Talk:Alexander Technique/Archive 1

message: Alexander Technique discussion page:
-------------------------------------
Please read the article before you add to it. 
What you want to say may already be there, 
perhaps in an already-edited but not-quite-identical form.
I just took off a section added in by someone who had gone to the trouble to make an extra wiki page explaining the principle of "Direction." Obviously they didn't even read the main page because their identical contribution had already been integrated and since edited into an earlier section of the main topic, under "In-depth". 
So I added their wiki link in the list of links and delected the redundant section they had repeated at the end of the main page. 
Franis Engel
-------------
Would anyone mind if I change the redirect at Directions from here to the Direction disambiguation page? That seems more natural, and it already has a link to here.
Also, Franis - I believe that simply writing from your own experience, extensive though it appears to be, might be considered "original research". Similarly, just because I happen to know lots about unit vectors and am perfectly capable of rederiving the formalism doesn't mean I shouldn't still cite a standard text. Admittedly, most people will not trouble to look up a book in their local library, but original sources and key secondary sources are still nice. It would also help with any lingering aura of the NPoV which this page indicates has troubled this article.
As a purely stylistic comment, I think it would be preferable and more practical to reduce the barrage of external links. Rather than attempting to include and keep up to date all the sundry teacher training courses, perhaps a single link to a site listing all the regional courses and suchlike would suffice. But that is simply my impression as an outsider.
Eldereft 06:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure Alexander technique has opponents as such. I agree that some things in the article may need attributing but not everything does. -- Tarquin
----
Concerning Alexander Technique there seems to be only "the yet uneducated" rather than any opposition.  Anyone who wants to take the time to continue the investigation firsthand in that field can verify all of its principles from their own self-observation  - and that's the point. I took out some of the superlatives in the eighth paragraph, as well as the exclamation point and put some headings in. Does that help enough? Perhaps more of a mention of science that is being done could be included in certain places by someone who knows more about it? I thought including that sort of thing would make the article too long, so I added a hint on the link where some research documentation is.Franis Engel
----
Ok, I made an edit in the first paragraph stating the the Technique was developed in the "late 1900s" to the late 1800s.  I'm sorry, but FM died in 1955 so he could not have developed anything during the late 1900s.  I am going to hold off on replacing this mainly because I do not know exactly when FM developed the Technique.  My only contention is that the statement which includes 1900s is clearly in error and should be replaced (perhaps "early 1900s" is correct).  I encourage: Tarquin to do so sincce (s)he saw fit to re-insert this error. --mporch 21:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: The "1900s" is a decade. Follow the link to 1900s and see. FM wasn't alive in the 1800s, which is the first decade of the 19th century. -- Tarquin 08:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the information.  It seems like a confusing naming convention. Those unfamiliar with this wikipedia-ism will misunderstand the meaning of this sentence unless they follow the 1900s link.  Perhaps the sentence could be rephrased so link text is not 1900s but follows the link to 1900s.  What do you think? --mporch 02:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: It's really a "wikipedia-ism", it's the correct terminology. -- Tarquin 10:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: Start of this talk page: Oct, 2006 Most recent comments at bottom.
I haven't been on this page for a while. 
Unfortunately, it seems like the page has kind-of degenerated. It is once-again full of what could be called "Alexanderisms", tortured English which only an Alexander Teacher could love. 
It is somewhat unfortunate that the whole previous discussion is archived with no new discussion to speak of. I guess this is wikipedia's broad-brush clean-up. I agree the article needs a clean-up. I don't think the multiple for-profits sites listed are spam, though. In the world of alternative medicine, every site is for-profit and trying to get exposure. It's OK or more accurately, it's compatible with the subject matter (much as I might personally like less hucksterism, that is the reality of Alternative Health Practices). 
Anyway, if I get time, I might once rewrite this page in English, translating from Alexander-speak as well as I can. 
Hans Joseph Solbrig 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexanderisms

message: I don't believe the concept of direction in Alexander Technique warrents it's own article, and have flagged that page to be merged into this one.  Feedback appreciated. --Shockeroo 11:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 'Alexander Technique (Direction)' into this article? 

message: On the basis that the Direction (Alexander Technique) will soon be removed, it seems important to transfer the comment made by 62.64.171.42 on 8 April 2006 at Talk:Direction (Alexander Technique) to this page:
::In the second paragraph of this article the author writes that the directions can be 'visualized'. Alexander was very against visualisation and it is not part of his technique. Please refer to Alexander books.
129.94.6.28 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on "visualization"

message: I read the whole bloody thing. I was genuinely interested up to the point where it claimed teachers required "more then 1600+ hours", blah blah blah. I'm sorry. WHAT? That made me distrust the rest of the article, and the whole technique. Now, I'm an American. That might make me a bit quick to call bullshit, but on reading that line I immediately thought that the Alexander Technique was nothing more then a sham trying to gain the respectability of chiropractics. Before saying what the technique does, or at least before saying how respectable it is, tell us what the bloody technique is. And don't feed us the line that it’s hard to write down, Wikipedia has articles on meta-physics. 64.238.49.65 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree so strongly, but it definitely needs some pov work so I'm tagging it. --Ronz 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the original point also, I don't have the faintest idea whether the Alexander Technique is a sham (hence why I'm reading the article in the first place) but I agree entirely that the entry doesn't adequately explain what the technique is. All wikipedia articles should follow the basic rule of explaining at the very start of the article exactly what the subject is in language which a five year old can understand. Nothing else is acceptable, you cannot start an article using terms that your average user wouldn't understand and the absolute worst wikipedia crime of them all is giving a vague commentary rather than an explanation. Lines like "(the AT aims to) recognize and overcome reactive, habitual limitations in movement and thinking." are lovely lucid prose, but are also incredibly vague and confusing to a user not familiar with the subject. It's not that an intelligent person can't work out what is meant by that line, it's that they shouldn't have to think about it. Put it in simple, basic language. This is the equivalent of describing a pen as a "solid structure utilised in symbolic articulations of internal thought". Sure, it sounds incredibly technical and we can all slap ourselves on the back and consider ourselves enlightened little authors working away on our contribution to human understanding, but if someone doesn't know what a pen is, then that line would be completely meaningless. Wikipedia is not here to satisfy the vanity of erstwhile literary geniuses, it's here to provide information. --blankfrackis 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read the entire article and the comments on this page, over and over, and I have still have no idea what AT is all about. Why can no one clearly define AT? Explanatory statements such as "postural coordination itself is not well understood" don't cut it; the article is full of similar fuzzy gibberish that, quite frankly, makes me wonder if this is a bogus topic. Please prove me wrong! Would someone please explain, in clear English, from a NPOV, what AT is and why it is notable? Lambtron (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Alexander technique teaches a person to consciously monitor and understand their movements and posture and to reduce habitual inefficient and stressful muscle misuse. The technique tries to promote more efficient use of muscle movement and control to improve functional reach, coordination, breathing, symptoms of illness, and sense of effort to perform movements. The resultant reduction of stress on the body is thought to improve quality of life in various ways. Ward20 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like an ad

message: With all the actual medical "shams" out there these days, I was surprised to see the comment suggesting AT might be a "sham", as that has not been my experience.  When I was 7 years old, I had severe head and neck trauma which left me in a brief coma and with lasting moderate neural problems due to neck/whiplash/concussion problems.  I am now 43 years old.  Over the years the neural problems (like not begin able to see or breathe properly) have become more and more aggravated.  However, after 6 months of once-a-week private sessions of 1.25 hours in length with an AT teacher, the symptoms have gradually lessened to the extent that I am feeling much better.  Granted, mt experience is not part of a closely controlled double-blind scientific experiment, but my being able to see and breathe properly is an empirical fact.  Over the years I have experimented with several different types of body therapies (massage, chiropractic, muscle-strenthening, Feldenkrais) but AT has given the best result, with Fenldenkrais in a close second place.  Also, I would say that for me, learning the AT and  the type of physical awareness it entails has sometimes been disorienting, which I learned in my reading of the AT literature, is a something commonly reported by people who experience substantial "unwinding/releasing".  So, I think AT is a valid therapy, and I am very happy my teacher has extensive training and experience, as I feel myself to be the beneficiary of it.
Kipleitner 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Technique, a student perspective 

message: I don't think this page cites it sources very well, so I've tagged it. Please try to avoid deletions for the time being (as a favor to me). I plan on doing a rewrite in order to try and improve the encyclopedic nature of the article: clearing up stuff that reads like gibberish as well as some stuff that can be read as promotional (Thanks again with your help in tagging this, Ronz).
Franis, as you're an Alexander teacher, do you think you'd be able to upload some pictures of working with students? I think it would greatly help with the article. --CA387 23:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article needs sources.  As for deletions, it's been over three weeks since I first removed the list of students, and we've no reason yet to include it besides to help promotion Alexander Technique training. I say it's about ready for permanent deletion. --Ronz 22:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not fair for me to try to hold up the works until I've got the time to correctly deal with the list in an encyclopedic manner, so I've moved it back to the talk page. --CA387 02:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Ronz 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: Is there a reason that growing a few inches is listed under the "Disadvantages" section? It seems to me this would be an advantage to many people. On the other hand, this sounds like a VERY dubious claim and should be deleted if there is no reliable source.
:I'm sure it was put there on accident. From various sources published on AT, people don't actually grow a few inches, but they stop collapsing their spine, making them appear taller. Anyway, I've removed it. --CA387 09:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can accounts from the alextech public list on google be cited? If so, this topic has come up as being a common experience of many beginning students and is located in the archive for that public list. Franis 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Increased height in disadvantages section

message: I think the article needs re-writing rather than just editing.
I propose starting by replacing the "Basic Premisses" section with a revised 
description of the technique.
Here's my offering:
....
Definitions of the Alexander Technique have always been controversial within the 
field. Early on Alexander was criticised for describing the benfits of his Technique, 
but not saying clearly what his technique actually is. His view was that the 
Technique is not an understanding so much as an experience [citation].
In the early history of the Alexander Technique, teaching practice began to fragment.
This led Patrick MacDonald, an influential early teacher, to state that to teach the 
Technique one must teach:
The power of habit
The unreliability of the senses
Inhibition
Directions
The Primary Control
[citation]
Note that the first two define a problem and the last three define a technique to solve the problem.
To take these in turn, (1) habit is what guides us through our lives. The Alexander 
Technique believes we underestimate the scope and power  of habit and addresses all 
habits be they of thought, emotion, posture or movement. Alexander said "Talk of the 
sum of a man's habits, why it's his character" [citation]. For the Alexander Technique
one of the most important and widespread habits is to do with the placing of our
attention: when undertaking a task, habitually one's attention jumps to the desired result,
This habit is given a special name; end gaining. End-gaining is an obstacle to
learning to perform familiar tasks in a new way. Not end-gaining entails the 
undertaking a task whilst not letting the attention jump to the desired result.
(2) Over time habits have the force to skew our sensory awareness at all levels. What 
we do habitually comes to feel right with the result that performing a familiar act 
unhabitually can feel not just strange - but wrong. 
Alexander states that most of our beliefs are actually based not on our thinking, but 
our feeling [citation]. This is in line with his psychophysical approach in which the
boundaries between mental and physical become blurred [citation]. 
Alexander describes the problem of unreliable senses in detail 
throughout his second book CCCI [citation]. In a recent guide to the Alexander 
Technique Missy Vineyard links our unreliable sensory awareness to dysfunctions in 
our self image [citation]. The power of our habitual selves, combined with a strong 
(but ultimately unreliable) sense that our habits are right (are part of our selves), 
makes change of everyday activity extremely difficult. 
This is the problem the Alexander Technique is set up to address.
(3) The first step is to practice stopping our habits. This is a practice - we cannot 
totally stop acting habitually but we can choose any clear stimulus to act as it 
arises and refuse to immediately follow our habitual reaction. This practice is 
called "inhibition" and is not used in the Freudian sense of "suppression". 
Practising inhibition is perhaps the most difficult part of the Alexander technique.  
Habitual reactions can be triggered just by thought and our senses will 
typically battle against us; making inhibition feel wrong and our habits feel right. 
However, succeeding in inhibiting a habitual response to some stimulus opens the 
possibility of acting differently. Continuing to keep our habits at bay as we act is 
called "non-doing". This is an elusive quality in action, and very counter-cultural 
to Westerners. Some Alexander Teachers have likened it to the experience described in 
"Zen in the Art of Archery" [citation] or MacDonald "rather than you do the action
the action does you [citation].
(4) If on a stimulus to act, the habitual response is inhibited, a new 
way of acting is possible. Generating this action is difficult as it cannot be guided 
by our feelings, as these will lead back to habit. The answer is initially to learn to 
guide action by conscious  orders (or "directions") and to follow these directions 
even though they may feel strange. Alexander described orders as "...quote from use 
of the self..."[citation]. We reason out the directions appropriate to each action. 
This practice is likened to beating a new path and letting grass grow over the old 
[citation]. The new habits formed are unlike the old ones they replace - they are 
like programs that repeat themselves until countermanded[citation]. Thus greater 
freedom and choice in life is achieved.
(5) How do we know which directions to give? Alexander claimed that the unifying 
prinicple in human action is the use of the head, neck and back "...quote from 
UCL..." [citation]. This primary control is always active, for good or for ill 
[citation], and arriving at a better employment of the primary control, through 
inhibiting old habits which interfere with it and cultivating new actions aligned 
with it, is the goal of the Alexander Technique.
.....
Any feedback? Better than the current "Basic Premises" section? Or worse?
I notice I haven't defined "use" which is a crucial AT concept.
Reynoldgreenlaw (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting the Basic Premisses section

message: It looks like the notes section was messed up by the inclusion of the Benefits section, resulting in a lot of lj code to be displayed rather than readable text.  I don't know anything about this topic, so I'll leave the cleanup to someone who understands.--WPaulB (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes / Benefits

message: For some reason User:MLAvedon removed nearly all the citations from this article!  (edit history).  I tried to undo this edit but could not because there were conflicting intermediate edits, and I simply don't have time to sort out the mess.  In the meantime the article has, quite properly, been tagged as lacking citations!  Does anyone have time to repair the damage?  Grover cleveland (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK: I manually resolved the problem.  I tried not to disturb any edits postdating the bad change, but if I did I apologize. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of citations 

message: I'm trying to make the language a little easier for a layperson such as myself to follow - it is not always clear in the article what the technique actually is.  I hope that in the process I've not changed the meaning, so do let me know if I have--Vannin (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: language

message: (This note is from a reader:
I was once on here for a project and there was not any info on this page of all of the facts or on any page on this site. Somebody must edit this if they are part of the Wikipedia staff, or else some other people and myself might not use this site ever again.
Peace! :) 196.207.40.148 (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from a reader

message: reader, perhaps you stumbled in at the point when the citations had been removed by User:MLAvedon and had not been restored yet?
Reynoldgreenlaw made some suggestions that Patrick MacDonald's definitions should be included, so I wrote only a short paragraph synopsis; much of what Macdonald has to say is addressed to Alexander teachers and not a general audience. It is my impression that as writers, we are not supposed to directly quote from books but provide a synopsis and cite the references. I would recommend that some of those content suggestions Reynoldgreenlaw has should also be included in the "basic premises" section - and the rest of us can edit to shorten it, because it's quite long.
Also, Vannin, your simplification of the definition of the Alexander Technique reflected some serious misunderstandings of what it is, which I updated. A.T. is not "physical therapy" and many Alexander teachers cringe at being accused of "correcting posture." Many uninformed people imagine A.T. to be simply a sit-up-straight school, which is certainly understandable given the mistaking of form for content. The medium or form of study is physical movement; the content is the study of reaction and how to choose a new response in spite of an established, obscured habit.
Franis (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an uninformed person, unfortunately what you have written about the approach is unclear to me.  Rather than using jargon about the principles and "using anatomy as designed"  "stimulus response perception" and "physical movement awareness discipline" can you describe what the technique actually does in English.  Some of these terms seem to have a different meaning in this article than they do in other contexts, such as Psychology.  Also, please explain why movement to demonstrate its principles" differs from exercise.  When I was doing my training I was taught to imagine that I was writing for an undergraduate in a different discipline - my reader then was someone who was not stupid, could be expected to follow logical reasoning, and I did not have to talk down to, but was someone who was indeed uninformed in what I was saying so jargon should be explained.  Maybe we could do the same here .--Vannin (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: integration

message: I can't find universal agreement on what the principles of AT are - many people list three principles but they list different ones.  I suggest that we remove the comment about 4 principles and instead incorporate relevant information elsewhere in the article.--Vannin (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Principles

message: I am curious as to why the results of the study reported in the British Medical Journal were reported as 
"However, a peer-reviewed study[17] from Great Britain in 2008 found marked improvement in addressing back pain through AT in comparison to massage treatment, with the combination of 6 lessons of AT and exercise proving helpful over the long run[18]"
The report reports on the efficacy of 24 Alexander lessons without exercise in addition to the effect of 6 lessons plus exercise.   It says:  "The effect of 24 lessons in the Alexander technique was greater at one year than at three months, with a 42% reduction in Roland disability score and an 86% reduction in days in pain compared with the control group (table 4). The effect of six lessons was maintained—a 17% reduction in Roland disability score and a 48% reduction in days in pain. Exercise still had a significant effect on Roland disability score (17% reduction) but not on days in pain. Massage no longer had an effect on Roland disability score but days in pain was reduced (by 33%). Twenty four lessons in the Alexander technique also had a significant effect on other outcomes; similar but smaller changes followed six lessons. Massage produced little change in other outcomes except perception of overall improvement in back pain (health transition), enablement, and overall satisfaction. "
Brooke Lieb  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookelieb (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting on the study published in British Medical Journal 

message: the line
  as well as improve other conditions related to overcompensation
appears in the summary at the top, but nowhere else is overcompensation referred to or explained.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stillflame (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I've changed the use of this jargon term to the more general "physical habits"  to make it more understandable.--Vannin (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary not explained 

message: In the sentence, "Later, Alexander taught that the "empirical scientific method" of self-observation and reasoning, could be applied to one's own manner of moving to ease physical performance in general: sitting, standing, walking, using the hands and speaking.", the wording "empirical scientific method" is in quotes. Is this wording from a source not cited or is it an over-enthusiastic description? Ward20 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to simplify some of the more formal and vague writing. For example, "Alexander came to believe that his work could be applied to improve longevity and human evolution in general." Is this talking about individual lifespan, quality of life, affecting the evolutionary process of the species, or simply individual development? For an encyclopedia the wording gets a little lofty at times. Ward20 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacock terms?

message: Hi, I thought I'd raise this as there appears to be a history of change i.e. sometimes capitalised, sometimes not and a lack of consistency throughout the page too.  I have seen it on-line and in articles etc. occasionally with a small t but mostly, especially by authors who are familiar with what Alexander called 'the work' with a capital T.  It is the name commonly given to what's fully referred to as the F. M. Alexander Technique, and as such, surely should appear with a capital T.  The change to the 1st paragraph I've just made reflects my perspective on this but I've not been able to change the name of the page.  Anyone know how this is done?  But before doing that, maybe we should come to a consensus and then have consistency throughout.Anothergareth (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to just capitalize all of them, but NCCAM does not, so now I am not so sure. Certainly we should be consistent, and I am leaning towards majuscule. Does anyone see it differently? Moves are covered by WP:MOVE and performed by clicking the button next to the history tab up top. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, 2/0, thanks for pointing the NCCAM usage.  I notice in that piece they use lower case for everything in all disciplines other than names or non-english terms, ignoring the conventions within the disciplines.  Is that an authoritative practice that should be followed or would it make more sense to used the customs of each discipline?  By googling ' "alexander technique" definition It tends to be that dictionaries/encyclopaedias tend to use lower case whereas all who teach it or write about it use higher case. Did one encyclopaedia do it and everyone else follow suit?!  Someone has changed this here before so I'd be intrigued to know why? I get that moving, which I now understand is the only way of changing the title, seems like a big move so maybe wait for some more opinions before going there!Anothergareth (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation of 'Technique'

message: Came looking for a definition of Alexander Technique. Read the whole article. Could not find any precise, specific, clear definition with details of the technique's methodology, principles and explanation of core concepts. The article seems written by some member of a sect, really. If there is any logic to it, it is only self-sustaining logic, i.e. a system composed of interlinked concepts, with no function other than to defend itself. Here's a example from the article:
"Global concepts such as "Psycho-physical Unity" and "Use" describe how thinking strategies and attention work together during preparation for action. They connote the general sequence of how intention joins together with execution to directly affect the perception of events and the outcome of intended results."
And ? How are those concepts used in applying Alexander Technique ? What is their influence on it ?
How is the technique actually *used* ?
Either Alexander Technique is an obvious sham, either the presented concepts in the article are of such abstraction that the article is utterly useless for anyone but a practitioner of the technique.
Either way, the article needs a complete rewrite.
206.248.191.158 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Uhmmm... WHAT ?  Article needs to be rewritten

message: I tagged the following sentences as possible original research they appear to be a critique written by an editor and there is no source.
"In both, there was an apparent attempt to measure the effects of Alexander's work on voice and to analyze some data; however, neither methodology nor statistics were provided to lend scientific credence to the interpreted results (e.g., representative sampling, control groups or blind testing) or acoustic measurements (i.e., microphone type, microphone placement, microphone directionality, recording environment, recording media – all of which could affect the spectral characteristics of the recording). Thus, while both studies may report actual effects, one cannot have confidence that they demonstrate anything more than possibly placebo improvements without the inclusion of carefully designed methodologies, legitimate metrics or statistical analysis." Ward20 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no discussion so I am adding a  tag to the uncited material above. Ward20 (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: After trying to locate the sources given they appear not to exist and or do not support the material so I removed the material and sources. Ward20 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: I had a look at the research section of this article and it appears highly biased to me. It starts off with the latest research result (a randomised control trial, using a widely accepted scientific method), but the majority of this section deals with the qualitative less significant findings of Dennis in 1999. It seems to make little sense to end a section about research with the complaint that 'a randomised control trial is needed' from 1999, when research using this method has been done, and is even explicitly mentioned in the article. 
I suggest rewriting with less bias on outdated research, at least removing the last sentence. 
--Lord Chao (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs rewriting. However, those two are discussing apples and oranges. The 2008 randomised controlled trial addressed back pain. Dennis studied Alexander technique for chronic asthma. Ward20 (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific Research

message: I think "monkey" and semi-supine should be covered here.
I am developing a new article in my sandbox on "squatting position" User:Penbat/squatting position. There are some interesting overlaps between AT and squatting. Any feedback gratefully received. --Penbat (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  monkey/semi-supine/squatting 

message: The phrase "confined to a wheelchair" is demeaning, offensive, and oppressive, and most of all illogical, and should not be used here. A person is never "confined to a wheelchair": he doesn't shower or sleep in his wheelchair. When he rides a plane he rides in a seat, not his wheelchair. "Confined" is inaccurate and conveys an inaccurate stereotype of inability of wheelchair users to engage in sexual, social, travel and physical pursuits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denverjason (talk • contribs) 03:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Confined to a wheelchair"

message: Can we have a more accurate representation of cost, please?  Whilst "the same price as a private music lesson" is amusingly middle-class it doesn't mean a lot to anyone who's never paid for one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.208.240 (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This template for cost was used because the cost of music lessons tends to differ by location; as does the cost of Alexander Technique private lessons which is similar in those regions. You can call any music store that offers lessons in your area to find out what that is. Franis (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: It's about 9 months on, and the concerns expressed by the editor in the section above entitled Uhmmm... WHAT ? Article needs to be rewritten remain valid. I find it almost inconceivable that the obvious problems in the article have been overlooked for so long, so to begin with I'm adding  and  tags to the article. If improvements aren't made relatively soon, then I'll take further steps from there. But really, this article is largely a carwreck of evasive and in parts nonsensical rubbish. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging it 

message: In this diff one can see two versions where a word is moved, which totally changes the meaning of the sentence. I reverted back to what was originally there and requested some clarification as to whether a real change of meaning was intended. Instead of a clarification the edit was restored and then a reference to a short book review was added. It would have been more helpful if the editor had actually responded to the concerns I raised in my edit summary. To not do so and just revert is edit warring and disruptive.
So instead of reverting, which would have been in my right since my concerns had not been addressed, I went ahead and read the reference to ascertain what would be the proper wording. In the process I found that the sentence(s) had existed as unsourced editorializing, and that the added reference didn't contain those words in that manner. They may have meant that, but it's not apparent to readers who aren't already believers in Alexander's philosphies.
Right now there are at least three problems with that paragraph:
# The word "consciousness" doesn't even exist in that book review.
# The statement isn't attributed so readers will know that this is the opinion of a book reviewer, and not necessarily the views of Alexander himself.
# The rest of the paragraph is still unsourced editorializing.
These are serious faults with the current paragraph and it needs to be fixed.
The only thing in the review which I could find that seemed related was this sentence:
* "The emphasis is continued and included in MSI but it is subsumed under the much broader emphasis on the importance of the adoption of the principles of conscious guidance and control to the successful growth (evolution) of the human race, as individuals and as a species." 
Maybe we could just quote a few words from that sentence, rather than engage in OR? Fair use allows such quotes. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the edit totally changes the meaning of the sentence, but it does remove the implicit  assumption that the "role of consciousness" is "increasing". Xcrivener (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Consciousness" and OR