Talk:Moshé Feldenkrais

Untitled
Good Grief! Did he actually say, "...I was a great man that did a lot for the world because of that you all should be grateful...God is pleased with the work I do, in some way I'm very much like God." I hope that is either a misquote or is taken out of context.Aiki Patrick Parker 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Moshe is only 'human' and I'm sure he did a tremendous amount to help others - The following quote sums it up for me... Carolyn (Melb) :)

"Find your true weakness and surrender to it. Therein lies the path to genius. Most people spend their lives using their strengths to overcome or cover up their weaknesses. Those few who use their strengths to incorporate their weaknesses, who don't divide themselves, those people are very rare. In any generation there are a few and they lead their generation." [**We should be truly grateful for those who are committed to (humbly) achieving this**... Carolyn (Melb):)]

Indirect cause of death
This says he died as an indirect result of injuries he received in a motor accident in Zurich in 1981. True? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Physicist or engineer?
The article says that Feldenkrais was a physicist but the only degree it mentions is a Doctor of Science in engineering. Did Feldenkrais have a degree in physics? John Link (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Verify Story?
It really looks like, don't it? Some kind of mountebank healer like Apollonios of Thyana. The myth of his exodus from Ukraine with all the little children following him is particularly noteworthy. Would it be possible to just verify all this? If there is some "different story", it'd be worth adding. --Petrus Iustinus (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A rather lengthy biography of Moshe Feldenkrais was published in 2015. It may contain additional information and reference reliable sources to help validate (or invalidate) information about his history. Roywaters (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Information related to the Feldenkrais Method
I see that an edit was made recently to remove criticism of the method he created. The stated reason was that "this assessment of the method is irrelevant to a biography about the founder of the method." That edit has since been reversed and a new section was added specifically for criticism of the Feldenkrais Method. I agree with the original edit to remove this information as it is about the method and not the man. It is already included prominently on the Feldenkrais Method page. As well, it appears inconsistent with how similar information is handled between pages of individuals who created other methods (somatic or otherwise). For example Frederick Matthias Alexander and the Alexander Technique.

Some may consider me to have a conflict of interest, as I am trained in the Feldenkrais Method. I don't, however, believe the edit I'm suggesting comes from bias. I simply agree that it is not relevant on this page. Before deleting the content and the section, I want to open this for discussion. Roywaters (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the method is absolutely appropriate in the context of this bio page. It was an integral part of why this man is notable. According to wiki convention though, the criticism should be spread throughout the article in proportional weight to the evidence, not concentrated in a single separate section labeled "criticisms." -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 05:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section
Per WP:WEIGHT etc am moving this section to the talk page, given that the cited study does not even mention/criticize the person, Moshé Feldenkrais:

Criticism

In 2015 the Australian Government's Department of Health published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by health insurance; the Feldenkrais Method was one of 17 therapies evaluated for which no clear evidence of effectiveness was found. The report notes that there is "a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of Feldenkrais for the improvement of health outcomes for any clinical condition," though it admits possible bias in its choice only to review studies conducted between April 1, 2008 and September 5, 2013 and from its lack of inclusion of non-English language studies.

81.129.188.226 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This is a biographical article. This information belongs on the Feldenkrais Method page. PianoPedagogue (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Developing neutrality in tone
Hello,

I am new to editing Wikipedia articles and would prefer to avoid making mistakes in the process, any more than I already have at any rate.

So to the point. When I read the article it seemed that there was an unnecessarily negative tone to it. In particular the introduction where this phrase is used:

"...which is claimed to improve human functioning by increasing self-awareness through movement, but which is not supported by medical evidence."

It would seem to me that to preserve the neutral tone of the article it would be appropriate to change it to read like this:

"...which is intended to improve human functioning by increasing self-awareness through movement."

This way it is acknowledged that the Feldenkrais Method plays a large part in why Moshe Feldenkrais is remembered and there is a particular intent to the method. However it seems excessively prejudicial to keep the statement as is, because it also implies, at least at first glance that medical evidence has disproved the method. Where as the main article quoted makes it clear that as there is not enough evidence that meets the standard of "Randomized Controlled Trial" they did not have information enough to make a recommendation either for or against it, which kicked it out of the running for government funding given that, "The Private Health Insurance Rebate will be paid for insurance products that cover natural therapy services only where the Chief Medical Officer finds there is clear evidence they are clinically effective."[1]

The following quote is from the conclusion of the Feldenkrais section under "Implications for practice"

"The effectiveness of Feldenkrais on improving health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain. There is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice."

Meaning we don't know if it is effective or not there is not enough Randomized Controlled Trial (RTC) information in the systematic reviews (SR's) we used.

The following quote is from the conclusion of the Feldenkrais section under "Implications for research"

"This overview highlights the significant research gaps in the field of Feldenkrais, providing numerous opportunities for future research in this field. Future research, if conducted, should focus on rigorous, well-designed RCTs that assess the effectiveness of the Feldenkrais method in improving health outcomes in specific patient populations."

There needs to be more research, particularly Randomized Controlled Trials. (See above) It is also my understanding that those who practice the Feldenkrais Method would be interested in seeing it tested, to have its day in court so to speak. If there is merit let it come out, if not let that be proven too.

Therefor it would make sense to choose the quotes that actually pertain to the application of Feldenkrais when describing its use and applicability.

In this case it would make sense to change the criticism section to read:

The Feldenkrais is intended to teach better posture and improve quality of life, by means of instruction and gentle manipulation of the body.[1]

In 2015 the Australian Government's Department of Health published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by health insurance; the Feldenkrais Method was one of 17 therapies evaluated for which no clear evidence of effectiveness was found. The report notes that there is "The effectiveness of Feldenkrais on improving health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain. There is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice," though it admits possible bias in its choice only to review studies conducted between April 1, 2008 and September 5, 2013 and from its lack of inclusion of non-English language studies.[1]

This would preserve the neutrality of the article, indicating that it is not a treatment that has been proven in the medical field while still bringing to light that this is not because of the evidence against it but rather due to the lack of research and evidence either way.

At the very least the statement in the introduction where the words "claims" and "not supported by medical evidence" are used without any support should be considered prejudicial and to cast an unnecessarily negative light on Moshe Feldenkrais himself.

I would be interested in hearing what you think of my reasoning.

BobTRT (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia means by neutrality, and how evidence-based medicine works. To be neutral we must reflect the best sources, and per WP:PSCI with something dodgy like FM we are obliged to point out its dodgy nature. Medical evidence does not find evidence "against" therapies; for therapies which do not work it merely finds a lack of evidence that they "do" work (unless it is actively harmful). This is where we are with FM. Meanwhile its promoters make unevidenced claims for it and make money selling it. Finally this article is about the man Moshé Feldenkrais, not his method, and while it is right the Method should be mentioned in summary here, what is said must be in WP:SYNC with out main article on the Feldenkrais method. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand that it can not be stated to have scientific support without such, the interesting thing I noticed when reading the report from the Aussies was that again and again they said that what they saw as research to date did not have the strength to make any recommendations from, and that more rigorous research is needed before any determination can be made. That is totally cool. To say that there has not been enough research done to provide reasonable evidence either for or against, indicates just that.

It is interesting to note the vehemence with which some currently accepted theories were rejected before there was a sufficient mass of evidence with which to make an actual determination. Advising people to approach with caution, and that there hasn't been enough research for the medical community to make a finding is totally in line with the evidence. In fact the report itself said that "Overall, there was not reliable, high-quality evidence available to allow assessment of the clinical effectiveness of any of the natural therapies for any health conditions."[1] and that "The absence of evidence does not in itself mean that the therapies evaluated do or do not work."[1]

With regards to Feldenkrais their conclusion is that "The effectiveness of Feldenkrais for the improvement of health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain. The available evidence is limited by the small number of RCTs in this field. Individual studies were small in size, and likely to be insufficiently powered to detect a statistically significant outcome. Significant research gaps exist and there is no solid evidence base on which to make recommendations."[1]

So they then go on to state that, "The effectiveness of Feldenkrais on improving health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain. There is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice."[1] Which is to say that they did not have strong enough research to make any recommendations, let alone recommend that the Australian government fund access to it. They go on to state that the gaps in the research provide, "numerous opportunities for future research in this field. Future research, if conducted, should focus on rigorous, well-designed RCTs that assess the effectiveness of the Feldenkrais method in improving health outcomes in specific patient populations."[1] In short they want a series of studies that assess the effectiveness of Feldenkrais for specific ailments so that they can then make a determination of whether Feldenkrais would be effective for that "specific patient population".

So, to indicate that there needs to be more research before a determination can be made is significantly different in tone than saying that it is "not supported by medical evidence" which implies that there is medical evidence worth considering but which does not support the hypothesis, even though the Aussie report has made clear that this is not the case.

Perhaps both articles (Feldenkrais Method as well) should be amended to communicate that there is insufficient research to indicate whether it is effective or not and that no determination can be made until more rigorous research is done which will then allow a determination with a reasonable degree of certainty.

"Evidence from high-quality studies designed and reported using rigorous and controlled methods is required before any conclusions regarding the use of Feldenkrais can be made."[1]

This is probably the most concise summary of the findings for the article that forms the basis of the "Feldenkrais Method" section of the Moshe Feldenkrais article and the "Effectiveness and Reception" section of the Feldenkrais Method article. In light of this, please consider whether editing both this article and the Feldenkrais Method article to indicate this would indeed bring them more in line with the actual statements and intentions of the Australian government article which is quoted.

Thank you for your time and consideration, BobTRT (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are clearly here to advocate for this technique, but the scientific sources show it to be without merit. Wikipedia favours science over pseudoscience. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a major difference between having a statistically significant body of data that shows no evidence in a particular direction and having a body of evidence that is not large, or complete enough, to make a statistically significant determination. In the first case it would be evidence of lack due to the volume and completeness of data considered, on the other hand it would be lack of evidence available due to the statistically insignificant volume of data with which to work. Having read the Moshe article, then read the Australian publication quoted, it would appear that in the first case a lack of evidence given a statistically significant body of data is implied, while reading the Australian publication indicates that the second case is in fact the finding of the authors, at least with regards to the Feldenkrais Method. This is the distinction that I have been trying to bring to light. I apologize if I have come across as blindly advocating in a predetermined direction without regard for the evidence presented. I have tried to be clear that I am not making particular claims for the Feldenkrais Method or its effectiveness, but merely to point out the above distinction between evidence of lack and lack of evidence available, while bringing to attention the intent of the authors of the quoted paper.


 * I fully support the concern that the articles on Wikipedia be very careful to present the truth of any given situation in order that it be a reliable source, and one that does not set people up to be taken advantage of. This is especially true as I myself often use said articles as reference points.


 * I am wondering how we can move forward in ensuring that this is the case, as well making sure that the articles quoted on Wikipedia are accurately represented.


 * Thank you for your consideration. BobTRT (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Every dubious therapy, from crystal therapy to tree therapy, claims it need to have oodles of money spent to "disprove" its ludicrous claims. That's not how science works. The onus is to provide a shred of evidence that the whacky ideas of Feldrenkrais have a shred of credibility. Nothing yet. Wikipedia reflects reality and says so. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, it is ridiculous to make a claim and require others to disprove it. On the other hand when there has not been enough reliable research done to make any determination, that needs to be stated too, and in that case there needs to be more research done to seek rigorous support for any claims made. This is in fact the stated conclusion of the Australian publication quoted in the Wikipedia articles in question. BobTRT (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The source says lots of things and is currently represented accurately and in plain English. We don't say useless things on Wikipedia like "more research is needed". Alexbrn (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is insufficient evidence disproving the casein theory of lunar geology. While it is claimed that man has visited the moon and brought back samples, these studies were funded by Big NASA and cannot be trusted. More research is needed. Guy (Help!) 04:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to go out on a limb and assume that the studies published by NASA around lunar geology did not conclude with "our evidence is too flimsy to come to any conclusions", let alone spend half of the report space discussing just how little reliable evidence is actually available. On the other hand, you have the right to choose to believe what ever you want.


 * My concern is that while the individual statements used may be accurate, they are put together in a manner that may indicate a much more conclusive result than the authors of the publication intended. This is very different from saying that the report itself is suspect and should be rejected. It is, in fact, that I consider it important to see a less slanted view of the results of the article, one which is more in line with what is actually there.


 * Out of curiosity, which is more useless? To indicate uncertainty where it exists, or to push a manufactured level of certainty that is not in line with the actual sources being referenced? I also note that the comment from the report that was in the Wikipedia article discussing possible sources of bias in their results due to methodology has since been removed, despite the fact that the information was in the article before I made any attempt to edit.BobTRT (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The burden of evidence means that it is for advocates to prove their case, not for the reality-based community to disprove it. They ave failed to prove their case. Supporters of every charlatan in the world make the same argument you do, we are quite used to it by now. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My contention has only been to see that the article referenced is used in a manner consistent with its author's intent. I see now why Wikipedia is a good place to start looking into a topic, and why it should not be quoted but instead used as a pointer in beginning to look for actual research. BobTRT (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'intent' of the report was to recommend that no money be paid out for health insurance claims for use of FM. It also talks about the paucity of evidence for FM and the implausibility of the 17 altmed treatments discussed. So we are in fact currently representing the report faithfully. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The only time that insurance will pay is when there is no way not to. It is what it is. I also understand and respect your goal of protecting people who rely on Wikipedia for unbiased information. In this case, since the publication specifically says "Significant research gaps exist and there is no solid evidence base on which to make recommendations."(pdf p70, document p61), it is important to make this clear in the Wikipedia article. I realize that your approach is grounded in a desire to protect readers from those who would take unfair advantage of the uninformed. In order to maintain that while also striving to communicate clearly I would like to suggest a couple of minor edits for clarity.


 * In the Feldenkrais Method section I suggest that the end be amended to read: "The report notes that there is "a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of Feldenkrais for the improvement of health outcomes for any clinical condition"[1], given that "Significant research gaps exist and there is no solid evidence base on which to make recommendations."[1]


 * May I also suggest that the intro section be amended a bit as well. Here are a couple of options. I would prefer, "the Feldenkrais Method, which is intended to improve human functioning by increasing self-awareness through movement." as the amendment to the "Feldenkrais Method" section would cover the rest and the intro is the place to give a head's up as to what is coming as opposed to present an argument better suited for elsewhere. However, in pursuit of a text which will help protect unwary readers who are seeking verification of claims made elsewhere, may I suggest, "the Feldenkrais Method, which claims to help improve human functioning by increasing self-awareness through movement, but for which there is no medical evidence base available."


 * Respectfully BobTRT (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an improvement. We need to be clear that there is no good evidence (there is some, but it is poor and so not useful). We also need to be clear this stuff is promoted for therapeutic purposes, per the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What about pulling quotes directly from the conclusion section of the report to inform the Feldenkrais Method section of the Wikipedia article? It might then look like this-


 * In 2015 the Australian Government's Department of Health published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by health insurance; the Feldenkrais Method was one of 17 therapies evaluated for which no clear evidence of effectiveness was found. The report concludes that,"The effectiveness of Feldenkrais on improving health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain. There is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice."[1], due to the fact that, "Significant research gaps exist and there is no solid evidence base on which to make recommendations."[1]


 * Regards BobTRT (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Best to represent the whole source in lay terms, and not just "pull" selected quotations in a way which doesn't do that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moshé Feldenkrais. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160126004300/http://www.helsana.ch/en/individuals/all-about-health/relaxation/the-feldenkrais-method to http://www.helsana.ch/en/individuals/all-about-health/relaxation/the-feldenkrais-method

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Birthday conversion from Julian to Gregorian Calender
In a recent conversation, it became apparent, that at the time of MF’s birth in Czarist Russia the Julian calender was still in use. Therefore a correction of +13 days to fit Gregorian calender conventions should be applied. Swiltsch (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

for cross-check with Jewish calender: In the biography of MF by Mark Reese it says: "Moshe was born in the Pshater's splendid home on the Jewish holiday of Shavuot on May 6, 1904." It is easy to check that the first day of the holiday of Shavuot fell on 6th Sivan 5664 according to the Jewish calender, which corresponds to May 19, 1904 according to the Gregorian calender. Swiltsch (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Reverted corrections
@mrollie This article uses inaccurate wording in two places. I notice my corrections were reverted.

1. "...sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered...". Whereas in fact, the therapies were already being covered and the goal of the review was was to determine if they would continue to be funded.

2. "...alternate therapies..." whereas the Australian report uses the term "natural therapies". The editor gave the reason "use common terminology". Common to where? It seems more accurate to use the actual term, as this is an international resource.

Could you please engage in a brief discussion before reverting? So we can understand each others' goal. Thanks. D1doherty (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Page 13 of the report defines what they mean. I think "alternative therapies" is the best description, consistent with Alternative therapies, which we might want to link. Natural therapies has a different meaning. --Hipal (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Seems like several of these terms are fraught. Quackwatch calls this an unnatural method (natural = science), and some are critical of alternative because it is not an alternative medicine.
 * I know this is a controversial topic. I want to add value while avoiding mines and pitfalls.
 * More later… D1doherty (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)