Talk:Feldenkrais Method

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I don't know what you mean by "opposing view".

It's a reliable source, so I'm not sure what you mean by "the lack of reliable sources".

Independent sources are important in topics like this. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

And in this context, the addition of Norman Doidge's opinions [2] seems like an attempt at false balance. --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

And taking the opinion out of the context of the reference is probably a POV violation. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Ronz. Here are my responses:

The opposing view in this case is less skeptical. As someone who wants to know more about this method, I find it beneficial to have a reference leading me to more. (For what it's worth, I think that evidence-based research is absolutely necessary and should certainly stay.)

I'm referring to the lack of reliable sources for research on this topic. i.e. Questionable peer-reviews.

I agree. I thought Science-based Medicine was a good independent source for this.

I was simply trying to represent the viewpoint from another professional in the field to provide 'better' balance to the "Effectiveness and Reception." It is not an attempt at false balance, but rather, an attempt to provide better balance.

Can you clarify what you mean by "taking the opinion out of context?" I've read Doidge's book (part of the reason I'm here) and the quote in Hall's article seemed like a great representation of Doidge's opinion.

Thanks again. --Sgtgalvin (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, sorry for making any edits without discussing them here first. I'll wait for more consensus (and understanding on my part) before making any more major edits. --Sgtgalvin (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)