This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In this edit User:Farang Rak Tham notes that "The Gokhale Method has earned praise from the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, doctors from the Mayo Clinic and the Stanford..") That is supposedly supported by an article in the Winnipeg Free Press. I feel obliged to point out that it is unlikely in the extreme that the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons endorsed the Gokhale method, because there is no American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The source where the Winnipeg Free press got their info might have been the website of the subject, http://gokhalemethod.com/american_association_orthopaedic_surgeons_book_testimonial which incorrectly states the name of the academy and lacks a credible source too. There is the similarly named American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and the American Orthopaedic Association none of whom have endorsed the Gokhale method at all. One article reviews the book, but the Academy hasn't stated an opinion of the method. It is blatantly false and misleading to claim that the medical community has praised the method. Mduvekot ( talk) 18:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and will anyone let me know if the tags in and above the article still apply? Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 20:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The medical community has taken note and shown interest in the methodis what the content has been changed to. I don't see this as an improvement. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It pertains to the notability of the subject. It is mentioned in several sources quoted, among which ABC and NY Times.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 09:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to find high-quality sources to give us broader (and necessary) perspective on the subject. My initial impression is that there's little beyond Gokhale's marketing efforts. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
A certain level of notability would imply that even if it were fringe, it should be on Wikipedia, per WP:FRINGE. But that is not for me to decide. I am not going to do any research of my own, you misunderstood my intent, Mduvekot. I simply meant to state that scientific mainstream articles could be read to establish whether Gokhale goes against mainstream science. Maharty is mainstream science, of course, why would it not be? But I am stating that I found it difficult to make any comparisons with Gokhale's theories, because they deal with different questions.
At this point it might be useful to state that state once more that I am not in any way affiliated with the Gokhale Method, and have not even joined any of her activities. In fact, I am not even involved in the practice of alternative medicine. i normally write articles about Buddhism, and wrote this article out of sheer interest in the method. If it should be deleted because it is fringe or for other reasons, then so be it, although at this point, I would not yet support such action. With regard to any criticism directed at me rather than the content here, perhaps this can be put on my talk page instead, so we keep things focused. With regard to whether this article is fringe, shall we continue this discussion in one place, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Gokhale Method? Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 23:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
In response to earlier requests, I'll give a detailed review, addressing each section. I have named the sources, so that they are easier to refer to. This is going to take a while.
up next: Features Mduvekot ( talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I think she may have MENTIONED the phrase "sitting is the new smoking", to contradict it, not to agree with it. She says in numerous places that sitting is okay, or not so bad, or even that it's good, it protects you from strain. One example is "Walk This Way" on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtQ1VqGGU74 She mentions, I think in her book, that there are people sitting on the ground all day in marketplaces who have good body usage and spinal health, and in the above cited talk she shows a slide, referring to some article somewhere, that shows that Western manual laborers have more back problems than sedentary workers (but tribal people do much better than either).Wood Monkey 20:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodog ( talk • contribs)
References
To the extent that they clarify Esther Gokhale's medical qualifications, we ought to know what academic credentials Gokhale has. I've seen mentions that she has studied at Harvard, Princeton and Stanford, but no clear, unambiguous statement that she graduated, from where, and with which degree. It is often repeated that she has qualifications as a biochemist, but it is not clear if she has a degree, and if so from which university. Mduvekot ( talk) 17:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The discipline of acupuncture should be in there, however, because it has influenced the method.Says who?
There is no reason to not include profession and training as long as its reliably sourced and short-short since the article is abut the system not the teacher-since her background pertains to and informs about the techniques/techniques. As well, her book is a pertinent source for how she views or describes her own system but should not be included in WP's voice but rather with a citation inline as the author's position. If it is included as a source in the article it should not be included as Further Reading. Some added thoughts.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC))
A third party citation for the claim that Gokhale wrote a book is redundant. Just cite the book itself.
Jotting down a few items for later followup (I cannot recall if I found independent sources): It looks like she has a biochemistry bachelor's from Princeton, 1982. She received her acupuncture degree in 1984 from San Francisco School of Oriental Medicine. I'd run across something about San Francisco School of Oriental Medicine had shut down many years ago, but cannot find it again, nor much else about it outside of Gokhale's pr. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently, the lede states, The method proposes certain patterns that exist in the way people in pre-modern and less industrialized societies move and adopt posture—patterns which also exist among older babies and toddlers. These patterns, which Gokhale calls primal posture, can be learned through practice.
I think this needs a rewrite, as it doesn't make clear that these are all claims based upon in-world thinking and language without regard to the actual research in the area of posture and the associated medical topics. Compare to the similar topics of
Alexander Technique (similar problems too),
Feldenkrais Method, and
Rolfing. --
Ronz (
talk) 22:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
If you are of the opinion...Please drop it. The general sanctions that apply here include behavioral policy.
The method proposes: While it does indicate this, it does so extremely poorly and needs to be changed.
I think its fine. @ Farang Rak Tham: what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I want to at least get started reviewing the current sources. I'll get around to listing them individually with details, but looking over the first five they all look rather poor given this article falls under FRINGE and MEDRS. Gokhale makes all sorts of claims, and has had a well-prepared press kit for reporters for many years. The first five sources all appear to have bought into her claims without question. The NPR article seems the best of them, and I'd already found criticisms of it listed above. My questions at this point are: Do we have any references at all written by a journalist specializing in science- or medical-reporting? Are journalists simply using the press kit to create an easy public interest article? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
With this edit, Ronz added content that cannot be found in any of the sources cited. I have reverted this, but Ronz has readded this back in. Ronz believes this is mainstream scientific opinion, but has not provided any sources for it yet. If anyone has any reliable sources for this, please help, or we have to remove this.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In this edit User:Farang Rak Tham notes that "The Gokhale Method has earned praise from the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, doctors from the Mayo Clinic and the Stanford..") That is supposedly supported by an article in the Winnipeg Free Press. I feel obliged to point out that it is unlikely in the extreme that the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons endorsed the Gokhale method, because there is no American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The source where the Winnipeg Free press got their info might have been the website of the subject, http://gokhalemethod.com/american_association_orthopaedic_surgeons_book_testimonial which incorrectly states the name of the academy and lacks a credible source too. There is the similarly named American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and the American Orthopaedic Association none of whom have endorsed the Gokhale method at all. One article reviews the book, but the Academy hasn't stated an opinion of the method. It is blatantly false and misleading to claim that the medical community has praised the method. Mduvekot ( talk) 18:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and will anyone let me know if the tags in and above the article still apply? Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 20:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The medical community has taken note and shown interest in the methodis what the content has been changed to. I don't see this as an improvement. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It pertains to the notability of the subject. It is mentioned in several sources quoted, among which ABC and NY Times.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 09:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to find high-quality sources to give us broader (and necessary) perspective on the subject. My initial impression is that there's little beyond Gokhale's marketing efforts. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
A certain level of notability would imply that even if it were fringe, it should be on Wikipedia, per WP:FRINGE. But that is not for me to decide. I am not going to do any research of my own, you misunderstood my intent, Mduvekot. I simply meant to state that scientific mainstream articles could be read to establish whether Gokhale goes against mainstream science. Maharty is mainstream science, of course, why would it not be? But I am stating that I found it difficult to make any comparisons with Gokhale's theories, because they deal with different questions.
At this point it might be useful to state that state once more that I am not in any way affiliated with the Gokhale Method, and have not even joined any of her activities. In fact, I am not even involved in the practice of alternative medicine. i normally write articles about Buddhism, and wrote this article out of sheer interest in the method. If it should be deleted because it is fringe or for other reasons, then so be it, although at this point, I would not yet support such action. With regard to any criticism directed at me rather than the content here, perhaps this can be put on my talk page instead, so we keep things focused. With regard to whether this article is fringe, shall we continue this discussion in one place, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Gokhale Method? Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 23:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
In response to earlier requests, I'll give a detailed review, addressing each section. I have named the sources, so that they are easier to refer to. This is going to take a while.
up next: Features Mduvekot ( talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I think she may have MENTIONED the phrase "sitting is the new smoking", to contradict it, not to agree with it. She says in numerous places that sitting is okay, or not so bad, or even that it's good, it protects you from strain. One example is "Walk This Way" on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtQ1VqGGU74 She mentions, I think in her book, that there are people sitting on the ground all day in marketplaces who have good body usage and spinal health, and in the above cited talk she shows a slide, referring to some article somewhere, that shows that Western manual laborers have more back problems than sedentary workers (but tribal people do much better than either).Wood Monkey 20:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodog ( talk • contribs)
References
To the extent that they clarify Esther Gokhale's medical qualifications, we ought to know what academic credentials Gokhale has. I've seen mentions that she has studied at Harvard, Princeton and Stanford, but no clear, unambiguous statement that she graduated, from where, and with which degree. It is often repeated that she has qualifications as a biochemist, but it is not clear if she has a degree, and if so from which university. Mduvekot ( talk) 17:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The discipline of acupuncture should be in there, however, because it has influenced the method.Says who?
There is no reason to not include profession and training as long as its reliably sourced and short-short since the article is abut the system not the teacher-since her background pertains to and informs about the techniques/techniques. As well, her book is a pertinent source for how she views or describes her own system but should not be included in WP's voice but rather with a citation inline as the author's position. If it is included as a source in the article it should not be included as Further Reading. Some added thoughts.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC))
A third party citation for the claim that Gokhale wrote a book is redundant. Just cite the book itself.
Jotting down a few items for later followup (I cannot recall if I found independent sources): It looks like she has a biochemistry bachelor's from Princeton, 1982. She received her acupuncture degree in 1984 from San Francisco School of Oriental Medicine. I'd run across something about San Francisco School of Oriental Medicine had shut down many years ago, but cannot find it again, nor much else about it outside of Gokhale's pr. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently, the lede states, The method proposes certain patterns that exist in the way people in pre-modern and less industrialized societies move and adopt posture—patterns which also exist among older babies and toddlers. These patterns, which Gokhale calls primal posture, can be learned through practice.
I think this needs a rewrite, as it doesn't make clear that these are all claims based upon in-world thinking and language without regard to the actual research in the area of posture and the associated medical topics. Compare to the similar topics of
Alexander Technique (similar problems too),
Feldenkrais Method, and
Rolfing. --
Ronz (
talk) 22:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
If you are of the opinion...Please drop it. The general sanctions that apply here include behavioral policy.
The method proposes: While it does indicate this, it does so extremely poorly and needs to be changed.
I think its fine. @ Farang Rak Tham: what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I want to at least get started reviewing the current sources. I'll get around to listing them individually with details, but looking over the first five they all look rather poor given this article falls under FRINGE and MEDRS. Gokhale makes all sorts of claims, and has had a well-prepared press kit for reporters for many years. The first five sources all appear to have bought into her claims without question. The NPR article seems the best of them, and I'd already found criticisms of it listed above. My questions at this point are: Do we have any references at all written by a journalist specializing in science- or medical-reporting? Are journalists simply using the press kit to create an easy public interest article? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
With this edit, Ronz added content that cannot be found in any of the sources cited. I have reverted this, but Ronz has readded this back in. Ronz believes this is mainstream scientific opinion, but has not provided any sources for it yet. If anyone has any reliable sources for this, please help, or we have to remove this.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)