Talk:Applied kinesiology

message: It seems to me that this article is rather slighted toward opinionated rather than factual information. I think it needs to be cleaned up to provide information about the subject that isn't so slighted toward someone's opinion on the subject. The External Links has a tag that says it should be cut short. Can we get rid of some of the links that have redundant info? I also think those links should be things that use facts, not just opinions.  Just my 2¢. (Jif101 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that this is being explained to you now well over a year after your comments, and well after your user page has vanished, but the fact is that for purposes of being consideredwp:rs, primary sources are generally shunned as being unreliable, whereas secondary sources from reliable media sources ARE considered wp:rs If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Snertking (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep to the facts, please

message: The article had a POV tag before which another editor removed without any clear discussion that I can see in the archive.  I have reinstated it as the article seem too much of an attack piece to be NPOV.  For example the lede soon uses tendentious, weasely language such as purportedly and continues in the same vein. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Weasel words are statements without adequate attribution.  WP:Tendentious editing is partisan, biased or skewed editing.  To use words like purportedly without adequate citations would give us an NPOV problem, but this article is rammed full of citations to credible research showing that AK is pseudoscientific nonsense - in this case to remove the word purportedly would give us an NPOV problem.  I've removed the tag again - I hope this explanation is sufficiently clear.  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This would fail the WP:RS test for sure, but it is a double-blind experiment (ahem) worth watching with an open mind. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#FORUM, please? I am not sure why all these (in general, I think none of them involved the above editor) talkpage digressions have been bugging me lately, but it really would be nice if we could stick to the topic of improving the article. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point taken. I struck it, but feel free to remove my comment above as well. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an RS 

message: This edit added what appears to be Original research. If any Reliable sources make these observations and comparisons, please introduce them here for discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal observation 

message: WP:UNDUE Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.  This section should lead with the scientific consensus, instead of ending with it.  Additionally, the intro sentence creates an impression of a false balance:  i.e. that some studies weight in favor, and some against.  The mainstream scientific research should also make up the majority of the section's content.  Dogweather (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I read through the section, and it's a huge mess.  It would give the mistaken impression that the scientific community is in disagreement about AK's efficacy.  I'll fix when I have time. Dogweather (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scientific Research" section needs to be brought into balance 

message: It is very, very useful to start with an experiential basis for writing about a physically based practice. Whilst I would by no means suggest that we throw theory out of the window, I am arguing that it is important that we understand what we are talking about. Without the experience the theory is an abstraction, without a clarity of how it relates together. In learning these disciplines there is a certain extent to which it has to be part of an oral tradition. I cannot teach you ballet just by telling you about ballet: I may be able to give you certain maps, I may be able to illuminate certain principles of it, but in the end, we would need to be in a room together doing it for you to really learn how to do it.
In the same way that I would never suggest that someone who has never seen ballet, or been to a ballet class focus their writing on ballet; I would not suggest that someone who has no unmediated experience of Applied Kinesiology focus their writing on it. This is not to say that it is bad and should not be done, but if it is, maybe it is good write from a point of an open honesty and humbleness.
There are many disciplines that have a strong experiential basis for them, but are yet to be accepted by the scientific mainstream, and this is more to do with a lack of research and dialogue than it is to with the work being scientifically unviable in itself. What I am saying is that we should be critical of what we read and write - if most of the literature says one thing, then most of what we say is in danger of just regurgitating what everyone has said. To be critical is to digest, integrate and express what we experience, through the being and the doing of it and through the thinking and the reading about it. Sebbi (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Guideline for writing about Physical Practices 

message: I think someone should mention about stuff like this:
http://kinesiologybydenaplaice.co.uk/
http://www.icpkp.com/Story?Action=View&Story_id=1636
I put ADHD into my local city and found this. (Was looking for an ADHD support group locally). I would never use one of them websites but it would be a good to mention this for other people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.140.137 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: UM, NO. The webpage in question, for starters, is in no way wp:rs Secondly, why would an advert for a particular AK practice be relevant to the article?  Snertking (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites 

message: The article is currently in my namespace. I am concerned about potential deletion, but I do believe the topic has become sufficiently notable, for better or worse, as demonstrated by the references in my draft of the article (most of which are more recent than the last deletion in 2007). Any contributions or suggestions would be appreciated. -Hugetim (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Feedback for a new article on BodyTalk 

message: This article has several dead links. I can only assume that these link once worked. Please replace the sources with existing ones. 68.120.89.89 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link rot 

message: Some information more suitable for this page was posted at the article Richard R. Hawkins :
::Mainstream scientists and scientific skeptics, notably the author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll, state that applied kinesiology's results are triggered by the ideomotor effect and recognize Hawkins' use of applied kinesiology to be a pseudoscience when scrutinized with the scientific method.  This is evidenced by double-blind studies, including some that found applied kinesiology to be "no more useful than random guessing", as well as additional research and reviews contained in the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. Chiropractic researchers who reviewed the studies that came out of International College of Applied Kinesiology concluded that "no valid conclusions could be drawn concerning their report of findings".
If it is not duplicated, then please make use of it.Oranjblud (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard R. Hawkins

message: per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV
the lead should place the subject in context and the context needs to accurately reflect the mainstream opinion. per policy the lead MUST therefore place AK as the pseudo scientific quackery that the mainstream academics view it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  the lead and NPOV 

message: A new editor has come along, and as their first ever edit in Wikipedia, has marked this article for NPOV, apparently disregarding all prior discussions on this page of the neutrality of this article.  I invite the editor to review the prior discussions to understand that the consensus view of the Wikipedia community does not support the idea that calling AK a pseudoscientific practice violates neutrality, because of the preponderance of citations available to back that point of view. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: I have studied Kinesiology and am a Kinesiologist and in no way do we ever claim to 'diagnose' any patient. That is one of the first things we are taught in Kinesiology, we never treat, prescribe or diagnose. So that part of this article certainly needs to be revised as it is misleading and false information. The article is quite obviously a very biased/opinionated article and I strongly believe that it should focus on the facts and getting true Kinesiology information out there without any opinion.  
Kinesiologist1990 (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading information - needs to be rectified 

message: Wikipedia, which is generally so informative and rational in its coverage of information of all kinds, has failed utterly to present an honest description of applied kinesiology.  The bias here is so extreme that I believe the entire article should be scrapped and rewritten by someone else who actually has experience in the field and does not hold the kind of vendetta against it which is clearly manifest here.  It is apparent that the author(s) of the present article has no such experience, for if he had, he would not be able to refute the outstanding contribution AK has made to alternative health care practice. 
I was first introduced to AK while I was a student in massage school in 1985.  When I first saw it demonstrated I was highly skeptical of seeing a muscle weaken simply by having a subject touch a particular point on his body.  But after graduation I decided to take a course in AK, and at the same time began to be treated by a chiropractor who specialized in it.  I soon started using muscle testing on my own patients as well.  Between the dramatic changes in my own health and that of my patients, I was soon convinced that AK was a tremendous gift to healing.  AK should be no more mysterious than acupuncture, which similarly, is an energy based treatment.  If acupuncture points can reveal palpable blockages of energy at certain points in the body, why should it seem unreasonable that the same points might cause a muscle to weaken or strengthen when contacted?  That Western medicine consistently ignores the existence of energy medicine, does not thereby invalidated it.  The beauty of AK is that, through muscle testing, information can be derived from a person's own body directly.  Sometimes the information is predictable, based on observed symptoms.  Other times the answer to a medical question comes by surprise.  It is the latter case that is the more interesting.  Sometimes one is confident one will find certain muscle weaknesses and is quite surprised when the expected result does not show up.  Sometimes the weakness that does show up is not at all what one thought it would be.  It is at moments such as these that whatever doubts one had about the power of muscle testing to accurately reveal the body's health issues are dispelled.  
I will not argue that AK is a panacea.  Nor will I dispute the fact that it can be performed poorly. In expert hands it is, however, an invaluable and indispensable tool. Again, my main point is that the present article is a disgrace to the reputation of Wikipedia, a blot on its generally excellent presentation of information.  It should be replaced.
```Tom Herman  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomHerman1 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you're disappointed Tom, but we have rules here. We aren't allowed to write our own opinions, and this article is the collaborative production of many editors, describing what they have found in reliable sources (RS). The article describes AK, and it also tells what RS say about it. Since it is generally regarded as pseudoscientific, we document which RS say that. I suggest you revise your real life beliefs and not believe or use pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatchet job on AK 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Applied kinesiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.time.com/time/innovators_v2/alt_medicine/profile_goodheart.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060728105451/http://www.amerchiro.org:80/pdf/PDR/H-Chiropractic%20Techniques.pdf to http://www.amerchiro.org/pdf/PDR/H-Chiropractic%20Techniques.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217004844/http://nbce.org/pdfs/job-analysis/chapter_10.pdf to http://nbce.org/pdfs/job-analysis/chapter_10.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Despite what is stated in the article, this is clearly an Applied Kinesiology method. A search on Google Scholars yields many sources that confirm this : https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&q=MRT+applied+kinesiology&btnG=&lr=
In addition, the article has been created with a possible conflict of interest and is not written from a NPOV. For those reason, the article should redirect to Applied Kinesiology, with possibly a merge of some of it's content. KarlPoppery (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing worthwhile at the MRT article, just blank it and then redirect here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  did the merge but this was reverted.  I have reapplied it after adding a sentence to this article (which requires a citation).  Also see: Talk:Muscle response testing#Merged.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Muscle response testing]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Applied kinesiology. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icak.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51%3Ajohn-thie-dc-1973-to-1976&catid=35%3Ahistory&Itemid=72
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228204150/http://www.allergy.org.au/pospapers/unorthodox.htm to http://www.allergy.org.au/pospapers/unorthodox.htm
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) 06:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Applied kinesiology. 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/20071016185021/http://intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358738.html?d=dmtContent to http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358738.html?d=dmtContent
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016185021/http://intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358738.html?d=dmtContent to http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358738.html?d=dmtContent
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213081246/http://altmed.creighton.edu/apk/ to http://altmed.creighton.edu/apk/
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) 04:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I revert to the last stable version. Not seeing how the changes improved the page. QuackGuru (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Applied kinesiology. 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/20080322003013/http://www.icak.com/college/status.shtml to http://www.icak.com/college/status.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130001429/http://www.icakusa.com/what.php to http://www.icakusa.com/what.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829110654/http://www.icak.com/about/icak_faq.shtml to http://www.icak.com/about/icak_faq.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104221036/http://www.worldallergy.org/educational_programs/gloria/slides/international/Module6_Food_Allergy.ppt to http://www.worldallergy.org/educational_programs/gloria/slides/international/Module6_Food_Allergy.ppt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714195954/http://www.kinmed.com/ to http://www.kinmed.com/
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) 10:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I read many article in this 'talk' section, and i see that many have also uncovered this page on Applied Kinesiology which is downright unjust. The fact that the main article stands without correction, or warning that it may not be correct, seriously disagree with the fundamental purpose and function of Wikipedia. I am shocked by this, to say the very least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1419:A07E:5890:F695:3DA3:8F5 (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so are you proposing a change to the article? And if so, what is this change? --McSly (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not worthy of Wikipedia, because it clearly is written under a grossly substantial lack of competence in the subject. 

message: 'There have been other pseudoscience techniques related to the same ideomotor effect such as “Facilitated Communication” that have been debunked with extensive scientific literature as explained in the Frontline Documentary “Prisoners of Silence on Autism and Facilitated Communication”.  The effects of automatic writing, dowsing, facilitated communication, And Ouija boards have been attributed to the phenomenon.'
^ I'm not sure this belongs in the article, and especially not in the introduction. AK is pseudoscience, but other pseudoscientific modalities relying on the same phenomenon as AK isn't good disproving evidence. There's also no reference for the documentary or the other claims (though I believe they are correct). This paragraph could sit under "scientific evidence", if anywhere – but I think it's weak enough that it should be removed altogether.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinders (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: IT should not be in the lead, but, if sourced, it is an interesting fact and should be mentioned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak evidence in the intro? 

message: The basic premise of this article is based on a false assumption. 
Applied Kinesiology does not claim to be scientific. I am a practitioner who has read many books and been to many seminars. I never once heard anyone in this field say such a thing. You can't be pseudo-scientific if you are not claiming to be that in the first place. The author does not understand the basics. 
The article is written with a big skeptical bias. 
How to improve? Let someone else re-write the whole thing. Why are We stuck with the work of an ignorant person who seems to have
 their own personal agenda?
It is easy to be skeptical. Skeptics are intellectually lazy people who find it too difficult to understand the truth. Just claim it is false and you're done. 86.81.253.9 (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article cites fine sources, and they seem well summarized. Best to avoid the WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate and misleading