[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Talk:Feldenkrais Method

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sgtgalvin (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 28 December 2019 (→‎NPOV Question Related to This Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Per talk page guidelines Layout, please post new topics at the bottom


“Junk Source”, “POV”?

Hello, Long time user, first time editor... I recently made an edit to this page and was initially reverted as “POV”, then again as “Junk Source.” I’d like to open a dialogue to understand how these classifications are determined and also how I can be helpful. We’re told to “be bold”, but then our contributions are immediately dismissed as “junk”. Please help. Thanks, --Sgtgalvin (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must be reputable. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is notorious as perhaps the least reputable journal on the planet.[1] Any health claims need very strong sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I’ll have to be more scrupulous with the medical references. I’m also planning to update my profile soon with any potential conflicts of interest. That said, it occurs to me that I believe Moshe Feldenkrais would not have classified his method as medicine, but I’m not entirely sure how to relay that bit of information with a good reference. Maybe I can find something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtgalvin (talkcontribs) 22:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Question Related to This Article

Under the heading, "Effectiveness and Reception", it says:

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

If I'm reading WP:YESPOV correctly, it seems to me this quote by itself is not only slightly judgmental (going against the "prefer nonjudgmental language" principle), but also represents a one-sided point of view from an outspoken skeptic (contradicting the "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" principle.) I'm still learning here and I recognize this has been a contentious topic already (judging by the changelist). I read Dr. Gorski's blogpost and noticed he also calls Reflexology "quackery", but there is no equivalent reference in the Reflexology article.

There are already plenty of references in the Feldenkrais Method article indicating the lack of research for the Method, with all the pertinent disclaimers included as well. As such, I do not believe this kind of reference, while a valid opinion, is in keeping with the principles of NPOV and should either be removed or rewritten.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Sgtgalvin (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gorski's opinions are often used to provide a skeptical, medical viewpoint, especially when no better sources are available. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So, it really is just the lack of reliable sources for the opposing view that prevents the representation of it. Thanks for the quick reply. --Sgtgalvin (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]