Talk:Feldenkrais Method/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Yes. we are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing [alternative medicine] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1] [2] [3] [4]"

So yes, we are biased. We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This section is not NPOV. Scientific understanding changes all the time. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability; or Nobel Laureate Prof. Percy Bridgman The Nature of Physical Theory https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1946/bridgman/biographical/. Self righteous proclamations do not establish a NPPOV. Bbachrac (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Science Blogs

Thank you Guy Macon. The first two citations you have included are excellent. My only dispute is with the blog post that was published in "Science Blogs" . The blog was published under a pen name and was not subject to any significant review process. It is also 11 years old. WP:RSP states "there is no consensus on the reliability of Science Blogs in general." With the existence of two well-researched policy papers, the inclusion of the blog quotes seem simply to be an effort to promote the author of the blog. PianoPedagogue (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

References

"Seems to be an effort to promote"? Well, the content-focused discussion isn't starting well is it? Per NPOV, Wikipedia has a duty to describe dodgy ideas as such, and the Gorski source gives us a useful general characterization not found in other sources. I suggest trying to understand that editors here are trying to uphold policy, rather than attributing motive - and that includes sending emails to editors accusing them of "defacing" this article, as you did to me.

Furthermore, if the Baggoley review is "excellent", did you remove[5] it from the article with a comment that its use was "designed to cast aspersions"? Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind most marine mammals... --Guy Macon (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

With respect to NPOV and many of the pejorative declarations in this article such as Gorski, editors should consider with respect to health, Medicine is both an Art and Science.( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/ ) Frankly I found the Gorski blog has no credibility on the subject of the article. For example, Physical Therapy is a well established and licensed practice, but see for example ( https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/96/6/774/2686361 ) and ( https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/98/2/108/4562624). Feldenkrais Method is a Guild regulated practice which Gorski does not seem to recognize. The Gorski reference should be moved to a discussion section because he does not site the literature evaluating outcomes Bbachrac (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Gorski is not discussing "outcomes" (we have other sources for that), but giving a high-level independent overview of Feldenkrais; that brief view is useful to clue-in our readers and per WP:PSCI policy we need to up-front about the dodgy nature of dodgy things - since quackery is in the air, we can't just whitewash it away. Many types of quackery have guilds (e.g.[6]) so I'm not sure how that's relevant, unless discussed in good sources. If we want to expand the article we need more good sources which are, in general all of: relevant, independent, mainstream and secondary. These must form the backbone of the article. We have a separate article on Physical therapy, which is a distinct topic. Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Gorski’s blog post is primarily a screed against the MD Anderson Cancer Center (https://www.mdanderson.org/). There are links mostly to other blogs. Gorski bases his first attack in his disputation that the concept of Neuroplasticity is false. This is no longer accepted science. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity). @ALEXBRN seems to consider himself the judge of what is “quackery” But Wikipedia provides a definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery .Editors of this article have to recognize that the Feldenkrais Method is not a medical practice.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine). The Gorski diatribe is not a valid NPOV source for evaluation and is not worthy of being included as an informed reference.

No. The editors of this article do nothave to recognize that the Feldenkrais Method is not a medical practice. It is medical quackery. The practitioners clearly claim to treat disease and other disorders. See Talk:Feldenkrais Method#Feldenkrais Method claimed to treat Autism for multiple examples. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC).

Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The Feldenkrais Method is not a treatment, adjustment, or exercise program. It is based on decades of research in physics, neuroscience, biomechanics, learning theory, and human development (https://feldenkrais.com/feldenkrais-method-faqs/). Feldenkrais Practitioner's do not treat autism, but they do work with students on the autistic spectrum. Please consider Rethinking autism: implications of sensory and movement differences for understanding and support https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3556589/ Bbachrac (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As the Gorski piece tells us, Feldenkrais sellers are keen to disclaim that FM is medical, but this is really a motte-and-bailey fallacy, since when not under pressure they make multiple claims for the effect of FM in the realm of biomedicine, as Guy's links above show. In any case this is pointless without good sources: feldenkrais.com is obviously not a reliable source for anything other than what FM likes to say about itself - it's essentially a self-published brochure. Gorski's view is Gorski's view and, since he's a recognized high-profile independent commentator on altmed and fringe science, it is WP:DUE. To repeat, we need sources which are relevant, independent, mainstream and secondary. Are we missing some? Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and other editors - The Gorski piece is not NPOV and is a biased blog assertion in an attack on MD Anderson Center. He provides no sources for his assertions. On the other hand, licensed Physical Therapists incorporate Feldenkrais Method into their practices. US News 2016 :”What Is the Feldenkrais Method?” (From <https://health.usnews.com/wellness/articles/2016-11-14/what-is-the-feldenkrais-method> ) Physical Therapy and Feldenkrais NYC https://bettermovement.com/our-team; Minnesota Physical Therapy Association The Feldenkrais Method: What Is It and How Can It Enhance PT? From <https://www.mnapta.org/page/453>; Barclay Physical Therapy http://www.barclayphysicaltherapy.com/blog/Feldenkrais~5166.html Bbachrac (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Please take some time to learn what WP:NPOV means. --Hipal (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Told you, dude. Sea lions.] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Intent to Re-Write the Feldenkrais Method article

Please add your ID to this list if you are an editor stakeholder

ID List Bbachrac (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Bbachrac (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you think it is you're doing, and it doesn't appear like good faith collaboration with others. Please take some time to learn your way around Wikipedia on topics that are not under sanctions and where you don't have a vested interest in the topic. --Hipal (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that this edit[7] clearly shows what he thinks he is doing. We call that WP:OWNERSHIP. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon No, it is using the talk page to engage with Editors and talk out the changes on a complete draft here. Bbachrac (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed NPOV and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source Bbachrac (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Could be the "complete rewrite" tactic. There's probably enough Feldenkrais WP:MEAT at large for an attempt. The article could no doubt stand improvement, but sources are fairly thin on the ground (and I have looked quite hard in the past). Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  FEFNA Updates-Wikipedia and More. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of 2021-06-06 violates Wikipedia best practices

Today's reversion, by Roxy the dog of an edit has minimal explanation.

The intent was to replace links to un-peer reviewed and low-quality internet discussion with citations from reputable, peer-reviewed sources that contain highest quality evidence (systematic meta-reviews or randomized controlled trials).

I got some help from Tea House and will try to summarize these studies in my own words rather than quote from them. But I will try again. I don't see the justification in replacing high quality with low quality information.

Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Edinburghpotsdam. In addition to the advice given to you at the Tea House, I suggest that you make your changes 1 at a time, and if you remove any sourced text, you should discuss those changes here first. --McSly (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

McSly Absolutely will do. And having read MEDRS I see it was right to be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburghpotsdam (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit war over Gorski quote

It looks like there is some edit warring going on over the Gorski quote. I am not a part of this though I am watching this article and hope to offer contributions soon when I have my sources in order.

If it helps: I was instructed by the old-timers at the Tea House that going on to pages and simply removing negative information is prohibited. I don't feel this Gorski article is the highest quality information but it is a published perspective. What would probably be a better contribution would be to add information to this document from high-quality secondary and tertiary sources as suggested in MEDRS. I hope to do this soon myself (have some work I want to do on the ECG-related pages first).

I have been told to discuss suggested edits here before trying to edit any sourced references.

I'm just a noob trying to find my way around myself, as my crappy first edits show. Let's all try to learn the ropes and follow the etiquette. I welcome any replies.

Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Better quality references are always helpful, but these seem fine for the brief mention they're given. --Hipal (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Hipal I will bear that in mind. I think we agree that the path to improvement is to add quality information not dispute current sourcing. I think the evidence section here could be moved well up the pyramid presented in Wikipedia:MEDASSESS but I'll see what the more experienced editors say when I suggest some ideas.

If I recall correctly, both refs have been discussed multiple times for multiple articles and at WP:RSN. I believe they're being used for WP:FRINGE purposes. --Hipal (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed citation for Esther Thelen sentence.

A citation is requested for the final sentence of this article, discussing the influence of the Feldenkrais method on University of Indiana developmental psychologist Esther Thelen. I see the previous one was removed due to predatory publisher so wanted to check in.

I propose the following citation:

Spencer, J.P., Clearfield, M., Corbetta, D., Ulrich, B., Buchanan, P. and Schöner, G. (2006), Moving Toward a Grand Theory of Development: In Memory of Esther Thelen. Child Development, 77: 1521-1538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00955.x

I would embed it thusly:

^:1535

This is a peer-reviewed secondary source about Thelen's life and work so I think it is a good pick per Wikipedia:MEDASSESS. I do not see "Child Development" on Wikipedia:CITEWATCH. A snippet of the relevant text (I have attempted to indicate the page by superscript, as I saw elsewhere):

toward the end of her career, Esther began to conduct research studies on the effects of the Feldenkrais Method on healthy adults; she participated in and organized symposia to promote dialog among researchers and Feldenkrais practitioners; and she looked forward to a second career giving Feldenkrais lessons to infants and children (p.1535)

I welcome any feedback and if there is none, I'll "be bold" and add this citation to the main page. Thanks,

Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Seems trivial/undue. How does this add to the reader's knowledge of FM? Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: That's a good question. I am new here and trying to start small, and a citation for this sentence was requested, so I'm trying to help. A better improvement might be a proper paragraph in "Reception" on scientists or other academics who acknowledge FM as an influence. I would be happy to write that. Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Information based on opinion in blog post

I suggest removing this sentence

"David Gorski has written that the Method bears similarities to faith healing, is like "glorified yoga", and that it "borders on quackery".[4]"

The source is a blog post which doesn't follow sourcing guidelines (WP:UGC) : "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites."

Even if Gorski is a reputable MD, the section on effectiveness presents enough sources and follows WP:MEDRS. Addition of a quote from a blog reduces quality of that section. 2A01:E34:EC07:9260:99D9:BC43:9674:973 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not "user-generated". The comments section is, mind. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's from a blog called "Scienceblogs", written under pseudonym. Quoting again from guidelines : "Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs". Wikipedia is not about writing a synthesis of various bloggers opinions. There are fine sources quoted in the effectiveness section.

193.54.67.94 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes. Per WP:PARITY expert comment is useful for adding rational context to fringe stuff like Feldenkrais. Please see the archives here, this has been discussed to death. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of effectiveness?

Why does this review not report any of the controlled studies that have been done that have confirmed effectiveness with certain problems? 2601:4A:600:6990:E08D:430F:5E0F:F4F7 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires good WP:MEDRS. Any we're missing? Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I will add my voice to those editors who think this article is unbalanced and biased against the Feldenkrais method. I have often criticized complementary and alternative medicine methods when they had no evidence (or negative evidence) to support their claims, but when they do take up the challenge and publish results, I don't think it's intellectually honest to reject them. I used to review articles in core medical journals on rheumatology, and I noticed that Feldenkrais was frequently coming up with favorable results in randomized, controlled, comparative studies of effectiveness. Since some editors only accept secondary review articles, and some don't even accept Hindawi, here's what I found in Cochraine:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/central/doi/10.1002/central/CN-01776123/full

Physikalische Medizin, Rehabilitationsmedizin, Kurortmedizin

2005; 15(3): 151-156

DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-834763

The Feldenkrais Method - A Systematic Review of Randomised Clinical Trials

Die Feldenkrais-Therapie - Ein systematisches Review randomisierter Studien

E. Ernst, P.H. Canter

Abstract

Objective: The Feldenkrais Method (FM) is being promoted for a range of medical conditions. This article is aimed at summarising and critically evaluating the results of randomised controlled trials of FM. Design: Systematic review; literature searches were carried out in 7 electronic databases. All randomised controlled trials of FM were included regardless of indication. No language restrictions were applied. The data were extracted and valuated by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the primary studies was assessed with the Jadad score. Setting: Academic centre, UK. Participants: All human volunteers participating in trials. Interventions: Not applicable. Results: Six studies met our inclusion criteria. They were all burdened with significant methodological weaknesses. The indications included multiple sclerosis, neck/shoulder problems and chronic back pain. All but one trial reported positive results. Conclusion: The evidence for the FM is encouraging but, due to the paucity and low quality of studies, by no means compelling.

I think that this Wikipedia Entry should use the conclusion of this Cochrane review: "The evidence for the FM is encouraging but, due to the paucity and low quality of studies, by no means compelling." That contradicts the statement in the present introduction, "There is no good medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method confers any health benefits," which contains the weasel word "good."

I would also include the Hillier study, unless someone can come up with a good reason based on Wikipedia rules and guidelines (not just a personal opinion) why it should be excluded.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4408630/

Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015; 2015: 752160.

Published online 2015 Apr 8.

doi: 10.1155/2015/752160

PMCID: PMC4408630

PMID: 25949266

The Effectiveness of the Feldenkrais Method: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Susan Hillier, and Anthea Worley

Abstract

...meta-analyses were able to be performed with 7 studies, finding in favour of the FM for improving balance in ageing populations (e.g., timed up and go test MD −1.14 sec, 95% CI −1.78, −0.49; and functional reach test MD 6.08 cm, 95% CI 3.41, 8.74). Single studies reported significant positive effects for reduced perceived effort and increased comfort, body image perception, and dexterity. Risk of bias was high, thus tempering some results....

A meta-analyses found evidence that the Feldenkrais method was effective in improving balance in aging populations, but the risk of bias was high. That's what I found in reading the high-quality peer-reviewed literature, and I would include it in the Wikipedia entry.

In reviewing the Talk archives, I see that there has been a lot of discussion, not all of it WP:CIVIL. I do not enjoy Wikipedia edit wars, or personal attacks, so I'm not going to edit the article unless there is some kind of support for this edit.

For now, I'll just say that I think the article violates WP:NPOV, and there is at least 1 (maybe 2) WP:MEDRS review article(s) that contradict the statement, "There is no good medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method confers any health benefits." I think that statement should be rewritten.--Nbauman (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a paucity of understanding of MEDRS. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 21:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That's what I meant about WP:CIVIL. --Nbauman (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

MEDRS is there to ensure we use only the highest quality sources when doing biomedical content. Ernst is, Hillier isn't. Note the use of the word "paucity" you quoted in the Ernst paper. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 23:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/stupid --Nbauman (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.wallpaperup.com/563346/PEANUTS_MOVIE_animation_family_snoopy_comedy_cgi.html - Roxy the bad tempered dog 04:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Mind explaining why Hillier is not a reliable author, Roxy the dog? Their articles (not just the FM paper) are cited by several other papers, I would like to see tangible evidence as to why someone who holds a position within a university's health faculty could be disqualified from MEDRS... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 09:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

... because of the publication, which isn't reliable. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 09:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

What makes Kinesiology Review an unreliable source, Roxy the dog? Clearly Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine may be biased, I do not see what disqualifies Kinesiology Review. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 09:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I made no comment on that. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 09:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That's your problem for not specifying, and we are looking at the author in question, Roxy the dog. What disqualifies the author, are they biased, do they have a conflict of interest, do they have a financial connection etc, the reliability of the publication is a separate matter which can be considered in of itself. I won't revert any further to maintain WP:STATUSQUO but I still fail to see why Hillier should be disqualified as an unreliable author. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 09:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

See the response you received at WP:MED -Roxy the bad tempered dog 09:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop stonewalling my question, Roxy the dog. The Kinesiology Review matter is being dealt with separately, yet I still find an answer to my first question lacking. What makes Susan L. Hillier an unreliable author? You stated that Ernst is, Hillier isn't [when it comes to high quality sourcing], I would like an explanation as to why. Shifting the goalpost to discussing the publication still doesn't answer my question of what makes Hillier unreliable. Is it because she publishes with that paper? I just want an explanation... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 10:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, in context, I was referring to the papers in question. I used the names of the primary authors for brevity. That you do not understand that isn't my problem. Please stop pinging me, I have a watchlist, and four pings to consecutive posts in two hours is tiresome. Thanks. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 12:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You offer a 2005 Cochrane review ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The entry includes a 2007 Quackwatch citation. Should we remove that one? --Nbauman (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think both the Quackwatch cite and the Gorski blog post belong in a separate Criticism section. - Palpable (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Why? They look perfecttly fine in that section. Also, take a look at WP:NOCRIT. --McSly (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the NOCRIT essay, it raises some good points. I note that it says "Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." While Feldenkrais method is not a philosophy, political stance, or religion, I will say that both of those links misrepresent the Feldenkrais worldview.

The Gorski blog post is not about Feldenkrais at all, it's a stream of consciousness rant in response to some alt-med blog post. I'm sure the other post is terrible but it's at best a strawman for Feldenkrais itself. How did this qualify as a reliable source? I remember people have questioned it in the Talk archives, did anybody ever take it to RSN?

Meanwhile the Quackwatch entry rests on an unsourced quote about "vital energy" that directly contradicts the statement here from Feldenkrais's biographer: "Feldenkrais was critical of the appropriation of the term 'energy' to express immeasurable phenomena or to label experiences".

In my opinion these look silly when juxtaposed with the MEDRS-compliant references, but suit yourself... - Palpable (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Entry has strong anti-Feldenkrais bias

Medical evidence for the benefits of Feldenkrais includes:

Stephens, J., & Hillier, S. (2020). Evidence for the effectiveness of the Feldenkrais method. Kinesiology Review, 9(3), 228-235.

Hillier, S., & Worley, A. (2015). The effectiveness of the feldenkrais method: a systematic review of the evidence. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2015.

A simple Google scholar search produces dozens of articles from peer-reviewed journals in recent years that contradict the idea that there is no longer sound medical evidence supporting the benefits of Feldenkrais. Much of this entry appears to have been written by a person or peoples strongly biased against non-hospital based forms of wellness therapy and should be rewritten to provide a more balanced perspective. 201.190.187.253 (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDRS; here is a 2020 compliant review:

• Phuphanich ME, Droessler J, Altman L, Eapen BC (November 2020). "Movement-Based Therapies in Rehabilitation". Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 31 (4): 577–591. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2020.07.002. PMC 7476461. PMID 32981580. The FM has broad applications for changing bodily perceptions; easing function; and promoting awareness, self-efficacy, and health. Yet, there is a paucity of scientific evidence validating the benefits of Feldenkrais. At this time, clinicians may only offer Feldenkrais as a supplementary therapy to patients interested in efficient physical performance and self-efficacy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the article's "no good medical evidence" could be changed to match this review's "paucity of scientific evidence"?

Also, the description of Feldenkrais work in the review is much better than the "claimed to reorganize connections between the brain and body" phrasing in the current lead. - Palpable (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say, "There are few studies, and those are of low quality."

George Orwell wrote, "Never use a long word where a short one will do." --Nbauman (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly better phrasing. My concern is that anything other than a literal quote will be attacked. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

True, and it might be better to include the quotes from the review articles in the body of the entry. However, there is a stronger case for rephrasing it into a simpler, accurate paraphrase in the introduction. --Nbauman (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

... honestly, I believe that that is already there in the lead, where it says "There is no good medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method improves health outcomes." Am I wrong? - Roxy the bad tempered dog 19:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I have 2 problems with that quote in the lead: (1) "good medical evidence" is subjective. What is "good"? Where is the WP:MEDRS that says there is "no good evidence"? Is that simply an anonymous Wikipedia editor's opinion? The problem is that there are few studies (2) The Australian government study is now a dead link. I haven't checked Internet Archive yet, but even if I could find it, it's a 2015 study, and there might be more recent studies that it doesn't cover.

I would accept "low quality" because that's what Ernst says (although he does say "encouraging"). I would accept "Risk of bias was high", because that's what Hillier says. "Low quality," "bias" and "few studies" are terms of the art when discussing medical studies. "Good" is not. --Nbauman (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Good" is the same as "high quality". "No good evidence" is just a more general way of saying "There are few studies, and those are of low quality."

"There are few studies, and those are of low quality" has more detail, and "no good evidence" has more clarity. It's just a rewording with different emphasis, and if the source covers the detailed wording, it also covers the clear one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Addition: "There are few studies, and those are of low quality" leaves the believers an excuse. They can say, "there is not enough evidence to say yes or no". But actually, that is not how things like that work. The burden of evidence is on the pro-Feldenkrais camp. That is why "no good evidence" is clearer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This editor is absolutely correct about the bias and inaccuracy in the current Wikipedia Feldenkrais Method article. In late 2020 I attempted to revise the article, but was confronted by a slew of entrenched abusive editors who would not allow any change. Small wording changes are not sufficient to correct the deficiencies in the current article. None of the objecting editors understood the intersection of the Feldenkrais Method with Neuroplasticity. They all had pre-conceived categories they wanted to use.

First of all, the Feldenkrais Method is not an Alternative Medicine and should be removed from this Wikipedia Project.

Many of the current article citations have no technical merit and are by bloggers who are ideological such as David Gorski who has no basis for his blog comment.

The conclusion of J Stephens and S Hillier (2020) in "Evidence for the effectiveness of the Feldenkrais method: Kinesiology Review, 9(3), 228-235. (https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/krj/9/3/article-p228.xml)

concludes:

"There have now been 30+ RCTs (Randomized Clinical Trials) investigating the FM in diverse populations and with varied outcome measures. As Hillier and Worley (2015) concluded, there is reasonably strong and consistent evidence that the FM confers benefits, particularly at the functional level (such as balance), and potentially symptom reduction in terms of reduced pain and increased comfort. Considering some of the outcomes measured, it is reasonable to conclude that the benefits are mediated by learning processes that harness embodied awareness, attention, and self-image."

Prof. Susan Hillier, Dean of Research UniSA Allied Health & Human Performance (https://people.unisa.edu.au/susan.hillier )

The literature should be the basis the Wikipedia article.

I am preparing a major edit the article which I will like circulate within a month. Bbachrac (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hillier is unreliable in this area as she has a huuuuuuge COI as a Feldenkrais practitioner, she would say that, wouldn't she. - Roxy the dog 06:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No, domain expertise is not the same as COI. - Palpable (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and thats COI not domain expertise. Feldenkrais isn't a domain, its a method. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:BIASED. - Palpable (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the relevant issue here independence not bias? If an independent RS talks about Hillier's views then we can use them otherwise I'm not seeing it. Remember that this is a discussion of alternative medicine, the practitioners and their views are WP:FRINGE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BIASED covers independence. I don't see any guideline that supports your interpretation, do you have a link? - Palpable (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I already linked you to WP:FRINGE: "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources." Neither the publisher or the author appears to meet our standards. The publisher Human Kinetics is a for-profit business which pushes fringe science, not a reliable publisher of academic journals. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is also no good, its a fringe open access journal. What in the world made you think that these were WP:RS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anybody proposed making a "statement about the truth of a theory". Certainly the conclusions of Hillier et al should not be phrased in wikivoice.

The quality of the research and the journals here will never approach what you can find in hard sciences - it's impossible to do a double blinded experiment, for example. But this is an article about Feldenkrais Method, and the best available reviews of the article topic should have non-zero prominence. Obviously they should also be balanced with criticisms.

The main point I wanted to make is that WP:BIASED directly contradicts the claim that you can remove a study solely based on the interests of the authors. - Palpable (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless they're mentioned in WP:RS yes they do actually have zero prominence. WP:BIASED only applies to reliable sources, if the source isn't reliable it doesn't matter whether its biased or not we don't use it in contexts like this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

By RS standards, a review article in a peer-reviewed journal is better than most of the criticism in the article.

The review from the Australian Government's Department of Health is more reliable but not as focused on the article's topic. Other sources in the article are heavily biased or even posts on a personal blog. - Palpable (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Not all peer reviewed journals are created equal, not all are reliable sources. Two wrongs don't make a right, we can of course trim non-WP:RS. I'm not going to restore a non-subject experts personal blog and I doubt anyone else is either so go for it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Horse Eye's Back", the Feldenkrais Method (FM) is not an "Alternative Medicine". This is again an example of Wikipedia mis-categorizing a subject and one of the reasons the existing article needs to be completely revised. FM is complementary to Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation or adjacent to Physical Therapy and often used by licensed Physical Therapists. Bbachrac (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "again"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you "Roxy the dog" interest is in this subject. You certainly have no basis for claiming a conflict of interest. Prof. Hillier is not a practitioner. Your statement is basically unfounded defamation. Wikipedia articles should not be defamatory and ideologically biased when there is ample literature. Consider for example this 2019 Masters Degree Thesis: Feldenkrais Method and Chronic Pain Bbachrac (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally someone not having an obvious interest in a subject is actually a good thing on wikipedia (you for example have disclosed a conflict of interest in regards to the Feldenkrais Method). Also we generally do not consider thesis to be WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest with respect to Feldenkrais Method and you have no basis other than defamation to so state.. You use the term "We". What is your status to presume you speak for Wikipedia? Bbachrac (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"I have worked with a Feldenkrais Practitioner as a student for many years." that is clearly a conflict of interest, you also have a conflict of interest in regards to your edits to Emil Bachrach as I have noted on your talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Being a Feldenkrais student is not a COI. Even being a Feldenkrais practitioner would not be a COI unless you were promoting your own practice. WP:COI is quite clear on this point.

The other article may indeed be a COI. - Palpable (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong part of COI, he isn't a subject matter expert so "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You think that education constitutes an external relationship? So, for example, you think that philosophy students should not be allowed to edit philosophy articles? - Palpable (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking having COI for having COI which renders you unable to edit a topic area... We all have innumerable COI, including everywhere we've gone to school and everyone we've ever had a significant relationship with. I'm arguing that Bbachrac has both a COI and that their COI appears to render them unable to edit the topic area objectively... You appear to be arguing that there is no COI at all which is illogical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:COI clearly lays out a bunch of cases. All of them are relationships between an editor and an entity. None of them have to do with areas of study. Biases are specifically called out as different from COIs. - Palpable (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The Feldenkrais Method is the intellectual property of the Feldenkrais Institute, they literally have a copyright on it. It is the product of an entity, not an area of study. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation of WP:COI would get very far on the relevant noticeboard.

You also seem confused about intellectual property rights. There's a trademark on "Feldenkrais Method" to cut down on practitioners who haven't gone through an approved training. And there are copyrighted books and audio lessons. The methods wouldn't qualify for any form of intellectual property protection that I'm aware of.

This sort of stuff would be good to explain in the article but anybody who knows anything about the topic gets chased off with false claims about RS, COI, and FRINGE. Enough. - Palpable (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever practiced the Feldenkrais Method? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I've read the books and had a few lessons. It was interesting. I have trained in a related field.

Feel free to take it up at WP:COIN where someone can clear up your confusion regarding WP:COI. - Palpable (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest, I don't think it precludes you from participation but it does need to be noted at the beginning of the conversation... Not the end. I assume your classes were taken under the auspices of the Feldenkrais Institute given your comment about cutting down on independent practitioners? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You assume a lot of false things and I am done with this. - Palpable (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Bac Feldenkrais Method^® is a registered service mark of the Feldenkrais Guild of North America.

The Wikimedia Foundation raises money from its Wikipedia service in posting articles and therefore receives financial gain. Legally Wikipedia has to respect registered Service Marks.

Wikipedia Editors are not free to misrepresent the Service topic or promote mis and dis-information that causes harm. Probably the current article should just be removed from Wikipedia if it cannot be properly edited and updated.

Consider for example Trademark infringement

Trademarks as article titles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles

See also: Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Disambiguation

Wikipedia articles are organized around a specific subject, which isn't always the same as an article about a name or phrase. Where a trademark could refer to different subjects or entities, it is best to create different articles. Consider the examples of Atari, Inc.transferring its trademark to Atari SA, or News Corporation splitting into a new corporation called News Corp. Wikipedia's guidelines on disambiguationare most helpful here.

Bbachrac (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As for what "we" do see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship and read on down to the "dissertations" entry. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I take it you did not actually read the Thesis and consider the 22 references cited. Reliable Sources specifically states that Age of sources should matter and newer sources should take precedence. Further it states that completed Dissertations are valid sources. Citing current literature does not constitute a Conflict of Interest. Bbachrac (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." You also appear to have linked to conflict of interest the general topic page not Wikipedia:Conflict of interest the page you should actually be referencing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. Bbachrac (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Guess what??? -Roxy the dog 02:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog You apparently did not read Prof. Hillier's biographical information. She is not a Feldenkrais Practitioner. She is a PhD Physiotherapist who has found value in the teaching methods.

https://people.unisa.edu.au/susan.hillier#About-me; https://people.unisa.edu.au/susan.hillier#Professional-associations; https://people.unisa.edu.au/susan.hillier#Experience

Do you really consider being knowledgeable and experienced about a field or subject disqualifying to contribute to Wikipedia?

Your User Talk page indicates you are preemptively biased? ON what do you base your bias? What are your credentials?

Bbachrac (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The last sentence on that page: Susan practices in Adelaide and now as a Certified Feldenkrais Trainer shares her experience with others wanting to learn the Method.

Unless you want to split hairs and say that someone who trains others in doing X is not practicing X, you lose.

Also, stop the personal attacks. Editors are allowed to have opinions, especially non-fringe ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. Bbachrac (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Feldenkrais Page Edits

These edits are being proposed to the Feldenkrais Method page in light of a new systematic meta-review that provides updated findings regarding the method.

Here is a summary of some suggested changes to the page.

WP:MWOT. Bon courage (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

1) Definition without "proponents claim": Some statement about how proponents make unsupported and anecdotal claims is essential and I don't want to remove skeptical or negative statements about the method for POV reasons. Given that, I would rather, when possible, read up front what the evidence states rather than what proponents claim, it's more informative. So I propose minor alterations to the definitional content. This paper defines Feldenkrais as The Feldenkrais Method (FM) is a technique aiming at increasing personal self-knowledge through conscious movements, developed by the physicist Moshe Feldenkrais [1,2]. This method is based on the discovery and learning of varied, alternative patterns of movement and aims to improve the human ability to learn movement [3,4]. Frankly I don't love this definition, but I think an improved definition for the page would be something combining these, and retaining some of what is there. I propose The Feldenkrais Method is a method of alternative exercise or physical therapy that aims to improve human movement performance by engaging in varied patterns of movement. This doesn't claim improvements, only aims as recounted in secondary literature; and I think the facts that lessons consist of varied movement explorations lessons occur in both calisthenic and physiotherapy contexts are well established. 2) Description of the verbal and manual modalities. Central to implementation of Feldenkrais is that it has two modalities, one verbally guided called Awareness Through Movement and one hands-on called Functional Integration. These are basic facts about how the method is done that make no scientific claims, and the article is right to mention these two modalities in its intro material. A similar sentence would improve the"Description" section. 3) Effectiveness My reading of this paper is that a total of one finding, with well supported clinical implications, survived meta-analysis. Some other studies were too homogeneous to collectively apply meta-analysis to, although the authors report that a majority showed a significant, clinically informative finding. Finally, some studies showed significant improvements on some battery or other, but the clinical implications are unclear. I'll discuss each of these three categories briefly below: 3.1 Clinically significant improvement in Timed Up n Go Test survives meta-analysis The finding that survived meta-analysis was an improvement on the Timed Up 'n' Go test which, in the elderly, is associated with a decrease in fall risk. 3.2 Majority of heterogeneous studies on certain topics showed significant improvements Some topics had outcomes determined too heterogeneous for formal meta-analysis. On these authors report mixed outcomes with a majority showing significant improvement in these categories: pain intensity muscle complaints leisure disability (full disclosure, I have no idea what that means) perceived exertion 3.3 Some significant improvements on rubrics whose implications are unclear Finally, the paper reported significant performance improvements on some rubrics, but there is insufficient support to make claims for what they mean. For example, there is also performance among MS patients on the timed up-n-go but there is limited evidence suggesting what particular benefit that improvement would have for MS patients. These topics are all I have the time to work on. Below is a proposed edit to the top of page, considering all these factors: The Feldenkrais Method The Feldenkrais Method is a type of exercise therapy devised by Israeli Moshé Feldenkrais (1904–1984) during the mid-20th century. Participants are led through varied patterns of body movement, either hands-on or verbally guided, with the aim of improving motor performance . There is no reliable medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method improves medical outcomes .There is limited evidence that the Feldenkrais method improves some quality-of-life related measures and performance on some motor coordination tests. It is not known if it is safe or cost-effective, but researchers do not believe it poses serious risks. Description The Feldenkrais Method is a method of exercise or physical therapy that aims to improve human movement performance by engaging in varied patterns of movement. According to David Gorski, the Feldenkrais Guild of North America claims that the Feldenkrais method allows people to "rediscover [their] innate capacity for graceful, efficient movement" and that "These improvements will often generalize to enhance functioning in other aspects of [their] life". Feldenkrais lessons have two modalities, one verbally guided and practiced in groups, called Awareness Through Movement and one hands-on and practiced one-to-one called Functional Integration. Students at the San Francisco Feldenkrais Practitioner Training doing an Awareness Through Movement lesson (1975) Effectiveness and reception The Feldenkrais method was found in a systematic review to significantly improve performance on the Timed Up n Go test, which is associated with decreased falls in elderly populations. A meta-review found mixed results on a some quality of life measures, with the majority of high-quality studies showing improvements in pain intensity, muscle complaints, leisure disability and perceived exertion. In 2015, the Australian Government's Department of Health published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by health insurance; the Feldenkrais Method was one of 17 therapies evaluated for which no clear evidence of effectiveness was found. Accordingly in 2017 the Australian government identified the Feldenkrais Method 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". The Feldenkrais Method is promoted with anecdotal claims it can help children with autism and other developmental disorders, but such claims are not backed by reputable supporting evidence. Proponents claim that the Feldenkrais Method can benefit people with a number of medical conditions, including children with autism, and people with multiple sclerosis. However, no studies in which participants were clearly identified as having an autism spectrum disorder or developmental disabilities have been presented to back these claims. There is limited evidence that workplace-based use of the Feldenkrais Method may help aid rehabilitation of people with upper limb complaints. References

Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The new source appears to be PMID:36360614, which is an article in a WP:MDPI journal, so best avoided for any kind of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Bon courage (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

New Systematic Meta-Review Examines Some Quality Of Life Measures

There's a new systematic meta-review and analysis of Feldenkrais in the International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health by some physiotherapy researchers at University of Valencia. [redacted]

This looks like a solid secondary source providing higher quality information than what I see in the page at present, so following WP:MEDRS I will be proposing some edits that integrate this new publication. I'll try to get to it this weekend.

Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to your proposed text. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it saying that Feldenkrais brings some benefits to pain and balance issues in some conditions, the finding seems to be a *lot* tighter than that but looking forward to seeing the proposed text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Who wants popcorn? - Roxy the dog 18:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have written up some suggested edits as well as a concise explanation of them. I put them on my sandbox page, to avoid cluttering this talk page. I am more than happy to post them here if that is better place. I just want to make sure that would not cause other editors any trouble.

The link to my proposed edits is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edinburghpotsdam/sandbox and I would be thrilled for any feedback. If I don't get any feedback in my Sandbox, I'll paste them below next weekend under the assumption that's what I should have done.

Horse Eye's Back You were correct that the body of the paper is more mixed than some of the statements in the abstract suggested to me on first read. My edits aim to reflect this and I changed some text above.

Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Pasting in my proposed edits below, thanks for any feedback.

WP:MDPI journal, so not usable as proposed. Have removed (other than for mundane claims). Bon courage (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Updating revert to Jan 7th.

Looks like some changes had to be reverted, thanks for doing that, but I believe my edits from 3rd-6th Jan were allowed to stand, so I would like to reinstate those.

Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You commented as though you were 'reinstating' edits mistakenly reverted, but what you actually did was revert a series of of helpful edits by Bon courage from Feb 5 to Feb 6. I agree with those changes, so I reinstated them. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, I did not look carefully enough. Edinburghpotsdam (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Enhancements to Feldenkrais Method article

I am proposing to refine and add information to this article. I would appreciate input from others watching this article. Let's talk about it and see what we can do.

I am a long time user of wikipedia and I occasionally chime in to edit articles when I know about the topic and see issues. I understand the general principles of editing articles. I appreciate help from experienced editors who are adept with the myriad policies and who support consensus and learning.

I appreciate a well written, structured, balanced article with links to useful source material. In my opinion, this article needs some help to meet that standard. While the Australian govt did not find satisfactory research studies, this method is covered by medical plans in other jurisdictions (e.g. Canada). I'm wondering how to bring balance to this article. I see from earlier posts in "Talk" that this has been a challenge.

PROBLEMS: In it's current state, as I read it, this article is more about what Feldenkrais is NOT. There is a limited description of what the method is, there are no External Links to primary sources, and the main contributions are a single literature review that did not find medical evidence to support the method and a medical skeptic. I'm not clear why the main description is quoting a skeptic quoting the main source, rather than quoting the main source.

The image chosen to illustrate the method is bizarre and uncharacteristic, though it would be interesting to learn how that person got into that position.

It reads as if written by a skeptic, so does not feel balanced. I think the issue is with some people/practitioners making unsubstantiated medical claims, whereas I believe there is little to argue with regarding the method itself. Moshe's own healing is an example.

SOLUTIONS: The most useful articles I have seen on wikipedia have a clear structure and are written in plain language by people who have expertise or have deeply researched the topic: - Definition (one sentence), Description (principles and practices), History, Reviews/Critique, External Links

The following is proposed as a starting point for revisions to this article (source: ChatGPT). Citations would need to be added for specific items:

DEFINITION: The Feldenkrais Method is a holistic approach to self-improvement that combines movement, awareness, and the principles of neuroplasticity to help individuals enhance their physical and mental well-being. It emphasizes the importance of self-awareness, personalized learning, and mindful exploration of movement to achieve greater comfort, efficiency, and overall health.

DESCRIPTION: The Feldenkrais Method was developed by Moshe Feldenkrais in the mid 20th century, it is based on the idea that individuals can enhance their physical and mental functioning by increasing self-awareness and refining their movement patterns.

Key Principles and Components:

Awareness Through Movement (ATM): This component involves guided group or individual lessons where participants explore subtle movements and engage in various exercises to become more aware of their habitual patterns of movement. By paying close attention to sensations and movements, individuals can discover more efficient and comfortable ways of performing daily tasks.

Functional Integration (FI): FI is a one-on-one approach in which a trained practitioner uses gentle touch and verbal guidance to help clients improve their movement and posture. Through these hands-on sessions, individuals can experience greater ease and flexibility in their bodies.

Neuroplasticity: The method is grounded in the concept of neuroplasticity, which means that the brain can rewire itself to create new, more efficient movement patterns and habits. By consciously exploring movements and making adjustments, individuals can retrain their brains to improve coordination and reduce pain or discomfort.

Mind-Body Connection: The Feldenkrais Method emphasizes the connection between physical movement and mental well-being. It encourages a heightened sense of self-awareness, leading to improved overall functioning and greater mental clarity.

Personalized Learning: The method is adaptable to the individual needs and goals of each person. Whether someone seeks relief from pain, wants to enhance athletic performance, or simply aims to improve their daily movements, the Feldenkrais Method can be tailored to their unique requirements.

HISTORY: (summarized the development steps as from the Moshe Feldenkrais article)

CRITICISM: (Australian govt review, Gorski comments)

EXTERNAL LINKS: - international and national Feldenkrais organizations - derivations from the original method - research, studies, reviews - skeptic sources D1doherty (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Use reliable sources, abide by WP:FRINGE and avoid WP:CRITS. Your proposal (such as it is) seems adrift of these basic requirements. I'll ping WP:FTN to ensure we get plenty of eyes on this. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if I am clear on the groundrules before we look at content. I see from your "Is kicking off again" post on WP:FTN that there is some history with this article. Can we agree to look for ways to improve this article?

1. Citations for reliable sources need to be added.

2. I reviewed the WP:Fringe page. The purpose is to describe a physical therapy has been in use for over 50 years and is in use by many practitioners. Can we agree that the method is not fringe? Definitely want to avoid "esotereic medical claims".

3. I reviewed the WP:Crits page. I'm not clear how that applies, unless you mean to remove or reframe the existing criticism that dominates the page. What's your thinking here? D1doherty (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Other articles on similar topics.

I'm not saying these are great articles, but they are examples of how the Feldenkrais article could be more informative: Alexander Technique and Pilates were exploring new forms of physical therapy about the same time as Feldenkrais. D1doherty (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Similar in some ways, in others not. Also see Rolfing and Bowen technique. Yes, this (like those) is a WP:FRINGE topic. You seemed to be proposing to hive the criticism off to a discrete section, which is why WP:CRITS applies. So far, you have not proposed a single source: sources must be the basis of all. Bon courage (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

1. WP:Crits seems to suggest weaving critique into the article. I’m OK with that and trusting the community to guide the preferred approach.

2. Sources in due course. I’m analyzing previous discussion to determine what is acceptable.

There seems to be controversy on this topic. I’ve read WP:RS but what in your (WP:FTN) opinion is an acceptable source in this area? D1doherty (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The usual: secondary, independent, reputably-published. For this topic also WP:FRIND; and claims about medicine need to clear the higher bar of WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about sources.

Could you please discuss reverts before making them. Thanks. I've made a few minor changes for the sake of clarity and accuracy, and you have reverted them without discussion. D1doherty (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BRD for a generally accepted way of proceeding. Nobody's edits are "revert proof". Bon courage (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

D1doherty, here are some things to keep in mind about such reverts of your edits. Everyone has a right to make an initial WP:BOLD edit (an addition, deletion, change). Every other editor has a right to delete that edit and demand a discussion on the talk page. That's how we get to the "collaborative" nature of Wikipedia. Other editors have a right to question your edits and seek to create a consensus version. This is better done on the talk page, rather than by repeated editing and disagreements that spill over into editing of the actual article. Keep disagreements to the talk page. Discuss there. That's why we follow WP:BRD, which is not spelled BRRD.

If you find that someone has objected to your edit by reverting it, don't take it personally, and never try to force your version. That is edit warring, and NO MATTER HOW RIGHT you might be, you will get blocked for doing it. We even banned a Nobel Prize laureate for doing that. So don't take the reversion personally. See it as the opportunity to work together with other editors on the talk page and create something all/most parties can be reasonably satisfied with. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those valuable survival tips. D1doherty (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Australian review - part 2

@Bon courage Good news! The Australian review is back on track. Here is a link to their meeting minutes, Aug 2023 refers to FM on the agenda. Please replace my edit and reword accordingly with the new link...or I can if you like. Thanks. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/natural-therapies-review-expert-advisory-panel-meeting-outcomes

There is nothing here for Wikipedia to use; when a new review is published, there will be. Bon courage (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

copy-paste from User Talk

---Prior conversation brought forward from personal talk page---- Premature removal of ref error on Feldenkrais page Thanks for your diligence on correcting errors. Please look at the date & time before removing other people’s work. You removed my edit while I was making it (nothing to do with covid :) I will re-add the ref using correct format. Best regards. D1doherty (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC) I know what you were trying to link: this.[8] It a re-review the Aus people were intending to do. But it never appeared (presumably because of COVID). So, please don't re-add saying it happened. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Got it. And there were no Feldenkrais research papers listed in the summary of submissions. D1doherty (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Revert of page info field: Local Description

@Bon courage Hi, I see you reverted my update of the page info field as "too long and unverified". WP:SD suggests a short description and states that 80% of descriptions are <40 characters. My description was 48 characters--acceptable but not ideal. I've reduced it to 39 characters.

I provided a reference to support the removal of the word "unproven" (systematic research reviews, e.g. S. Hiller & A. Worley (2015) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4408630), however you say it is "unverified". In a previous comment you asked for reliable sources, but did not accept this one. Please explain your rationale. Thanks.

Please communicate in Talk before reverting my edit. Thank you.

D1doherty (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS lists criteria for evaluating sources for biomedical information. 'Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine' falls short - it isn't MEDLINE indexed, for one thing. MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. The reference is listed in PubMed which Wikipedia names as a reliable source for medical information [[WP:MEDSEARCH]] "PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer-reviewed medical literature reviews"

[[WP:MEDS]] also says "Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources. [[WP:RS]]

I'm noticing a potential [[WP:DISRUPT]] in this conversation as reliable sources are being requested, and when one is presented it is dismissed with no constructive effort to improve the article.

I don't see FM claiming to be an alternative to medicine. It claims to be a complementary practice that has proven results that are consistent with what it claims to offer. D1doherty (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No reliable source has been produced. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You have misread. Pubmed is a starting point, but not everything listed in it is a reliable source. In fact most things you will find on Pubmed do not meet WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that medical claims have a higher bar than general information. You misread my post. [[WP:MEDS]] also says "Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources. [[WP:RS]]. The change I’m making is not making a medical claim. D1doherty (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting that the Feldenkrais Method is not 'unproven' is obviously a medical claim. MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't change your comments after someone has replied - please respect the integrity of discussion, including the important context where replies appeared. MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I see from Bon courage’s changing of comments after someone has posted, that the correct method is to use strike-out to preserve the history. I’ll do that. D1doherty (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There is non-medical evidence that FM does what it claims to do, however I understand that it being categorized as an alternative therapy, Wikipedia requires more rigorous sources for medical claims. I have not seen any primary sources where FM claims to be a medical intervention. It claims to use an educational paradigm.

Would “non-medical movement education” be acceptable as a description? It avoids your profringe concern and is a more accurate representation of what it claims to be. D1doherty (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No. The "education" stuff is just a confusing smokescreen. The people selling this stuff promote it as (positively) affecting on the body, so we are in the realm of WP:BMI. Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You have been pointed at WP:BRD so reversion does not require prior Talk in obvious cases. Our article says "there is no medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method improves health outcomes" so having a SD at odds with that would be bad. The Hiller source is from a junk publisher so has no place on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. I'm not seeing the problem. The description is a short descriptive phrase that distinguishes the article, whereas your quote is one part of the content. That quote is inaccurate as well, because the scope of the Auzzie review was only the last 5 years and from my read of their process, they did not review any FM material.

If that line is to stay in I'd suggest something like ""An Australian Dept of Health review found no medical evidence during 5 year period prior to the review to verify if the Feldenkrais Method improves health outcomes." D1doherty (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't overattribute claims - that would make it sound like facts are just one source's finding. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Quite, WP:YESPOV applies. We go into detail about this in the body in any case. Bon courage (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Help me out here. I've looked at wikipedia and other definitions of over-attribution, and I am not seeing how that is a rationale for leaving an inaccurate sentence in the article. The existing statement "Although there is no medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method improves health outcomes" implies that the Auzzie govt reviewed systematic research reviews and found no supporting evidence, whereas in their report they say they did not find any reviews in the defined time frame. That sounds like over-attribution that needs to be corrected. It is kinda like a news story about there being no news. I don't see the science in it. Perhaps the Auzzie reference should be removed? And then see if they analyse any reviews in part 2. D1doherty (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Claims were made for FM; the Aus DoH reviewed the evidence and found they weren't supported, which is why they said what they did. Usual science stuff. We reflect such reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also address the specific point I was speaking to regarding attribution and the accuracy of the sentence. D1doherty (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a fair summary and should not be attributed in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m not clear on what editing action to take from your comment. Do you mean the citation should be removed? D1doherty (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's fine as-is, is what I mean. Bon courage (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"what editing action to take"? Take no action. Your edits have been rejected, so move on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you should listen to what BC, MrOllie, and Valjean have told you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project governed by WP:CONSENSUS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)