Talk:Pilates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pilates

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.


It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Dispute

I've only done a small about of work on this, Pilates was invented by Joseph Pilates in 1912. He opened the first pilates studio in New York right after WW1. He published the first book on it in or around 1945. I quick Google search for Maria Pilates shows that she is an instructor who has been teaching the pilates method since 1989 - not the inventor of Pilates... But i'm willing to be proven wrong! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyakugei (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 February 2004


OK what's with the Yoga picture that says it's a Pilates Class at the GYM?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.164.117 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Was Going On Here?

I'm a fully certified Pilates instructor and I was shocked at how limited and promotional the article was. There were no references and no citations!! I just did a major clean up and took out the expressions like "..because our bodies should move." Physical Mind and other methods have made so many additions to Joesph Pilates' original ideals that it's advisable that said institutions start their own page where their own refinements of the method (eg: fundamentals, head floats, pelvic floor, standing pilates, ball rolling) can be covered. To the Wiki talk please install anti-vandal html! Thanks Catherine Huebscher 23 January 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catherine Huebscher (talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC).


There is no "Maria Pilates". There's Maria Winsor and Maria Leone, both (famous) teachers of pilates, but neither one has ever claimed to invent pilates.

If this cheers you up, I too was amazed at the fact that there were no links. I took the time to add four (links). I hope they do not get deleted.
My teacher takes pilates and explained to us some things about pilates. I understand that some things in this article isn't too "correct", shall we say.Chimchar monferno (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German-American

Some-one deleted "German-American." Why? Pilates was born in Germany and emigrated to the U.S. according to a number of sources, so it seems correct. It is also mildly relevant (this sort of info is regularly included in Wik articles).Kdammers 02:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make him "German" and not "German-American"?74.130.8.62 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)KR

[edit] Self-contradictory

In an early paragraph, the article says it was developed for injured soldiers. Later, the article says it was first developed for injured dancers. Am I missing some-thing here? Kdammers 02:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Pilates was not developed for injured people only. it was used with injured soldiers and for injured dancers, but many of Joe's clients were not injured. he made up exercises as he went along, as well as developed his equipment, over many years. you can say the method was always a work in progress.

Joseph Pilates developed his method for physical conditioning and when he was interned during the first world war in England he started to develop some equipment ideas that eventually turned into the Reformer and Cadillac apparatus. He was first brought to the US in 1926 by a boxing promoter. His original studio on 8th ave. in the 50's was close to the old Madison Square Garden. It was not until the late 1930's that the dance world discovered Joe Pilates and his method. The bulk of Joe's clients were average people that wanted a good workout. Just as today most pilates students are not injured dancers or athletes but regular people looking for a great workout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.164.117 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this NPOV?

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I don't want to change things that shouldn't be touched. I have to say, though, that the last couple of paragraphs of this article reads (to me) more like an in "insiders" guide to pilates than an encyclopedia entry on the topic. Those paragraphs refer readers to a reasonable (but insider) article on choose a studio and, more troubling, the "best source for information" on Pilates, a site specifically dedicated to a "purist" view of pilates. (This last is was triggered my suspicion that the article is not free of bias.)

Missing entirely from the article are discussions of the actual benefit of pilates, any dangers or shortcomings, commentary on pilates as a fad, false or extravagant claims made by some practitioners, and the like.

I agree completely and totally, and while we are at it, the reference to "gravity Pilates" is totally uncalled for, if it is called for, then we shoulod probably be listing Poolates, Cardiolates, and Yogilates as well...

The last three paragraphs of the history section in particular sound like advice and advocacy. I don't have the expertise to edit them effectively but I hope someone else will. --Poludamas 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Poludamas: The whole article, but especially the last few paragraphs, has problems of style and tone, and desperately needs to be edited. As it stands, it sounds both amateurish and promotional. The idiosyncratic use of capitalization doesn't help. Tireisias 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to major pilates organization

the link to the PMA is actually the one the public needs. there are too many people out there who claim to teach Pilates but don't, and they injure the public. if you know Pilates, you know you want the real thing, just like you want a real (pure) doctor. this organization has thousands of members world wide, as I discovered, so it serves a huge community, not one individual.�


Do you have any evidence that your loyalty to the "real (pure)" Pilates is justified? It certainly sounds as if you've decided that "the public" needs a link that points them to a site supporting your ideology. I have edited the text to make it less obviously NPOV while still maintaining the link. I have also removed several links from the External Links section that simply redirected to private studios or referral services but offered no further insight (from an encyclopedic view) on the technique.Britomart 17:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I do. I have been doing Pilates for 22 years and have been teaching it since 1988. I have seen many many versions of Pilates. What is your background in this field? No! NO1 NO! you are confusing some organizations here!!! The PMA is an inclusive organization that embraces the many disciples of Pilates who have taken the “masters” work and spread it with their own take on it. Take a moment to visit the website. It is an International organization. This includes traditional Pilates; rehab Pilates, contemporary Pilates, etc. Do not confuse the PMA with the Pilates Guild, which does not recognize Pilates’ other disciples. What the PMA is concerned with is standards! If you don’t adhere to the Pilates principals, and your knowledge is not deep (as in weekend certification)- don’t teach it. The public needs to know the difference. With the upcoming national certification exam- anybody can take it- and get up to standards. Standards of safety and integrity of the method. Will you visit a doctor who took only a weekend class and calls himself a doctor? I'll be happy to eleborate if you want, Britomart. Hilikp 21:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hilikp--Thanks for the update. I really like the current edit, which I think really shows what you mean without resulting in any possible misunderstanding. I believe the article as it now reads reflects what you say here, whereas before it was a bit difficult to understand. Britomart 15:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The PMA is not the only organisation that does full Teacher Training, basically any organisation that allows a weekend course should be excluded but there are other organisations including the Pilates Foundation UK who have fully developed teacher training courses. the current edit is fine as it points out the need for full teacher training courses, not just weekend ones. To enforce what Britomart has said, badly trained people practicing pilates as teachers are dangerous!

[edit] pilates was NOT used originaly for dancers rehab

this keeps coming up, but it is wrong.Hilikp 21:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pilates principles

proper alignment, centering, concentration, control, precision, breathing, and flowing movement are the pilates principles. they are key to the method.they are not just a style ot spech.Hilikp 21:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a few neutral lines explaining how each one of them fit Pilates' context? That would be interesting. Cheers,Fire Star 21:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

how does one start a new page? lets say- we make the Pilates Principles a link, make a page titeld the Pilates Principles and we have a bit on each one? Hilikp 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


To start a new article page, type the title you'd like in the search box on the left. If the page doesn't already exists, you will get a page telling you that, and asking if you would like to start a new article with that title. Click on that link and there you go. Sometimes the new titling creates problems with capitalisation, so you have to be especially careful to get the caps in the title right first time. Also, these links should help:
Regards, Fire Star 22:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Criticisms section

I've added a "criticisms" section to this article. I am not actually in sympathy with many of the criticisms nor do I find most of those that I find on point to be of great importance; but this article has been very one-sided in the past. Hopefully this will balance the article better, but I'd really like to see a different result come of it. This article could be greatly improved if someone with a good knowledge of Pilates as it is currently practiced would write a detailed explanation of what Pilates actually is. The basics are here, but they seem awfully brief for such a significant social topic. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 18:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Your "criticisms" paragraph has no place here. It’s amazing to me that so many people who have no idea what Pilates is have so much "criticisms" to add. No other form of exercise gets "criticisms" on its page. It is completely out of place and in many parts completely false! "Critics allege that Pilates deliberately associated his New York studio with dancers for marketing reasons" You have no clue what Pilates is, or what kind of person he was. Talk about biases! Pilates was a man of a certain generation. He and his contemporaries exchanged ideas and helped each other develop. He based many of his exercise on yoga. This is not a secret. He did not care if you think he was original or not. He wanted you (the world) to move! your whole paragraph is concerned with the MARKETING of Pilates today not to be confused with the Pilates Method!!


First off: I wholeheartedly believe that too much attention is paid by Wikipedia to patently nonsensical opinions on a variety of topics for fear of being POV. I am therefore sure that the criticism section of this article can be weeded out somewhat (although i do not have the information neccessary to do so). However, even with my limited knowledge of the system I do recall many reputable sources/personas criticising the system on several points. Therefore it is most justifiable to have a criticism section in the article. If you have solid knowledge of the matter....why not expande on the cirticisms (which are a fact, however true they are or are not) and possibly debunk them with FACTS in the main article body. Chelman 21:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeff or anyone is welcome to create a page offering critics of different exercises. It has no room as a paragraph on the page of this method. Jeff’s problem with the MARKETIN of Pilates is his problem, and he can create a separate page talking about how marketers hype stuff up ( remember TyBo?) . Find articles and link to them, great. We have one already, find more if you must, but first, know what you are talking about!! this paragraph has NO room here.


WHY? Just answer the following question: Have there been occurences of Pilates criticism in the respectabole media and the sports community? If the answer is YES (which it is), then the section most definately has a place in this article. It is up to you (being knowledgable in the matter) to state that: 'Criticism X states A, B and C. The facts, however would imply that this is not correct because of D, E and F.' Just removing the information because you THINK it's wrong simply won't fly. Chelman 22:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Just posting this nonsense without a shred of evidence or relevance is what should not fly! All this has to do with your problem with the MARKETING. By the way, Pilates himself NEVER "profited enormously " he died in 1967, and his method was known to only a few people. Many of these accretions are just tall tales that are Ridiculous! hilikp

You obviously are a devoted follower of the method. I have pasted the criticism section below so as we can discuss all of the points separately without resorting to a laughable revert war. Please provide your comments on any or all of the points below as they were previously introduced by Jeff. Chelman 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

Critics have advanced a number of criticisms of Pilates and his methods:

  • Pilates largely avoids movements that result in high impact, high power output, and heavy muscular and skeletal loading. Critics allege, citing principles of exercise physiology, that this could result in significantly suppressed skeletal and muscular strength compared to other strength training techniques. Critics say this could be dangerous to certain persons, and less beneficial than alternative exercise routines to others. Critics cite persons who have, or who have risk factors for, conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta, Osteomalacia, osteoporosis, Paget's disease, and others.
  • Despite the origin of Pilates' methods in rehabilitation, they do not conform well to current physical therapeutic knowledge and doctrine. Nevertheless, Pilates is often marketed as a rehabilitation technique. Critics say this marketing is deceptive.
  • Critics say research purporting to show the superiority of Pilates has been procedurally flawed. For example:
    • Critics say a study purporting to show the superiority of Pilates methods using the "reformer" machine compared to non-Pilates methods using the same equipment was flawed by the study using different strength springs in the "reformer" when the subjects practicing Pilates were using it.
    • Critics note that research purporting to show the superiority of springs over weights, due to the variable resistance of springs, is flawed because Newton's laws of motion show that accelerating a weight through its course of motion results in variable resistance, even though the mass doesn't change.
    • A Pilates research paper notes that the force-distance curve for weights is rectangular (with vertical sides, and a flat plateau), while the force-distance curve for the "reformer" springs is triangular (gradually increasing force to a peak, followed by gradually decreasing force). Critics note that if this were true an infinite amount of energy would be required to move free weights; this force, if successfully applied, would immediately kill all users of weights and destroy the earth, which has not been observed.
  • Critics note that no evidence has been found to support the assertion of some Pilates advocates that Pilates results in longer, leaner muscle distinctive to Pilates.
  • Some Pilates advocates allege that strength training results in hypertrophic muscles, which Pilates avoids. Critics point out that hypertrophy is not the end result of most strength training.
  • Critics say that Joseph Pilates' emphasis on a smaller number of repetitions of precisely controlled movements requiring strength and coordination reflects principles previously advanced by Eugene Sandow and Vladislav Krayevsky, among others, and therefore is not as original as claimed.
  • Critics point out that claims that Pilates can make a person taller are refuted by measurements of Pilates practitioners.
  • While acknowledging that Pilates' claims to make people leaner are true, critics point out that Pilates is an average performer in this respect compared to other forms of strength and balance training.
  • Several pieces of equipment said to be distinctive to the Pilates Method appear to consist of slightly modified versions of common exercise equipment, especially gymnastics equipment:
    • The "high chair" is similar to the pommel;
    • The "reformer" appears to be a modified rowing trainer;
    • The "pedipull" appears to be a modified pulley machine;
    • The "Cadillac" appears to be derived from gymnasts' parallel and horizontal bars;
    • The "low chair" is a staking pommel;
    • The "spine corrector barrel" is a low level pommel horse.
  • Critics allege that Pilates deliberately associated his New York studio with dancers for marketing reasons, and profited enormously from the association of Martha Graham and George Balanchine with his methods, rather than the reverse.
  • Modern Pilates instructors include exercises that Joseph Pilates abhorred into their Pilates routines. Critics charge that this decreases the authenticity of Pilates and suggest that the term Pilates is being used deceptively for marketing advantage. Meanwhile, critics also acknowledge that a more diverse routine than what Joseph Pilates promoted is likely to be better for health.


you have been critiquing the Marketing. Just because a person in LA or Florida or NY claims this or that, does not alter the method itself. Everything has a criticism. Yoga, knitting, bread making fashion, cars, politics, art etc etc etc. this page is a description of the method, not how to market it, this is why there are no commercial links. Yoga , baseball etc don't get this need for criticism. What is your problem with Pilates??? As I said, you want to critique exercise methods? Start a page titled "criticism of exercise methods" Find supporting material. Rumors have no room here. I wish you read what i had to say, and read a bit about Pilates the man, and try it.

The biggest problem I see with the criticisms section is that the criticisms aren't sourced to a specific critic or group of critics. If we can get citations of who said what, when they said it and where they said it (magazine, book, interview, etc.), then we should list it in the article without passing judgment, rather we can say they are "notable criticisms" or something like that. As mentioned above, every method has its critics, but we should also be able to say who they are... --Fire Star 20:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

" the criticisms" here is with the marketing of the method. It has very little to do with the method itself. the criticisms reads almost like a personal vendetta. Rumors and completely and utterly wrong info is dished out, as if it was fact. Opinions are NOT facts. Studies with proven results are. If Jeff has a personal problem with Pilates (??) it should not be allowed here. --hilikp

I've tagged the article NPOV due to the wholesale deletion of the criticisms section. As I said above, I am not actually in sympathy with most critics of the Pilates method. However, the criticisms I posted are matters of fact - people actually do criticise the Pilates Method in the ways I summarized. Hilikp's attempts to brand me an extremist Pilates-hater who criticises only the marketing of the method aside, several of the criticisms involve possible adverse affects of Pilates on certain persons' health, and some of the criticisms involve certain physical impossibilities attributed to the Pilates method.
The question of how much controversy to discuss in an article about a discipline that has been widely criticised is a separate matter than whether to discuss controversy at all. If the Pilates Method had been criticised by people in the world at large - and it has, extensively enough to make Pilates very controversial in some communities - then an encyclopedia article needs to document that fact. Vandalism motivated by a desire to keep the article entirely free of Pilates criticism ("Your criticisms paragraph has no place here," sayds hilikp) is not legitimate; paring down or altering the criticisms would be. I'm willing to work with the people who are historically associated with this article, but NPOV is going to dog you until the controversy is discussed. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 18:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Firestar says: the criticisms aren't sourced to a specific critic or group of critics. Thanks for pointing this out; failing to source my material was an oversight. My two main sources of immediate information on Pilates controversy are: this article by Dr. Mel Siff, another article by Dr. Mel Siff, and The Pilates Method Alliance. Siff is (was) what I would call a "leading" Pilates critic and who advocates specific types of strength training as a way to make Pilates more healthy or less futile; he's all over Google with this message. The Pilates Method Alliance documents numerous criticisms of the Pilates method on their pages, and provides responses to many. Some of the responses are along the lines of "this problem is the sort of thing the PMA is meant to address," while others are not; it is important to note that the PMA itself was founded for the purpose of responding to some of the criticisms of the method and its practitioners that I included. Finally, if you put "Pilates" through a media search, like at Google News, you will see many articles criticising Pilates for one thing or another. One of the first-page hits on Google News right now is an Akron Beacon Journal article that criticises Pilates for not being effective cardiovascular exercise, for example; though I didn't include that because it isn't really to the point. The point is, there's plenty of Pilates controversy in the media and it is easily sourced. I'm sorry for neglecting to source the material I added. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 18:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that one of the pages I cited by Mel Siff is linked to in the "External Links" section of the article, and was there before I added my criticisms section. I'm surprised the link hasn't been removed along with the criticisms. In any case, it is obvious that the people who have been working on this article for some time have been aware of the controversy surrounding the article's subject. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 19:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Pilates, like ANY OTHER EXERCISE METHOD, is not necessarily for everybody. One should always check with one's doctor before staring ANY exercise method. People can spasm their back while sneezing. " a discipline that has been widely criticised " " Critics allege, " Who, where, how often, what are their credentials? " people actually do criticise the Pilates Method in the ways I summarized." Who, where, how often, what are their credentials? You have not provided one single reference.

The fact that Pilates was influenced by yoga and his contemporaries is already mentioned and does not take away from his method. Does the fact that Picasso and George Georges Braque influenced each others work at a certain time makes the paintings less amazing? The Pilates equipment is unique and not "slightly modified versions" of gymnastics' equipment, check out some websites [1] [ http://www.peakpilates.com/store/cat_equipment.cfm] the original Cadillac had only one side of poles and no top. It was a bed with poles. Some of Pilates equipment came before the stuff you compare it to (the reformer.)

" Despite the origin of Pilates' methods in rehabilitation, they do not conform well to current physical therapeutic knowledge and doctrine." Who, where, when, how often, etc. Pilates and the rehabilitation process

And the list goes on and on. As far as I know, the proof should be with the person criticizing. We already have the "skeptical view" link! as you have just noticed.

and Pilates is not ment to be cardiovascular, like yoga is not.

Sure, some Pilates practitioners market their studios with wild claims, but that is the case with ANY industry. You want to put a note in Preserving Pilates Principles saying that " some Pilates practitioners market their studios with wild claims etc.............. and that it does not help the rest of us- (the public OR the other Pilates practitioners)- if you feel you must. User:hilikp |

This non-existent user (hilikp), who says of me "You have not provided one single reference," needs to re-read my response to Firestar where I provided references. Those references indicate the qualifications of the critics cited, and a Google news search will give some idea of the extent of controversy amongst the general public. The controversy over Piliates in the exercise and medical industries is apparently somewhat more widespread (note that I cite a physician, a biomechanic, and a Pilates instructors' professional organization).
As to Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso, the fact that they influenced each other is notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia articles on Braque and Picasso. So it would seem entirely appropriate to mention the influence of gymnastics and other training on the origin of the Pilates methods, whether as a criticism or otherwise. Maybe that information could be taken out of a section devoted to "criticisms" and folded into the main article as an indication that Joseph Pilates was "influenced by" or "apparently influenced by" gymnastics and rowing trainers, given the close similarities between the equipment he advocated and the equipment used in these disciplines. Nothing wrong with assimilating that information in a way differently than I presented it. But reverting it out of an article as though it is entirely spurious is just vandalism.
As to the "resarch" paper that hilikp cites, it reads: "Today ... there is still a lack of supportive literature examining the phenomena associated with Pilates-based techniques within the field of rehabilitation." A lack of supportive literature indicates the absence of supportive literature for Pilates in rehab, which would seem to support one of the criticisms that I introduced. The reference to Pilates-based techniques seems to indicate that rehabilitators are not using the Pilates method, but something different that was derived in part from the Pilates method (further reading of the paper bears that out). That would seem to support the notion that the Pilates Method does not conform well to current physical therapy doctrine and methods; otherwise, why did they have to change the Pilates method for use in rehab? And this is just from the first page of the paper. Of the 21 citations the paper makes, 20 are to descriptions of non-Pilates physical therapy techniques, and one is to a self-identified "extensive" modification of Pilates methods. None are citations to publications of Joseph Pilates or of Pilates method instructors.
hilikp claims that the reformer predates the rowing trainer, but cites no sources. My sources cite patents in mid 19th century Germany that refute this assertion.
Regardless of whether Pilates equipment constitutes slightly modified or unmodified versions of preexisting gear or not, I have shown that critics say that they do. That said, I've looked at the web page hilikp provides, and I don't consider the Pilates gear shown to be all that unique-looking from either a contemporary or historical perspective.
The fact that the first page of a Google News search returns at least one article critical of Pilates was the point of my bringing up the Akron Beacon Journal article. I did not include this frequently-heard criticism in the article, because I did not find the criticism to be relevant from the point of view of the intent of the Pilates method. hilikp is just taking a cheap shot here.
Finally, hilikp also says: "You want to put a note in Preserving Pilates Principles saying that some Pilates practitioners market their studios with wild claims etc." This is incorrect; that is not what I want to do. I want the article to acknowledge the fact that Pilates is controversial and has been subject to criticism. I'm not concerned how the article goes about noting this; I don't care if my section is pared down to 200 words, I don't care if the material included is integrated into the rest of the article, and I don't care if people edit it into an unrecognisable state. However, its wholesale deletion is inappropriate, because these criticisms are a matter of fact - by which I mean people do in fact criticise Pilates in the ways described - and such criticisms are widespread enough that Pilates as a controversial practice is fairly well known of in certain communities. Until the article aknowledges this in some substantive way, it is NPOV as far as I am concerned. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 21:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
There is room in the article for sourced criticisms. We aren't reporting that they are irrefutably true, we would only be reporting that so-and-so said this or that, and let the readers research the sources further if they want to. In the qigong-related articles we even have sections for criticism of qigong and controversies within qigong, since it is as contentious as anything else. It isn't a recommendation or condemnation of a practise to have a section devoted to the notable opinions, pro and con, of others regarding the method. I think the criticisms section should stay in the article since they have been sourced by User:Jeffmedkeff. --Fire Star 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


This non-existent user (hilikp) me, (what is this about, "non-existent"?) finds Jeff's remarks and desperate need to criticize curious since he writes: "I am not actually in sympathy with many of the criticisms nor do I find those that I find compelling to be terribly important" what is your problem with Pilates?? why do you keep this up? You reference 3 articles, 2 of them already listed, no need to repeat, and one that is not to the point. (will you criticize an apple for not being an orange? ) For you it is war, (your own words) and you seam to want to win so badly, you go fishing. Desperately seeking something. We'll all lose if you keep this up. I looked a the qigong article, and there is a small section mentioning it, but your section reads like a personal vendetta, and is at best referencing old news and at worst simply wrong and misleading.


You reference 3 articles, 2 of them already listed, no need to repeat, and one that is not to the point. - Two things here:
1) "Listed" and "reference" mean different things. Please note that there are currently no sources cited or references listed in the entire Pilates article. I've provided a few citations for the criticisms of Pilates that I've compiled (let's also cite the paper hilipj brought up in the talk above); previous authors have provided no citations of any kind whatsoever. Someone is seeking to impose a double standard here - I provide citations, others do not, but the uncited material belongs while cited material "has no place" in the article. (See my talk page for that quote.)
2) Of the external links, the fact that two of them are among my sources seems to indicate that the links were mined for only that information felt to be acceptable by some previous author of the article. If the external links constitute sources, let's be sure the article provides a balanced view of what those sources actually say.
what is your problem with Pilates?? why do you keep this up? - I am a practitioner of Pilates, as is my wife. Far from having a problem with Pilates, I enjoy Pilates and have benefited from it. And I'm not keeping anything up in the way you suggest - I'm just discussing the need for the Pilates article to be more balanced. Others are trying to win through revert wars and the tactics of abusing and disparaging Pilates critics, and attributing motives to them that they don't have. The latter are not behaving honorably.
The Pilates article has had the reputation of being one-sided for some time now. Just read the previous talk, which asked whether the article was NPOV, well prior to my involvement with the article.
The reason that I am insistent about including a broader spectrum of information on Pilates is that this article does not reflect well upon Wikipedia at this time. Although I use Pilates, I recognise that there are contraindications - some people shouldn't be doing it for health reasons, and that Pilates is not well-designed for achieving certain fitness goals. I recognise that Pilates has a historical derivation, that Joseph Pilates didn't invent his equipment uninfluenced by what came before. I recognise that if maximum strength is the goal, other forms of training are more effective than Pilates at achieving it. And I recognise that Pilates claims of lengthening muscles and so forth is antiscientific hype. I recognise all these things despite knowing and enjoying Pilates for what it is. But by not acknowleding these things - or at least not acknowleding that these things are widely believed and the source of controversy - the Pilates article advances a strongly biased viewpoint. That is not what Wikipedia is about. As a Pilates practitioner, who knows that Pilates is beneficial but is perfectly well aware that Pilates has accumulated a cruft of mythology and faddish factoids over the years, I'm ashamed that Wikipedia can't do better than this.
That is why this article needs to incorporate material critical of Pilates. --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
As there has been no rebut to the above for 12 days or so, I have extensively rewritten and shortened the criticisms section, included the new version as a new section in the article, and provided sources. This satisfies my NPOV concerns. If the article is not reverted or significant information from the new section removed, I'll remove the POV template. If others working this article believe that reversion or removal hasn't happened or won't happen, I won't object to their removing it. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the POV template. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


I just wanted to put a note in. There are a few things in criticisms that don't seem right. While Pilates won't increase your actual size, stretching your spine (yoga does this too) does make you stand taller. Also, I'm fairly into working out, and I get really good core results with Pilates exercises. I'm in no way completely satisfied with the system, but it works. I think the only thing better than an intense Pilates routine for core is squats and deadlifts, and unfortunately, so many people are obese these days that its better not to do squats and deadlifts until they reach a point in their workouts that they often never reach.

This is not to say that Pilates is perfect, and Gymnastics and Yoga are an obvious influence. However, the advantage of a Pilates workout over a ya-ya yoga class (and this isn't true with a far above average yoga instructor) is that you learn to isolate and control your muscles, and that increases its safety as well as its effectiveness. I think the criticisms section is short-sighted. I'm not from New York Pilates Studio and I don't pay $75 an hour to do Pilates, but when that little dancer with the musculature better than a model comes into my class at the Y 45 minutes late, everybody sit up and pays attention. And then the ladies laugh when I fall over because my core has been worked to exhaustion. Try it at home where your basketball buddies can't see you.

Tim.

69.223.51.253


I note that the criticism section seems to have been removed mid-August, seemingly without explanation. Can the explanation be provided here? Britomart 18:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am with Jeffmedkeff. I want criticism to be added/left to the article. --87.8.48.73 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pilates and Rehab

removed the pilates and rehab links because the page they referred to was taken down and now they simply link to Polestar's main page...

[edit] Pronunciation

Should this page say something about the pronunciation of the name, Pilates? It looks so much like "pirates" that someone encountering the term for the first time is likely to say it wrong.


[edit] Flexibility vs muscle tone

This is funny , Might get eded by the people who attend pilatis , but improoving your flexibility , and muscle tone is contredictionary , muscle tone is the absense of flexibility when the nerves controlling the muscle contract it via a reflex not to allow it to reach a certain length \ strech , as a protection mechanism for the body , Flexibility is diminishing this reflex via streching. I believe you meant muscle tone in some areas and flexibility in others , so whoever is oging to rewrite this make this clear , there are already enough excersise mythes promoting spot reduction or the like going on with pilates programs , and the fact that women who participate in pilates do abdominal work for a slimmer mid section , which is infact helping the oposite The onyl abdominal muscle that can be trained that helps tighten up the midsection is the transervus abdominis , the deep abdominal muscles , which are used in breathing partialy and via shortening bring the abdominal wal and obliques into the spine.

[edit] Roamana The Goddess

I am quite disappointed that some people are using this entry for self promotion. Can Pilates Teachers please aim for neutrality rather than glorify their school and educators! This entry says much about the state of teh Pilates world. Where possibly I tried to make things more neutral, but the entire article is heavily stained one way, especially in favour of the Romana schoo, with traces of others. Either this article says everything about Pilatesin its full glory listing all the names and players or we might just as well delete all!

While there are legions out there who do view Romana as a goddess, this misspelled point is off the mark. As anyone participating in this forum has likely noticed over the past year or more; the Pilates Method Alliance (and others) have been hijacking this forum over this time for self-promotion. As a result, it is a likely and safe assumption that many other organizations who are just as or perhaps more relevant have responded to assure the wiki user base does not get misled into thinking the PMA is the only group in existence who establishes and adheres to standards of training and instruction. With that said, the latest version of the article appears to be getting things back on the right track, although I did note that sections still exist identifying specific organizations. Suggestion --> Remove the existing references to these entities, going forward keep this article specific to facts or myths specific to the Pilates method devised by Joseph Pilates AND supported by reputable sources AND keep all references to trade associations, specific organizations, etc. out of the article.

[edit] disputed tag

From the last few edits there seem to be some dispute as seen from the following comment copied from the article Agathoclea 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. It is especially tainted by rifts between Pilates Methods, various representatives of wach school attempting to receive capital out of this entry.--Dz.research 00:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I have no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Agathoclea 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PMA backstory?

Currently, the first (and only) mention of the PMA in the article is "Many Pilates teachers do not recognise the PMA's attempt for universal authority.". I believe PMA stands for "Pilates Method Alliance" and have expanded it accordingly. However, that sentence should be preceded with some (brief) explanation of who the PMA are, and what claim they have on universal authority. -- irrevenant [ talk ] 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I've heard from many Pilates instructors, the PMA came in to existence after the lawsuit over the name "Pilates" as a effort to provide some sort of standards and practices in Pilates education and instruction. It is correct that many Pilates teachers don't recognize the PMA because they say it is flawed. For example, the PMA exam is only a written (computer-based) exam. This is key to the problem in that there is no method of testing the teacher in the process of instructing a client and correcting him/her into the correct position, breathing, etc. In addition, one of the many reasons the PMA is not recognized is because Romana's Pilates and STOTT Pilates refuse to recognize the PMA exam. From an instructor standpoint, it is more important on how you were trained and the program you trained through versus taking the PMA exam. I know none of this first-hand but have heard it from instructors trained by Romana, STOTT, Rael Isacowitz and Winsor. 64.151.41.209 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] toning

I see some still insist of using psuedo terms in this article , you can't logicalyl lengthen a muscle and increace it's tonus , but it seems the words tone (used to sell pilatis out to the masses) are used over and over in here ,

I demand a vote that will make it clear —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.153.70 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Pilates offers no aerobic value.

This is scientifically false, however everybody understands what is meant. Most exercise lasting longer than about 30 seconds is in a sense aerobic as well as anaerobic, except extremely short bouts. However at about 30-45 minutes of repetive movement the aerobic phosphate based replacement of APT increases to the deminishing of internal unaerobic phosphate exchanges. What the writer of course meant is that Pilates may not be the best exercise regime to induce a marked difference between calories burned and calories ingested because its intensity is lower.

[edit] Thickens the waist through extension

As great as pilates may be there is little doubt that those who practice it regularly have waists and hips that square off. Mari Winsor, Madonna, Jennifer Aniston, Joan Breibart of Physical Mind and Pilates himself have virtually no discernible waist to hip ratios. As a certified instructor I believe this is because most of pilates is taught from moving in a linear forward fashion. Out of the basic 27 classic exercises, only The Saw tones the obliques without building them. Sideplank does use the obliques mainly to stabilize such a powerful movement. It's my belief that even if this squared off look is on a toned body, it's not healthy in the long run because if the client gains weight or gets pregnant all the weight will center around the waist creating an "apple body."


this makes no sense

No it doesn't, and would the pair of you cite your sources, and sign your comments.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:27, 11 March 2007

(UTC)

Sense is in the eyes of anyone who can see. Read what I wrote and than looks at most of the women who over do pilates (it was originally only supposed to done TWICE weekly only) and tell me you don't see it. A waist to hip ratio denotes health a square flat torso is not only unattractive but potentially unhealthy. Catherine Huebscher

Yes, but not 'everyone that can see' can add their personal thoughts to wikipedia. You have to have a source, ie, you have to have not come up with it yourself. An attribution/citation/source. It's all the same, and it's got to be from a reliable, stable, scientifically valid source. Not you, your Mother, her Mother. Just those with PhD's who have written articles/copy in published, peer reviewed form. Now, have you got that? No? Conversation over.--88.105.67.54 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversation isn't over you fool. Women who practice this regularly like Madonna or Mari Winsor are VERY square torsed. "Just those with PhD's who have written articles/copy in published, peer reviewed form" Oh please you are o full of it! There is such little clear data on pilates that is not coming from marketing hype as it is. I'm a certified instructor, are you? Catherine Huebscher

Might I remind both the above contributors that personal insults and the arguments which derive from them, add nothing to the content of the article and discussion, and leave people open to complaints under Wikipedia guidelines. Please keep it impersonal if you can. As for sources, yes, if a statement of fact cannot be supported by a citation, it is nothing more than an opinion. However, citations do not have to be as restrictive as suggested above. Peer-reviewed, learned papers may be one of the best sources, but not the only ones by a long way. Radiotrib 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SHOULDN'T THERE BE A TRAINING section?

How does someone become a Pilates instructor???? This was once covered here in the wiki entry and now it is gone for some reason?????

Wiki isn't a training manual. Somebody should probably look to the wikibooks site for that.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A brief description of what, if anything, is required to become an instructor would be fine, though. MrVibrating (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reads like a lame infomercial

This article reads like it was written by someone selling Pilates. It should be more neutrally worded and avoid "taking sides" in the framing of sentences.

[edit] NPOV

The first two paragraphs in the Disputes section of the article read as a personal opinion and seem to attempt to indicate that certain branches of Pilates are inferior. Whilst I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed, (I am married to a Pilates instructor who also shares the same opinions) I feel compelled to ask the original contributor of the section to please either find an alternative way to express this unfortunate state of affairs, or have the paragraphs removed. The paragraphs are also advisory and not encyclopedic.

Radiotrib 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - I tried to NPOVize the Drawbacks section without removing any of the information content. I hope it reads a little more factually now.

Radiotrib 15:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy Dispute

Does someone not think it is time to review the accuracy dispute on this article. I see little to warrant a dispute tag, since most of the content is not inaccurate. It could be expanded in several places, but in my opinion, the only corrections needed to the current text are minor, and stylistic rather than factually incorrect.

Would someone like to make further contributions to the debate, or can the tag be removed? Radiotrib 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think one approach to making the article more useful is to look at the first generation teachers and how they differ. Tracing the influences on Eve Gentry's work and comparing it to Romana for example gives you two very different approaches to Pilates work and would be interesting for the general reader.
I do agree that some of the criticism do seem to lack rigor. sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but the sources seem to be articles and not research papers. I am not aware of any systmatic research that contraindicates pilates in any medical conditions, so unless we can quote a study, then we are reporting speculation (whether well informed or not). I may well be wrong in this and am happy to stand corrected.
I think it is important not to do that, both in favour of the technique, and in criticising it's limitations.

You are certainly right about the need to review alternative approaches to the teachings of Pilates, but I think that what you suggest is a matter for future expansion rather than something which needs to be taken into consideration when reviewing the accuracy of what exists at present.

As for the citations etc. It is difficult for even the experts to find definitive sources for the information since so little was initially written down. At least previous editors have made attempts to gather together a fair sample of the currently accessible information.

Your point about the "weight" of the citations is well taken, but again, I would suggest erring on the side of those people who have obviously tried to sort out this page, and give them the benefit of the doubt, in the hope that removing the dispute tag would encourage renewed interest in expanding the article.

Radiotrib 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If nobody is in violent disagreement I propose removing the disputed tag on Monday, 16th April. Radiotrib 05:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a neutral point of view

I consider myself a fairly neutral observer (I don't practice Pilates but a friend of a friend was just telling me about it, so I thought I'd do some research on wikipedia).

I don't know if there is cause for an accuracy dispute or not. But the language does not appear to speak from a neutral point of view (NPOV). Even if the accuracy dispute is removed (and I'm not sure it should be), I would strongly suggest that an NPOV dispute is added. I believe this is evident in the first paragraph:

"The program focuses on the core postural muscles that help keep the body balanced and are essential to providing support for the spine. In particular, Pilates exercises teach awareness of breath and alignment of the spine, and strengthen the deep torso muscles, which are important to help alleviate and prevent back pain."

This sentence is a mixture of claims and statements, with no supporting evidence for either. I would rather see something such as:

"The Pilates method is based on the idea that there is a core set of postural muscles that help to keep the body balanced and are essential to providing good support to the spine. [reference to text on Pilates]. Pilates texts advocate a set of exercises which are claimed to give the practitioners awareness of breathing, awareness and the alignment of their spine, and strengthening of the deep torso muscles [references where these claims are made]. A central thesis of Pilates is that a program of such exercises is important to help alleviate and prevent back pain [another Pilates reference]"

Of course it would be great if there are some peer-review research papers relating to these topics. I would like to see a mixture of the following, and the article should clearly distinguish between them: 1. claims made solely by inventors/advocates of Pilates 2. supporting evidence for Pilates techniques from other peer-reviewed physiology studies (independent of Pilates) 3. evidence against Pilates techniques from other peer-reviewed physiology studies (independent of Pilates) 4. peer-reviewed studies relating specifically to Pilates

Please understand I'm neither for nor against the method - I just like to see balanced articles on wikipedia. Thanks.

Bob42 16:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy and NPOV

Thanks for that insight. I am in much the same position as you re. knowledge, but, being married to a qualified instructor, I am aware of the difficulty faced by anyone who tries to research the original teachings. JP himself only produced 2 books, neither of which are in openly accessible electronic form (AFAIK), so citations would need to be of the old, bibliographic style. He was also quite prone to changing his techniques on the fly to suit the needs of a client,.

This leads up to the fact that supportive citations are difficult to find, and equally difficult to follow up, for anyone who doesn't have an extensive library of Pilates information. I guess that's why I stirred the pot. I would like to see someone with the information at hand, making either contributions in support of, or corrections to the inaccuracies in, the content of the article. It is thin at present, and certainly could do with more work, given the popularity which is being enjoyed by the various forms, interpretations and modernisations of Pilates' original teachings right now.

I think that removing the tag might help to re-enliven the discussion. It seems to have started at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiotrib (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Removing the tag won't help discussion. Removing the tag will make everyone ignore the state of the article and make it much worse. "so citations would need to be of the old, bibliographic style." Yep. That's the only option. Welcome to the world of university. Even if you aren't at university. It's this, all day long. You don't just write an article, you actually cite it with the books you got the information from. Now I know what you're thinking - Encarta doesn't do it. Well, Encarta can't be edited by complete strangers.--88.105.67.54 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel that some of your comments smack of unnecessary sarcasm. I don't know if that was the intention, but there does appear to be a little hostility in your tone. If not, then I feel it necessary to explain myself. I'm a little too old to still be at university. I do, however, work with people who routinely publish learned articles so I do know what you are talking about, and that was why I posted the above. It was to try to encourage those people who do know the subject to get out their books and cite ... I hope I make myself a little clearer this time. I don't really have an interest in promoting or protecting this article Radiotrib 16:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I just saw this article today for the first time, and I hate "jumping into the fray" in the middle of a debate, but in this case, I think I have a positive suggestion to make. Perhaps the accuracy dispute tag should be replaced with an "improve this article" tag or something like that. I'm not sure that, from the discussion, a large accuracy dispute exists... the real problem with this article is that it is not NPOV, and it is written in a non-encyclopedic, highly self-promotional way. Really, more than anything else, this article just needs a good, encyclopedic re-write by someone (or a group of someones) who knows what they're talking about. (Unfortunately, I do not know what I'm talking about as it relates to pilates.) --Jhortman 14:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar Exercise Programs?

Would someone mind adding links to similar programs? Or perhaps provide some kind of categorization, or maybe some kind of comparison page? I cant believe its not wikiality 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow.

This page is really dirty. I suggest taking out the "you's"...this is an encyclopedia, not a narrative, and first person is not preferable. Also, maybe a more up to date picture? If I had the patience, I would tackle this myself, but maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject could write an article worthy of the practice? 64.246.144.52 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Maytrixink

[edit] No longer "disputed"

I've switched the template from {{disputed}} to {{ad}}, as that seems far more accurate, and I've tagged several especially-egregious sections for cleanup. I also removed the ridiculous Talk page header while I was at it, and "header'ified" an old, unsigned comment. Jouster  (whisper) 23:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Practitioners

I have removed this section. Quite apart from the appropriateness and value of a "celebrity endorsement" section in an encyclopaedia, none of it is cited. I had a look at the articles on some of those mentioned in the list, not one mentioned pilates. It perhaps has a place if the names on it can be cited, and the significant relevance of pilates to them established. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for pictures

I think the current photograph is too small and low resolution to be of much illustrative value. Does anyone know of any clearer photos or even drawing/illustrations we could use?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

A user by the name of Melinda80 removed a link I added, referring me to WP:NOT. But I see nothing wrong with the suggested link, which is among the better online sources for how to get started with Pilates, [How to get started with Pilates]. The content quality there is certainly no worse than the current two external links, which I'm underwhelmed by. So perhaps those two links should also be removed, or there needs to be a clear policy. Nonlinear149 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonlinear149 has a point. The three links seem to be roughly equal in informational content. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 05:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. It gets better. :-)

Someone - or a group of people - is/are really antsy about this Pilates page. Instead of discussing here why the suggested link is not to be included, or justifying why the current External Links are worthy of inclusion, they're removing the suggested link with the mistake (or maybe not mistakes at all...) of confusing the rules of wikipedia with the intention of wikipedia - the latter being to provide useful information above all.

Malicious Sock_puppetry: To deepen the bad faith and the childishness of being unwilling to discuss openly, someone also created an account called "Thinkpilates" (matching the domain name of the link I suggested, http://thinkpilates.com) and then proceeded to spam a bunch of pages with the suggested link. See the Feb 4 2008 actions of [actions] of the editor :Ohnoitsjamie, who had to clean it all up, unfortunately. Whoever did that is seemingly very determined to police this Pilates page by not only removing "competing" links, but also trying to "punish" others. But it's not even my domain name, so whoever you are - as the apparently rabid dog that you're showing yourself to be - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Given the above - lack of open discussion on the current quality of links, AND, malicious impersonation of others (even if the wrong others), I think the neutrality of this article, or the External Links section, should be disputed. Nonlinear149 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you place a note on OhNoitsJamie's talk page directing him to this discussion. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the tip. Nonlinear149 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up - the current two external links are spam, spam-like, and/or non-authoritative, and merit removal per Wikipedia (video) spam guidelines. The first link http://pilates.hairdownfeetup.com/ has no clear owning author or organization; its information is without references or attribution; and its videos advertise a site called pilatescenterofbend.com, which is a pilates studio in OR. The second link http://1000words.net/pilatesexercises/ is a site with pages of video spam - most if not all of the videos have an advertisement at the end for two sites, pilatesbarre.com and www.dancercentral.tv; this site also no clear owning author or organization. Given the current page content mentioning the potential for injury and need for certified/credentialed instruction, it's inappropriate that both of these sites lack attribution (authorship or organization ownership) and reader/viewer disclaimers. Nonlinear149 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding suspected attempts to have thinkpilates blacklisted; don't sweat it. Just keep an eye on the blacklist board, and if it comes up there, provide the evidence suggesting a "Joe job". Regarding the external links section; there's no policy stating that a topic has to have external links, especially a topic like Pilates where a Google search yields thousands of hits. To avoid controversey, I'd lean toward a mainstream source, maybe an About.com topic page, or maybe a "resource" site without advertising. I didn't see any advertising (other than "donate") on the thinkpilates page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand the controversy as, with respect, it appears that much of the attacks are misdirected and claims overstated. To borrow the phrase by my fellow poster above - 'don't sweat it'; my understanding is that Wikipedia is everyone's and nobody's. The only hopeful solution I offer is that the resources are reinserted in order of appearance. Should my attempt fail, please note that I refuse to be drawn further into any disputes initiated by an unknown, which I submit has already taken much of our valuable time. For the record, the comments referring directly or indirectly to my resource is of no concern to me as everyone is entitled to declare their opinion. I should also be grateful if I do not receive any more emails on this issue as one brief scan through today's newspaper should raise several more important issues to consider. Regards, 1000words (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC).

The controversy is/was four-fold: 1) There was no clear standard for what external links should be included in said section of the article page; 2) Several parties were aggressively removing a suggested link of comparable quality to the two links then extant, and resorting to malicious Sock_puppetry and Joe_job to get that link banned and the domain blacklisted, while leaving alone the two links then extant; 3) The previously extant two links violated quality guidelines for external links; 4) There is now a clear conflict of interest, as your (1000words) message above demonstrates. Additionally, while offering a "solution" may be laudable, it's certainly curious that 1000words mentions he/she has spent time on this issue and gotten emails (from whom?), when said user had not taken any actions on the page or left any messages here - until after I removed the two extant, spammy links mentioned above, one of which, seemingly, belongs to 1000words, http://1000words.net/pilatesexercises/. Regardless, I agree with removing all external links is the best course of action to take, as others have suggested and done. Nonlinear149 (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL and WP:NOT does not imply that some external links are necessary for appearances or completeness. Having an external links section is unnecessary, since (non-reference) links don't really have anything to do with having a quality encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not a Google replacement: we are not obligated to send readers on to sources of expanded understanding.--Paleorthid (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect figures?

The figure at the beginning of the article, regarding the number of instructors in the US can't possibly be true - 8 million? That would mean that 1 in every 38 people in the country is a Pilates instructor. I know its popular, but still... R0bd (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reads like a promotional article

Scanning this briefly it reads like ad copy from a brochure for a pilates studio. Surely there must be some criticism or at least a counter-point view of the exercise system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.93.133 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)