Talk:Alexander Technique/Archive 2

Deletion
The Alexander Technique is widely regarded body work technique and one of the oldest Western technique. It is absurd to claim the entire topic not enclopedic and a candidate for deletion. The article itself has many problem but that's a different consideration. To consider the topic itself for deletion simply demonstrates an ignorance of the subject of bodywork in general. Delete it down to stub if you like but topic itself seriously needs to be covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.107.150 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not encyclopedic at all due to not defining what the hell the Alexander technique actually is. What makes it any different from any other loosely connected and undefined concepts. It's therefore difficult not to be ignorant of the technique and its implementation of bodywork. I'm not going to bring it down to a stub (at least not yet) since I'm a little biased here. Delta Trine  Συζήτηση 18:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As was said by all the other editors in the deletion discussion I just followed, being bad is not reason for deletion. As I recall, the comment was "improve it or stop complaining". I agree that the article has degenerated to something that *sounds* like gibberish but that's simply not a criterion to delete it. Further it isn't really gibberish, it's that Alexander teachers have a rather strange use of language and so they tend to produce constructs that sound like gibberish to others despite these constructs having a rather specific meaning to them. Having this stuff in the article though, is really bad, still. I worked on the article years ago and I aim to take another crack it soon. OK?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.107.150 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Improve it or stop complaining" is an invalid and frankly childish response. If someone renders what you say is there into plain or encyclopedic English, then that's great. It's just that nobody who knows what the hell is being said there seems willing to do that, up until now. I'd really appreciate if you did improve the article. I'd do it myself, but obviously it's all meaningless to me. Delta Trine  Συζήτηση 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I've made the introductory paragraphs at least comprehensible -- by mostly reverting to my version of five years ago!
 * I do really agree that the start of the article had become something utterly incomprehensible to laymen as well as just horribly written. I'll wait for further reactions and maybe edit more if no one steps up.
 * There are hundreds if not thousands of Alexander teachers in the US. They do a fine job teaching the subject so it would seem logical that one of them could come up with a good, encyclopedic description of this important topic. That is - understandable, NPOV, not filled with marketing cruft, etc. [comment edited for typos]. Hans Joseph Solbrig (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't think to check back that far actually, but your version is much much better to say the least. Trouble is with regards to these teachers, none seem to have popped up so far to improve on things. But anyway, I appreciate your attention! Delta Trine  Συζήτηση 21:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In teaching A.T. teachers offer hands-on guided in-person tailored examples. As an A.T. teacher, I've written a version for this page in the past, explaining Alexander Technique with examples of how it is used, etc. But examples were deleted because I also published my writing on my website. A great part of the writing that is still present in the article is mine with many citations attached to it. In my attempt to make it as short as possible, perhaps it has been shortened past comprehension.

The confusion warning at the start of the article is rather nice - perhaps it should be there indefinitely to give people the idea they will have to think rather than just read about what they already know. Think about it - how often do you read about something you do not know about and realize that, although it was explained, you still don't know what the thing is? Could it be because the content of corresponding experience was unfamiliar enough to be beyond the scope of a mere article - or even that the reader might need some new experiences to decipher the actual meaning?

Now, I can write a different article that would "make sense" and bring the reader along in logic and example. In fact, I already did that - almost a decade ago when this article was only a stub. It would make the article much longer to add these examples. Franis Engel Franis

Hans Solbrig - in your edit of the intro, please keep in mind what Anothergareth (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2009 has said previously about stressing the remedial benefits of Alexander Technique in its definition. To answer the question of "uhh ...What?: Alexander Technique is used to reveal and stop the unintentional interference of what was learned by accident. While attempting to train oneself to do an intended activity, other unnecessary actions bind to the intended habit or skill. Alexander Technique teaches the refinement of training ability to integrate unexpected and unknown discoveries as they happen. It is designed to allow the revision of any action that has been habituated - even the tiniest postural movements.

However, that simple explanation isn't in any book that has been published, so I can't cite it. No research has emerged that establishes state-specific learning related to Alexander Technique; perhaps I could cite the general research on this phenomena. Apparently I must first write a book and publish these words before they can be cited and reiterated in Wikipedia. So, that investment of time is prohibitive - and frankly, most Alexander Technique teachers are busy teaching for a living, not writing for free. There seems to always be someone here with little experience of A.T. who is going to complain about incomprehensibility, too long, let's just delete this, inadmissible research, etc. So the act of donating one's time to write here is a transcendent sacrifice.

These ideas of Alexander Technique have a large scope, an ongoing challenge to apply principles in a rainbow of uses involving perception and human reaction - and an improvisational physical discipline to match. All of this makes explanation in words very tricky.

So - do what you will with the article in the meantime. I have saved previous versions to repair from, when I have the time to do so in late January. Franis (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Franis, I don't think having the confusion warning stay on the article indefinitely will help. It would simply be an opening for the page to keep changing by through people's effort to fix the page. I think a have some small understanding of why AT teachers don't want a simple, "codified" definition of technique. Yet, an opening paragraph that doesn't have something of this quality is indeed going to get modified over and over again. However, there is certainly nothing which prevents a straightforward statement saying that defining the subject is hard. Unlike the template-warning, that might potentially deter those editors who would otherwise attempt to muddle-out something "clearer" than the existing, supposedly-unclear statement.

I would like to add that a serious problem in many definitions of the AT, including yours above, is that "what it is", "what it does" and "why you should do it" are mixed together(your first paragraph say "...is used to[result]" rather than "...is a [noun/category]"). I don't believe that such mixing is inherently necessary in defining the subject. Further, such "mixing" is bound be removed since it comes off as both unclear and as promotion. Further, having read Alexander's own writings quite a bit lately. I don't believe that Alexander himself engaged in this mixing and I believe one can create a rigorous definition without it.

This isn't saying that such use is "bad" in all circumstances. As far as I understand it, one of the aims of the technique is to stop a future student from considering the process as a mere extension of something they are already familiar with. Such an attitude of familiarity can cause the student to revert to their habitual behaviors. If a student considers AT as "body work" or "alternative medicine", they can fall back to their habitual approach to such things rather than learning something new.

But we should look at the circumstances here. Encyclopedia page just can't be an Alexander lesson. An encyclopedia page does have to situate any topic within a range of topics as well as possible even the final result is "crude".

I suppose quoting NCCAM in the discussion implicitly classifies AT as an alternative medicine. I didn't really intend to get into that issue and I agree with anothergareth that there are serious issues with doing so.

One approach to defining AT might be the "blindmen and the elephant" framework; The definition would note that "alternative medicine" authorities see AT as something. It would note that "body work" authorities see AT as something, It would note that acting and dance authorities see AT as something and then note that it really doesn't see itself as entirely within any of these. I was partially aiming for this approach already and we can extend it.

The very first entry on the talk page is actually a good introduction to the hardness of defining the technique:. Perhaps some this could be paraphrased towards the end of the starting paragraphs (it includes a reference). Hans Joseph Solbrig (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hans, your suggestion is articulate, but the definition you point to doesn't venture to say what the Alexander Technique is. Yes, perhaps we should include a bit about why it is so difficult to craft a description and explain Alexander Technique. But not offering a definition at all shows wimpiness. I believe we must resign ourselves to the fact that, someone with some knowledge of Alexander Technique will attempt to edit the first paragraph indefinitely - most of the time they are going to do this without reading the entire article and perhaps without much experience in Alexander Technique. Taking your advice to heart, I just wrote yet another opening description. What do you think of it? Franis (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gobbledegook
"The technique involves the re-education of what Alexander called "The Use Of The Self": i.e. that it is a re-education of the student's reactions to internal and external stimuli, rather than something "done to" the student."

I think this rather mystical sounding sentence should be changed to:

"The technique involves the training of the student's reactions to internal and external stimuli"

Since re-education is indeed something that is "done" to the student. See the entire field of behaviorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.60.219 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The passage is reasonably understandable as it stands and it preserves what I believe Alexander Teachers would consider important terminology. Further, claims that 're-education is indeed something that is "done" to the student' constitute "original research" and therefore cannot be the basis of a Wikipedia edit. Whether the perspective of behaviorism is correct or not, it is not the perspective of the Alexander Technique. Hans Joseph Solbrig (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh…great and groovy, Hans Joseph Solbrig, but what you "believe" is irrelevant. We don't go by what you (or I, or anyone else) knows, or thinks, or believes, or thinks s/he understands, or recalls reading. The standard for inclusion in this encyclopædia is whether an assertion can be verified by citation of reliable sources. Your "beliefs" don't meet that standard. This article is in need of almost total rewrite. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Go on then. Xcrivener (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

article name
If the "Alexander Technique" vs. Alexander technique is the proper name used in text and in reliable sources, the article name should be changed per Article titles. Ward20 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Levine supports the use of uppercase for both words. --Karinpower (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation: Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and other studies
The first BMJ studies seem to have been fairly reported, to judge by the abstract of the first BMJ. The estimated differences are very large! A p-value of the hypothesis specified in the experimental protocol would be conventionally informative as would a confidence interval on the expected difference. The first BMJ experiment seems to have been a factorial experiment, which implies that a discussion of interaction (with massage and exercise instruction) should be included.

I didn't see the other studies. I assume the concern about cherry picking of studies applies to the studies reported after the BMJ RCTs.

Thanks! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Guitar Craft
Eric Tamm has republished his monograph on Robert Fripp on the web. I quote its passage about the Alexander Technique:


 * "Another daily feature of the course was work with Frank Sheldon, an accredited teacher of the Alexander Technique. The very first Guitar Craft seminars included some yoga exercises, but Fripp soon concluded that the Alexander Technique was more effective and accessible. F.W. Alexander was a British actor who spent his life observing his posture and that of others, and training teachers to spread his methods. The Alexander Technique begins (and ultimately ends, I suppose) with simple - yet not easy - awareness of what one is doing: what bodily positions are habitual, the location of unnecessary tension, finding one's center of gravity, experiencing natural lightness, balance, poise. The technique has been widely used for decades among musicians, dancers, and actors. A minimum of three years' training is required of prospective instructors.


 * Much of our work with Sheldon was directly connected with our guitar practice: how to find a comfortable, relaxed sitting position in which it would be possible to practice for hours on end without getting stiff. But Sheldon also used a variety of games as tools for observation. One game was like the one where a whispered message passed from mouth to ear gets progressively garbled until at the other end of the line it bears no resemblance to the original - except that Sheldon had us do the game in bodily movement. Ten people stood in a line, and the first one did some simple motions observed by the second. The second person then turned around and tried to duplicate the motion of the first; the third person mimicked the second, and so on. By the end of the line, lo and behold, the original motions were utterly lost, replaced by a hideous accumulation of habitual gestures of self-consciousness and startling. Through such means Sheldon encouraged us to become aware of the power of habit and to begin a long process of self-observation.


 * The first big group lesson in the Alexander Technique was Tuesday at noon. Subsequently, throughout the afternoon, Sheldon met with small groups of four or five, assessing every person's individual standing posture. I have never been particularly pleased with my body image, but was quite unprepared for the revelations Sheldon's analysis gave me - such as the fact that I had been going through life with my head tilted upward, nose literally stuck up in the air, and had accepted this as a normal position. Sheldon gently tilted my head forward until everyone in the room agreed it was now straight. He asked me how it felt. I said, "It feels like I'm staring at the ground!" And so it did. This experience was one of many such insights I received at the seminar - insights that came like a flash, in moments of "Aha!" that would be followed by months and years of follow-up work and probing into their meaning."

AT continues to be taught at GC's successor courses, organized by Guitar Circles of Europe, of North America, etc. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Review removed
From --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In 2004, Maher concluded that "Physical treatments, such as acupuncture, backschool, hydrotherapy, lumbar supports, magnets, TENS, traction, ultrasound, Pilates therapy, Feldenkrais therapy, Alexander technique, and craniosacral therapy are either of unknown value or ineffective and so should not be considered" when treating lower back pain with an evidence-based approach.

Any objections to restoring it? Seems like it should be rewritten at least slightly. --Ronz (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I restored it. Should probably be trimmed for proper weight, context, and relevance. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Maher has put AT to bed with some strange companions. P0mbal (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of studies Sept 1
Alexbrn removed six studies with the edit summary "weakly sourced." I'd like to hear more about the reasoning.

The 2002 study was likely included in the 2003 review (which remains), so that makes sense.

What about the 1997 study that shows some benefit for balance in aging women? That study doesn't have a link in the citation but can be viewed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10026656.

And the 2008 and 1998 studies that showed back pain benefit? http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a884.full

Thank you. --Karinpower (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So edit and put back the relevant stuff. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:MEDRS. Primary sources should not be used for biomedical content. Alexbrn talk 02:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia to find out something concrete about AT. Instead everything I hear - on Wikipedia and elsewhere sounds like a sales pitch for some touchy feely class. And then it appears no one wants to give a price - usually a sure sign of a sales pitch. 24.128.186.53 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In acting curriculum
An ip has been trying hard to add something about it being used in acting curriculum to the lede. Given it isn't mentioned anywhere else, it certainly doesn't belong in the lede. Further, the material is still a WP:SYN violation, as none of the sources actually verify the information. If sourcs can be found that actually discusses its importance in acting curriculum, then we should add content summarizing information from those sources. We also shouldn't be identifying specific schools unless a source independent of the schools can be found: --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC) "The technique is a frequent component in acting training. It is part of the curriculum in many conservatory programs, including Yale School of Drama, RADA, Juilliard and the Atlantic Theater Company."

Don't understand why edits keep being deleted
I don't understand why you keep deleting my edits. I sourced all my references. I included direct links that verify it is part of the curriculum. Furthermore, I think that fact absolutely does belong in the lead. The technique was devised by actors, for actors.... and the vast majority of people who visit this page are going to be actors or training actors looking for more information. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a legitimate conservatory program that DOESN'T offer Alexander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.17.37 (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. See the above. Basically, it is not properly sourced at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What is this article about?
The lede fails to state what Alexander technique actually is. Instead, it's full of vaguely worded, poorly organised information that leaves me wondering what it's attempting to explain. In fact, that pretty much sums up the whole article. In its current form, I could strip out most of the article's content without diminishing the useful information it conveys. What is needed here is a concrete definition, backed up by a solid RS, and a complete article rewrite to make it comprehensible (and therefore useful) to readers. Sorry to be so blunt, but this article ranks as one of the worst I've encountered. Lambtron (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That would only be possible if I understood this topic. In case it wasn't clear, I posted here because I lack knowledge of this topic and still do after reading the article. Only an expert can fix the article, and not just any expert -- one who can explain things clearly. Lambtron (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We have good people putting their MEDCOMMS resources behind an explanation aimed at the general reader. See e.g. here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a definition there, either. Everything said there (and here) seems designed to avoid making a direct statement about what, exactly, the Alexander technique is. Instead, anectotal information is being used in an ineffective attempt to "define" the topic by example. Lambtron (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As they say about Middle-east politics, "if you're not confused, you don't understand it". Seriously, all we can do is reflect the sources. There are plenty of topics out there which are inherently vague. Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If Alexander technique is not defined by any reliable source and no expert can say what it is then I wonder why this article exists. It fails to inform readers and it doesn't conform to WP:LEADSENTENCE, which is perhaps the single most important basic feature of any article. Lambtron (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

'Lack of medical evidence'
I think the line which closes the introduction ("There is no good medical evidence that the Alexander technique confers any health benefit"), although not necessarily untrue, is misleading; if one follows the reference for this statement one finds that the reason strong evidence was found lacking in favour of at AT is the lack of rigorous studies which have been done on it; the few studies which were examined actually showed positive results, but were simply not numerous or wide-ranging enough to draw any scientific conclusions from. Having said that, given the amount of testimonial evidence available on the effectiveness of the technique, and as someone who has studied it themselves and found it to be effective, I think a qualifying sentence should be added to precede this. Perhaps 'Due to the paucity of rigorous medical studies done on the Alexander Technique, there is no good medical evidence...'. The original sentence makes it sound like the technique has been rigorously studied, and that the studies have given an overall null result, which is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.91.232 (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous version was better. In particular there is no need to attribute this knowledge because it is not in serious dispute, and the use of "however" seems intended to undercut it. Additionally the idea of "strong evidence of a null effect" is pure orginal thought (and scientifically illiterate). Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, my phrasing of 'null effect' was statistical nonsense, I understand that you can only fail to provide evidence of an effect rather than provide evidence of a lack of effect - I think I rather meant that after looking through the specified reference, it said that one of the studies DID show a statistically significant effect on the effectiveness of the technique on chronic back pain after three months, but that there were no or minimal studies done on its effect on other conditions and that this was the reason they could not conclude it had any health benefits. However the following lines in the reference are significant: "overall conclusions were limited by the paucity of available studies evaluating Alexander technique for a particular condition." (page 32) and "For all other clinical conditions, the effectiveness of Alexander technique is uncertain because of insufficient evidence." (page 33). I still think the original sentence has connotations that the technique has been well studied, and don't see what's wrong with pointing out that it has not. I suggest the amendment: "In 2015, The Australian Government's Department of Health concluded there is no good medical evidence that the Alexander technique confers any health benefit, citing the paucity of available studies evaluating the technique's effectiveness in specific areas of health." Also about 'not in serious dispute' - I don't know about its status in medicine, but I'm quite certain anyone who has taken lessons or studied the technique in any depth would dispute it. Although, a homeopathy practitioner could say the same thing about homeopathy, so I guess there's no reason you should believe me - but I think it should be attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.91.232 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter. If if it's not been well studied then it's not an effective therapy. That is the key point for the lede (I have expanded a little in the body). What we really must avoid is any hint to the contrary - particularly the "if only it were researched in the right way it'd all come good" hint that every CAM advocate is always trying to push for every CAM topic here on Wikipedia. As I said, we must also not attribute this to the Oz govt. as this makes it look like a mere point-of-view rather than the more settled knowledge it actually is. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK about the attribution. How about 'Due to the lack of studies evaluating the technique's effectiveness in treating specific medical conditions, there is no good medical evidence..." I understand your point about 'if only, then...' but think the above sentence is neutral enough and that the original sentence also has misleading connotations as I have said. Also, not being well studied is in fact significant, and I was surprised that you made the leap to 'then it's not an effective therapy.' The point is there isn't enough evidence to say with assurance either way, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.91.232 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An "effective therapy" is, in practice, one which has been found effective. The lede needs to summarize the body, and currently it does this well. Your suggestion would make it a less good summary I think. (I'd also add that strictly the problem isn't just lack of studies, it's that the studies that have been done are generally poor-quality.) Alexbrn (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the studies which are referenced in the Oz gov reference are claimed in that same reference to be of medium to high quality, and it was an issue of quantity of studies: "The SRs included in this overview were considered to be of moderate to high quality (AMSTAR ratings between 6 and 10 out of 11). All reviews sufficiently critiqued and evaluated the available evidence; however, overall conclusions were limited by the paucity of available studies evaluating Alexander technique for a particular condition. Lists of excluded studies, discussions on heterogeneity, or assessments of publication bias were often not provided. Two of the 3 reviews that did report evidence for Alexander technique were rated high quality (Furlan et al., 2010; Savigny, et al., 2009) and 1 was assessed as moderate quality (Woodman & Moore, 2012)" p. 32 98.193.102.252 (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What does a list of famous people contribute?
I removed the list of famous people and the edit was reverted so it could be discussed first here. Fair enough.

My point was, a list of "famous" people who have studied the technique doesn't contribute anything to this article. Actors and musicians have no particular insight into its validity and are not part of its "history". The list appears to have been added to imply that their endorsement somehow validates the technique, which of course it doesn't.

A list like this trivialises the technique and is not in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV so I suggest it be dropped. ianjs (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. As for history, it might be worth mentioning that AT was popularized by (its earliest famous proponent) but otherwise the list seems entirely promotional. Worse, it doesn't help to explain AT in any way -- much like the rest of the article, which circles around the topic without ever nailing it down. Lambtron (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wikipedia is not a venue for marketing and promotion, which is the main reason to have such a list that I can see. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So, unless @P0mbal (who reverted the original edit) or others have a specific objection, I suggest we drop the whole paragraph as per my edit ianjs (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No objection, drop it - a list like this can be found in advertising for the Technique. P0mbal (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputed language
Consider the terms "no good evidence" and "insufficient evidence." One implies a dichotomy of good/bad. The other is neutral, which conveying the evidence that no proof of efficacy exists. "Insufficient" is NPOV. "No good" implies POV. "Insufficient" is better, more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Tapered (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, "no good evidence" is a phrase used widely in high-quality medical publications (including encyclopedias) aimed at both professional and lay readerships (as has been discussed at WT:MED before). It is also true and in alignment with the cited source. "Insufficient" implies we are on our way to proof and just lack "sufficiency", which is an implication which goes against what we know from the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I agree with that list bit about "insufficient" being leading. The issue to me is more that "sufficient" tends to be about amount, but the issue is more with the quality of the data.   Also, what I wrote here which was -  About this little edit war,, why do you think that latinate, multisyllabic words are more appropriate for an encyclopedia than plain English, especially in light of WP:Plain English?   real question, not rhetorical. Jytdog (talk)
 * Yes, sufficiency connotes quantity so the implication is just "one more heave". The intended subtext is usually: "we know this works but for whatever reason the mainstream hasn't got round to validating it to their own fussy standards". Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ah i see what you mean. Jytdog (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The current edit is much, much better, thank you. Tapered (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative therapy?
Alternative therapy? Alternative to what? Anyone who has studied AT can tell you that it is not therapy and only an alternative to its antithesis. I am not an AT teacher, but have studied Alexander's work and his books, and it seems has sounder premises than many systems which may be described as alternate therapies. One of Alexander's books is titled "Contructive Conscious Control of the Individual" which title descibes the system pretty well. A person applying that system sensibly to themselves is not having any kind of "therapy": the only "alternative" is mis-use of human physiology. Could we cut out from the lead the thoughtless use of this portmanteau description? P0mbal (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, P0mbal, I revised the lede to take out "alternative therapy." I was the editor who put it in, after finding it used as a description in one of the hospital studies I cited in the article, because I wanted a descriptor that would help people unfamiliar with AT to understand what it is. But, you're right to criticize the phrase, and I am not wedded to it, so I have rephrased the lede to eliminate it. You could've done it yourself if you'd wanted to: there's no reason not to make changes you think will improve the article. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sue Gardner, and thanks for your recent work on the article. I have to declare my interest being because my mother was one of Alexander's little set of students (won't tell you who) at Ashley Place after WW2. P0mbal (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, however, a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practice. Shouldn't that be in, and in the lede? --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No Ronz It is not a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practice. It is not a therapy. People may approach an Alexander Teacher because they have a problem and they may feel it benefits them but that does not make it a therapy - some people take a week off work and go fishing to deal with stress but we do not normally call fishing a therapy. The core of Alexander's findings was that people interfere with their function and if this interference is removed or inhibited then their function improves. Alexander teachers mostly take pains not to be confused with a therapy and in strict Alexandrian terms we should not even be talking of a learning process but an unlearning process.

I can see why Alexander Technique teachers may have given up on this article. It seems better to me for Alexander Teachers to be able to put their side forward in one place and then give sceptics another place to write their views. Alexander Technique is not a religion but I see about as much hope of a sensible outcome here as a wikipedia article on the existence or non-existence of God with religious people and sceptics in one pot.

For anyone who feel sufficiently motivated the advice is go and have a lesson yourself and judge for yourself - frankly it is simply too difficult for rationalists to comprehend something that can only really be understood by having the experience. Most people go for lessons and then read up afterward, approaching this scientifically before having the experience by reading the thoughts of those who have had the experience is dubious.

In some ways it would be better to look at something like Tai Chi and discuss whether we think it is really a martial art, a way of keeping fit and active or simply a modality that some people find keeps them happy feeling positive or whatever - Alexander Technique is not Tai Chi I am just questioning why you feel the need to pigeon hole this, are you unable to accept that there are some modalities that will attract people for all sorts of reasons and for that reason may externally at least display different facets to different people 185.89.72.227 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources appear to indicate otherwise, but anyone has sources supporting such statements, please identify them so we can determine their proper use in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

effectiveness in lead
I tend to agree that the effectiveness should not be in the lead per P0mbal. There are two review sources that state some effectiveness. Due to the scarcity of good studies it's unknown beyond that. I believe trying to shoehorn a concise neutral POV of effectiveness into the lead is kind of fruitless at this point. Ward20 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to summarize the body and we discuss effectiveness (and lack thereof) in the body so it needs to be in the lead. needs to be. how about proposing an alternative summary here? Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, Based upon the two recent reviews cited in the article that seem to meet WPMEDRS  :


 * Short term decrease of pain in persons with chronic back pain, and also improvement with the disability of Parkinson's disease have been documented. Results for long term symptom relief are mixed, with one study stating that the improvements are sustained long term, while another study states there is insufficient evidence to determine if the improvements last over time.


 * Ward20 (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The current wording adheres far better to WP:V. The main point is AT doesn't work for most things claimed for it, and there's scant evidence for its one or two possible mild benefits. Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two recent reviews that agree there are some short term benefits. I could not find any WPMEDRS reviews discussing that "AT doesn't work for most things claimed for it". Can you find sources for that statement? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't agree quite that, they agree these benefits might exist. The Australian report rules AT out for other conditions and mentions that proponents there have claimed it's useful for things "including neck pain (non-specific, whiplash, or neck pain with radiculopathy), chronic musculoskeletal pain, asthma, post-traumatic stress disorder and generalised anxiety disorder". We should probably expand the article in this direction to cover the false claims aspect more thoroughly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those extra conditions, I didn't read far enough into the study. I agree that they could be included in the article, but using the wording *"false claims"* is not correct. The proper WP:NPOV is "uncertain effectiveness" or equivalent, shown below.


 * The Review of the Australian Government state pg 31, "... those reviews evaluated the effect of interventions for conditions which proponents claim Alexander technique may benefit; including neck pain (non-specific, whiplash, or neck pain with radiculopathy), chronic musculoskeletal pain, asthma, post-traumatic stress disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. The lack of complete data reported by the SR or trial authors (for example, reporting of p-values only, reporting total number of participants rather than number included in analysis) made it difficult to analyse and interpret the evidence that was available.For all other clinical conditions, the effectiveness of Alexander technique is uncertain because of insufficient evidence. Insufficient evidence does not mean *"false claims"*. As the authors state on pg 4, "The absence of evidence does not in itself mean that the therapies evaluated do or do not work."


 * I also don't agree with the wording "benefits might exist". The proper WP:NPOV wording is benefits have been documented or equivalent. The Review of the Australian Government used wording  "may improve" (pg. 9), which is found in the conclusions of many studies to indicate there is a variable response of any therapy or procedure. The other review  uses much stronger wording to indicate benefit, "...Alexander Technique lessons led to significant long-term reductions... The results were broadly supported... showed a sustained increased ability..."''. Additionally, the two reviews cited statistical significance of data results, an accepted standard the results have a very high probability of not being influenced by random chance.


 * Thanks again. Ward20 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, "false" is right. If you sell/claim something as a treatment without evidence it works, that's quackery or health fraud, and here we are told what the AT people have been claiming. You can't read "behind" the Australian report to undercut its findings either: saying "there are some short term benefits" would be a misrepresentation. Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

BMJ 2008 dispute
I think it should stay out, being an individual study. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, an old primary source so not WP:MEDRS. It's referenced by some secondary sources and the overall consensus position is as stated in the article as it is currently. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What Alexander Technique is
AT like pilates is a mainstream physical educating technique. AT is used in many if not most well developed theater programs. It is, above all, as it exists now, a technique for improving posture and is one of the many tools that are used to create good actors. Some editors, it appears, have confused AT with fringe given the wording in some places in this article for example, the over use of the word advocates implying that there are those who are pushing some obscure fringe technique. In fact, those in theater who use the technique would probably not even consider the research on health benefits; the technique is so commonplace that it is generally known and accepted in the fields where it is used. As voice training is an integral part of theater training so is AT. Research on health benefits is a small part of the use of the Alexander Technique; research on the technique might be noted but it should carry minimal weight and does not in anyway define the way the technique is  used by professionals in training actors. This is information those in the performance field are very aware of perhaps not others.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Third-party sources please. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources to support what exactly? If you have been involved in writing this article I would assume you know there are possibly hundreds of books on the AT and application to performers. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
 * To support what you've said here, if we're to consider any changes in content accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ronz. There are hundreds of titles on the Alexander technique and its applications to performers. Please look! In no way could In post them all here. The understanding of the pervasiveness of this technique in performance is an understanding editors editing here should have or gain before they even edit because this is what the notability of the topic is based on. This is a bottom line of information.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
 * We need WP:FRINDependent sources and per WP:GEVAL this is necessary to put fringe ideas in the context of mainstream thinking. If such sources do not exist the fringe information must not appear in Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia of accepted knowledge, not a collection of arcana. This article needs a good trim. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you refuse to look at the sources then its impossible to carry on a discussion. This is not a fringe topic and your cmt above shows ignorance of the topic area.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
 * If you refuse to bring sources, it is impossible to carry on a discussion. You know very well that just asserting stuff on a talk page is a huge waste of time.  I think you are probably right, but the way you are arguing here is something a newbie would do. Bring sources to support this, or stop wasting everyone's time.  Or better just FIXIT. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . Please read and understand the discussion. There too many sources to post and as I said anyone editing this should know what makes this topic significant and mainstream, its sources, and that a single Australian review refers to health benefits rather than the mainstream use of this technique - a performance tool. These are not the sources used to underpin a segment  but the entire range of sources on this area. Further your tone  and comment about newbies is a concern  since scorn and tactless ness are  not civil and do  not help us maintain new editors. Now you both can skew this article any way you want to. Understanding the significance of a topic and why it is significant is critical in writing and making decisions on an article. I can't educate anyone on that. I leave it to you. Note: My adjustments to the article were removed per your suggestion to Fix it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Your edit had nothing to do with theater or dance - you changed the content about health. So when you say you tried to FIXIT to put the emphasis on theater you are simply and blatantly lying.  You asserted that this is mostly used in theater and there is not enough weight given to that.   If you want other editors to do that, bring sources.  Otherwise do it yourself. I won't respond further to this - you are wasting everyone's time.  Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog the use of advocate should reference the health benefits not the overall use of the technique so I adjusted the article slightly the make it clear that while there may be little health benefits advocates of the technique are mainly theater people  not the advocates of health benefits which is what the article implies. I would suggest you never call anyone a liar and especially when you misunderstand what the changes mean. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Please provide references. If there are hundreds to choose from, the pick a few that are of highest levels of quality so we can quickly move the discussion along. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your entire first comment is about use in theater training. When I said FIXIT, you said you did but were reverted. Your edit had nothing to do with theater. You lied and all you are doing here is wasting everyone's time.  And if you want to bring me to ANI for calling you a liar, knock yourself out because you did and you have no leg to stand on.  I am shunning you from here out. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please let's try to remain civil. There is no need to denigrate other good-faith editors, particularly when trying to find a consensus. Anecdotally, I became aware of the Alexander Technique because of my involvement with acting and the theatre 40 years ago, but I'm not a reliable source. Nevertheless, it seemed to me sensible to make a search for sources that connected the Technique with theatre. , do you have an example of a book in mind? A quick Google search for "alexander technique acting" found, for example, http://www.alexanderpen.co.uk/about-the-alexander-technique/acting-and-the-alexander-technique/ which is hardly an independent source, but it does clearly indicate that degree-level students in Acting at ArtsEd receive training in the Alexander Technique. I can't see any reason to doubt the truth of that. There's also https://www.city-academy.com/alexander-technique-introduction which surely is evidence that students of the performing arts at some establishments receive Alexander Technique training.

On the subject of medical claims, has the page at been considered as a source? NHS Choices is usually considered reliable for MEDRS purposes. That article states: "Evidence suggests the technique has the potential to improve certain health conditions, but there are some claims made about the technique that haven’t been scientifically tested"; "There's evidence suggesting the Alexander technique can help people with: long-term back pain – lessons in the technique may lead to reduced back pain-associated disability and reduce how often you feel pain for up to a year or more. long-term neck pain – lessons in the technique may lead to reduced neck pain and associated disability for up to a year or more. Parkinson's disease – lessons in the technique may help you carry out everyday tasks more easily and improve how you feel about your condition." It also mentions limited evidence that "the Alexander technique may improve general long-term pain, stammering and balance skills in elderly people to help them avoid falls", and little evidence to suggest any benefit for "other health conditions, including asthma, headaches, osteoarthritis, difficulty sleeping (insomnia) and stress." That's a pretty comprehensive overview, and a lot more positive than the Australian review. I think it deserves some mention in our article. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RexxS there is really no controversy here about theater. as i wrote above, I think littleolive oil  had a good point in her OP and anybody who actually wanted to, you know, work on the article and not just troll could pretty easily expand this article to shift the WEIGHT to the use of AT in theater, which is where I believe it is most extensively used.  I don't think any of the health-oriented editors would object to that one whit.   As to the health benefits, we have a typical situation for topics like this, where many people in the RW claim all kinds of health benefits beyond what the evidence provides, and we have advocates show up all horrified that WP is evidence-based.  For this topic in particular it is a shame, as the use in theater had been neglected; LOO had a decent point in her OP.  And I do not consider misrepresenting one's own edits nor clamoring for other people to find sources for content that one wants to add as "good faith" editing - both are hallmarks of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.  Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "NHS Choices is usually considered reliable for MEDRS purposes." It is? It doesn't look near the quality of the Australian review, and gives us nothing to work from given it is completely without references of its own. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is considered a good MEDRS source. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But how can we include it when it doesn't give us references to put it in any context?
 * As for the use in theater: From what little I've reviewed, it appears to be a tradition based upon long tradition and marketing. We need third-party sources if we want to include information on how common it is, why it is taught, it's reception, etc. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per MEDRS we don't do our peer review of MEDRS-acceptable sources. NHS is very much a "major health authority" Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. We have to determine the quality of sources. More importantly, and what is being ignored, how do we incorporate it when it has no references of it's own? Please someone address this. Just keep it totally separate from all other related information and context? --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We have to determine the quality of the type of source; there's a difference. The quality of the source in this case is founded on the reputation of the UK National Health Service as a provider of advice. It's intended for a lay, not a scholarly audience, so it doesn't cite its references. Like you, I much prefer to be able to look at the underlying sources myself, but it's not our job to audit the secondary source. WP:MEDRS states "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic ... Examples include ... medical guidelines ... published by major health organizations." The NHS is one of the most eminent health organisations in the world. MEDRS goes on: "'Assessing evidence quality' means editors should determine quality of the type of study. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review." I was also intrigued by what evidence the NHS might have considered, so I did a search for secondary evidence at Trip database]. I'm guessing that the NHS would have been aware of the following:
 * Alexander technique and Supervised Physiotherapy Exercises in back paiN, NIHR 2014
 * Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain: economic evaluation, NIHR 2008
 * Alexander technique lessons were effective for chronic or recurrent back pain at 1 year Evidence Based Medicine 2009
 * Anyway, hopefully this will alleviate to some extent your concerns about the quality of NHS guidance. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll try and clarify my comments. I did not misrepresent my own edits nor was I clamoring for other people to look for sources. I did assume that those writing this article would have noticed the number of sources/ publications and would see this as significant and I suggested they look at this general overview easily visible with a Google book search. I had intended to post that search here today along with another attempt to clarify, and have posted it below. I did use the word sources and that may have been confusing. I was never referencing specific sources and would not expect anyone to look for sources for me. My cmts above refer to the ratio of the preponderance of material available on the use of the AT in performance environments per the research - the single review and handful of primary studies. For example, a Google book search brings up this This book   for example with a forward by Patsy Rodenburg, a renowned voice coach, is an example of a RS. I am not suggesting that all of these publications are reliable, I am suggesting, though, that the number of publications, many which appear to be from a cursory glance, to be reliable, is a strong indicator of the significance of this aspect of the technique in theater dance and performance in general as compared to the research aspect. I wasn't talking about specific sources. I was talking about weight and the way the article itself was weighted. What this means in the article and to respond in detail to Jytdog's accusations:


 * I wasn't aware prior to coming to this article that there was research in this technique positive or negative and none of my cmts have to do with the research itself per se. My personal experience is in using the AT as a foundation for posture training in dance and physical theater. I checked out the sources on research and compared them to the overall literature on use of the technique in theater. I commented here and made changes per my understanding and that comment.


 * I changed the heading Effectiveness, to Health benefits. Why? AT is highly effective in the theater environment. The section is referencing the research and impact on health, not theater.


 * I removed a sentence which referred to advocates. Advocates as used, implied all advocates for this technique In fact, most advocates are probably those who have used the technique in the theater. The article when I changed it implied all advocates  "make claims for treatment potential which are not backed by good medical evidence;" I left in the cmt which refers to research.


 * Same issue as above: proponents referred to all not just those who are commenting on the research. I took proponents out so the meaning referred specifically to the research This "although proponents of the Alexander technique have claimed it can be used to treat a variety of disorders including "neck pain" " refers to research. Proponents of the technique implies all proponents which is not accurate


 * While the research may be fringe to mainstream science, the technique as it is used in the theater is not. The wording I changed allowed the questionable nature of the health benefits to remain while removing the fringe colour from the other ways in which the technique is used.


 * The changes I made were to remove the implied inclusiveness of the content. All proponents and advocates are not those who are familiar or even care about the research.


 * My changes were reverted.

Jytdog. I do not appreciate being called a liar or as having misrepresented myself. I did assume you and Ronz were familiar with the publications/ sources on this technique and was asking you quite simply to refer to that information. I realize you and he weren't aware and had I realized that I could have posted the Google search earlier.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC))
 * I agree that the focus on individuals only disrupts our work to improve this article.
 * You made some assumptions of others. It became clear that those assumptions were wrong when you were asked for sources. At that point you should expect certain assumptions become likely to be made about you when no sources are offered.
 * I don't understand the distinction you keep trying to make as in, "While the research may be fringe to mainstream science, the technique as it is used in the theater is not." It's a fringe modality. As far as I understand, none of the claims for what it does to an individual's body have any quality evidence behind them, just lots of marketing and assertions. In this way it fits squarely into WP:FRINGE. Popularity is irrelevant.
 * I wrote, "We need third-party sources if we want to include information on how common it is, why it is taught, it's reception, etc." Looking over the article, I'm surprised how little we currently include. I vaguely recall much more previously, and maybe that there were spam and WP:SOAP problems with portions. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This really isn't FRINGE. It's obviously more than just alternative medicine also, because NHS Choices is clear about its effectiveness in treating long-term back and neck pain for significant periods, as well as improvements for those living with Parkinson's. That's medicine that works and we're not doing anybody any favours by ignoring what the NHS says. Now, what is also abundantly clear is: that quite a few folks make a living out of selling these lessons; that those True Believers&trade; clearly make claims well beyond what has been (or ever could be) shown to have any scientific validity; and that there is a lot of fud in a lot of poor quality self-serving sources. I do understand that it's far easier to deal with the SPAs and POV-pushers when we can show incontrovertibly that they are peddling fringe topics, but we mustn't get carried away. is neither of those and is entitled to her say. We will have no problem if we stick to the sources scrupulously - and if exercises designed to improve posture are found to help back pain, we mustn't be too surprised. If the Australian review reaches different conclusions from the NHS in Britain, that's OK: we can state both and attribute them - that leaves it to the reader to look at the sources and make their own mind up. It's the best we can do. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This really isn't FRINGE. It's obviously more than just alternative medicine also, because NHS Choices is clear about its effectiveness in treating long-term back and neck pain for significant periods, as well as improvements for those living with Parkinson's. That's medicine that works and we're not doing anybody any favours by ignoring what the NHS says. Now, what is also abundantly clear is: that quite a few folks make a living out of selling these lessons; that those True Believers&trade; clearly make claims well beyond what has been (or ever could be) shown to have any scientific validity; and that there is a lot of fud in a lot of poor quality self-serving sources. I do understand that it's far easier to deal with the SPAs and POV-pushers when we can show incontrovertibly that they are peddling fringe topics, but we mustn't get carried away. is neither of those and is entitled to her say. We will have no problem if we stick to the sources scrupulously - and if exercises designed to improve posture are found to help back pain, we mustn't be too surprised. If the Australian review reaches different conclusions from the NHS in Britain, that's OK: we can state both and attribute them - that leaves it to the reader to look at the sources and make their own mind up. It's the best we can do. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a distinction between FRINGE medicine and alternative/complementary therapies. "Fringe" is stuff like the belief that tin foil helmets stop microwaves, things either not provable or wholly disproved. This is a physical exercise technique that appears to have some possible medical benefits, but scientific studies are, to date, inconclusive because of various flaws in either design or sample size.  This is not "fringe."  Some of the practitioner's claims may be overblown, but to say there is "no good evidence" is an exaggeration.  I did a bit of rephrasing to be in line with the more careful language of one of the better reviews.  It is important not to exaggerate in either direction.   Montanabw (talk)  16:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, the idea that a body manipulation could treat a relentless neurodegenerative disease is about as FRINGE as it gets. The idea that this training can (not "does") help people cope not only makes sense but is well supported. Your edit with regard to Parkinson's ("is of benefit") leaves the door wide open for tinfoil hat stuff.  I changed this to "may help people cope".   We also don't have to attribute when we have high quality sources, especially when we have two that agree with each other.  Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both and . Between the two of you, I think the article has become more informative. For what it's worth, I've found a few sources that refer to AT as alternative medicine and as complementary medicine, but none that call it fringe. I think the balance is about right now. BTW, I'm pretty sure a tinfoil helmet actually does stop microwaves (but it doesn't stop the government spying on you, of course). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "May help people cope" is fine; I was trying very hard to avoid a close paraphrase. And  do not mischaracterize my position:  " body manipulation could treat a relentless neurodegenerative disease" is your phrasing, not mine.  "treat" ≠ "cure" .  Does a study exist that suggests that some symptom relief (i.e. "may help people cope") might occur?  Yes.  We seem to have agreement on wording.  Now please assume a little good faith here.   Montanabw (talk)  23:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You mischaracterize the evidence. There actually is good evidence that it may help people cope with PD.  If there were no good evidence, I would have written that "there is no good evidence that AT is useful to help people cope with PD". You don't understand editing about health.  Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC) (strike, drama not worth anything. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)}
 * Jytdog, I suggest that you strike that last sentence as a personal attack. Your condescending attitude fails to assume good faith as well as casts aspersions on another user.  And "no good evidence" is just bad writing, a phrase that needs to stop being added to all these articles.  The evidence might be poor, nonexistent, insufficient, or whatever, but "no good" is imprecise.   Montanabw (talk)  23:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No this one again. As has been pointed out before the phrase "no good evidence" is used heavily in high-quality secondary and tertiary health publications aimed both at professional and lay audiences. Wikipedia follows such high-quality sources rather than editors' unsupported notions of what "good writing" is. Alexbrn (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, you have been told over and over that you use that phrase too easily and where it doesn't fit. Here, it didn't fit what the source material actually said.   Montanabw (talk)  21:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, as Rexx suggested, let's depersonalize comments which will probably produce faster and better results.(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC))

NHS Choices
I agree that the section on Health effects was in need of pruning. It's rarely helpful to give a large shopping list of conditions where there no evidence of effect, unless we're sure there's a common misconception that ought to be corrected. Nevertheless, the recent cropping left the body out of sync with the lead - specifically, the conclusions of NHS Choices. Since they seem to differ from the conclusions of the Australian review cited in the body, I've reluctantly attributed both sources as if they were opinions and tried to summarise their conclusions as neutrally as I am able, per WP:YESPOV and WP:BALANCE. --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can live with this version. The reference to "scientific evidence" in the body makes our article a little ridiculous, but it is one word, so whatever. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For those of us with a background in the sciences, and especially a background in evidence-based medicine, qualifying "evidence" with "scientific" does jar somewhat. But not everybody shares those sensibilities and I can accept that many, if not most, readers won't notice anything because they are used to seeing the phrase in the popular media. On the other hand, there will be cases where if our text qualifies "evidence" as "scientific", "medical", etc., it will dilute the strength of the conclusions in the source - and then it's important to raise the issue. I don't think it's the case here, where the sources don't find much compelling evidence (of any sort). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For those of us with a background in the sciences, and especially a background in evidence-based medicine, qualifying "evidence" with "scientific" does jar somewhat. But not everybody shares those sensibilities and I can accept that many, if not most, readers won't notice anything because they are used to seeing the phrase in the popular media. On the other hand, there will be cases where if our text qualifies "evidence" as "scientific", "medical", etc., it will dilute the strength of the conclusions in the source - and then it's important to raise the issue. I don't think it's the case here, where the sources don't find much compelling evidence (of any sort). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. My point has been that the number of sources that have been written on the AT and its relation to theater in ratio to the number of sources related to research, which is minimal, makes this article one where more readers who come to the article are more likely to have a theater interest. Because of this, the article's reference to research should be clearly delineated from the evidence we all use in teaching theater/dance/performance in general which is evidence based on observation: if you move in a particular way you will have a response in the way the body responds. As a teacher or coach I observe that and adjust my next teaching point to attune with that observation. If this were a science-based article using the word science to describe the word evidence would be redundant. Here the word clarifies. In my opinion anyway. (Littleolive oil (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC))
 * An individual's experience is not "evidence" in any meaningful sense of that word, and definitely not in WP where it is WP:OR.Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)