Talk:Alexander Technique/Archive 6

Examples where wiki has negative editorial bias
In the intro section:

"Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims."

The wording here implies that there is a lack of research supporting ALL claims of AT teachers.

This is cited with a source from the NHS that is quite different quote:

Supporters of the Alexander technique often claim it can help people with a wide range of health conditions. Some of these claims are supported by scientific evidence, but some have not yet been properly 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 If you have one of these conditions and you're considering trying the Alexander technique, it's a good idea to speak to your GP or specialist first to check if it might be suitable for you. Some research has also suggested the Alexander technique may improve general long-term pain, stammering, and balance skills in older people to help them avoid falls. But the evidence in these areas is limited and more studies are needed. --- Can we make the wiki resemble the source a bit better here? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * From the other source cited for the statement (Australian Government – Department of Health):
 * For a few modalities (Alexander technique, Buteyko, massage therapy, tai chi, yoga), there was evidence, which was graded as low to moderate quality, that these natural therapies may improve certain health outcomes for a limited number of clinical conditions.
 * The absence of evidence does not in itself mean that the therapies evaluated do or do not work. Natural therapies emerged in an environment where there was not a premium on rigorous evidence base. Where there is limited evidence in some modalities, there is value in conducting more research. It is also possible that there is a lack of evidence because the therapies are not effective, but it is also possible that further research may identify clinical conditions for which particular therapies are effective. This would appear more likely for those therapies that have some supporting evidence and scientific plausibility (for example, massage therapy) than for those that do not (for example, homeopathy).

68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we write our articles based on policy and guidelines, rather than what some random AT proponent thinks we should write. Please bear in mind that we wont just change the page because of what you say, unless you give sound policy based reasons. Roxy the dog 20:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "what some random AT proponent thinks"
 * The statements are from the UK National Health Service and Australian Government – Department of Health not a random AT proponent and it is already in the wiki just misquoted by some editor, maybe the same one who assumed AT is an alternative medicine but again, as evidenced in citations above the AT is not an alternative medicine practice. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They are also sourced in the wiki roxy 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Another negatively biased editorial slant:

Subsequently in 2017, the Australian government named the Alexander Technique 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 later part of the statement doesn't specifically address the AT and it's presented in a misleading way, also opinion of Australian Gov. Dept. of Health on use of taxpayer funds irrelevant to the wiki subject. Should read:

Subsequently in 2017, the Australian government named the Alexander Technique as a practice that would not qualify for insurance subsidy. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's the opinion of the Australian government on the use of taxpayer funds for this specific thing. That's entirely relevant, and allowed under MOS:QUOTEPOV. 3mi1y (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the quote in question paraphrases from the conclusion of the entire study where the use of taxpayer funds on a broader category that the AT is included in; the topic of the use of taxpayer funds has nothing to do with the subject of the wiki namely, AT 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It may be allowed but why is it included? It adds nothing of value and introduces a negative tone to a casual fact, namely "In 2017, the Australian government named the Alexander Technique as a practice that would not qualify for insurance subsidy." 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact that review named a whole bunch of complementary therapies; as written it sounds like this was some kind of at targeted legislation at AT but it was much boarder in reality if you read it. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not include something from the same review that IS referring specifically to AT?
 * Quote:
 * In people with low back pain, Alexander technique may be effective in improving pain and disability in the short term (up to 3 months) but the long-term effectiveness of Alexander technique on these outcomes is uncertain. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because that's effectively the same content as something that's already in the article: "the Alexander Technique may improve short-term pain and disability in people with low back pain, but the longer-term effects remain uncertain" 3mi1y (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair, but it doesn't change the fact that in the sentence: Subsequently in 2017, the Australian government named the Alexander Technique 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 later part of the sentence doesn't refer to the AT specifically so it should be removed or replaced with something that does for accuracy and clarity; this would also make the tone more neutral overall in the introduction.
 * Also in the intro and related:
 * Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims
 * Research supporting health claims for Parkinson's and lower back pain are sourced in the wiki so at least let's be specific about which claims have support and which don't. Basically only those two are sourced in the wiki already. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Buuuuut of course I have cited tons of sources above if you care to incorporate any :) 68.129.197.221 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well...? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep on changing posts you made that have been responded to? Please stop butchering the page in this way. The next time you do it, I shall ask for sanctions against you, which ought to result in you being banned from this page. I dont think you would like that.  You should read wp:Talk to learn how to use talk pages properly. - Roxy the dog 04:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm totally confused with the posts from this ip, I can't follow what appears to be conversation. I have asked this ip several times that they need to read and understand the ways of Wikipedia before coming back to this page. Alas, they don't seem to be following this advice. Sgerbic (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you two the only editors that frequent this page? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there is an annoying WP:SPA carpet bombing this page with stuff left right and centre though. Currently they probably have written 85% of the text in this page, and no improvements have been made to the article in that time based on the SPA suggestions. Their problem is that they dont appear to understand how wikipedia works, keep on suggestiong we use unreliable sources, mess up the talk page by not following Talk page guidelines (WP:TALK). I doubt they have read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS despite there having been referred to them multiple times.
 * The process of trying to educate the WP:SPA is frustrating, and I suppose that as the SPA is being so intractable it is possible that many editers have decided to leave the grunt work to Susan, who has a fine reputation for helping and training newbies to the project.
 * For your information, there are 296 talk page watchers currently on this page, so I imagine that they are happy with the responses the IP has been given by the half dozen or so who have responded to them.
 * The number of personal attacks WP:NPA the ip has mede against fellow editers is also troubling - they would do well to think about the message rather than the messenger in future dealings on this page.
 * In summary, this behaviour is disruptive to the project, and Admins take a dim view of WP:DISRUPTIVE editors.
 * To be clear, the WP:SPA I am referrring to is IP 68 129 197 221.
 * My goodness, that's you - Roxy the dog 09:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of the 296 watchers, I've seen 3 or 4 in the edit history. Of the 3-4, you seem to have a particular interest in maintaining a negative editorial tone of the wiki Roxy, you even refused to add source material that does follow wiki guidelines (2nd hand medical journal systematic review that's cited by other sources in the wiki (Woodman et al.)
 * "carpet bombing this page with stuff"
 * I presented cited proposed additions and examples of editorial bias, you see it as carpet bombing but that's because of what I'm assuming is bias towards the subject matter. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the wiki is of poor quality and needs improvement. I'm doing my best to provide materials to improve it. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am leaving the editing to an editor or admin that can see my well sourced and personally authored drafts of new sections to be done by experienced wiki editors, all I can do is provide information and advice on the topic which I had said repeatedly and it looks like other people have tried in to past to say, this wiki is poorly written and poorly represents the subject matter 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the guidelines the statement is not wiki appropriate:
 * "However, if the quoted passage has been integrated into the surrounding sentence (for example, with an introduction such as "X said that"), the original capital letter may be lower-cased."
 * The sentence in the wiki is a compound sentence created from two sentences in two completely different sections of the report it is sourced from (wiki guidelines say you can only do this for a surrounding sentence which is not the case here), the later part of the sentence doesn't specifically address the AT in the source and it's clearly included to editorialize tone of the wiki, conflating the general conclusions of the report with the more specific findings in relation to AT included in the same report sourced in the wiki, those findings contradict the cited general conclusion statement of the same report and editors chose to use the general nonspecific information than the more relevant statement.
 * "Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims."
 * The source cited for this statement never states there is a lack of research to support claims made by AT teachers it says quote:
 * For a few modalities (Alexander technique, Buteyko, massage therapy, tai chi, yoga), there was evidence, which was graded as low to moderate quality, that these natural therapies may improve certain health outcomes for a limited number of clinical conditions.
 * The other source for the statement above includes this:
 * In people with low back pain, Alexander technique may be effective in improving pain and disability in the short term (up to 3 months) but the long-term effectiveness of Alexander technique on these outcomes is uncertain.
 * The statement doesn't accurately reflect the source documents and has negative editorial bias. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At the very least the wiki should say something like:
 * AT may be effective in improving certain health outcomes for a limited number of clinical conditions but more research is needed to support claims. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Or even more accurate:
 * Research shows AT may be effective in improving certain health outcomes for patients with Parkinson's and Lower Back Pain. In other areas research is preliminary and more is needed to support other health claims. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In Health Effects section:
 * "A review of evidence for the Alexander Technique for various health conditions provided by the UK National Health Service, last updated in 2021, said that advocates of the technique made claims for it that were not supported by evidence, but that there was evidence suggesting that it might help 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"
 * Wording and organization of this section is convoluted in general and the statement above is immediately contradicted by the same source. Perhaps should read:
 * In a review of evidence for the Alexander Technique for various health conditions last updated in 2021 by the UK National Health Service there was evidence suggesting that AT might help with long-term back pain, long-term neck pain, and Parkinson's disease.
 * (already in wiki) "The NHS further states: "Some research has also suggested the Alexander Technique may improve general long-term pain, stammering, and balance skills in older people to help them avoid falls. But the evidence in these areas is limited and more studies are needed. There's currently little evidence to suggest the Alexander Technique can help improve other health conditions, including asthma, headaches, osteoarthritis, difficulty sleeping (insomnia) and stress."
 * All other claims lack sufficient evidence. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why dont you use the talk page properly? See WP:TALK. -Roxy the dog 16:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm learning. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alexander-technique/
 * Is this source not good enough to add a line or two to the uses section? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for review from admins
Not sure I'm doing this right but I would like admins to review this page for abuse from editors. Blatant antagonizing of users with knowledge of the AT trying to make good faith improvements by skeptical editors with no idea of the content; just trying to fix blanant incorrect statements on this page is impossible and trolling users who have tried is common.

68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * See Edzard Ernst's influence section, wiki is mostly plagiarized from a skeptic's book. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Another completely false statement
"The Alexander Technique is used and taught by classically trained vocal coaches and musicians in schools"

This is just not true. Vocal training doesn't equate training in the AT (which generally requires a 3 year 1600 hour course for certification), a more accurate statement would be AT is taught at drama and music schools including the Juilliard School, the Curtis Institute of Music and the Royal Academy of Music. AT teachers teach those classes and lessons not untrained musicians 68.129.197.221 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sourced in article. -Roxy the dog 13:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Source is incorrect. Read more carefully please. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which source, and why is it not correct? -Roxy the dog 14:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Vocal training doesn't equate training in the AT (which generally requires a 3 year 1600 hour course for certification) 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no source for that statement that I can see; as I said it is false. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Clinical Voice Disorders: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Thieme Medical Publishers. is the source? Beyond being irrelevant to the claim, can you point out where this claim is supported? I know for a fact it is false. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * example: Thomas Vasiliades is not a voice teacher, he teaches AT at Juilliard
 * https://catalog.juilliard.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=56&coid=32089 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See same comment in other related section; source is wiki itself:
 * "To qualify as a teacher of the Alexander Technique, instructors are required to complete 1,600 hours of supervised teacher training, spanning three years. The result must be satisfactory to qualified peers to gain membership in professional societies." 68.129.197.221 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.amsatonline.org/aws/AMSAT/pt/sp/educational_institutions 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ex: AT teacher at Juilliard who is not a voicalist https://catalog.juilliard.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=56&coid=32089 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.197.221 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Add section AT & Performing arts
Proposed additional section

The AT is an integral part of curricula at elite drama and music schools including Juilliard, the Curtis Institute of Music and the Royal Academy of Music [29] The method is said by actors to reduce stage fright and to increase spontaneity.[30] There is a particular interest in application of AT among dancers [31] and musicians [32]. AT principles have been applied to music pedagogy and performance by singers [33] [34][35], harpists [36], violinists and violists [37][38][39][40], cellists [41], and bassists [42][43] among many others. A recent study found that purpose-designed AT classes for music students may beneficially influence performance related pain and the associated risk factors of poor posture, excess muscle tension, stress and performance anxiety; there were also reports of improvements to instrumental technique, performance level and practice effectiveness indicating the relevance of AT training to musical skill development[44]. In another study, application of the AT to music performance showed improvement relative to controls in overall music and technical quality as judged by independent experts blind to subjects' condition assignment; there were also improvements in heart rate variance, self-rated anxiety and positive attitude to performance [45]. While more and better designed research is needed to accurately quantify the effect of the AT on artistic performance there does seem to be a general consensus among a large number of successful artists in a variety of fields that the AT has a positive overall effect on artistic life, on and off the stage [46]. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an edit request. -Roxy the dog 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Where might I put that? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here. -Roxy the dog 14:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it not an edit request? Do you insist on trolling? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you forget a hyperlink or something? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See supporting evidence for this addition in newest talk section. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.amsatonline.org/aws/AMSAT/pt/sp/educational_institutions 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement in intro
Article reads "Proponents and teachers of the Alexander Technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims."

Propose changing "lack of research to support the claims" to the more accurate statement "preliminary research findings are mixed"

Woodman, J. P. Moore, N. R. Evidence for the effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons in medical and health-related conditions: a systematic review 2012 - International Journal of Clinical Practice VL - 66 IS  - 1 SN  - 1368-5031 UR https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02817.x

Eldred, J., Hopton, A., Donnison, E., Woodman, J., & MacPherson, H. (2015). Teachers of the alexander technique in the UK and the people who take their lessons: A national cross-sectional survey. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 23(3), 451-461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2015.04.006

Schlinger, Marcy Feldenkrais Method, Alexander Technique, and Yoga—Body Awareness Therapy in the Performing Arts Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Clinics REVIEW ARTICLE| VOLUME 17, ISSUE 4, P865-875, NOVEMBER 01, 2006 68.129.197.221 (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done. None of the sources above are reliable. -Roxy the dog 13:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is that? All from 2nd hand sources in Medical Journals. Bias. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they do not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. - Roxy the dog 14:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which ones and how? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None of them, because they do not comply with the requirements of WP:RS, which you should read and understand to begin your journey of understanding wikipedia sourcing. It isn't my job to teach you how it works. -Roxy the dog 14:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically what does not meet the requirements of the WP:RS? I believe you are in error. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read the WP:RS that Roxy just gave you? Sgerbic (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ernst seems to think Woodman is reliable and you think Ernst is reliable :-/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's take a look, what is this? It is a journal behind a paywall from some place called "the International journal of Clinical Practice" is that R/S? Are Woodman and Moore Wikipedia notable? According to the abstract, Woodman teaches AT in private practice. This is not R/S. We would need a secondary NOTABLE source to analyze this Journal article and publish. THEN we should be able to use that secondary source in the Wikipedia article. We can't just have a Wikipedia editor, who does not have full access to the article to read and understand and interrupt the findings. Keeping in mind that this journal is not R/S and the authors of the journal are NOT R/S. Sgerbic (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LgphnkGB-o 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a review of other published research in a medical journal; I admit the sources for AT in general suck but this is not one of those. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please take another look at this source, I think you are mistaken or just can't view it. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can make it available to you if you want; I have access. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This next one is from another Journal that is also not R/S "Complementary Therapies in Medicine" - Again this is written by teachers of AT and they themselves are not notable by Wikipedia standards. The third one you have given us "AT and Yoga" is in print and we can't review it. Let me be clear, being in print is not the problem except in this case where we do not have confidence of the sources that been suggested. Sgerbic (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another problem we keep encountering, why do you care so much about this subject that this is the ONLY Wikipedia page you care about to edit? Why are you spending hours and hours trying to make these changes? This must be extremely frustrating for you. From our viewpoint as long term editors, it looks like someone who is pushing this technique on Wikipedia. As you have already said elsewhere that the information contained in this Wikipedia page are disseminated to the public and influences them. You seem to have a lot of printed content on AT at your fingertips. Can you understand how all this gives us pause? You have told us that you do not understand the rules of Wikipedia, have no experience editing Wikipedia, have ignored us asking you to practice and learn on pages that are NOT AT. Sgerbic (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have just given us a YouTube video by the "International Journal of Clinical Practice" called "Evidence for the effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons". You are asking us to change the entire tone of a Wikipedia page based on a YouTube video by some no name person. I know this is frustrating, think of it this way. If this were the Bigfoot Wikipedia page and I believed in Bigfoot and was willing to spend hours trying to get the Wikipedia page to reflect that he is real and that we have evidence of him having lunch at a McDonalds. Would you accept journal articles from supporters of Bigfoot? Written by people who were Bigfoot believers? Journals that we can't even open because they are behind paywalls? Would you be convinced if I gave you a YouTube video saying "Bigfoot is real and here he is at McDonalds"? Maybe if you see the changes you want made here from our perspective you might understand why you are not getting anywhere and so frustrated. Sgerbic (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Youtube verified the source, watermark in the bottom; I offered as a stopgap. I can send you the paper, it's worth citing. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the tone but fix the misinformation. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I presented my edits in good faith based on my expertise in the area, I don't care about the tone of the article but the content is sorely inaccuate. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave you a video that has been verified as coming directly from the Journal to confirm the paper you cannot access exists. Your comparison of the AT and Bigfoot is telling as to your personal biases. You're right that I am frustrated but nevertheless I am the one with experience of the AT so at least I know what I'm talking about. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I am knowledgeable about the AT, my concern is not advertising but accuracy and on many core points there is just wrong information in the wiki (most of the positive info), much of it loosely cited. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "You seem to have a lot of printed content on AT at your fingertips. Can you understand how all this gives us pause?"
 * God forbid someone who actually knows something about the AT contribute; it's times like these I'm reminded why one can't cite wiki in any academic context. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you are frustrated. We have tried to explain over and over. Your tone is attacking and disparaging of editors and Wikipedia in general. You are not understanding the instructions, you are not attempting to learn the rules or to go to another topic in order to improve your understanding. You continue to give us citations that we have already instructed you that are not R/S, we have continued to explain that we need secondary sources to each of these journal articles. We are fine with people who have knowledge of a subject. What we are wary of is someone so is so invested in the topic that they would spend hours on this to the exclusion of all other Wikipedia pages. Your continuation without addressing or changing is not helpful and I expect you will grow more frustrated and more disparaging. This does not look like something that will be solvable. I know I'm not willing to allow changes to the article based on the wall-of-citations you keep submitting, without your understanding of the situation. Sgerbic (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of the citations are for non-medical claims yet you want to securitize every claim as if it's biomedical. You also equated me to a bigfoot believer... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why don't you start with the non-biomedical applications of the AT which are well cited, I'll post them again if you like. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you are not willing to allow a change in tone in the slightest positive direction despite said wall of citations, which again isn't my concern I want to flesh out the anemic uses section with those citations. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alexander-technique/
 * The Alexander technique teaches improved posture and movement, which is believed to help reduce and prevent problems caused by unhelpful habits.
 * During a number of lessons you're taught to be more aware of your body, how to improve poor posture and move more efficiently.
 * Teachers of the Alexander technique believe it helps get rid of tension in your body and relieves problems such as back pain, neck ache, sore shoulders and other musculoskeletal problems.
 * 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. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also try your local library if you want access... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Uses section doesn't reflect real world applications
The anemic uses section of the article barely scratches the surface of the artistic applications; the skepticism of health claims should not carry over to a bias against actual practical application as AT is taught at a very large number of university acting, dance, and music programs; most of which offer college credit for AT classes and some for lessons.
 * No sources for assertion unsigned. -Roxy the dog 13:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * See multitude of sources in my suggestions for edit citations. Bias is showing roxy 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have corrected your indenting. Please suggest the best two sources from your plethora scattered throughout this page except in this section and list them here. Thanks. -Roxy the dog 14:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please work in good faith. Take your pick from below; organized into categories by discipline
 * Sources for AT applied to music:
 * Cotik, T. (2019). Concepts of the Alexander Technique and Practical Ideas for Musicians. American String Teachers Association Journal, 69(2), 33–36. https://doi-org.library.esc.edu/10.1177/0003131319835543
 * Hembreiker, Linda-Rose. "Teaching with the Alexander Technique." American Harp Journal, winter 2010, pp. 41+.
 * Neely, Dawn Wells. "Body consciousness and singers: do voice teachers use mind-body methods with students and in their own practice?" Journal of Singing, vol. 73, no. 2, Nov.-Dec. 2016, pp. 137+.
 * Peterson, P. H. (2008). on the Voice: Alexander Or Feldenkrais: Which Method Is Best? The Choral Journal, 48(11), 67–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23556912
 * Rootberg R. “End-gaining”and the“Means-Whereby”: Discovering the best process to achieve goals of vocal training and pedagogy using the Alexander Technique, 2011 Voice and Speech Review, 7:1, 157-163, DOI: 10.1080/23268263.2011.10739536
 * Schlinger, Marcy Feldenkrais Method, Alexander Technique, and Yoga—Body Awareness Therapy in the Performing Arts Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Clinics REVIEW ARTICLE| VOLUME 17, ISSUE 4, P865-875, NOVEMBER 01, 2006
 * Korn, H. (2014). Indirect procedures: The musician's guide to the alexander technique. The American Music Teacher, 63(5), 49-50. https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/indirect-procedures-musicians-guide-alexander/docview/1516492602/se-2
 * Buckoke P. Double bassist Peter Buckoke on treating head and neck pain 2019 Strad Magazine https://www.thestrad.com/playing-hub/double-bassist-peter-buckoke-on-treating-head-and-neck-pain/1922.article
 * Alcantara, Pedro D. Indirect Procedures: A Musician’s Guide to the Alexander Technique 1st Edition Oxford University Press April 1997 ISBN - ‎0198165692 978-0198165699
 * Lacraru, Emanuela Maria, "Supporting your instrument in a body-friendly manner : a comparative approach" 2014 DMA diss., Louisiana State University. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2829
 * Chou, Yun-Chieh. “When the Mouse Meets the Elephant: A Manual for String Bass Players with Application of the Philosophy and Principles of the F. M. Alexander Technique.” 2013 DMA diss., Louisiana State University.
 * Acting:
 * Iammatteo, E. (1996). The alexander technique: Improving the balance. Performing Arts & Entertainment in Canada, 30(3), 37. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/alexander-technique-improving-balance/docview/224880281/se-2
 * Miller, B. X. (2003). The actor and the alexander technique. New York Library Journal, 128(6), 68 https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/actor-alexander-technique/docview/196816372/se-2
 * Dance:
 * Lewis, K. (2006, 11). Understanding alexander technique. Dance Spirit, 10, 45. https://www.proquest.com/magazines/understanding-alexander-technique/docview/209305187/se-2 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't help. Did you see the part where I said "best two?" - Roxy the dog 15:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Take the two you think are best my dear. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's another for good measure
 * https://catalog.juilliard.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=56&coid=32089 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's useless. It appears to be an advertisement for an AT course. Are all your suggestions of such a poor nature? - Roxy the dog  15:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right whoops! here's the correct links
 * AT taught in Dance dept. at Juilliard:
 * https://catalog.juilliard.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=33&coid=18035
 * AT taught in Music dept. at Juilliard:
 * https://catalog.juilliard.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=36&coid=19256
 * You didn't bother to look at the Journal citations? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are your replies always so unhelpful? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that Jane Kosminsky is a certified AT teacher (typically a 3 year 1600 hour course generally required to teach at university) and so is Lauren Schiff 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The AT is an integral part of curricula at elite drama and music schools including Juilliard, the Curtis Institute of Music and the Royal Academy of Music [29] The method is said by actors to reduce stage fright and to increase spontaneity.[30] There is a particular interest in application of AT among dancers [31] and musicians [32]. AT principles have been applied to music pedagogy and performance by singers [33] [34][35], harpists [36], violinists and violists [37][38][39][40], cellists [41], and bassists [42][43] among many others. A recent study found that purpose-designed AT classes for music students may beneficially influence performance related pain and the associated risk factors of poor posture, excess muscle tension, stress and performance anxiety; there were also reports of improvements to instrumental technique, performance level and practice effectiveness indicating the relevance of AT training to musical skill development[44]. In another study, application of the AT to music performance showed improvement relative to controls in overall music and technical quality as judged by independent experts blind to subjects' condition assignment; there were also improvements in heart rate variance, self-rated anxiety and positive attitude to performance [45] . While more and better designed research is needed to accurately quantify the effect of the AT on artistic performance there does seem to be a general consensus among a large number of successful artists in a variety of fields that the AT has a positive overall effect on artistic life, on and off the stage [46]. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alexander-technique/
 * The Alexander technique teaches improved posture and movement, which is believed to help reduce and prevent problems caused by unhelpful habits.
 * During a number of lessons you're taught to be more aware of your body, how to improve poor posture and move more efficiently.
 * Teachers of the Alexander technique believe it helps get rid of tension in your body and relieves problems such as back pain, neck ache, sore shoulders and other musculoskeletal problems.
 * 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. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a much less biased intro potentially from the NHS 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See newest section for supporting evidence. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Process Section is too long
Someone tried to delete a huge part of the later process section, I agree it's too long but that later part starting with constructive conscious control should be in the wiki in a section called "Principles of the AT" etc. as those are the core ideas/philosophy of the work. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I see Roxy the Dog has reverted my reversion as per usual; the edit was -6000+ and no one seemed concerned with the change. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * curprev 21:11, 15 October 2022‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 20,094 bytes −1,967‎  →‎Further reading: these are all primary also; if these books are so important, they should be mentioned in the main text, with some indication by secondary sources what in them is important to include undo
 * curprev 21:10, 15 October 2022‎ Drmies talk contribs‎ 22,061 bytes −6,208‎  →‎Process: without independent sourcing this is way excessive undo Tag: Reverted 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 8000+ removed in one minute 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I like to think of that as judicious editing, with slightly more accurate and informative summaries than "the most accurate material in the wiki". I mean, one of the references you restored was this, "Body Learning – An Introduction to the Alexander Technique, Macmillan, 1996 ISBN 0805042067, quote p. 74, an article in New Scientist by Professor John Basmajian entitled "Conscious Control of Single Nerve Cells""--god knows that that's supposed to mean. I'm wondering whether it is a good idea to allow you to flood this talk page with material and accusations, and whether you are too closely associated with the subject to participate neutrally., you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Roxy has an opinion, Get rid of that trash then. Body Learning is a book of a self help author; looks promotional almost now that you mention it. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of trash in this wiki both supporting the content and skeptical of it, I want to improve the sources in general not destroy the wiki; Awareness, Inhibition, Directions, etc. are the ideas of the work, even if bunk they are an accurate description of the work 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also that link seems to be broken, I'm interested in the paper if you can provide a working link, to find out as you mention what that's supposed to mean. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, it's 100+ years old at this point, you could make an argument it's a historical practice resembling early forms of western mindfulness in a similar vein of vitalism. I have a particular interest in this area of history but I am not directly associated with AT. I'm writing an anthropological overview of the whole field in relation to biological psychology in school for interdisciplinary studies degree. It's a work in progress and I came here and found the wiki to be totally lame and thought I'd improve it simultaneously. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll add I really appreciate you wiki editors doing this for free, my god it's a pita; I took a look further back in the edits and no wonder editors are defensive there are super strange people trying to make very strange claims for AT out in the wild and some of them thought they'd come here. My interest is actually where AT fits into biomedical and the the history of that along with some other related modalities but AT is probably the most documented one in the hard to define field of mindbody practices. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously I don't have a link to the paper, but maybe Google will take you somewhere, and maybe that ISBN shows up in Google Books. The section was simply too long. A paragraph or two, that would be different. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it was too long (tbh all AT texts I've read are too long winded in my opinion); still the core "principles" as they call them are Awareness Inhibition Direction and Primary Control; the later of which is what was considered pseudoscientific all along and effectively is dropped in modern understandings; the others strongly resemble other mindfulness practices like MBSR that are strongly backed by research. https://psychiatry.weill.cornell.edu/mindfulness-based-stress-reduction-program 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If not clear, you removed some of the most informative bits in the wiki on what the AT actually is. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Mind-Body
This wiki is a good candidate for wikiproject Mind-Body:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mind-Body 68.129.197.221 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Cochrane is misquoted
A 2012 Cochrane systematic review found that there is no conclusive evidence that the Alexander Technique is effective for treating asthma, and randomized clinical trials are needed in order to assess the effectiveness of this type of treatment approach.

This statement is misleading as there was no assessment, it says no evidence was found but in reality no meta-analysis could be performed. "Systematic review found that there is no conclusive evidence" doesn't equate the reality that no analysis was done. I changed this in the article but it was reverted. See below for source material for misquoted statement:

Objectives: The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of the Alexander technique in people with chronic, stable asthma. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field trials register and the bibliographies of relevant articles. The most recent search was run in June 2012. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials of Alexander technique (AT) for the improvement of the symptoms of chronic, stable asthma, comparing the treatment with either another intervention or no intervention. Data collection and analysis: No trials were found that met the selection criteria. Main results: No meta-analysis could be performed. Authors' conclusions: Robust, well-designed randomised controlled trials are required in order to test claims by practitioners that AT can have a positive effect on the symptoms of chronic asthma and thereby help people with asthma to reduce medication.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22972048/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing "no conclusive evidence" to "no good evidence" would be an improvement. Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Thx. -Roxy the dog 16:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no trials period... a further improvement would be to state the fact as it is stated by Cochrane:
 * In a 2012 systematic review, Cochrane found there were no randomized controlled trials of Alexander technique (AT) for the improvement of the symptoms of chronic, stable asthma or comparing the treatment with either another intervention or placebo, concluding, "Robust, well-designed randomised controlled trials are required in order to test claims by practitioners [of] AT"
 * Note this is almost the exact statement made by Cochrane back in 2002 as if to suggest more trials should be done to test claims but it reads as if they did some kind of analysis in the wiki which clearly has not been done. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They searched for quality/usable evidence; there was none. That's it. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Cochrane found there were no randomized controlled trials of Alexander technique" doesn't equate the statement in the wiki; why must this wiki be so editorialized in a negative way? Is it not proper to maintain the tone of the source material? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, isn't that what the source says? And Wikipedia doesn't say FRIN, as it's fluff. Bon courage (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What does FRIN have to do with what I said? You and Roxy have editorialized "Cochrane found there were no randomized controlled trials of Alexander technique..." into "A 2012 Cochrane systematic review found that there is no conclusive evidence that the Alexander Technique is effective..." 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * no _good_ evidence now. It's a good summary. Summarizing sources is what we do. Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. - Roxy the dog 15:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing for this Wiki
There seems to be a confusion between editors about that categorization of AT that leads to different standards of reliable sources; for medical uses WP:MEDRS applies. For non-medical uses which include the majority of applications of AT (Dance, Music, Acting, etc.) the standard policy applies yet sources from peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses, magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses have all been denied by editors.

Can we separate out the medical section from the performance section at least? Again AT should be categorized as a mind-body practice, not an alternative medicine; I don't see any reliable sources categorizing AT as such or claims to cure anything. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If it absolutely must be categorized this way, this closest designation is Mind-body Intervention; it's not trying to be an alternative to anything or cure/heal anything; it's a technique to improve posture and awareness which happens to have some known health benifits. Categorization should be made based what it is not Ernst's view (see above). Even wiki doesn't list AT as Alternative Medicine:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alternative_medicine 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2011.322 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation one is a joke source
This author keeps publishing books that are dedicating to "debunking" alternative medicine - and some of these methods are indeed bunk but Ernst doesn't have any good data supporting his claims AT is alternative medicine at all in the book, not to mention barely mentions AT. He has some evidence against homeopathy, chiro, etc... It is not a surprise that he ejects all experimental evidence when those contradicts his beliefs on what's plausible. In short, the book cited is a short pamphlet summarizing the fears and dogmas from the pseudoskepticism community applied to every modality they could find a la: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_enough_mud_at_the_wall,_some_of_it_will_stick 68.129.197.221 (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No joke. --Hipal (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just got access to the article. Even skeptical Ernst likes AT, who knew. He Rates AT as:
 * moderate plausibility,
 * very good efficacy,
 * good safety,
 * good cost,
 * very good Risk/Benefit balance 68.129.197.221 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also looks like a lot of the wiki is plagiarized from this and badly quoted at that... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bed now but I'll show it tomorrow. A lot of the wiki is just taken from this and not cited; only that one statement cites this as the source; like I said all along the wiki has a negative slant, no wonder, it's plagiarized work from a alternative medicine skeptic... sheesh; interestingly the subcategory mindbody therapies (where AT belongs) also gets good marks 68.129.197.221 (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See below 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Even though I don't think Ernst should be a primary source for this wiki because as a skeptic with little knowledge or interest in the AT beyond including it in a large swath of modalities to face a guilt by association with each other. Still, Ernst is overal passively approving of AT, certainly not hostile towards it like in the case of other more targeted groups. If editors insist on using him extensively, at least quote him accurately.68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.gponline.com/alexander-technique-body-posture/neurology/neurology/article/594340 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything further to say about Ernst in relation to this wiki? It certainly reads like a disciple of Ernst wrote/editorialized this wiki to me. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2078193/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The main source material is not accurate / misinformation in wiki being plagiarized in publications
The main source material for this page is not accurate or legitimate: Lynette Barnard (2014), ARO HEALING Touching Lives THEORIES, TECHNIQUES and THERAPIES: The Techniques and Therapies of Aro-Healing, Xlibris Corporation (self-publishing)

I have brought this up repeatedly as this is the source for the incorrect information cited from it in the article "There is a blatantly incorrect statement that is not cited in the uses section that musicians teach AT; AT teachers with 3 year 1600 hour training teach AT lessons at universities, not untrained musicians"

It says AT is "a way of massaging the body;" editors come on this source is utter garbage probably written by someone who knew nothing about AT first hand. Wtf is aro healing and what does it have to do with the AT beyond this one author? Nothing! 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? No such work appears to be cited in the article. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I know! Most of the article is taken from that source! See banner on the talk page:
 * "This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
 * Lynette Barnard (2014), ARO HEALING Touching Lives THEORIES, TECHNIQUES and THERAPIES: The Techniques and Therapies of Aro-Healing, Xlibris Corporation (self-publishing)" 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If somebody else has plagiarised Wikipedia in some crappy publication, how is that relevant to anything with the current article? It is not "source material" for us. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You do realize that misinformation in this wiki is spreading into publications; this is a serious problem. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of if it was taken from the source above or vice versa, the information is wrong and shouldn't be in this wiki. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Alexander Technique is used and taught by classically trained vocal coaches and musicians in schools and private lessons." is a false statement or at best a partial truth; AT is taught by AT teachers which are certified by one of the organizing bodies (ATI, AmSAT or STAT). Perhaps there are musicians with the training but that doesn't make the statement correct. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anybody can teach AT (as our sources point out). I could set myself up as an AT provider tomorrow. All we do here is summarize what good sources are saying, not go after The Truth&trade;. You, an anonymous IP, appear to have an undisclosed conflict of interest and seem to be wanting to whitewash this page and turn in into an AT advert. While this page is far from perfect, any improvements need to be rooted in reliable, third-party, independent, secondary sources with WP:MEDRS for any non-mundane biomedical claims. Bon courage (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You could but you would never be hired to an AT post at university which are common... Editors are so obsessed with sources they are letting misinformation stay on the page because while incorrect the source is perceived as more legit in error... Annoying as editors don't know what AT is... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm too lazy to make an account; I have no interest in becoming a wiki editor however this page need basic information correcting. Want me to make an account? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make an AT advert, editors have a perception that AT is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine practice, that's incorrect. Another user had tried in a very inept way to say this before, Philip something or other; I don't object to criticism but the article is far from neutral. It has a strong skeptical slant leading into a nonsensical description of the technique. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To repeat, all Wikipedia can do is reflect sources because WP:V is a core policy (all an encyclopedia is, is a summary of published information). Those sources need to be, at root, reliable, third-party, independent, secondary sources with WP:MEDRS for any non-mundane biomedical claims. Are there some we're missing that could be used to improve the article? Bon courage (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes please see citations list on other sections; Please take note that non-biomedical claims should not face the same scrutiny, for example to say something like "AT is taught in performing arts instructions etc" which is not a medical claim should only require a course listing or a source referring to Uni teaching AT no? I honestly am having difficulty understand what exactly is wrong in view of wiki with biomedical claims but that is not so much my concern here, the uses section doesn't represent half of what AT is used for and non medical claims should not have such extreme scrutiny. I also still maintain that AT isn't a medical treatment at all so it's not even appropriate to use it or think of it as a treatment for anything even if there is some positive evidence for back pain and Parkinson's... This is also consistent with the AT community in general. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See new section addition. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly it looks like the original wiki was based on a previous version of this printed material not the other way around as I look into it, as I've said repeatedly this page's OG source material is so old and garbage it should probably be scrapped; see discussion about deleting page in 2010 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See newer sections, this wiki has become a circle jerk of skepticism between Ernst and editors as Ernst book plagiarized misinformation from this wiki for its section on AT then this wiki cited the book as a source... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Intro section sourcing
Since we now know that the Ernst source is trash (Ernst's source for AT is this very wiki which cites Ernst as a source that AT is alternative medicine in a circle-jerk of skepticism) Ex opening sentence:

The Alexander Technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a popular type of alternative therapy based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems.

The other source is the M. Bloch biography which does not contain or support the statement "AT ... is a popular type of alternative therapy" in the wiki, that is from Ernst which is not a RS clearly as reported by other editors in the talk page. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're talking rubbish. Ernst is fine. What is the point (if any besides the ernst point) that you are attempting to make here? -Roxy the dog 13:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If Ernst's source is the wiki and this wiki's source is Ernst, where did the information come from really? It's a circle-jerk of skepticism and misinformation Roxy... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also that statement above I mentioned is not sourced from the other citation mentioned (the biography by Bloch); therefore there is no RS for the statement since Ernst's only source is this wiki (circle jerk sourcing) also when can wiki be a RS anyway, no publisher of repute would allow this which is why Ernst just plagiarized the wiki and gave no credit. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a "wiki" is I wonder? Also, do stop your Ernst nonsense, it's wearing, thanks. --Roxy the dog 14:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why so defensive of Ernst? He seems very questionable in how he makes arguments only citing himself and wikipedia; also you can see he's basically a fringe yahoo that's been dropped like a hot potato by any academic institution of repute; why is he so highly regarded on wikipedia? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Professor Edzard Ernst's1 frequent articles on complementary medicine are becoming rather monotonous because they are too one-sided. He often points out the dangers of complementary medicines and deplores doctors who use them. He rarely mentions that the establishment has probably failed the patients, making them turn elsewhere. Often, all patients get from the establishment are short-term analgesics or symptom relievers and some of these can have dangerous side effects too.
 * Patients do get results from complementary medicine given by doctors (many well qualified, FRCP, MD etc) who are well aware they must be careful not to miss hidden pathology. We should aim for toleration in all things."
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2078193/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From Schliner 2006:
 * Ernst and Canter, in a critical review of controlled studies for the Alexander Technique, cited an unpublished study by Vickers and colleagues (2000) that evaluated the Alexander Technique in a randomized trial as a treatment arm for chronic mechanical low back pain ... Of 91 subjects, 46 responses were collected ... revealing no significant changes in the Alexander group. I can see why it was unpublished with 50% dropout rate.
 * Ernst likes to cherry pick studies that fit his narrative. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You know I'm starting to wonder who this ip is? Seems to be an expert on so many things. Must be some noble prize winner which is why they are anonymous. If only they would reveal who they are so we could bask in their brilliance. If only .... Sgerbic (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have google and a university library access to information.. clearly this page (and many others on wiki) have been hijacked by Ernst disciples/sympathizers; I had no idea this yahoo existed before last week. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And you have no interest in the subject before that? And have no problem with any other Wikipedia page? Sure thing. Sgerbic (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have no interest in having the information being correct and not from circle jerk sources like Ernst? It's quite suspicious how you question my motives but are tolerant of the clear unreliability of Ernst on the topic I've demonstrated repeatedly on this talk page. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone has to balance out the Ernstian circle jerk 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have nothing to say about how Ernst copy+pasted this wiki into his book "Alternative medicine" and said book is cited in as a main source for this wiki; you want to encourage this circle jerk? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. You dont have any evidence for your astonishing libellous accusations. This is way past disruptive and into territory that will probably result in sanctions for you. - Roxy the dog 13:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The same point is made above by another editor if you read back, not to mention it's obviously word for word copied if you observe the two documents (this wiki and his book "Alternative Medicine" cited by the wiki). What sanctions are there for continuing this circle jerk of fake RS? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe you. - Roxy the dog 15:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What you believe is what goes on here? Sorry sir, I bow down to the circle jerk king of wikipedia, remover of facts, restorer of misinformation, all hail the mighty dog 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While WP:OR allows primary sources to be used, it is "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
 * WP:NPOV says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
 * WP:VERIFY says, "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy." 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

AT in Education Section Addition
This is a partial list of schools in which AmSAT members are teaching the Alexander Technique, either in group classes or private lessons which can be confirmed by viewing course listings at each school with the master list located at the URL below. This should serve as evidence that the AT is not a fringe pseudoscientific alternative medicine practice but an education method. Please take note of this distinction editors.

This is a partial (alphabetical) list of schools in which AmSAT members are teaching the Alexander Technique, either in group classes or private lessons: Academy of Art University, San Francisco, CA

American Academy of Dramatic Arts, New York, NY

American Academy of Dramatic Arts, Los Angeles, CA

American Conservatory Theatre, San Francisco, CA

American Musical and Dramatic Academy, Los Angeles, CA

Appalachian State University, Hayes School of Music, and Theater and Dance, Boone, North Carolina

Arcadia University, Glenside, Pennsylvania

Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

Bard College Conservatory of Music, Vocal Arts Program, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York

Barnard College, New York, New York

Berkeley Rep School of Theater, Berkeley, California

Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts

Brooklyn College, Conservatory of Music, Brooklyn, New York

Brooklyn College, MFA Theater Program

Brown University/Trinity Repertory Company, Providence, RI

California Institute of the Arts, Santa Clarita, California

California Jazz Conservatory, Berkeley, California

California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California

California State University, Northridge, Northridge, California

Carnegie Mellon University, Schools of Drama, Music, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Capilano University, Theatre Department, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Catholic University, Washington, DC

Chapman University, Conservatory of Music, Orange, California

Circle in the Square Theater School, New York, New York

Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Concordia Academy, Roseville, Minnesota

Conservatory of Music of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Cornish College for the Arts, Seattle, Washington

Curtis Institute of Music, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Denver University, Lamont School of Music, Denver, Colorado

DePaul University School of Music, Chicago, Illinois

DePaul University, Theater School, Chicago, Illinois

Eastman School of Music, Rochester, New York

Eureka College, Eureka, Illinois

George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

George Fox University, Newberg, Oregon

Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden Sydney, Virginia

Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, Arkansas

Hoff-Barthelson Music School, Scarsdale, New York

Howard Fine Acting Studio, Los Angeles, California

Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois

Indiana University Jacobs School of Music, Bloomington, Indiana

Interlochen Arts Academy, Interlochen, Michigan

The Juilliard School, New York, New York

Lee Strasberg Theatre & Film Institute, West Hollywood, CA

Lewis and Clark College, Portland, Oregon

Long Island University, Brooklyn and Brookville, New York

Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California

Manhattan School of Music, New York, New York

Marylhurst University, Marylhurst, Oregon

Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, North Adams, Massachusetts

McNally Smith College of Music, St. Paul, Minnesota

Michigan State University, College of Music, East Lansing, Michigan

The Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theater, New York, New York

New England Conservatory, Boston, Massachusetts

The New School, Mannes School of Music, New York, New York

New York University Tisch School of the Arts,New York, New York

New York University Steinhardt School of Education, New York, New York

Northwestern University, Bienen School of Music, Evanston, Illinois

Pace School of Performing Arts, New York, New York

Pacific Conservatory of the Performing Arts, Santa Maria, California

Pig Iron School for Advanced Performance Training, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Point Park University, Conservatory of Performing Arts, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Ponoma College, Claremont, California

Queens College, Aaron Copland School of Music, Flushing, New York

Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island

Rutgers University, Rutgers, New Jersey

San Francisco Conservatory of Music, San Francisco, California

San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA

Shakespeare Academy @ Stratford, Stratford, Connecticut

Shakespeare Theater, Washington, DC

State University of New York, Broome Community College, Binghamton, NY

State University of New York at Potsdam, Department of Theater and Dance, Potsdam, New York

Stella Adler Academy of Acting, Los Angeles, California

Stetson University, DeLand, Florida

Syracuse University College of Music, Syracuse, New York

Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Theatre, Musical Theatre and Music

Towson University, Towson, Maryland

Tulsa Community College, Tulsa, Oklahoma

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

University of California, School of Theater, Film and Television, Los Angeles, California

University of California, Herb Alpert School of Music, Los Angeles, California

University of California, San Diego, California

University of Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music, Cincinnati, Ohio

University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado

University of Denver, Lamont School of Music, Denver, Colorado

University of Idaho Lionel Hampton School of Music & the Department of Movement Sciences Dance Program, Moscow Idaho

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois

University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland

University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

University of Michigan, School of Music, Theatre and Dance, Ann Arbor, Michigan

University of Minnesota, School of Music, Minneapolis, Minnesota

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico

University of North Carolina School of the Arts, School of Drama, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

University of North Texas, College of Music, Denton, Texas

University of San Diego/Old Globe Theater, San Diego, California

University of Southern California, School of Dramatic Arts, Los Angeles, California

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee

University of Utah, School of Dance, Salt Lake City, Utah

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Walnut Hill School of the Arts, Natick, Massachusetts

Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri

Waterfront Playhouse and Conservatory, Berkeley, California

Webster University, Webster Groves, Missouri

West Valley College, Saratoga, California

Westminster Choir College, Princeton, New Jersey

William Esper Acting Studio, New York, New York

Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio

Yale School of Drama, New Haven, Connecticut 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.amsatonline.org/aws/AMSAT/pt/sp/educational_institutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are some related Journal articles
 * Cotik, T. (2019). Concepts of the Alexander Technique and Practical Ideas for Musicians. American String Teachers Association Journal, 69(2), 33–36. https://doi-org.library.esc.edu/10.1177/0003131319835543
 * Hembreiker, Linda-Rose. "Teaching with the Alexander Technique." American Harp Journal, winter 2010, pp. 41+.
 * Neely, Dawn Wells. "Body consciousness and singers: do voice teachers use mind-body methods with students and in their own practice?" Journal of Singing, vol. 73, no. 2, Nov.-Dec. 2016, pp. 137+.
 * Peterson, P. H. (2008). on the Voice: Alexander Or Feldenkrais: Which Method Is Best? The Choral Journal, 48(11), 67–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23556912
 * Rootberg R. “End-gaining”and the“Means-Whereby”: Discovering the best process to achieve goals of vocal training and pedagogy using the Alexander Technique, 2011 Voice and Speech Review, 7:1, 157-163, DOI: 10.1080/23268263.2011.10739536
 * Schlinger, Marcy Feldenkrais Method, Alexander Technique, and Yoga—Body Awareness Therapy in the Performing Arts Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Clinics REVIEW ARTICLE| VOLUME 17, ISSUE 4, P865-875, NOVEMBER 01, 2006
 * Korn, H. (2014). Indirect procedures: The musician's guide to the alexander technique. The American Music Teacher, 63(5), 49-50. https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/indirect-procedures-musicians-guide-alexander/docview/1516492602/se-2
 * Buckoke P. Double bassist Peter Buckoke on treating head and neck pain 2019 Strad Magazine https://www.thestrad.com/playing-hub/double-bassist-peter-buckoke-on-treating-head-and-neck-pain/1922.article
 * Alcantara, Pedro D. Indirect Procedures: A Musician’s Guide to the Alexander Technique 1st Edition Oxford University Press April 1997 ISBN - ‎0198165692 978-0198165699
 * Lacraru, Emanuela Maria, "Supporting your instrument in a body-friendly manner : a comparative approach" 2014 DMA diss., Louisiana State University. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2829
 * Chou, Yun-Chieh. “When the Mouse Meets the Elephant: A Manual for String Bass Players with Application of the Philosophy and Principles of the F. M. Alexander Technique.” 2013 DMA diss., Louisiana State University.
 * Acting:
 * Iammatteo, E. (1996). The alexander technique: Improving the balance. Performing Arts & Entertainment in Canada, 30(3), 37. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/alexander-technique-improving-balance/docview/224880281/se-2
 * Miller, B. X. (2003). The actor and the alexander technique. New York Library Journal, 128(6), 68 https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/actor-alexander-technique/docview/196816372/se-2
 * Dance:
 * Lewis, K. (2006, 11). Understanding alexander technique. Dance Spirit, 10, 45. https://www.proquest.com/magazines/understanding-alexander-technique/docview/209305187/se-2 68.129.197.221 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that this is a request to add some of the material to the article. Ignoring all the behavioral problems from the ip, no per WP:NOT and WP:POV. --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This giant wall of citations is in support of adding a sentence or two along the lines of,
 * "AT is commonly taught at Universities, particularly in the area of performing arts."
 * How is that WP:NOT? Again the uses section currently has two sentences one of which is about the vaguest possible sentence that is POV it seems anyway; the wiki doesn't describe the subject matter, is this not a problem for editors? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of WP:NOT, this is not quackwatch etc, this is where people come for general/introductory information and all that's in the page's body is either skepticism or vague and inaccurate descriptions; neutrality in editorial tone is not on the table it seems. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you got a couple of WP:RS that support your contention that "AT is commonly taught at Universities, particularly in the area of performing arts."? If you had said that in the first place, and provided a source, this could have been so much easier, and you may not have had such push back against your in-bubble-ness, or write your incomprehensible walls-of-text. Your WP:SPA behaviour is unbelievably reminiscent of a true believer so I wonder if you could follow the requirements of WP:COI before you try to edit the project any further. Thanks. -Roxy the dog 14:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the course offering listing at the university not WP:RS? This is a simple fact.
 * Also thanks for the accusation, "unbelievably reminiscent of a true believer" Last I checked AT isn't a religion and has nothing to do with belief... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OR, in addition to the previously mentioned NOT and POV problems. --Hipal (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No original research? There are countless case studies of application of AT to various performance activities listed published in relevant journals to the activity, as these outcomes are not medical in nature but performance altering case studies generally suffice as the research doesn't aim to make any medical claims and therefor don't need to be double blind reviews etc. There seems to be a viewpoint of editors that AT is strictly a health practice but it it's just as often used by performers (actors, musicians, dancers) as is evidenced by the journal articles I have cited. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgLlft5P9DA 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While WP:OR allows primary sources to be used, it is "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
 * WP:NPOV says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
 * WP:VERIFY says, "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy." 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFY says, "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy." 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

AT compared to Yoga and Feldenkrais for Performing Artists
William J. Dawson, MD reviewed the article "Feldenkrais Method, Alexander Technique, and Yoga—Body Awareness Therapy in the Performing Arts Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Clinics." William's review was published in Medical Problems of Performing Artists. This can be used as a better source than Ernst for a description of the AT and a line in the uses section about AT for performing artists.

"The author compares and contrasts these three body awareness disciplines in a concise, clear manner, and provides a literature review that comments on the relatively few publications that provide "valid science" about the effectiveness of these disciplines. The Feldenkrais Method is taught to students through specific individual or class instruction in two components: awareness through movement (ATM) and functional integration (FI). The Alexander Technique addresses form and function, posture and movement; the goal is to create ease and freedom with movement or expression. Unlike the Feldenkrais Method, the Alexander Technique depends on touch for treatment and instruction, and practices somatic reorganization, or recognition and discarding of habitual postures or movements that predispose to injury or decreased function. Yoga is a classical Hindu school of thought that is centuries old, complex, and essentially a lifestyle leading to enlightenment. The prevalent type of yoga popular and available in the Western world is hatha yoga, the practice of postures or asanas. Unlike the practices of Feldenkrais and Alexander, where training is formal and practitioners are regulated, yoga has no formal governance or mandated professional organization."

Dawson, William J. "Schlinger M: Feldenkrais Method, Alexander Technique, and yoga--body awareness therapy in performing arts medicine." Medical Problems of Performing Artists, vol. 22, no. 4, Dec. 2007, pp. 166+.

Schlinger, Marcy Feldenkrais Method, Alexander Technique, and Yoga—Body Awareness Therapy in the Performing Arts Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Clinics REVIEW ARTICLE| VOLUME 17, ISSUE 4, P865-875, NOVEMBER 01, 2006 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Marcy Schlinger OD, is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From Schliner 2006:
 * The Alexander Technique is a composite of theory and practice that addresses form and function, posture, and movement. The goal of practice is to create ease and freedom with movement or expression. Many theater and music programs teach the Alexander Technique ... the Alexander Technique attempts to help performing artists overcome habitual postures and movements that predispose one to injury or decreased function. Similarly, the mind–body connection is integral to the Alexander approach.
 * The use of touch is essential for treatment and instruction. The Alexander teacher, using touch and verbal cues, offers suggestions to the student that correct maladaptive posture and movement and at the same time instruct proper alignment and balance. With treatment, the body is able to access balance and ease. The Alexander Technique is not specific for a particular artistic expression. Application of the basic principles to any physically manifested action is possible.
 * In his writings, Alexander referred to the use of the self or good use. These terms imply that an individual may enlist perception and ability for expression in a conscientious and careful way. In his work, he addressed the ways in which poor physical posture and ineffective movement were linked to stress and movement distortion. ‘‘Thinking in activity’’ was another phrase and directive that Alexander used as a guiding principle. Inherent in this concept is the circular feedback communication between action and reaction, posture, and adjustment.
 * Implementing the Alexander Technique involves a process of somatic reorganization. Alexander instructed students to inhibit patterns through awareness and release of holding tendencies. He also used directives or kinesthetic cues to assist the student in further establishing postural release and a new set point of balance and length. The directives included verbal instructions accompanied by intelligent, guiding touch. ‘‘Let the neck be free; allow the head to move forward and up, and allow the back to lengthen and widen’’ are instructions used by teachers for axial alignment.
 * The official organization (and Web site) for the Alexander Technique is the American Society for the Alexander Technique–AmSat; (http://www. alexandertech.org). The North American Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique, the American Center for the Alexander Technique, and other national societies also administer teacher training programs and continuing education. The training is extensive; it takes place over several years, incorporating at least 1600 hours of instruction and practice 68.129.197.221 (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would we use someone who appears to make their living from pseudoscience, rather than arguably the world's foremost scientific analyst of pseudoscience? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OD and MD are functionally equivalent, are all editors here Ernst disciples in the church of anti-quackery? You clearly love Ernst's work, "world's foremost scientific analyst" (thanks for the belly laugh!) 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While WP:OR allows primary sources to be used, it is "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
 * WP:NPOV says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
 * WP:VERIFY says, "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy." 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst's influence on this article and editors
Edzard Ernst is an alternative medicine skeptic that has expanded his attack more broadly from his original interest of critique in homeopathy and chiropractic though he has little data outside those areas, interestingly a lot of the wiki seems to be plagiarized from his book "Alternative Medicine." Presented as evidence, the entry on Alexander Technique in the section Physical Therapies of Alternative Medicine by Edzard Ernst with notes:

The Alexander technique was developed by Frederick M Alexander (1869-1955), an actor who experienced vocal problems and believed he had solved them with his approach. The basic assumption is that poor habits in posture and movement can cause a range of health problems.

1. Alexander reasoned that he was inadvertently harming himself by habitually pulling his head backward and downwards thus disrupting the normal working of his postural, breathing, and vocal processes. Retraining these functions, he seemingly resolved his recurring voice loss problems. Subsequently, he developed an educational programme aimed at avoiding unnecessary muscular tension. Even though Alexander did not envisage his approach to become a popular alternative treatment (no citation given, this is clearly an opinion of the author with little knowledge or interest of AT).

2. There have only been a few studies of the Alexander technique (again no citation and “only a few” is open to interpretation, there are dozens at least). They suggest that it is effective for chronic back pain and helpful for patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease. A systematic review concluded that “strong evidence exists for the effectiveness of Alexander Technique lessons for chronic back pain and moderate evidence in Parkinson’s-associated disability. Preliminary evidence suggests that Alexander Technique lessons may lead to improvements in balance skills in the elderly, in general chronic pain, posture, respiratory function and stuttering, but there is insufficient evidence to support recommendations in these areas.” (For this sentence Ernsts only cites himself: Ernst 2012; this is usually a problematic and unacceptable practice not to mention he is clearly directly quoting from the NHS statement on AT.)

3. More recent studies also supported the notion that the Alexander Technique might reduce the risk of falls in the elderly (here is cites the systematic review by Woodman and Moore 2012 which Roxy the Dog would not allow as a source on the wiki). And alleviate neck pain (here he cites O’Neil et al. 2015). However, the evidence is only tentative and not fully convincing (Ernst opinion, no citation).

4. Alexander published several books in which he created his own terminology, outlined his concepts and gave precise instruction about his methods. These volumes are largely devoid of scientific evidence (no citation, opinion of Ernst).

5. The Alexander technique is taught by ‘Alexander teachers’ in a series of 10-40 lessons lasting from 30 to 60 min. Alexander teachers closely observe their students, show them how to move with less strain and correct their posture. (No citation).

6. The Alexander technique is also used by many performing artists allegedly improving their vocal functions by consciously increasing air-flow, allowing improved coal skill and tone. The method is said to also reduce stage fright and to increase spontaneity. (This statement is blatantly plagiarized in the wiki and not supported with any source although I have provided many sources better sources for AT being used by performing artists)

7. There are few conceivable risks associated with the Alexander technique, and the costs are usually moderate.

Also included is a chart that reads:

Plausibility - Moderate

Efficacy - Very Good

Safety - Good

Cost - Good

Risk/Benefit balance - Very good 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Even though I don't think Ernst should be a primary source for this wiki because as a skeptic with little knowledge or interest in the AT beyond including it in a large swath of modalities to face a guilt by association with each other, still, Ernst is overal passively approving of AT, certainly not hostile towards it like in the case of other more targeted groups. If editors insist on using him extensively, at least quote him accurately. https://www.gponline.com/alexander-technique-body-posture/neurology/neurology/article/594340 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No one has anything further to say about Ernst in relation to this wiki? It certainly reads like a disciple of Ernst wrote/editorialized this wiki to me. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As I have already said up page, it is the other way round, Ernst appears to have used this page as a source. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * That's probably the funniest thing I've seen on en.wiki in weeks and weeks, so funny that I feel obliged to bring it to a larger audience. Thanks for the belly laughs. - Roxy the dog 11:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have said elsewhere on the page; this wiki is sourcing self-repeating misinformation and has been for some time; I'm here trying to fix things and editors want to keep garbage and delete the meat of this wiki haha 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The source of this is Ernst own book 'Alternative Medicine'
 * I have copied the relevant sections from the book above. 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-12601-8 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is to be done about this? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again shows you how reliable Ernst is as a source to cite Wikipedia... (not at all) 68.129.197.221 (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2011.322 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * can you provide your evidence or reasoning that Ernst copied from Wikipedia instead of the other way around? It wouldn't surprise me, but a claim like that really should be supported with timestamped quotes. - Palpable (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When was the entry made to the wiki? Prior to 2015? 68.129.197.221 (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking us? Look it up, you are making the claim. Sgerbic (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You frequent editors are surely able to do that more easily than a newb like me can... 68.129.197.221 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See newest sections 68.129.197.221 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)