Talk:Alexander Technique

message: My points are being ignored and stonewalled; please other editors some additional feedback? 72.89.19.118 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always post at WP:FT/N to get HUNDREDs of eyes. Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new lede looks pretty good, how could we work in mind body intervention without disrupting your tingling fringe senses? 2604:CA00:16B:9E4F:0:0:665:BBD7 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is truly a WP:DEADHORSE judging by the archives stuffed with discussion of it. There seems to be a WP:POVSOURCING issue with the desire to 'work in' certain wording, then finding the sources to match. You can post to WP:FT/N if you want wide input. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is what most accurately describes the subject of the wiki; it seems that proving the subject as invalid is more important than describing the subject accurately to some editors. Which program fits better with the mission if wikipedia? 72.89.19.118 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can post to WP:FT/N if you want wide input. Bon courage (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Also it's not even the wording I would choose it's the most accurate category that describes AT under the banner of alt med. provided by wiki 72.89.19.118 (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been following these discussions, and I agree with Bon courage et al. It feels to me very much like a DEADHORSE situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

text: WP:NPOVN#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project (GSoW). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  01:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Why isn't this article semi'd? SandyGeorgia (Talk)  02:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ANI may be a better venue. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need additional input 

message: Regarding the second half of the first sentence of this article: ¨is a type of alternative therapy based on the idea that poor posture gives rise to a range of health problems.¨
I believe I can safely say that no Alexander technique teacher would agree with this statement.  Typically it is not referred to as a therapy, the use of the word posture will mislead the reader, and AT is not focussed on relieving specific health problems but rather on changing global habits.
What about this sentence: ¨The Alexander Technique (AT) is an approach to changing habits of postural support, muscle tension, movement, attention, and reactivity.¨  ( https://alexandertechniquescience.com/general-at/what-is-alexander-technique/ ) 213.93.108.91 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed ad nauseam; see this Talk page and its archives. As a 'real world' check I look online at what AT vendors are offering and straight away see it being touted for asthma, Looks to me like a classic Motte and bailey fallacy is in play. When challenged, AT vendors are like 'me!? medical!? oh no!" but left to their own devices they are happy to advertise with medical claims. Bon courage (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence - no teacher would agree with