User talk:Bbachrac/Archive 2

Feldenkrais Method as of 2020_1122 from McSly Talk Page

Feldenkrais Method

Bbachrac (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)What are your credentials for editing the Feldenkrais Method entry?[reply]

Hello @Bbachrac:. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. Credentials in a specific field is not a requirement to edits articles in that field. --McSly (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bbachrac (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @McSly, thanks for your note. How does one engage with the page stakeholders to form a consensus on major edits? By the way, Feldenkrais Method is a service marked term by the Guild which regulates the practitioners.[reply]

@Bbachrac:, FYI, editors usually sign their posts at the end, not the beginning:-) To discuss changes to an article you can use its talk page -> Talk:Feldenkrais Method. I suggest that you read previous discussions on the page. You should also make sure that you propose specific changes to help with the discussion and most importantly, you will need to provide sources. No change will happen if they are not backed up by reliable sources. Thanks for letting me know about the trade mark although I don't think that will be really relevant for the content of the article. --McSly (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. I will prepare an edit with suitable sources during the week and seek to talk with ALEXBRN. As you can see with an internet search is, ALEXBRN is a known Wikipedia Vandal and Troll These are relevant links to the structure of the International Feldenkrais Federation. Other than being a student, I have no conflict of interest with respect to the Feldenkrais Method. The IFF is a federation of Feldenkrais Guilds and Associations https://feldenkrais-method.org/iff/member-organizations/ Feldenkrais Guild of North America https://www.feldenkraisguild.com/ The FELDENKRAIS Guild UK Feldenkrais Method® is the registered trademark of the Feldenkrais Guild UK Ltd, Reg No. 1563759. http://www.feldenkrais.co.uk/index.php Feldenkrais Method® https://feldenkrais.com/ (Bbachrac (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggest that you also read the policies on assuming good faith and no personal attacks. Oh, and you are completely wrong in your assement of user:Alexbrn. I also find it rather weird that when your changes were rightfully reverted (you did not provide any source to back them up), your first reaction was not to think that as a beginner, you may have made a mistake, but instead got background information on the other editor and then falsely accuse them of vandalism. --McSly (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"a known Wikipedia Vandal and Troll" eh? Well well, ones lives and learns. I believe the only places on the web where my Wikipedia account has come under attack, are well-established locales of the crank-o-sphere. I think such places are best avoided, to preserve sanity ... Alexbrn (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@McSly First of all, I have no conflict of interest with respect to the Feldenkrais Method article which I hope to improve in consultation with other editors. I am a 78 year old retired physicist who following quadruple by-pass and spinal stenosis surgery, have had to learn a lot about Physical Therapy and follow-on methods of rehabilitation and managing impairment. In order to minimize thrashing with editors concerning re-writing an article, I am hoping to discuss a proposal in a Sandbox Talk page to understand preliminary consensus. I understand that once published, the article will be subject to additional editorial scrutiny. If there is a better way, please suggest. When I have developed web pages, I usually use a staging area before publishing. This would be a similar technique. ( https://www.commonplaces.com/blog/web-development-what-is-staging/#:~:text=A%20staging%20environment%20is%20a,for%20the%20public%20to%20see.) I will no longer comment on Editors and I apologized to ALEXBRN. BY the way, I first used the Arpanet starting in 1974 at Xerox PARC and then transitioned to the Internet and then the Web. Bbachrac (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bbachrac Trying to rewrite an article from scratch as you are just starting on Wikipedia would be hard enough. Picking an article that is both on a medical subject and on a fringe subject will add a good dose of difficulty on top of it. Frankly, you are welcome to try, but it will likely be a very frustrating experience. Wikipedia has set of rules related to medical articles (WP:MEDRS) and fringe articles (WP:FRINGE). Those take a while to fully master. Instead, I would suggest to forget about the Feldenkrais Method for a while, spend some time editing unrelated and uncontroversial articles and then come back when you have more experience. I would also suggest to make small changes at first, in the body of the article rather than the lead and take from there. --McSly (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good advice. I am really puzzled by how derogatory Wikipedia labels like "Fringe" ; "Quakery" or "Alternative Medicine" etc are cavalierly used to categorize subjects and suppress developing or improving article NPOV and how unchallenged deletions are allowed to maintain. There certainly seems to be a cohort of editors that game the system. In anycase, I also came to the conclusion that the best approach is to walk away from worrying about this article as well as continuing to providing support to the Wikimedia Foundation. As you probably know, only 2% of Wikipedia users donate. The Foundation is well endowed, so the programs will be fine. https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ Regards Bbachrac (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

^{( Buttinsky)} They are not used in a "cavalier" way; rather, I follow the sources. Wikipedia has long been beset by people upset I suppress the Truth™ about (e.g.) alien abductions, about how 9/11 was an inside job, or about how squirting coffee up your bum cures cancer. Every proponent of a fringe theory has reasons why theirs should be accorded special treatment, while being unable to see that Wikipedia's policies apply equally and fairly across the board. The Feldenkrais article has had 424 editors, and most of it is written by a practitioner. What I've seen in the last few years is attempts to whitewash criticism and add unreliably-sourced advocacy. The matter can be taken to any dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, but this change is not going to happen, because Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are designed to stop it.

@buttinsky Thanks for the suggestion to go to dispute resolution WP:DR Bbachrac (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

One of the interesting things about the web at the moment, is that while some mainstream news and social media sites are only just waking up to the need to present misinformation as such (e.g. Trump's tweets), in Wikipedia the need to be up-front about the fringe nature of fringe things has been long baked-in. Google even uses Wikipedia articles as a corrective label to fake content in Youtube. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ALEXBRN Common use of Fake or Fringe as label in Wikipedia (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fringe_theory) is to deride or suppress minority views or ideas. When they emerged, quantum mechanics, continental drift, horizontal gene transfer (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer), Neuroplasticity, (http://www.hubermanlab.com/), (https://www.normandoidge.com/) etc were considered fringe. Bbachrac (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC). Bbachrac (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, always the Galileo Gambit. If Wikipedia had existed at the time yes, it would have labeled fringe theories as fringe. It is not our job to be right, but to summarize the accepted, mainstream view of things as published in good sources. As you surely know, the conversion rate from fringe to mainstream is near zero. As Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since last I wrote, I have found that some of the references on the Article misrepresent what is in their citations and some of the links are broken. See in particular pages 65-72 of the 2015 Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance (https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20191107151136/https:/www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/phi-natural-therapies). The 2015 Review doesn’t conclude negatively concerning Feldenkrais. It says based on limited systematic review of published studies, health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain and more research is needed. They have launched a 2019–20 Natural Therapies Review . "Since our last review in 2014–15, additional evidence on the clinical effectiveness of these therapies has been identified. This review will assess the clinical effectiveness of those therapies by looking at additional evidence since our last review. (https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/private-health-insurance/private-health-insurance-reforms/natural-therapies-review-2019-20. Clearly the current article needs to be improved.Bbachrac (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

If and when an updated review comes out, it will no doubt be a fine source. But WP:CRYSTAL applies until then. The cited source is represented faithfully, as has already been discussed at some length. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Copy Bbachrac (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]