Talk:Alexander Technique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Opening sentence[edit]

@Aliveness Cascade: You are edit warring a version in the lead based on your own criticism of the AT. That's not how we write Wikipedia articles. Criticism is best added through out the article and must be based on sources. This is already happening in this article. Your opinion of the technique is fine, of course, we all have opinions but that opinion must not underly the content you are adding and in this case are edit warring into the article. Further, the content you added is hard to understand and read where as, what is in the article now and in the first line/ first paragraph- where we are describing what makes the article subject notable-is easy to understand and read in terms of syntax. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: Let me quote you your own words, from the top of this page: "Who is edit warring who? Seems disingenuous to cite me for edit warring when I made a change and was reverted." - LOL! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Littleolive oil:I have tried reformulating the opening sentence to make the opening not tendentious. The so-called Alexander Technique is an "alternative" or "complementary" modality - it is not part of mainstream science or education - so simply to state that it *is* an "educational process" is making a positive judgement about it. What I tried to do is to step back from that, by substituting wording which simply says what it is promoted as - which is a fair and proper approach, and appropriate for Wikipedia. The current formulation of the opening sentence is itself unsourced, so I does not deserve to be repeatedly reinstated by yourself! The cited "source" (page 221, of Bloch - and I have that book opened at that very page right in front of me!) does not in fact provide a basis for any of that. Rather it is a page about witness statements in a trial about Alexander's work, none of which is pertinent. I disagree that the current (and actually unsourced) wording of "retrain habitual patterns of movement and posture" is clear and easy to understand! Further, the formulation of "educational process" (?source?) is of debatable value in another way. Education is a process, but a technique is a specific way in which something is achieved. "Technique" has a more specific meaning than "process", so why substitute the latter for the former? The current lead is very unsatisfactory for multiple reasons. So why not try and improve it yourself, rather than repeatedly re-instating unsourced and tendentious material?Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Aliveness Cascade: The person who thinks the opening sentence is "tendentious" is you. There is no reason for me to change it if I agree with how it is written now. These are the concerns I have with your comment above.
Your definition of education is yours alone and is narrow. The Alexander Technique is a mainstream aspect of theatre programs across the world; it most certainly is mainstream education in theatre and saying the AT is an educational process is exactly right. Further education is not restricted to educational institutions. Even puppies are educated when they learn to heel, as I said your definition is limited and narrow. Then, you are trying to write this article based on your own definition of education. You state that unless the article lead complies with that definition and view that AT is, " a process that misleads, miseducates, confuses, and can create risk of actual harm." then that article lead sentence is tendentious. As an aside, tendentious on Wikipedia tends to refer to editing behaviour and not content.
The lead summarizes the article and its sources. Per Wikipedia, we don't have to source in the lead since we expect the content we are summarizing in the lead is sourced in the article body. The lead sentence we have does summarize content in the article.
Criticism these days on Wikipedia is best served marbled throughout the article. The criticism of the technique as it pertains to research is contained in the third paragraph and summarizes whatever else is in the article on the research.
No one is substituting process for technique or vice versa. The Alexander Technique is the name, process is how the AT works. (As another aside: To create a technical aspect of something I would use process. As a dance teacher I use the aspects of the technique which in process create an end product.)
If I didn't say this before. This article has been contentious. I am only one of many who worked on it. If you want to change something to this, the stable version, and are reverted, you, PER WP:BOLD can expect to be questioned, maybe reverted, and could have to deal and get agreement from those who support the stable version of the article.

Note that the third paragraph of the lead provides an overview o f the research on the technique which is the scientific evidence rather than opinion for usefulness or not usefulness. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

A strange thing to point out in this context, considering the key words in that paragraph are "believe", "lack of research to support", "maybe", "could", and "insufficient evidence".Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The content summarizes the research and sources which use the words, teachers and proponents who "believe". The research states there is insufficient evidence. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

NB I have deleted ten edits to this page due to those edits completely mangling Littleolive oil's edits. DO NOT DO THAT. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Littleolive oil:! As nearly all my replies to you have been deleted by a third party, I have had my time entirely wasted, and my right of reply removed. Wikipedia being as friendly as ever!! I won't futher waste my time here. If you want to read and engage with my replies, they are in the history. Good luck! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Littleolive oil: If you reinstate them yourself, I'd be happy to continue the discussion. Good luck with the article! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
For the record, each party to this discussion has put their replies in distinct paragraphs. I haven't "mangled" anything. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
You broke up another editor's comment with your replies, that's a big no no. I have no desire to argue this further; I just don't have the time given I agree with the stable version of the article and especially given that version has consensus. Best. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but I didn't break up any paragraphs, and I used indents, so it was all perfectly readable and attributable - anyone used to the internet can read such a thread tree. A polite note of guidance would have been appropriate! That's not on you, though. Thank you for explaining.
@Littleolive oil: Anyways, I'd be grateful if you'd answer my question (which was deleted). I'll repeat it: when you reverted my edit, your edit reason said "Based on source". What source please? As I pointed out, the only reference given in the lead for the first paragraph (Bloch, page 221) does not check out.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Next in your edit reason, you said, "The source does not talk about biomechanics." Actually, "biomechanics" is a good modern word for one of Alexander's chief concerns! Take this passage from Man's Supreme Inheritance, Chapter 6, Habits of Thought and Body:
"What John Doe lacked was a conscious and proper recognition of the right uses of the parts of his muscular mechanism, since while he still uses such parts wrongly, the performance of physical exercises will only increase the defects. He will, in fact, merely copy some other person in the performance of a particular exercise, copy him in the outward act, while his own consciousness of the act performed and the means and uses of his muscular mechanism will remain unaltered. Therefore, before he attempts any form of physical development, he must discover, or find some one who can discover for him, what his defects are in the uses indicated. When this has been done he must proceed to inhibit the guiding sensations which cause him to use the mechanism imperfectly ; he must apprehend the position of mechanical advantage, and then by using the new correct guiding sensations or orders, he will be able to bring about the proper use of his muscular mechanism with perfect ease. If the mechanical principle employed is a correct one, every movement will be made with a minimum of effort, and he will not be conscious of the slightest tension. In time a recognition will follow of the new and correct use of the mechanism, which use will then become provisionally established and be employed in the acts of everyday life." [Emphases mine]
Just as my edit said: "The Alexander Technique is a set of practices developed and promoted by Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869-1955) as a way a person can develop a better command of their biomechanics in the actions of living."Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
As everyone can see, my edit contains no criticism whatsoever!!!! It's simply a succinct and objective statement of what Alexander's technique is about, without implying up front that the technique is effective and its principles true, as the material I had removed, namely the phrase "is an educational process" actually does. The important question of whether the technique is effective and its principles true can then be addressed in the body of the article. Can my edit be improved? Yes, of course, yes. But I believe my arguments for this general approach are sound and necessary, and this a step in the right direction, and editors should consider this approach and the reasons for it, and not simply revert back to a phrasing that has inherent problems. @Littleolive oil: Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Your position which you are trying to base your writing on is not neutral and is an opinion. I have a long history of being and working with dancers and athletes so I am very familiar with biomechanics. We shouldn't use the word in relation to the technique unless the two are specifically sourced and connected in a single source. Take a look at WP:OR again.Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Compliance check - External link and Further reading entries[edit]

As Hipal noted, A Companion to the Alexander Technique this may not be Wikipedia compliant since this is self-published with no oversight. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:ELMAYBE "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" - so a site to be considered, no? Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It's an online encyclopedia with inline citations, and each article has its sources listed at the bottom of the page. Therefore it is verifiable AND useful! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this publication, Principles of the Alexander Technique: What it is, How it Works, and What it Can Do for You, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, and this,What You Think Is What You Get: An Introductory Textbook for the Study of the Alexander Technique, ITM Publications, we don't already have so probably unneeded. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion here. Editors may want to summarize what they wrote at my talk page User_talk:Hipal#Alexander_Technique_edits. --Hipal (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite of lede[edit]

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

As a whole, it was an unexplained change in emphasis that undermines the encyclopedic value, so there's more NOT issues than just SOAP. --Hipal (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
And I would argue the other way, the article as it is focuses too much on the missing evidence on some of its claims, when there's plenty of evidence it helps with neck and back pain, and the australian health deparment not providing coverage, when in the same document it says it does not provides coverage for yoga, I would argue yoga provides plenty of health benefits, just that it doesn't makes sense for the australian government to pay for it. Franciscouzo (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
MEDRS and FRINGE apply. --Hipal (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:DCE. Franciscouzo (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, why are you mentioning wp:MEDRS? I used a quote from the cited NHS article. Franciscouzo (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
MEDRS: all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.
If you're going to throw DCE out, I think this discussion may be a waste of time. --Hipal (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, do you think the NHS is not a reliable secondary source?
What about Franciscouzo (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
If I thought it were unreliable, it would not be in the article. --Hipal (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I checked the NHS website on, and the quote "some NHS trusts now offer Alexander technique lessons as part of their outpatient pain clinics." has been present since at least 2013, so I don't think wp:RECENTISM applies, if you think wp:NOT applies, you'll have to provide a better argument than just mentioning it. Franciscouzo (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
We're at an impasse here. How about you make a proposal, backed by policy? --Hipal (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me be clear what I understand from the research I've done, there's evidence the Alexander Technique helps with back and neck pain, and with Parkinson's disease, and that the NHS provides lessons for it, and I'm not denying there's also plenty of claims from people that teach the Alexander Technique that are best at dubious and worst case scenario alternative medicine or pseudoscience. Can you tell me why do you think this paragraph isn't wp:NPOV:

As of 2015 there was evidence suggesting the Alexander Technique may be helpful for long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and could help people cope with Parkinson's disease. Some NHS trusts offer Alexander technique lessons as part of their outpatient pain clinics.[4] Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.[5][4] Both the American health insurance company Aetna, and the Australian Department of Health have conducted reviews and concluded that there is insufficient evidence for health claims to warrant insurance coverage.[6][7] Franciscouzo (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. The evidence is poor, as the references point out. Removing that (but there is a lack of research to support the claims) from the lede is a gross POV problem. De-emphasizing it within the lede is similarly problematic. Doing so without indicating it, and after this discussion has started, is very troubling.
As far as I understand, the areas of possible effect are notoriously difficult to test and treat, but we can get editors with medical expertise to weigh in if needed. --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Seeing as one cited review reports strong-evidence for helping chronic back pain, the phrasing (but there is a lack of research to support the claims) is *not* a good summary. @Hipal:@Franciscouzo: ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
It summarizes the positions of all the MEDRS summaries that we have, correct? --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
No it does not. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for withdrawing from the article. I'm sorry that you think it's appropriate to continue to attack me without evidence or despite it. --Hipal (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
[2] Franciscouzo (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a random diff to me. Why did you bring it up? --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't alternative medicine mentioned in lede?[edit]

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

It's an exercise technique. Most good theater schools use it. Can we stop trying to portray it as something it isn't. I can do push ups and it will correct my bicep strength and I can do planks to improve my core strength all of which affect my health but none of these is an alternative medicine. Alexander Technique impacts posture which doesn't make it a medical technique. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
From a quick glance, it's an exercise technique treated as alternative medicine in the UK, US, and Australia. --Hipal (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's treated within alternative medicine, I'd say, as most exercise is. To label this as alternative medicine would be to label and weight the fringe aspect of an exercise technique and to give it more prominence than it enjoys in the mainstream. I think there is a subtle difference. I have to say I was shocked to see this posture technique being treated like some outlandish fringe medical technique. In my experience within movement and theater it is a mainstream adjunct to acting and some dance training. I don't want to make a fuss over this, but I do think we should have agreement to include this in the lede with knowledge that doing so slants something mainstream towards a pejorative. I am not attached enough to get into huge discussions about this. I know, what I know in this field, and the change suggested would be a disservice and inaccuracy but won't change my own knowledge and experience. Just my two cents. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The AT profession presents what they do as an educational technique, not as an exercise technique! It is presented as a technique for teaching better co-ordination to a person. Now, there may be a question as to how and what they "teach" is based upon sound principles, but to characterize AT as an "exercise technique" is a wild wild wild mis-characterization! I also cannot believe anyone who thinks that has read any of Alexander's books! I would add that the Articles of Association for the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique (STAT - the original professional society) explicity call it the "Alexander Technique of Re-education", and "Alexander Technique" for short. (Re-education is used in a very similar sense very similar to how physiotherapists use it today, i.e. the retraining of a person's capacity for movement – with the caveat that Alexander's work was particularly aimed at the coordination of the whole "self" in activity – the mind, the senses, and the whole body together – and he took "pupils" whose problems originated from their misconceptions of how to move, or from bad habits of movement, as well as those whose problems were associated with injury or medical conditions – and indeed "pupils" who simply wanted to improve their coordination – and Alexander had his own ideas of how the whole self was co-ordinated, which he called "primary control", around which his practical technique was focused). For sure, to take a lesson in how to coordinate oneself better, one can expect to be mentally and physically exercised, but that does not make AT an exercise technique, especially not when it is explicitly said to be a teaching technique! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me define what I mean by exercise technique from someone who has spent her whole life as a high level athlete, coach, dancer, physical theater teacher and dance teacher. Education of the body in common and in general terms is exercising the body. This is what I mean when I talk about exercise here. I have dealt with this article before and at that time the impetus was to characterize AT as a kind of Fringe alternative medicine which, in the mainstream, it isn't seen that way. It is used in diverse programs to educate the body to help the body to move in a more functional way. Any exercise does this. I don't disagree with anything you said above. I believe you are misunderstanding what I meant when I said exercise... meaning of the body and it's movement. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I get you! Nevertheless, I think the general reader would interpret "exercise technique" simply as an activity aimed at improving conditioning. And Alexander himself did not accept that terminology for what he did. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Health claims are an aspect of the "Alexander Technique" phenomenon. They are rightly covered in the article! Alexander's book, Use of the Self, has a chapter called "Diagnosis and Medical Training", after all! So it can't just be treated as one might treat an "exercise technique".~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you. I am against characterizing this movement/ exercise/ posture-correction technique as some kind of fringe medicine technique which was the tone when I first started editing on this article. I also don't think alternative medicine is a mainstream description. One chapter in a book on the movement aspects is a small percentage of the overall information. But you and others should do what you feel is needed per weight. I am out of Wikipedia steam and have no desire to argue this further. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the answer is that it is not a medical technique (real or fake!). It is entirely possible that it is mainstream technique in the educational setting of performance schools, and a non-mainstream technique in the field of health (as a not fully-tested or fully-regulated Allied Health Service - see below), offered by a limited number of mainstream health providers, and otherwise available privately. This would seem to be the case! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I would also argue that AT is *not* mainstream in general education. If it were, it would be taught in physical education everywhere, for it is held out to be a technique for teaching better general coordination. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Sounds like many alt-med practices. I suggest identifying references for this, so we're not making decisions based upon unverified original research. --Hipal (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
"A teacher must not make any kind of medical diagnosis or prescribe treatment for a pupil" ~ STAT code of Conduct, 2019.[1]
"teachers of the Alexander technique ... do not diagnose, offer advice on or treat conditions that should be managed by a suitably qualified mainstream healthcare professional." ~ NHS, 2018 [2] ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Teachers and pupils - extracts from Code of Professional Conduct". STAT. The Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique. Retrieved 28 January 2021.
  2. ^ NHS. "Alexander Technique – NHS Choices". Retrieved 28 January 2021.
What's the point of these comments? --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You invited discussion on the question of "Why isn't alternative medicine mentioned in lede?". I'm pointing out, that in the UK at least, professional Alexander teachers neither diagnose or prescribe treatment for medical conditions. They are not allowed to. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
So it's alternative medicine! Somehow, I don't think that was the conclusion you wanted to be drawn, but I see no other. --Hipal (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the only thing I want here is a logical conversation! I'm not going to get one, am I? ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
If I can clarify anything, let me know. Bottom line is that independent sources are the only way of presenting a neutral viewpoint. This is not a soapbox or venue for promotion, and the article needs a rewrite in order to do so. --Hipal (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Well good luck with that! I have repeatedly tried to reformulate the opening sentence to describe what the "technique" is promoted as, in order to make it neutral but I was repeatedly reverted. Because sources conflict, and there is no definitive statement of what the "technique" is, it is, in my view, the only approach that has integrity. That said, the topic of this discussion is "is it alternative medicine?", not a global rewrite. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
With regards to "alternative medicine" - everything I've said already! I have taken part in this "discussion" with good faith, to point out relevant matters. To summarise: it is principally held out by the profession to be an educational technique to teach improved co-ordination - its distingushing element being their notion of how human coordination is organised (via their idea of "primary control"). It is often *treated* under the CAM umbrella, for practical reasons, because of claims to health effects, and it has a history of support from some in the medical profession, and doctors sent patients to Alexander during his lifetime. If it did prove its validity, and thereby achieve mainstream acceptance, it would fit under the category of Allied Health Profession (because it's not medicine). ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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


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