Talk:F. Matthias Alexander/Archive 1

This link has appeared a couple of times posted by a non logged in user 4.72.86.217

• John Dewey vs. the Alexander Technique

It was removed and came back. So I followed it up. It is an interesting link although I haven't read it all. The question in my mind is how relevant is it to have this link, which is a detailed discussion of the link between Dewey and Alexander (which concludes that there was none), when there is no actual mention of Dewey in the Wiki entry.

It seems to me that if you, who ever you are, want to mention the Dewey/Alexander connection you need to summarise it in a section on the [F. Matthias Alexander] page (with maybe a mention on the Dewey page as well), and then add the external link - otherwise the link has no context and doesn't really fit into the page as it stands. I've removed the link again for now.

At some point the link to

• How Dewey contributed to Alexander

was also added and deleted. Seems to me it might help to balance the piece to have this in. Mahaabaala 17:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

                    -oOo-

"It was removed and came back." -- This statement leaves it a mystery _who_ removed it. The author of the above?

As long as the main article says Dewey's philosophy has a connection to the Alexander Technique, this link -- which expresses a contrary view -- will be relevant.

                    -oOo-

"People don't censor what they agree with."

People with nothing to hide sign their names! I note that the link has reappeared and disappeared (no it's not me doing it, I was just trying to make sense of it). Personally I'd rather see the anon user who keeps adding it summarise the argument and put something in the main body of the article. Mahaabaala 09:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

It's not kosha to edit out what people have said on a talk page - have your say, but leave what others have said so we all know who saying what! Mahaabaala 17:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

                    -oOo-

I’m no more – and no less – anonymous than you are, “Mahaabaala.” Please stop vandalizing the link:

John Dewey vs. the Alexander Technique

It contains many quotes from John Dewey not found elsewhere on the web and it provides balance to the other link. Together we have NPOV, with only one of them the article is biased.

Note that I do not vandalize the other link, I let it stay even though I think it’s mistaken. All points of view should be heard.

I’m reminded of John Dewey’s destruction of Randolph Bourne.

— Mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.143.197.56 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 May 2007.

Thank you for your concern in referencing the article; however, I've removed the link per WP:SPS, which states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." --CA387 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me? Am I hallucinating sophistries? Do you claim that  “Dewey and the Alexander Technique”  is  not  a website, not paid for, that the author does not claim to know anything about the field in question?

Why didn’t you delete it as well? Inquiring minds would like to know.

It will be interesting to see read your remarks after I delete the politically correct line.

— Mark—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.143.197.88 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 May 2007.

Upon reading the website, I agree it's a bit dubious. I've replaced the citation with Dewey's introduction to Alexander's book. --CA387 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)