NHS page also clearly, and appropriately, notes that most Alexander teachers "aren't medical professionals," correctly separating Alexander teaching from medical consultations. Thus, the NHS explanation of Alexander Technique is perfectly consistent with what F.M. Alexander himself, as well as his leading successors (Walter Carrington and Patrick Macdonald) wrote and taught.
It is wrong to treat the notion that Alexander Technique is "therapy" as a settled matter based on one single source when there are other credible sources categorizing Alexander as an educational process. I will draft a section that discusses the issue of how to categorize the Alexander Technique and post it here for comments before adding it to the article.
Chih Lo Lou (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think you are understanding, sorry if I haven't been clear. Yes I am suspious because you just happen to have these obscure books handy and the fact that the only page you have edited since opening this account November 24, 2021 is the Alexander Technique page (other than the time you posted on Roxy's talk page accusing him of something). Of course we want people with books to edit Wikipedia, I'm surrounded by books and probably most editors have also. What the issue is, is that Wikipedia editors can't do original research. Like when you said that we should look at the NHS page (which is kinda a primary source itself) and look at the 'occurrences of the words "teach" and "teacher" and not one occurrence of the word "therapy."' That is doing research and extrapolating information from a primary source. You are asking a Wikipedia editor to test something, something that will have an outcome that you already want the result to be. You want that result so you are looking for ways to find that result. That's not even a good test, that's not how science works, and Wikipedia editors DO NOT DO tests, science or otherwise.
- What you are looking for is information from secondary reliable sources (something with journalist integrity is the way I explain it best) that is writing about AT from an "expert" view. Then you cite that. I understand that this is probably frustrating for you as it looks like I keep putting up fences. Which is why I keep telling you that you should put this page to the side, and go to other pages and learn how we do things here on Wikipedia. It isn't as easy as just getting information out of books and typing the content on the page and hitting save. Sgerbic (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Even Edzard Ernst writes Alexander "developed an educational programme". Full quote: "he developed an educational programme aimed at avoiding unnecessary muscular tension. Even though Alexander did not envisage his approach to become a therapy, it has in recent years become a popular alternative treatment".[1] So to summarize Ernst's view: it was an educational programme/approach that has recently become a popular alternative treatment. That's from the Ernst source cited in the article. The "educational programme" bit is not, at the time of writing, used by the article, LOL!
- If you value Ernst's take, note he writes in the same source "Alexander teachers closely observe their students, show them how to move with less strain and correct their posture".[1] Therefore, if that is correct, it is an educational process, an educational modality, (which may have therapeutic benefits).
- I would say education and therapy, in the case of Alex Tech, is a false dichotomy. In the same way that, in the case of physiotherapy, exercise and therapy is a false dichotomy. If the "origin story" of Alex Tech is to be taken at face value, then Alexander's procedures were therapeutic for his voice! So, Alex Tech has been used for therapeutic purposes since its purported origin.
- To summarize, with Alex Tech, education and therapy is a false dichotomy, but its method is, if we credit Ernst, educational.
- [All that said, the Ernst source is problematic in itself, as much of it is cribbed from this article. It should only be used with great care! I am using it here, to respond to the editors that highly esteem it].Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ernst, of course, looks at Alex Tech through a therapeutic lens. As another editor has repeatedly pointed out in these talk pages, Alex Tech is commonly used in performance schools (acting, dance, music) to teach students a better command of themselves in performance. So it is problematic to label Alex Tech simply as "therapy" (alternative or not), for these reasons too. Therapeutics is simply one application of Alex Tech. Now, whether what Alex Tech teachers teach is correct, and their educational endeavors are successful, are other questions. But the fact remains that therapeutics is one application of Alex Tech, not what it *is*. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha. cribbed from here?????? Mwahahahaha. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay I'm totally lost now. Is @Aliveness Cascade saying that Ernst has written an article about AT calling AT an "educational programme" so based on that the AT Wikipedia page should be changed to say that Ernst says AT is educational. BUT Aliveness is also saying that Ernst plagiarized the AT article to write his book? And that we can't use Ernst's book because it is a copy from the Wikipedia article? My head hurts, not getting it. Sgerbic (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm using Ernst because several editors here highly esteem him. The Ernst source cited in the article has been used selectively - to support "alternative therapy" - whilst the "educational process" bits have been disregarded in the current edit. Yes, unfortunately that particular Ernst source ("Alternative Medicine", Springer 2019)[1] does seem to have used some material from this article. But how about this, an article from Edzard Ernst for GPonline, which certainly seems independently researched, and lists 7 academic references:
The Alexander technique is a process of psychophysical re-education to improve postural balance and coordination in order to move with minimal strain and maximum ease.
~ Edzard Ernst [2]- Here's a recent academic quote, from different authors:
The Alexander Technique (AT) is an educational self-management approach which aims to provide people with the skills to recognise, understand, and change habits primarily impacting movement and posture
[3]- My own point, regarding the actual question that is the topic of this section, namely "Therapy or Education?", is that is a false dichotomy in the case of Alex Tech, just as "Therapy or Exercise?" would be a false dichotomy in the case of physiotherapy. I make the further point, that the article as it stands is misleading as pronouncing that Alex Tech is "alternative therapy", when therapeutics is only one application of Alex Tech. It is commonly used at performance schools (acting, music, dance) to help enable performers give better performances. For example: An Acting Teacher’s Take on What the Alexander Technique Can Do for You:
[Alexander Technique] is an extremely powerful practice of body-mind integration that pays dividends for actors on many levels.
... that's one of the most valuable things that the Alexander Technique can offer an actor: the ability to consciously promote physical openness and receptiveness, which go hand-in-hand with emotional openness and vulnerability.
[4]- Several seasoned editors of this article are very keen on positioning Alex Tech as "alternative therapy". They have their sources, and they are citing them, and that's all good. But there are other sources which tell a different story! The larger picture shows that therapeutics (successful or not, well-founded or not) is only one application of Alex Tech. And this fact has been flagged again and again by multiple editors. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Alexander Technique is an educational method that helps individuals learn to correct inefficient or faulty movement and postural habits, reducing potentially harmful tension accumulation by changing how one conceptualizes and responds to the stimulus of movement; the AT is not a passive treatment but a method known within the AT community as mind-body re-education. Movement is a focus in learning the AT, however, the AT is generally taught as an educational system rather than movement therapy.
- Williams, Angela The Alexander Technique, Complementary and Alternative Medicine Sourcebook, 6th Edition July 2018 978-0-7808-1632-9 pages 439-441
- Woods C., Glover L., Woodman J. An Education for Life: The Process of Learning the Alexander Technique Kinesiology Review Volume 9: Issue 3 14 Aug 2020 https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2020-0020 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and there's this from Taber's medical dictionary online: "a form of bodily training that promotes postural health, esp. of the spine, head, and neck". Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and there's this from the UK's Advertising Standards Authority: "The Alexander Technique is an educational method intended to support self-management of conditions such as back pain by improving posture through psycho physical re-education.[1] ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and there's this from Onstage Synergy: Integrative Alexander Technique Practice for Performing Artists by Cathy Madden: "An educational method used to improve performance, the Alexander Technique teaches people to replace unnecessary muscular and mental effort with consciously coordinated responses, maximizing effectiveness while also relieving, if necessary, any chronic stiffness or stress."[2].~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC) (Including this one as it's a neat description of Alex Tech's purpose, and its application in the performing arts. Not as a source for its efficacy!).~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Editors showing bias in regard to this article 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
"ASA". The Advertising Standards Authority Ltd. 26 February 2019. Retrieved 2022-01-22.
Given the lack of response to Aliveness Cascade's post, I propose the first paragraph of the lede be re-written along the following lines:
"The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is an educational method which aims to improve movement and posture through improved body awareness[1][2][3]. It is claimed to improve performance in activities that require skilful coordination such acting, and to offer therapeutic effects through facilitating the self-management of conditions such as back and neck pain.[4][5][6]"
Your thoughts?
86.7.62.124 (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Seems like a WP:LEDEBOMB. tabers.com and backstage.com are very weak sources; the lede is meant to summarize the body. Alexbrn (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is an accurate description, at least the first sentence is more accurate than the article description. Editors take note. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hard to see how the suggested paragraph is a lede Bomb. It summarises what is in the text and does so more comprehensively and accurately than the one it replaces.
- In relation to the main article it refers directly to:—
- Section 1: Uses (in which Alex Tech's use in acting and musical performance is prominently noted)
- Section 2: Claims with regard to health effects
- Section 3: Method (in which Alex Tech is clearly described as an educational process throughout)
- Section 4: History
- The Tabers quote doesn't seem to be essential, and I would say could be omitted. I was under the impression, though, that Tabers is a reputable and well established medical dictionary. Happy to be enlightened if this is not the case.
- Agree Backstage is not great. There are other references that could be used to show use by performers, for example: this from BMC
- Finally, Section 1 of the main text needs expanding, I suggest an Template:Expand_section is inserted for now to make that clear.
Rastalked (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- What is "Alex Tech"? It appears to be a kind of electrical wiring conduit. Is the same person (with this unusual wording) using multiple accounts (and IPs) here? Alexbrn (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the second time I have posted. I posted earlier today from my phone and hence not signed in. Please respond to the points raised, which were offered in good faith.
Rastalked (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I see. Articles should be based on secondary sources. I think per Cochrane/Aetna/Aus Dept. of health we need to continue call this a therapy. The lede also has to mention the lack of evidence supporting the claims made for AT, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was not intending to replace the whole lede, just the first paragraph leaving the rest as is.
- I think there may be a sensible compromise to be had about the 'alternative therapy' versus 'education' question which might put it to bed for good, which would be to everyone's advantage! It seems to me that reasonable references have been found to support both positions. Clearly some sources describe it as alternative therapy while others say it is an educational approach (sometimes the same person says both in different sources, e.g Ernst). Also the way that Alex Tech is described in the body of the article is as 'something that is taught and learned and put into practice' (education) rather than 'something that is done to you' (therapy), so the article seen as a whole currently reads in a bit of an odd and inconsistent way.
- Given the apparently irreconcilable difference of opinion about which sources to go with, perhaps this conflict should be acknowledged and addressed head-on thus:—
- "The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), aims to improve movement and posture through teaching principles related to posture, movement and attention which can then be applied in daily life. It is claimed to improve performance in activities such as music and acting, and to offer therapeutic benefits through facilitating the self-management of conditions such as back and neck pain. It is generally taught in a series of one-to-one or group lessons, and is therefore described by its proponents and others [references here] as an educational method. However some experts [references here] point to claims as to the therapeutic benefits of the practice and have therefore classified it as a form of alternative therapy."
- This replaces only the first paragraph of the lede, the rest stays as is
- That's just a rough draft, but as a concept?
Rastalked (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- It sounds rather promotional. Please be aware of WP:COI/WP:MEDCOI and make any necessary declarations. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I teach the Alexander Technique, so yes I have a bias, happy to acknowledge that. To be honest I don't read it as promotional, but I may well be missing it, so happy to tone anything down if you could point out what it is that concerns you. I'm sure that the basic sense could be kept in a neutral, non-promotional way. Rastalked (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- The issue is it's like a pitch, and it airs a lot of benefits when it seems the consensus in reliable sources is AT isn't really effective for improving human health in any way. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I propose moving a line about the lack of evidence from the third paragraph of the lede up to this new first paragraph, and have removed as much extraneous explanation as possible. I have used 'claims' rather than stated things as facts where there is insufficient evidence to do so. So the Lede as a whole would now read:—
- "The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a practice which aims to improve postural balance and coordination[1]. It is used in the fields of music and drama education, and is also claimed by its proponents to address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.[5][6][5][6]. It is taught in one-to-one or group lessons and is therefore described by its proponents and others [references here] as an educational method. However some experts [references here] point to its claims to offer therapeutic benefits and have therefore classified it as a form of alternative therapy."
- Alexander began developing his technique's principles in the 1890s[3] in an attempt to address his own voice loss during public speaking.[2]: 34–35 He credited his method with allowing him to pursue his passion for performing Shakespearean recitations.[4]
- As of 2021, the UK National Health Service cites evidence that the Alexander Technique may be helpful for long-term back pain and for long-term neck pain, and that it could help people cope with Parkinson's disease.[6] Both the American health-insurance company Aetna and the Australian Department of Health have conducted reviews and concluded that there is insufficient evidence for the technique's health claims to warrant insurance coverage.[5][7]"
- Rastalked (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think this latest proposed text by Rastalked is a good change, and much better and more accurate and informative than the current lead. However, I would change the last sentence of the first paragraph to: "Nevertheless, as individuals undertake lessons for purported health benefits, it is also characterized and treated as an alternative therapy." [refs here] ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Propose this because it's not just "some experts" who categorize it thus: the scientific and medical communities generally tend to do so, and this is the reason.
- Propose tweaking this further, so it is explicit that it is only a proportion (all be it a good proportion) of people that use it for health benefits: "as many individuals who undertake lessons do so for its purported health benefits" ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would also delete the "therefore", as that seems like original research (and inaccurate). So simply: "It is taught in one-to-one or group lessons and is described by its proponents and others [references here] as an educational method." The article itself should take into account sources which call it a technique of education, specifically sensory-motor education, which is used with the intent of giving a person an heuristic experience of better coordination. My point is it is not called "education" because it "it is taught in one-to-one or group lessons". It would be "education" because (some sources say) it is used to teach better coordination, and how-to work to improve coordination on one's own.~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Rastalked: for your proposals and endeavors to improve the article.
- For convenience, here are my proposed edits to Rastalked's proposal put in place:
- "The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a practice which aims to improve postural balance and coordination[1]. It is used in the fields of music and drama education, and is also claimed by its proponents to address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.[5][6][5][6]. It is taught in one-to-one or group lessons, and is described by its proponents and others [references here] as an educational method. Nevertheless, as many individuals who undertake lessons do so for its purported health benefits,[2] it is also characterized and treated as an alternative therapy. [refs here]" ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- But I dispute the phrase, taken from the current article, "is also claimed by its proponents to address a variety of health conditions". My issue is the phrase "address". I would replace it with "help". Alex Tech teaching does not address "a variety of health conditions". It is a technique intended for the teaching of better coordination, and my understanding is that this is what an Alex Tech teacher principally does: they address their pupils' patterns of coordination, and endeavor to give them an experience of better coordination, and also build a pupil's skills to consciously direct their activities with improved coordination. If their pupil develops an improved standard of coordination and this happens to help some health complaint they have, that's a benefit of their improved coordination, but the health complaint is not what an Alex Tech teacher addresses (as I understand it). Hence I would change "address" to "help", and add "by improving their coordination". At the very least I would change "address" to "help". As it is now, "address" badly mischaracterizes what Alex Tech teaching is held out to be. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- A proposed re-edit to address both the above concern, and the fact that is also called a self-help tool:
- "The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a practice which aims to improve postural balance and coordination.[1] It is used in the fields of music and drama education, as well as being available privately as an alternative healthcare practice. Its proponents claim that good coordination, taught by Alexander Technique, can help a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.[refs] It is taught in one-to-one or group lessons, and is described by its proponents and others variously, as an educational method,[refs] or self-help tool.[refs] It is also classified as an alternative therapy,[refs] as many individuals who undertake lessons do so for its purported health benefits.[2]"~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Have to agree here, AT is miscategoized as alternative medicine 68.129.197.221 (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Pertinent advice
These all have useful advice:
~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it would be better to see if some kind of agreement can be reached around the basic concept before splitting hairs about the details ...
Rastalked (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I present my take. That's what I do. I thank you again for your proposal, I agree with its basic outline, and I did my best to explain reasons for my proposed tweaks so they can be assessed on their merits. If I thought any of them were "splitting hairs" I wouldn't have spent the time presenting them and explaining them. Agreement cannot be reached around "the basic concept" of "Alexander Technique" itself, because there is no definitive definition of "the Alexander Technique" - the man himself didn't make one - and both its proponents today and investigative scientists speak of "Alexander Technique" in different ways - so the different substantiated uses of the term, e.g. education, self-help method, alternative therapy, need to all be presented (as per the advice linked to above). ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
None of those are policy. Probably the best bet is to give most weight to the WP:BESTSOURCES. What, for example, does Cochrane say? Alexbrn (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have brought multiple actual citations with quotes to this discussion, which enables discussion. Please do likewise! "What does Cochrane say?". Please bring a citation and quote so yourself! It seems to me disruptive to repeatedly emphasize sources, without actually bringing them! "What does Cochrane say?" - you say it like it's some authority, rather than one site where academic research papers are posted, like many others. "Cochrane" says nothing itself, it simply hosts papers on systematic reviews. I can see one paper on Alexander Technique there, and I can see no reason whatever to elevate its "intro description" of "the Alexander Technique" above any other academic paper! But for what it's worth, here it is: "'The Alexander technique' is a taught form of therapy involving a series of movements designed to correct posture and bring the body into natural alignment with the object of helping it to function efficiently, and is reported to aid relaxation."[1] So it's just another one that supports both sides of education/therapy question. But to re-iterate, it's only one of many "intro descriptions" in academic papers, and has no weight more than others. Plus all of these "intro descriptions" in academic papers reporting research into health outcomes demonstrate a high-tendency to see "Alexander Technique" through a therapeutic lens, no doubt because that is what they are looking at. As already established, Alexander Technique is used educationally in performing arts schools.~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Cochrane reviews are golden sources so it does have more weight than various lesser sources, and as WP:BESTSOURCES says, a way to avoid POV is to lean on the best quality sources. Following policy is always a good idea. "Taught form of therapy" then. I see the other very strong secondary source (the Aus review) has "Alexander technique is a type of taught physical therapy ...". Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is better but still leaves unaddressed the fact that Alex Tech is often used in non-therapeutic settings, and for completely non-therapeutic purposes--for example to help someone play the violin better, or learn to juggle, or to improve their swimming.
- The difficulty, I think, is that medical sources will obviously speak to therapeutic applications. But a medical writer may be completely unaware that this other aspect even exists. How to acknowledge this other aspect?
Rastalked (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Musician use is covered by some academic literature. PMID:25344325 is not the greatest source, but could be usable with attribution, for example. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please see my post below "Suggested Rewrite of Entire Page" for peer-reviewed sources on musician use. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Cochrane reviews found evidence in support of AT in other areas than asthma https://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a884.short 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
