Talk:Alexander Technique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dance Portal
Alexander Technique is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
*Talk:Alexander Technique/Archive 1: January 2003 – July 2006


Contents

[edit] Alexanderisms

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)

Yes, writers tend to change the intro part often. I don't think that people discuss here before editing - they just do it.

If you think that this writing about these ideas are tricky to follow - try reading Alexander himself! Someone who has a linguistics Phd and runs a school on AT came by and reorganized much of the sequence of the sentences, so it reads much better than it did a year ago, but it is slightly different than it was. As a writer you'll find yourself getting very long-winded when you try to explain these ideas without truncating content.

I regarded each of those sites that were listed in links as an endorsement to the agreement of validity of what was written here. Last night I took all the sites out that had no other purpose other than being a billboard or business card. Then someone else came along and nixed every single link, leaving only the reference of Alexander's book that I added. Then today I found that someone had a request sent to change my password. Maybe some irate wikipedist was upset I didn't log in before editing? The completeness of these former links gave a search engine rating and also also motivated people to return to this page to find this resource - so I think they should be reinstated. I wish the person who nixed them would come talk about this here.

I didn't get most of this content for this article from reading but from direct study. I have attended Alexander Technique teacher-training, and was fortunate to be able to learn how to write simply about these very subjective ideas on the advice of many other senior teachers, one of whom was trained by Alexander. Books have been written that agree with content here; however, they are much more long-winded than this article and most do not cover the content that this article discusses in an attempt to be complete. I'm in touch with many of those fellow authors who have written about AT. Many of them have visited to look this over and edit if they desire at my request.

How shall I list these author sources? As endorsements? Franis Oct. 18th 2006


[edit] Merge 'Alexander Technique (Direction)' into this article?

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)

I agree. It's already been merged; see the third paragraph under the heading "In-Depth Principles." I deleted the article, then it came back, with the link at the end in the main article. You're welcome to make the Direction article and quote go away again - but perhaps put a note that it's been merged into the body of the main article in its place? Then the people who put it up again will know that their contribution has been added. I think it reads as an endorsement for the source of the quote, don't you? Unfortunately people don't all that often read the whole article they are adding to. 66.248.87.70 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Franis Oct 30, 2006

Sorry but the 'direction' article does not seem to me to add much to the discussion. Direction is already explained in the main article. The other one should be cut IMHO. Kccole01 01:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am an Alexander student and I believe that the Alexander technique deserves its own article. The information included in the article is important and describes the information in detail. Perhaps the style could do with some editing, but only the style needs to be changed and not the content. However, if it must be merged, please expand the article on Frederick Matthas Alexander and include this information in that article. Thank you.

[edit] Comment on "visualization"

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)

I agree - however some teachers believe that the repetition of Alexander's Directions were a form of auditory suggestion, similar to visualization. Franis 07:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reads like an ad

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)

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)
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)

In my opinion, the above critisisms are entirely warranted. The Alexander technique is plagued by vague language in general. It is true, however, that postural coordination itself is not well understood therefore there is not alot of precise language that can be used to nail down what is going on in an Alexander lesson.

The technique is a means of changing one's postural habits. If you slouch, it will help you stop slouching. If you have alot of excess tension in your body, it will help you to learn to remove it. In general, if you are out of alignment, it will teach you how to recover alignment without inducing excess tension. The technique focuses on improving your habits of postural coordination, including the arrangement of your body parts, but more importantly eliminating ingrained habits of posture that tend to restrict ease of movement including breathing.

I think one of the reasons the language about the technique is vague, is that in practice, postural habits turn out to be intimately connected to a whole range of other habits - habits of thought (for example how you react in a discussion or debate), habits of perception (for example how you process visual information), habits of socializing (for example shyness), etc. For this reason, it is easy for a practitioner to be resistant to categorizing the technique as "just" about posture. Therefore, a writer about the technique will tend to generalize and yes, aggrandize, the technique so as to not leave anything out.

The reader, in my opinion, should also be aware that there are a number of heated ongoing debates in the Alexander technique world about what exactly constitutes the technique. Therefore it is likely that the Wiki will never converge on a clear explanation.

A discussion about the various different approaches to the technique, the history of the different organizations, along with a frank discussion about the vagueness of the jargon might significantly improve the Wiki.

As you can tell, I do not think the technique is a "sham". I think the technique is wonderful way to improve your posture, reduce various aches and pains due to poor posture, and offers the student a way to assess and change his/her own harmful habitual patterns in both posture and thought. However I do find the vagueness of the language somewhat embarrassing and detrimental to the technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexatic (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Technique, a student perspective

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)Kip Leitner

[edit] How the article has been changed to answer NPOV concerns

I noticed what followed in that objectional paragraph (that has been changed)that shows a professional concern by those in the field for representing their livelihood adequately - perhaps this was the offending "sell." It's a concern that AT teachers want the public to get this information about AT from a brand-name, properly trained AT teacher - sort of additude. I agree this is an opinion or fear among the UK preservationists of F.M. Alexander's work that doesn't belong in this article and it's been removed. (In fact, the AT preservations endorsed this article that was written by a non-member of theirs or any affiliate club.)

I also combed through it and removed superlatives, etc. and other possibly offending characteristics. After I removed the "offending" parts, I took out the "reads like an ad" icon. Then someone re-marked the article again as advertising. Why? Did they even notice that the article had been changed? I guess it only takes one person to have an objection, and once someone focuses on a characteristic it becomes magnified by the fact they are watching for it.

In fact, unlike chiropractice which contains some of the most aggressive selling techinques anywhere, the field of AT is marked by a lack of advertising, with AT teachers usually getting their students solely by personal contact and word of mouth.

In fear that a reader might conclude that an entire of field of study is a "sham" without trying a lesson obviously led someone else in the AT field to add the list of famous people who are or have been students of AT. Perhaps it is this list that continues the make the article seem to read as if it's an ad?

I'm taking off the "ad" icon again. Please talk about where you feel this ad alert should be on if you put it back and I'll be happy to edit the offending parts. Franis 07:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire article. I'm not stating that it is an ad or is promotional (though I think both), but that the wording is not encyclopedic, and does not present a neutral point of view. --Ronz 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Please answer my question more specifically. I guess it didn't satisfy you to address those specific concerns. Please specify how AT can be explained, without leaving out the salient parts of it, in a NPOV way - please let's do that. Tell me what you think of the list of students. I guess I'll just have to read the NPOV again and see if there is something I could still do for this article. Please, someone who is better at using NPOV, just take out or rewrite the offending language that you believe is at fault and replace it with more neutral wording! I'll be happy to then correct any inherent misconceptions that are in conflict with Alexander's work that pop up in the "translation" process. I guess I could ask some published authors on AT who are my colleagues to improve this for NPOV.. Franis 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why I added "students"--this should dispel any notion that the claims this article makes are "sensationalist" according to NPOV guidelines. As far as the "advertisement" tag goes, I fail to see how an article that includes a section entitled "Disadvantages" makes for a very good ad.
I'm removing the tag again. Instead, please discuss any specific NPOV examples on the talk page, and I shall take steps to remedy them. CA387 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thank you for your point about "Disadvantages." Franis 06:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is NPOV, poorly written, is like advertisement, needs work

Okay, here's why the article is NPOV and still reads like an advertisement:

(1) The section "Basic Premesis" is too long, includes infomercial-type rambling and justification about why Alexander Technique is awesome. This section should not be more than two short paragraphs long (perhaps as long as the History section. In fact, most of the sections within the heading "The Technique" are much too long, and can easily be truncated.

(2) There are very few links to other articles in that section, as well as other problem sections. A good encyclopedic article generally is well-linked to other articles that help explain what you're talking about.

(3) Not NEARLY enough sources are cited, ESPECIALLY in the benefits section, which as of right now I'm considering pure propoganda. An article of this length should really have at least 50 sources (none of which are sponsored by Alexander Technique) citing the nature of the premesis, procedures, effects, and disadvantages.

(4) Portions of the article are directly plagiarized from http://www.franis.org/Alexander/Encyclopedia_Alexander_Technique.html , I have no idea if this is an academic source or what is going on with this. FIX THAT IMMEDIATELY or I will list this article for deletion on the grounds that it is plagiarized.

(5) the section "Scientific Proof" does not belong under the heading "The Technique". Make it its own heading.

(6) The section "Learning Environments" as is right now is pointless, reads like it's stolen from an Alexander propoganda website, and is not at all encyclopedic. This section needs to be completely deleted and re-written from scratch by a neutral third party, NOT someone who is involved with Alexander in some profitable way.

(7) The section which lists famous students of Alexander Technique needs to be verified, or be swiftly DELETED. I might as well list the Queen of England, no one would be able to prove me wrong. Re-think this list.

In conclusion, I'm surprised that this article is even rated B-class. Get to work. --Rahzel 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree that the article is pretty poor. As a start toward improvement, I changed the first paragraph to be more of a formal definition - saying what it is instead of what it attempts to do. Keep, edit, or revert as you like, and I'll try to come up with some more concrete suggestions/edits. Aiki Patrick Parker 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've written a small diatribe above about this subject so I'll just say that the basic principles of a wikipedia article are violated here; instead of a simple explanation we have a vague commentary that never actually explains the basics of the subject. Reading it is incredibly frustrating for anyone genuinely looking for knowledge and it needs to be mercilessly edited. I'd like to see simple points on 1) what the technique tries to do 2) how it tries to do it - actual information not "the mystical teacher uses the secret technique that cannot be written down as it's so complex". It can be written down, this is not the magic circle, so do it 3) a genuine criticism section - who says what etc.

[edit] Alternative Medicine

Alexander Technique is not a form of "alternative medicine"; it is a means of attaining greater understanding of one's self (namely, education). A side effect of AT can be the alleviation of chronic pain, but that isn't the goal of AT in itself—just like fuel-efficient cars are a side effect of science, but the goal of science itself is an increased knowledge base. It is for this reason that in AT, there is a "student/teacher" relationship, rather than a "therapist/patient" one. I'm sure many Alexander teachers would go so far as to say that Alexander lessons for the sole purpose of alleviating pain constitutes "endgaining", making progress in learning the Technique that much harder.

It is for this reason that I plan to remove "alternative medicine" from the categories listing, though I figured I should let this sit on the talk page for a bit first. CA387 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a better way to decide if it belongs in the category, one that relies on verifiable and authorative sources or one that follows what has been done in other articles. From what I've seen of how it's described and categorized elsewhere, it most certainly belongs in the category. --Ronz 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What led to suggest the change was the description of the Technique from AMSAT:
It is not a treatment, such as chiropractic or massage. Any treatment has its own unique benefits. The Alexander Technique's unique contribution is a mode of self-management that gives you independence in maintaining your health.[1]
However, Wikipedia defines medicine as "the sector of public life concerned with maintaining or restoring human health", and both "an area of knowledge . . . and the applied practice of that knowledge". I'll cede the point to you: we should keep the label as it seems to fall in line with other Wikipedia articles. Thanks for the input. :) CA387 07:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't belong in Alternative Medicine, but I am contemplating adding the Pseudoscience category, due primarily to the lack of any notable peer-reviewed scientific studies. -- Xinit 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed scientific studies are listed as links, etc. on the UK STAT website - Franis 22 Dec 2007

[edit] Removed from article

The following is unencyclopedic. I don't think any discussion is necessary, but I've moved it here on request. Please read WP:NOT for relevant policy:

Students of the Alexander Technique

--Ronz 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read through WP:NOT, and don't see any violation of policy in this list. Can you please provide specific details on how exactly this section is "unencyclopedic"? --CA387 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As the contributor, it's your responsiblity to show that it is, not mine to show it is not. As for your question: WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#IINFO. --Ronz 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
While I thank you for tagging the section for lack of sourcing, you seem to be mistaken on a few counts:
  • WP:NOT#SOAP: "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view". While a list of prominent students certainly advances the cause of Alexander Technique, it can hardly be argued that a list of students is tantamount to soapboxing—how about a list of successful Harvard alumni?
  • WP:NOT#LINK: "Mere collections of internal links". The important part here is "mere": as the list was a part of the article, it fails to meet this criterion.
  • WP:NOT#IINFO: This article fails to remotely resemble any of the eight subsections listed.
  • WP:BB: "If you anticipate a disagreement with your version of the article, or you want to change or delete a large amount of the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning, and providing solid references (if applicable)." Granted, the responsibility falls on me to conform to Wikipedia guidelines as much as possible. But, as an editor, it's also your responsibility to state the reasons behind your edits (don't be reckless). As long as everyone gives good reasons for what they do, the encyclopedia moves forward. In the future, it might be a good idea to make use of Template:Unreferenced.
That said, I've added the section back with citations. --CA387 10:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're comparing Alexander Technique to Harvard? Sounds like a pov problem. With the source given, I think it can stay, though I think we need the advert-tag again. From my perspective, it's obviously non-encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the article is so horribly non-encyclopedic overall that maybe it's not something to bother with at this time. --Ronz 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep bringing up this "non-encyclopedic" nature of the article, but haven't yet given any concrete examples. I certainly don't think the article is incredibly well-writen; however, I fail to see any POV bias. As far as the "Harvard" example goes, I was referring not to importance, but consensus—an effort to demonstrate the point that it's a fallacy to say that Harvard can has a list of famous alumni because it's one of the best universities in the world, because it put the students out in the first place (a form of circular reasoning). Rather, the article itself should provide information on whether or not its topic is particularly useful, rather than catering to the reader's pre-concieved notions. --CA387 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So you're not arguing that getting a degree from Harvard is similar to taking some Alexander Technique training? What is your rationale then? Got any secondary sources for this pov? --Ronz 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
My only goal here is to describe Alexander Technique to the reader as thoroughly as possible, not to encourage or discourage them from taking lessons. The discussion regarding the list of prominent Harvard alumni was just to show that while prominent alumni certainly advance the interests of Harvard, it doesn't constitute advertising—likewise for Alexander Technique. I could've easily used another example of a list with a notable people as a part of an article (Auschwitz orchestra members?) , but Harvard just happened to be the thing that came to mind at that moment. --CA387 06:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You didnt answer my questions. Why is the list notable enough for an encyclopedia, rather than here just to promote the interests of trainers? Do you have any secondary sources to show this notability? --Ronz 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The list is notable because the article is notable, and because its subjects are notable. If you need confirmation through secondary sources, click on some of the links. There are about fifty of them. --CA387 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So we just ignore NPOV and NOR? I'm glad I put the npov tag on it. We can't provide a source indicating that having taken training in the Alexander Technique is notable in some way remotely similar to graduating from an accredited institution of learning, I think it should be removed until we can figure out exactly why it's here, other than to promote the interests of trainers. --Ronz 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed the npov tag to an importance tag because it's more specific to this section and how I'm proposing we resolve it. --Ronz 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently the only source we have is a primary source giving us the context of promoting the technique and training teachers. Without a secondary source that gives other context for use to judge WP:WEIGHT for this section, it's just promotional and should be removed as WP:SPAM. --Ronz 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed it. I don't think it should be included unless we can find other sources showing this information is important for reasons other than promotional. Alternatively, there might be a precedent within Wikipedia, but we've yet to find any yet. --Ronz 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Re-added. I've already given two examples of the precedent, and the fact that as pretty much all of the people on the list have articles show that the members satisfy WP:NOTE. Also note that this list fails any criteria covered in WP:WEIGHT or WP:SPAM. Also see WP:BTW. Thanks. --CA387 10:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that the current source doesn't quite meet the guidelines listed in WP:V for "dubious sources". I do, however, support your idea to look for new ones. Why not help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CA387 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
The only source we have is not independent of the topic, and shows the list as part of a promotional effort. That's spam.
Because we have no other sources to judge WEIGHT, I claim that the section doesn't deserve mention at all.
The examples of precedent given don't apply. You're comparing notable achievements to paying some money for some training. That's nothing more than promotion. It's spam. At this point, I think the relevant precedent isn't enough. Meet WEIGHT or it goes. NPOV is more than policy, it's a fundamental Wikipedia principle. --Ronz 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
First off, NPOV is a Wikipedia policy: see WP:NPOV. As far as finding sources goes, it's already pretty clear that all of these people have studied the Technique: pictures exist of Dewey and Alexander [2], and the Juilliard School, which Robin Williams went to, teaches the technique to their students [3]. This certainly establishes the source given by me under WP:V, eliminating any WP:WEIGHT concerns. If you'd like, feel free to expand on the citing to find sources that suit you more, but please refrain from blanking the section. --CA387 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. The first sentence of WP:NPOV states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle." You can't dismiss NPOV and WEIGHT just because you have a source confirming the information is true. We currently have no source demonstrating the information is important. The only source we have shows that the information is used as promotional material. If we can't find a source that shows otherwise, the section should be removed per WP:WEIGHT and WP:SPAM. --Ronz 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how this list needs explanation—other lists of students on Wikipedia don't. It seems to me that by going against consensus, we'd be even more POV. As far as "promotional material", don't forget the myriad articles that have used Fox News as sources. Promotional or not, it's factual, and we're not using it to outwardly promote anything in this context (see my "Harvard" example, above). It seems pretty straightforward that any type of method of teaching should include a list of students, so I don't see what makes it any different here. Without students, this wouldn't be an educational philosophy to begin with. --CA387 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for responding.
Fox news is a secondary source at least, and has some degree of independence from what they report upon.
There are no list of students for Underwater basket weaving because the achievement is not important. There is a list for Harvard because it is an important achievement. We can find plenty of sources to show the importance of a Harvard degree. We have no independent sources demonstrating the importance of having Alexander Technique training. --Ronz 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This indentation is driving me nuts. Anyway, is Underwater basket weaving necessarily an unimportant achievement? I sure as hell can't do it—and no doubt a list would probably help improve the article. Certainly, the WP:WEIGHT concern would arise with, say, three pages written on Adolf Hitler's involvement with Underwater basket weaving in his article (unless he was taught by an abusive Jewish instructor, sparking his desire for world domination ;)). With Wikipedia, we aren't really trying to stress the importance of something—that is, after all, POV—but rather make sure regardless of the subject that its article is as informative, notable and factual as possible.

That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly that it would be more benificial to change the section to something along the lines of "Advocates of Alexander Technique Training", to elucidate the relation of the section to the subject material. I know that John Dewey wrote the introduction to Alexander's The Use of Self, and Sir Colin Davis did the intro to Indirect Procedures: A Musician's Guide to the Alexander Technique. Then we can proceed with "other notable students of the technique have included..". This way, we can probably get more in spirit with WP:NOT#LINK (I know you had some concerns about this earlier), rather than just adhering to the letter. I'll try to get on this ASAP (finals week); meanwhile I guess we can leave the tag in place. Thoughts? --CA387 04:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(The indents were getting on my nerves too.)
Importance is a basic component of NPOV. I'm saying that we have no sources to show that we should even mention that lists of "Students of the Alexander Technique" exist, much less including one. "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." (from WP:NOT#IINFO).
Good luck with finals! --Ronz 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I did state why Alexander Technique is important - it addresses premature aging from a self-limiting process stemming from the startle response and the ability to adapt - but people missed that in the article and it was eventually changed around and edited into something else. Alexander is considered to be "grandfather" of many other "bodywork" techniques that followed seventy years after it was invented. Oh, I see here all that was about the list, rather than the article in general. Why this came from www.franis.org - it's because I wrote it here here for wikipedia and I reposted it there as the owner of that website.

I would go with the list being "Advocates", because each of these students has given their permission to be cited as an advocate of the effectiveness of Alexander Technique. I'm still leaving the wiki tag on because we still seem to be talking about it here. Franis 03:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point, it's just promotional and has no business being in a encyclopedia article. --Ronz 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

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)

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)
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)
Thanks! --Ronz 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Students of the Alexander Technique

(this section duplicated in the above)

[edit] Increased height in disadvantages section

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)
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)

Public list? I'm not quite too sure what you're talking about. --CA387Talk 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a public list with an archive on googlepages: alextech Franis (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B Rating

There are some serious weaknesses in this article. The basics of what the Alexander Technique involves and what it aims to do are not adequately explained, instead it constitutes a vague commentary which is completely baffling to someone who isn't familiar with the subject (like myself). All wikipedia articles have to give the basics before launching into the details; most people reading this article will be absolutely clueless as to what the technique is, how it's taught and what its aims are. I can't emphasise that enough, the current article is completely unacceptable and incredibly frustrating for anyone trying to find out information about the technique. It reads like one of these web advertisements where you go through 1000 words of text purporting to explain something about the product its selling and still have no idea:

A) What the product actually does B) Whether it works or C) How much it costs

I suspect it's been given a B rating because the layout is good and it's well written, but this is somewhat incidental when the article doesn't actually perform the function its supposed to - i.e. explain what its subject is. I really can't express how appalled I am by it. Blankfrackis 00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with your concern and I changed the classification to Start level. The B level, among others, assumes: a casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, which IMHO is definitely not true for the current text. Pavel Vozenilek 12:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if someone has chopped pretty much all of the content from the article since I was last here on July 11th. At this point, the content is so concentrated that it's easy to skip over the content. If someone edited this because some content came from from my website, I'm the one who posted in onto wikipedia. org, and when I did I gave wikipedia permission to use it.

I just wrote a little about one of the basic premises Alexander deals with a principle F.M. Alexander called "sensory debauchery" that was in his books; what I wrote was removed and I'd like to know why, because it was not copied from my website nor did I list my website as a source. There are three more operative principles to list: inhibition, which I hinted at when I noted the Alexander belief of stopping the habit allows the kinesthetic system to right itself; this is also related to psychophysical unity and Alexander's ideas about Direction. (from www.franis.org/Alexander)Franis 11:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how your website meets WP:RS. --Ronz 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

True, so I'll write about these principles tailored to wikipedia guidelines and see if I can get my colleagues to help me with citing the references properly since I do not have my own source library at hand. Franis 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added a reference to where it was requested at the end of the first paragraph. Franis 06:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Today I added a very short descriptions of Alexander's terms to the first section. I can cite a website where this information is echoed, but perhaps this is "not enough" of a source for wikipedia guidelines. Or can someone tell me if it is? It's at http://www.hilaryking.net/glossary/

As far as addressing Blankfrackis' list of what AT is, if it works, what it costs and what it does, my efforts to do that by writing an example lesson, including as an endorsement it's list of students and providing information in a previously deleted teaching environments stating that cost is similar to private music lessons, etc.- Whether AT works or not depends on whether the student uses it or not after learning it - so it can't be "proved" to those who do not or will not use it for themselves. AT is an ongoing, educational practice, benefits which are determined by the user. Essentially, all this previous content has been voted out as advertising propaganda. Oh well. Perhaps all this info should be included here? Franis (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Some comments to blackfrancis questions
A) The Alexander Technique (AT) is not a product, but a method. As such, it might easier compare to something like martial arts than a "product". According to FM Alexander, and current teachers of AT, teachers are not required to learn this method of using ones body. Teachers can help to speed up the process by providing useful feedback to the student. However, it is unlikely that someone who has no experience with AT can say something meaningful about it, like someone who never tried Martial Arts can judge their efficacy.
Without naming and explaining the basic principles (Self observation, Inhibition, Directing) and some of the exercises (Getting in and out of a chair, monkey, lunge, standing against a wall) this article is certainly confusing for people unfamiliar with the Alexander Technique, and IMHO fairly incomplete.
B) What does a Martial Art do? Martial Arts are specific ways of using ones body, and the results achieved depend solely on the active involvement of the student. Done with right intention, Martial Arts may improve self-defense skills, increase self-awareness and confidence, and even lead to awareness of the unity of mind and body. However, quite often Martial Arts just increase the fitness level, as any other regular physical activity. The aim of the Alexander Technique is ease (and awareness) of motion, which is hard to measure in objective terms. Yet, unlike things like Yoga, Tai-Chi and Qigong, AT follows a less strict protocol of movements and focuses on the mental processes that control our physical movement, and is therefore easier to learn. As AT makes no promises about "results", the question "whether it works" is inadequate. Martial Arts do not promise to make a Bruce Lee out of everyone, and whether they "work" depends on the expectation of the student.
C) How much the Alexander Technique costs, depends on the way you want to learn it. FM Alexanders Book "Use of the Self" contains everything a potential student needs to know, costs less US$20, and would allow him/her to do what Alexander did. As it took Alexander several decades to develop and refine his methods, and as the teachers that came after him developed the method further, this cheapest method might simply be not suitable for most people nowadays. However, there is a lot of literature about the Alexander Technique that allow starting interested people experimenting with themselves the way FM Alexander did. Again, like with Martial Arts, learning with a teacher allows for faster learning, but you have to pay for it. Individual lessons are more expensive that workshops, but putting price tags and fixed amounts of hours in the article would certainly make it sound like advertising.
I wouldn't mind at all helping to improve the article, although I'm certainly biased, as I started learning Alexander Technique myself and will start my teacher training soon. However, before I start editing, I'd rather look for consent here how to do so. A good starting point, IMHO, is the definition by Dr. Connie Amundson of Seattle, Washington: "The Alexander Technique is the study of thinking in relation to movement" (as quoted by Donald C. Weed, What you think is what you get, ITM Publications, Bristol, 2004) Lord Chao (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting the Basic Premisses section

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:

  1. The power of habit
  2. The unreliability of the senses
  3. Inhibition
  4. Directions
  5. 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)

[edit] Notes / Benefits

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)

[edit] Removal of citations

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)

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)