Talk:Feldenkrais Method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Per talk page guidelines Layout, please post new topics at the bottom


Contents

[edit] example of blind person learning to play piano

To amplify the example of a blind person learning to play the piano. Suppose this person learns to play well. Then he or she studies with a master and learns to play even better. It does not follow that the earlier playing was bad or that learning to play better is a treatment for it. Instead of focussing on specific skills like piano playing, Feldenkrais addressed our overall general abilities, the most general of which is movement itself. Changes to our most general ability are overall changes and can be undertaken without thinking about correcting or curing or healing anything. When a child learns to crawl that is a positive stage in its learning to walk. When it learns to walk the child does not cure itself of a negative state of crawling nor does it leave crawling behind as it learns to walk. Instead it develops crawling into walking as it improves its mobility and freedom in the world. In other words, things do not have to be wrong in order for us to want to do better. If that were so we would have no great musicians, no great actors, no great surgeons, no great artists, no great anything. Mediocrity would not just be the norm. It would be the rule. TB

[edit] body image

Discussion about body image: the article describes body image first as arrangements of motor and sensory cortices, and mentions the homonoculus. This implies that CHANGES in body image somehow change the arrangement, which I don't think is true at all. A body image as I understand it has to do with our *conceptual* understanding of how our body "works", which is different than, and far more sophisticated than, a picture of a homonculous. I think this section could be greatly improved by giving a better and truer definition of body image. Ratsrcute 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible linkspam

There are a large number of links in this article appear to violate WP:EL and WP:SPAM. To change this, I propose removing the Influence on Somatics section and all links in the Resources and External links section that are to sites that "primarily exist to sell products or services" (which at a cursory glance appears to be almost all of them). --Ronz 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Influence on Somatics after someone reverted it without discussion. --Ronz 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the whole bottom section there is a bit muddled. I'd argue that, for example, Aikido and Eutony are far less relevant to this article than the things which were deleted - which were all specific derivations from the Feldenkrais method. I'm not sure they belong here either - but maybe rather an overview of the development of somatic methods and which influenced what on the common somatics page or similar? --KineticScientist 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

After Influence on Somatics was restored again without discussion, I've removed all the questionable external links. --Ronz 15:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed almost all the items from the "Resources and External links" section that appeared to violate WP:EL and/or WP:SPAM. If I removed a source for the page, the specific reference should be added into a References section with author, date, etc. I removed links to non-English sites as well. --Ronz 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored the links, allowing for proper discussion with the many authors of this article. The links you deleted were official non-profit guilds for the Feldenkrais method. They provide unique value not in the article and they are not spam. They satisfy both WP:EL and WP:SPAM and they satisfy the common sense of the many authors of this article. Some of the links are also sources for the article (I know 'cos I wrote much of the article). The sites provide neutral and accurate information that supports the article and provide the most useful external value you could for this article. Great care was taken by the original authors to provide the best and most neutral links possible.

Oddly, the one link you left at the bottom is the most dubious of all the links. Why did you leave this one dubious link? 211.26.207.79 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And, oddly, you put a personal attack in your edit comment. Not appreciated. Commenting and editing anonymously doesn't help address the issue either. Since you claim to have written most of the article, then why not properly reference it? --Ronz 15:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving on... (At least we have the beginnings of a discussion, which is appreciated.) I suggest actual resources be listed as such, separated from external links so there is less confusion about what the links are and to make the article follow WP:V and WP:RS. As I understand, foreign-language links should be removed unless they're being used for sources, though I haven't tracked down policy and guidelines on this. --Ronz 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your ideas about listing actual resources, external links and references, I completely agree with you. Please go ahead and do something constructive for the article. 211.26.207.79 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like I already did. --Ronz 14:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that supposed to be civil? Wholesale deleting other peoples edits is very aggressive behaviour, and is discouraged on Wikipedia. You even stated that you only deleted the XL's in response to someone else's edit that you didn't like (stated above). Again, this is not civil. In general, you are too new to wikipedia to be effectively implementing linkspam policies. We do not need vigilantism and I'm sure you'll be formally warned if you continue deleting article content without actually making additive edits.
Consider whether you might have some information to actually want to add to an article somewhere? It's easy to come in and delete other peoples work, but it takes real effort, commitment, and positive character to actually add knowledge to wikipedia. I'm sure you'll agree with the thousands of editors that edit this way. Just give it a try.
Blessings. 211.27.117.141 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
More personal attacks? Sorry you don't like my editing. Sorry you don't like my pointing out a potential problem, proposing a solution, giving plenty of time for discussion, compromising on my proposal after discussion, then going through with the rest of my proposal. If this isn't positive enough for you, too bad. I'm not the one making repeated personal attacks here. --Ronz 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


As requested, by Ronz, I am summarizing a discussion about external links on the page for the Feldenkrais Method. Very simply, I put up a link to a page within a site that contains unique article about the Feldenkrais Method that I believed expands the understanding of topics not discussed on the main page. The link was removed as spam. I initiated a discussion with person who removed the link I posted making the following points:

- the official sites linked provide a lot of access to articles on the Method, as well as to merchandise such tapes, books, CDs and DVDs. - the last two sites currently posted are "non-official" sites and offer commercial services such as courses and merchandise. My point was that as an issue of fairness, either complete reliance on such information and access to merchandise be left to the official sites meaning removal of all private sites selling education or merchandiseOR the link I posted which was no more commercial than the others be also allowed as it contains real information not displayed on other sites. Teacher58 05:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Teacher58

[edit] Influences

I've restored the influences section since there are plenty of reasons to expand this section. Please expand or edit the section accordingly. I've removed the external links, which will alleviate any concerns. 58.178.100.66 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAM Therapy

I've restored the sentence on CAM Therapy in the introduction because it seems obvious to me that people who aren't part of the Feldenkrais clique need a proper context for it. Feldenkrais \is almost universally marketed as a therapy at therapeutic centres. Please reword the sentence if you see it can be improved. The intention is still to contextualise Feldenkrais realistically according to how it is actually used in communities (and not strictly according to what Feldenkrais' says). 58.178.103.56 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

I reverted a series of edits by a new, anonymous editor made multiple changes that I feel made the section confusing, as well as introduced unsourced claims and assertions that I feel violate WP:NPOV, and clearly go against current consensus and WP:LEAD. A user that has made no other contributions to this article has reverted my change against consensus. --Ronz 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The contentious series of edits by 128.12.150.10 are these. These were reverted by you with the edit comment: rv to last by SmackBot - far more clear, removed unsources claims, assertions, pov, etc.
  • I see this as a problematic statement (POV): "The implementaiotn of physical aspects improves many clinical conditions (...) However, the important fact remains, that the changes achived through this work have ramifications and applicaitons far beyond physical improvement alone, as they directly and positively impact cognitive and psychological process."
  • I specifically found this change elucidating as compared with the previous text: "The Feldenkrais Method is defined as a learning method, first and foremost: a learning about the self and self-image in the world, through the utilization of physical movement. Movement as the definition and reflection of internal thought process. Therefore, it is a vehicle to improve performance at any level - from severe disorder to highly professional performance." This might warrant a reference, but I don't think it's appropriate simply to strike it.
  • References to Ida Pauline Rolf, F. Matthias Alexander, and Milton Erickson were removed. I'm sure this could be discussed.
  • An example of how an exercise in the Feldenkrais method can be developed spanning several paragraphs was deleted. I'm sure this could be discussed as well.
  • Details on the historical development of the Feldenkrais Method were clearly an improvement, but one might request a citation of sources.
All in all I see issues with the anonymous editor's contribution, however, I do not think it is a good way of dealing with these simply to revert. That precludes integrating valuable elements that are thrown out without at all having been acknowledged. It is unlikely that other editors will go into the details of a deleted edit of such complexity as the one in question.
I trust we can resolve this matter from this point on to the satisfaction of all concerned editors. __meco 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you've decided to discuss the matter rather than simply revert! --Ronz 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have now made an edit to deal with the first two issues I have listed. I will leave the rest for now. Maybe others wish to do some follow-up with regards to these or other issues. __meco 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, I think all viewpoints not discussed in detail in the rest of the article should be removed from the introduction. This includes much of what you've written. --Ronz 15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds kinda legalistic to me. It appears rather obvious to me that the distinction between introduction and the rest of the article is blurred, so I would suggest instead that this be worked at from that angle instead of summarily defining all text in front of the first section header as "the introduction." Also, I'm unsure what you are referring to as "much of what you've written" as I haven't contributed anything to the article other than editing other people's contributions, and the points I have enumerated here on the talk page apply to several sections, only the first two points deal with text in the first section. __meco 16:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Much of what you've written" - Sorry. In my rush to give you a reply, I had a hard time distinguishing who made what edits to the lead and when. It's the changes to the lead you made through the revert that I'm concerned about, changes that were from the ip. You removed some of the worst of them, so we're making progress. --Ronz 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some suggestions

[ This section has been moved from top of page - please add new topics at the bottom, thanks... --Parsifal Hello 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC) ]

I'm a trainee in the Feldenkrais method. This article has many problems. It's not well organized and contains a lot of questionable statements. The introduction is very technical and could include language that addresses more the person who wants to understand in simple terms what the method could do for them.

Note, however, that writing generally about the Feldenkrais Method is difficult, because every practitioner has their own 'take'. Ask 50 practitioners to describe the method in one paragraph, and you'll get 50 different answers. So my proposal is that we structure the article around Moshe's own words. For example, the book The Potent Self is something Moshe wrote for a general audience. We could organize the article around that book, using the same sorts of language and examples. Of course it would be shorter. But by sticking with Moshe's language and conception, we stand a chance of some consensus, and might just write a useful articulate article at the same time. Ratsrcute 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your suggestion in general, though I don't think it needs to result in a shorter article, it will just take some time to get it properly referenced. His other book, The Elusive Obvious also has much to offer in this regard.
You are welcome proceed with improving the page. The main thing to keep in mind is the importance of references - you can read about that in this core policy page: WP:Verifiable. We can use the books of Feldenkrais, and it would also be good to find books written by others about his method. We could probably find some of those using Google Books, or maybe you already know of some. Using inline footnotes (wikimarkup instructions here) is a good way to support the content with the references. Thanks for your suggestions, I look forward to the progress of the article. --Parsifal Hello 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. One of my thoughts is the possibility that the introduction deliberately takes several perspectives. For example, it would say something like 'The Feldenkrais Method is difficult to sum up in one sentence. From a theoretical point of view, it is a method for expanding and refining the use of the self through awareness. From a practical point of view, it attracts people with chronic pain, neurological limitations...TBD. Because it uses movement as the primary vehicle for gaining awareness, it is directly applicable to disorders that arise from restricted or habitually poor movement. But as a process for gaining awareness, it can expand one's responses to emotions, relationships, and intellectual tasks.'
Of course, what's there (the first paragraph) isn't bad, except an awkward phrase here or there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratsrcute (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Those seem like good ideas. Currently, my Wiki-time is limited so I won't be able to discuss the details much, though I do keep an eye on this page and will help out when I can. I encourage you to be bold, and proceed with making edits to improve the article. You don't need to discuss the edits first, unless you want to, other than in situations where there is an ongoing dispute about content. Some articles have a lot of activity happening fast, but some articles change slowly. You can see the list of edits that have been made by clicking the "history" tab at the top of the page. If you click the history tab of the talk page, you'll find the talk page history. To see the history of the article edits, go to the article page and then click the history tab.
All the technical details aside, when you are ready, just go ahead and make the changes in the article. If someone doesn't agree, they might change it back - if that happens, don't take it personally. Here's are a couple good articles that describe the process: Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, and WP:CONSENSUS. But you don't need to read them first, you're welcome to dive in and start editing... --Parsifal Hello 06:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Good health is a matter of positive functioning"

This statement is vague. I'm changing it to "Good health means functioning well---working well, having satisfying relationships, able to access a full range of responses to any situation---as opposed to health in a medical sense, or in any sense divorced from how humans actually function in day-to-day life." I'm not sure if this is what the original author intended, but we can discuss.

--Ratsrcute 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Overview"

I have edited overview to hopefully make it read better. Two sentences were removed because they were incoherence, I agree that they were but thought they were hinting at an important point. Hopefully my rewriting is coherent. Sorry for the bad edit submition I hit return whilst describing the changes I made.

Charleskenyon (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)