Talk:Gokhale Method

Endorsements

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)

Fair enough, but please note that the source stated this, not me, nor do I run the Gokhale website, so perhaps we do not need to get to "blatantly" yet. But thanks for the catch, I am going to filter the article for sources with little fact-checking.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry, in case that wasn't clear: I meant the Gokhale website, I didn't mean to imply you had a COI or something. Thanks for checking. Could you also have a look at the claim that the book won the National Book Award? I can't find any evidence of that either. Mduvekot (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I am on it. Coming back to the surgeons, it seems there is an AAOS article about the subject, although I don't know how specific it is. It was already in the external links. I remember adding it myself, but can't remember where I got it from. I can't access the article though, nor can I find a DOI number.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you already linked this above. If you can access this source, perhaps you'd care to summarize it there is anything useful in it, apart from the endorsement, that pertains to the subject.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't find a National Book Award. Must have been rumour.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

http://gokhalemethod.com/esther_gokhale states three awards the book has won. Sources: https://www.forewordreviews.com/awards/winners/2008/health/ http://www.nautilusbookawards.com/2009_GOLD_AWARD_WINNERS.html http://www.ippyawards.com/107/medalists/2009-medalists 78.34.232.219 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting information to add, but I have not yet been able to find much secondary source information about those awards that would make them notable enough to include. I could be wrong though, and because of that, have started a discussion about the Nautilus Book Awards and Independent Publisher Book Awards at the WikiProject Awards and Prizes. Feel free to join in.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements, continued

Looking at the article content vs the sources, my impression is that this is promotion through original research to give undue weight to content that I don't see as suitable a topic where medical claims apply. I think it would be best to remove it, find better sources, and work more closely to the better sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have rephrased some content now, and removed the Winnipeg source. As for praise from the medical community, this is not supported by reliable sources. The only thing the NPR article does state is that "doctors in the Bay Area refer hundreds of patients to Gokhale", which in fairness, could be added. But i'll leave that to the sceptics to decide. Nor more Winnipeg for me, haha.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:50, 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 method is what the content has been changed to. I don't see this as an improvement. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Rephrased again, almost quoting the source. Are we still talking about verifiability here or is there some other problem here? Also added time parameter (for video report).--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the source can possibly be reliable for such content, at least not content for an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

As for the larger issues, this simply isn't a neutral encyclopedia article, written from any broader perspective. Instead, it reads like a public relations piece, presenting opinions as facts, and highlighting trivia to give a sense of expertise and knowledge for Gokhale. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The rising interest is not actually a medical claim, now is it? It simply describes a rising interest, the section clearly states that the method has not been scientifically proven. And personally, I do not think you should tag a sentence as "failed to verify" if the source is the problem, not the summary of it. The current tag refers to an incorrect summary of a source, not the source itself. If you want a more reliable source, you should tag for that. But as I said, I do not think that you need a review of tons of peer-reviewed medical studies to describe a rising interest in a therapy form. I have now quoted two news papers to support that claim, both of which are not exactly tabloids.

If there are other issues with the article, please be specific, and perhaps start a new section.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"The rising interest" appears to be nothing but marketing. Wikipedia is not a venue for marketing. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 28 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)

To start, please quote the sources that present a historical perspective clearly demonstrating that "rising interest" is something other than promotional hype. Once we have those, then we can find what this "interest" actually is. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I admit that the sentence describing positive interest could be more specific, but i wouldn't say it is WP:PEACOCK.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Potential sources

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)

• https://www.healthnewsreview.org/review/in-search-of-better-back-pain-treatment-npr-guides-us-to-the-right-destination-with-a-few-detours/

  A review of an NPR article. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/06/10/acupuncturist-finds-new-way-to-separate-yuppies-from-their-money/

  Another review of the same NPR article. I'm not familiar with this blog, and if we use it at all it should be with great care. We might want to check at WP:RSN if we think it would be helpful to to use it for anything. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/homepage-feature/85060-can-we-break-our-slouching-habit-by-reclaiming-our-primal-posture

  I don't believe this is reliable, unless the author herself would be considered a reliable journalist for such an article. I'm listing it here because it cites an expert opinion from a paleoanthropologist Bruce Latimer. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I have added Latimer's opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• http://hraf.yale.edu/a-cross-cultural-look-at-posture-in-ehraf/

  A response to the NPR article, showing that there's a huge amount of information available about posture in indigenous cultures. While I'm not sure if we can use this in the article, I think it clearly establishes that this article fits squarely under WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is about a method to solve back pain, not a scientific theory, but for the sake of argument, please quote where the article or the database linked establishes that the theory behind the Gokhale Method is a fringe theory.--Farang Rak Tham (talk)

Please review WP:FRINGE. I believe the responses to the NPR article establishes it, not that it isn't obvious. Please point to anything at all that demonstrates her claims, approach, and the method are "mainstream views". --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Maharty DC (September 2012). "The history of lower back pain: a look "back" through the centuries". Prim. Care. 39 (3): 463–70. PMID 22958555. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2012.06.002.

  Used in Low back pain#History. Might be useful in establishing the actual, mainstream views. I'd expect there are others in the same article that we could use. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Wikipedia policy. Since the Gokhale method has not been studied yet, we would have to do some research of our own to conclude whether it is fringe or mainstream. Whatever the case may be, looking at the coverage, it is notable. With regard to the review that you mentioned, concluding that the NPR article was "satisfactory", doesn't really prove anything.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not going to do our own research. We follow what reliable sources say. If no sources exist that can support a claim, we leave that claim out of the article. No WP:OR, and no WP:SYNTHMduvekot (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Maharty's article has been an interesting read, but deals with slightly different questions. It relates the history of back treatment from ancient times, but does not address the same questions as Gokhale, so the fringe question will still remain unanswered for now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you bring up notability. It's irrelevant as far as I can tell.

I'm not clear that you understand what fringe means. If you don't think that Maharty demonstrates mainstream thinking, then you either need to get up to speed given that there are general sanctions on the topic, or avoid it altogether. Working on topics under general sanctions requires a good understanding of all relevant policies. --Ronz (talk) 22:37, 31 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)

detailed review

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.

History

• Kriegman 2014 does not mention sciatica or several spinal disc herniations.

Moved citation number to correct position.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Doucleff 2015 mentions that "Gokhale had a herniated disc" not several spinal disc herniations.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Schoenfeld 2013 does not say that "She based the method on her insights gained at the Aplomb Institute", it says that Ms. Gokhale is not the first to suggest that changing posture is the key to a healthy spine, and lists the the Alexander Technique Aplomb Institute as precursors. It does not mention Feldenkrais.
• Vaswani 2017 also doesn't mention Feldenkrais.

These things are mentioned in some sources cited in the article, I have to look it up, and insert the correct source.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Found it: these are mentioned in Wallace 2013. I have added a citation.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Wallace 2013, in the Financial times gets one thing right: she grew up in India.

I am not certain what you would like to have corrected here. Could you be more specific?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Khaleeli 2015 confirms that she says she spent more than 10 years researching remote communities from Ecuador to India and gives their source; Doucleff 2015, so why not use just that in stead of the Guardian.

Okay, fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I will correct the information not supported. I have to check these details.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

up next: Features Mduvekot (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Features

• The claim that Gokhale's method is "different from the postures recommended by many forms of physical therapy" is not supported by Schoenfeld 2013 and Doucleff 2017. First of all, it is not clear what those "many forms of physical therapy" are. Doucleff mentions Alexander and Feldenkrais as "physiotherapy methods", but does not explain how they are different. Schoenfeld does contrast J shape recommended by Gokhale to the neutral pelvis recommended in Pilates and some physical therapy, but does not say what those therapies are. Pilates is not a physical therapy. Mduvekot (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I am removing this for the time being, unless you suggest a different way of summarizing this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ben 2017 does not say the Gokhale method incorporates dance. Mduvekot (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added Gokhale's own book, which does mention dancing.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Workshops are not a feature of the method.

Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Liver stagnation, aka "Liver Qi Stagnation" is not a recognized medical condition, but a term used by acupuncturist and practitioners of TCM that has no basis in science. Mduvekot (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• A third party citation for the claim that Gokhale wrote a book is redundant. Just cite the book itself.

Done. But the dvd is not mentioned in Gokhale's book, so I am keeping the third-party source.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• McMorris does say something about shoes, but it's entirely trivial. High heels are bad for your feet. Who knew? It does not say that choosing footwear is part of the lessons.

Replaced by Gokhale's book.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Bayless 2016 discusses good posture for texting, but does not mention Gokhale

I think I got the wrong article. I've removed the content and reference for the time being.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• It is true that What Doctors Don't Tell You says what the article claims, but I have my doubts about the reliability of that source. For medical articles, we trust what qualified medical professionals tell us, per WP:MEDRS.

Answered below.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hobelsberger 2013 does not sat that "ultimate aim of teaching the Gokhale Method is to make the method widespread and thereby change the very culture of posture, with parents and teachers playing an active and exemplary rol in educating children in posture". It quotes her as saying that " Kinder ahmen ihre Eltern nach" (children mimic their parents). Mduvekot (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This is partly covered by Bryant: I have added a quote which is also in the transcript. As for the Hobelsberger part, I have rephrased this .--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the What Doctors Don't Tell You reference (Montana; Bowman; Baniel. "The end of back pain". What Doctors Don't Tell You. Retrieved April 21, 2017.) as unreliable. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason I added the opinion of What doctors don't tell you is that it was a review that was not promotional, and was in fact critical about the method. I felt it had a useful function for the content of the article because of its criticism, although I understand it is strictly speaking not reliable. As for the other points, I will address them.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment. WDDTY is not reliable. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Reception

• Gokhale started teaching in a studio at Palo Alto, California. would be easy to source, but belongs in the history section. Mduvekot (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• I find the claim "taught at many well-known companies such as Google and Facebook" troubling. I don't doubt that she has given a class there, but to elevate what is a widespread practise at technology companies to something more meaningful than "we offer a free class on improving your posture" is unjustified. (My colleagues and I have been offered free cranio-sacral therapy and reiki by a well-meaning HR person without any medical qualifications at at large technology company to deal with the effects of sitting at at computer for long periods of time). Neither Google not Facebook officially endorse the method, and frankly, neither in is a position to do so, as they have no medical knowledge.

Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have no idea what "traditional medical community" is. It is vague weasel-language. If there is a notable expert, or an organization who endorses the method, identify them.

I understand what you are coming from. Those two points does look promotional. But then again, sources like the New York Times article do describe the method as a new trend, and sooner or later we have to ask ourselves whether that should somehow be reflected in the article. I'll try to find specifics.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Rephrased now. Specific experts can be found, but they are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page, so will probably be dismissed as irrelevant.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we're making any progress with the rephrasing and qualifying. The sources provide no context, and seem to be use parroting Gokhale's p.r. with less detail. Any noteworthy influence to the medical community should at least have some context. I've removed it as poorly sourced and inherently promotional. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• The fact that the method has not been studied does not belong in the reception section, and should probably be mentioned elsewhere, perhaps under a new heading.

Rephrased the heading.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sure I saw a quote by Gokhale where she did say that "sitting is the new smoking", so she hasn't spoken out against that.

I don't think she agrees with that, so please let me know where you found that information. If you are referring to the title of the article in the External Links section, those are not her words.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I think she was misquoted. It would be inconsistent with everything else she's said and the fact that she's selling a chair that "celebrates the philosophy that sitting is a natural healthy activity". Mduvekot (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have added a quote and a time parameter to the citations to back up the statement.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:16, 31 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)

• "one neurologist" Who? Mduvekot (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Added.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Biographical details of Gokhale

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)

I think this can be checked. Anyway, thanks for all your efforts, I will work on it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it, given how it's misleading and smacks of puffery. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, I'd like to state here that no editor has ever added any credentials with regard to Harvard or other universities to the article, but Mduvekot was probably only referring to the statement that Gokhale is a biochemist. This statement is actually supported by both the New York Times and the Guardian articles cited in the article. But since Gokhale herself hardly ever refers to her background as biochemist as an inspiration to the Gokhale method, it does not seem relevant. The discipline of acupuncture should be in there, however, because it has influenced the method. The word acupuncturist has no academic connotations, and it don't see any reason why it would violate WP:PEACOCK or WP:NEUTRALITY.

Ronz, it would be better to explain which policies or guidelines are violated or not met when addressing these issues, rather than using expletives.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

On a more personal note, I need to focus my attention to a review of an article I have nominated. I will be returning to the Gokhale Method article to improve it after that review is finished, which will probably take no more than seven days.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The discipline of acupuncture should be in there, however, because it has influenced the method. Says who?

I've used no expletives. Please retract the statement that I have, and remember to WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've requested help at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gokhale_Method given the article content and discussions too closely mirror problems common in other alt-med topics. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The word acupuncturist is merely a description of a profession Gokhale has, and is useful because it pertains to the background of the creator of the method. Please cite a policy or explain the reason why it is not correct to mention this. I am willing to learn or make adjustments to the article, but I need to have a reason to. If I wrote she was a firefighter or a police officer, would you also delete that?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

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))

But only if there's independent coverage, otherwise we'd be straying into WP:PROFRINGE territory. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Fringe does not suggest that a primary source cannot be used. In the case where a system has been devised the system can be described in the voice of the person who devised it as a means to understand where the system had its beginning. Sometimes, not always, this is pertinent information. In this case I'm not saying that we should use this source just that there is a case to be made for using it, that is, that we could if the article would be better with the addition of this from-the horse's-mouth explanation. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC))

There are two instances when Gokhale's book is used here as a primary source: to back up the statement that the method incorporates dance, and to state that a book was written about the subject. Let me know if adjustments are required.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say she has written a book or DVD which lands us into the land of advertising. The reader can find that out easily on their own and we then don't become an advert. As for the dance addition it seems fine to me. I'm only one editor so this isn't a consensus position just an opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC))

Previously, it was a third-party source mentioning that Gokhale wrote a book about the subject, and the title of the book was not mentioned. But above, in the point-by-point evaluation of the article, it has been suggested that the book of Gokhale be quoted instead:

A third party citation for the claim that Gokhale wrote a book is redundant. Just cite the book itself.

In my opinion, best practice would be to mention she wrote a book about the subject, and source that with a third-party source to prevent advertising.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the second instance of the primary source (book Gokhale) now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

I've forgotten where the Feldenkrais training info came from. I think a source made a correction. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Lede

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)

Um; in other words, it hasn't been demonstrated that these patterns exist, and can be er, modified by the technique? -Roxy the dog. bark 23:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"The method proposes" indicates in-world thinking. If there is research in this area it can be included but comparisons to other research on posture and associated medical topics if not explicitly connected directly to this topic is OR and synthesis.The topic must stand on its own; if it can't then notability is a problem. We aren't here, seems to me, to discredit this or any other technique just to lay our what is in the sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC))

If you are of the opinion that no alternative medicine should be included on Wikipedia, then please discuss this at an appropriate page for that. Please don't make this article the scapegoat for problems with alternative medicine articles. Let's try to keep things focused.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

If you are of the opinion... Please drop it. The general sanctions that apply here include behavioral policy.

Re The method proposes: While it does indicate this, it does so extremely poorly and needs to be changed.

I believe FRINGE requires us to present the mainstream view on the topic, and to avoid presenting fringe viewpoints as anything else.

No, no one is here to discredit it. The real problems are in hyping it and accepting their viewpoints without a wider context. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, what do you propose? Deletion? Tagging? Rewriting? Your wish is my command, just let me know how to proceed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I said from the beginning that it needs a rewrite. Feldenkrais Method and Rolfing are good examples to follow. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. I'd like to review all the sources more carefully to see if there's a way to follow Feldenkrais Method and Rolfing more closely. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

Looks good to me. More neutral.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the sources

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)

I think the answer to your question "Are journalists simply using the press kit to create an easy public interest article"? is that I have neither any proof nor any doubt that that is the case. Mduvekot (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but we can decide which sources tend toward WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAP vs those trying to give historical, scientific, medical, or other context.

The Santa Barbara Independent is a puff piece.

The New York Times piece is strange. Written by a freelance journalist, it looks more like a public interest article yet was published in the business section. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The only reliable source of criticism of the NPR article thus far provided on this talk page rated the NPR article as "satisfactory". Please post links to the other reliable sources that you are referring to as "criticisms", so we can follow.

I have not been able to found any further reliable sources about the subject on Google News or Google Scholar, but I am willing to help find them with some hints.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I'll make a complete list later. If you want to list all the sources beforehand, I'll add to it.

I'm guessing that none of the sources that support her claims are written from any larger context.

Also, I'm finding no information about her publisher at all. I thought it might be vanity imprint, and it may be, but it seems more like this is a case of self-publishing with assistance from other companies (publishers, printers, distributors http://www.ipgbook.com/pendo-press-publisher-PDO.php, etc). Basically, I think she worked with her contacts at Stanford to create her own publishing company. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Financial Times piece is the initial article for "The Fit Executive" column by Wallace. Wallace's wrote one article prior for The Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/86dcab6e-26c7-11e3-9dc0-00144feab7de . Wallace has written a number of subsequent articles about back problems since without mention of Gokhale. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that every source in the article eventually can be criticized in one way or the other, and you have obviously made your point. But i think it would now be more constructive to find better or more reliable sources. You are a much more experienced editor than me, but I cannot really follow where you are aiming for. If you want an AfD discussion, please start one and we can get it over with.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Research on worldwide distribution of back pain

Following up on the quote from Latimer, "If you look up the worldwide distribution of back pain—just Google it, there are several studies by the U.N., all sorts of different NGOs—what you will find out is that back pain is one of the most common if not the most common disabilities that humans suffer from"

• http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority_medicines/BP6_24LBP.pdf

  Bit old for MEDRS purposes. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Struck out: I gave the link for the 2013 update (below), while commenting on the 2004 version. We don't need it given we have the 2013 version. I moved the quote below. --Ronz (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority_medicines/BP6_24LBP.pdf

  Low back pain occurs in similar proportions in all cultures, interferes with quality of life and work performance, and is the most common reason for medical consultations.

  2013 update. We should use this. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Added in the recent changes to source the mainstream viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/81/9/Ehrlich0903.pdf?ua=1

  The abstract begins, Low back pain is a leading cause of disability. It occurs in similar proportions in all cultures, interferes with quality of life and work performance, and is the most common reason for medical consultations.

  Again, old. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Stewart Williams J, Ng N, Peltzer K, et al. Risk Factors and Disability Associated with Low Back Pain in Older Adults in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Results from the WHO Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (SAGE). Marengoni A, ed. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6):e0127880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127880. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456393/

  The countries studied are China, Ghana, India, Mexico, the Russian Federation and South Africa --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've requested help at FTN once again to properly incorporate the mainstream medical/anthropological viewpoint that back pain is common, in similar proportions, across all cultures. I made a couple of edits to indicate where I think changes need to be made to start. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your work. Then again, integrating content that does not mention the Gokhale method at all could easily become synthesis or OR. Maybe we just need to wait for (mainstream) scholars to respond to this new trend.

What is certain is we cannot add any unsourced content, even it reflects mainstream scholarship.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear that you've read or understand the discussions here or at FTN about how FRINGE applies, or if you have even looked at WP:FRINGE yet. WP:ARBPS applies here, and a detailed understanding of policies and guidelines is pretty much required. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, first time I'm contributing on wikipedia, so I hope this works. Anyway, I don't think this section is currently very satisfactory. The link to the WHO statistics, supposedly demonstrating that back pain is just as prevalent in low-income countries, is dead.

The other source that is mentioned is not a scientific article, just a journalist who tried the method and got a quote from a scientist saying that a certain primitive culture had high arthritis levels. However, arthritis is not the same as back pain, and the link between the two is much, much weaker than is commonly assumed. All in all, I wouldn't say this qualifies as serious evidence.

The only link I could find that contains relevant data is this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9259786/, and it supports Gokhale's conclusions. There's another scientific article that supports it, but based on anecdotal evidence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119282/.

All in all, I would say there is a strong case here to support Gokhale's conclusions that westerners tend to be more prone to low back pain. Even if, statistically, there were just as many cases in low countries, one should take into account how much heavier the physical labour in those countries is. In this case, westerners getting equal amounts of low back pain with less intensive labour still means they had worse backs to start out with.

What I would suggest is to remove the existing section and replace it with the links I have found. If not, maybe just a comment that the evidence is inconclusive and difficult to compare.

Would that work for you? MeerJoost (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The first proposed source is very old, the second is old and more of an OpEd. We need sources that specifically comment on the Gohhake Method. Bon courage (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't match with the section the way it is now. It specifically discusses the evidence for Gokhale's claim that westerners are more prone to back problems. If that's not relevant, then that part of the article should be removed. MeerJoost (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That's because we relay Gokhale's WP:FRINGE claims, and they need to be contextualized as WP:FRINGESUBJECTS to comply with Wikipedia's rules on neutrality. I've just had a quick look on Pubmed and it seems[1] there is zero secondary literature on this, so it appearsjust the NYT piece may be right that it's not been studied. And it seems now has fallen into obscurity. Maybe the article should be deleted? Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

unsourced content

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)

Fixed. Sorry I didn't include it from the start. I was hoping to get some response from the comments above and from FTN. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose removal tag

Originally the neutrality tag was added because "article appears fundamentally unencyclopedic - written like a public relations piece". I think this no longer holds. Propose removing tag.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the article can be neutral given the poor sourcing that's strongly dependent upon Gokhale's public relations campaigns, and unavailability of anything better. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Lack of WP:MEDRS is different from lack of neutral tone. Shouldn't we distinguish the two and tag correctly?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Those are two valid concerns, but mine is different: We're working from, and giving too much weight to, poor sources that have very little encyclopedic value but rather are part of an organized public relations campaign. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Having read through this again, I agree there is a problem. We are giving a lot of exposure to this "method" from rather weak sources without any corrective context (and the lede is criticism-free). In lieu of better context I'm thinking we need to trim weak sources which imply things in the realm of health/science. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like the best approach at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Are crowdbased medical ratings valid here?

• "The platform Healthoutcome.org ('Crowdsourced Treatment Ratings for Common Medical Conditions') rates 'Postural Modifications' as the best general treatment for lower back pain (3.8/5 as of October 2017), and specifically the Gokhale Method as the best single treatment for lower back pain (4.6/5 as of October 2017).[22] The validity of crowdbased medical ratings have been studied and confirmed in a recent study by the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research.[23]" was removed with reason Not WP:MEDRS. How can this information be rephrased so that it fits, as I consider it valuable information in order to judge the validity of the method.78.34.232.219 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Not a usable source. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

78.34.232.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have taken the liberty to move this matter to a new section. As to your question, articles on health have different rules than other articles on Wikipedia, per the policy cited (WP:MEDRS). Medical claims as to the validity of certain types of healthcare, even alternative, need to be backed up by reviews of scholarly medical studies. If you think a case can be made for healthoutcome.org as a reliable source for medical claim validity, I am sure there is a noticeboard where these things can be discussed. The general noticeboard for reliable source related discussions is WP:RSN, but I am not certain whether this can also be used for medical articles. If it can, you could start a new thread there about the healthoutcome.org website, and see what people think about it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• • • • When the original addition of the crowdsourced ref and text was added, Alexbrn beat me to the revert by a few seconds. My edsum was not as collegiate as Alex' but essentially said the same thing. Not acceptable per MEDRS I'm afraid. You could take it to that noticeboard, but the answer will be the same. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Still, could save some time in the future, when it's settled over there. For future reference.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

My edsum was not as collegiate as Alex' I don't see the point of such statements, especially towards what is most likely a new user.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gokhale Method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170830061152/http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/homepage-feature/85060-can-we-break-our-slouching-habit-by-reclaiming-our-primal-posture to http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/homepage-feature/85060-can-we-break-our-slouching-habit-by-reclaiming-our-primal-posture

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Objectivity of Penultimate Sentence

"However, one of the main assumptions of the Gokhale Method, that people in less industrialized societies have less back pain,[4] is incorrect: mainstream science states back pain occurs to a similar extent in all cultures.[20][21]"

This statement is not supported by the two references cited.

citation [20] Figure 6.24.1 shows large differences in days lost to back pain in different parts of Europe and Table 6.24.2 shows large variations in the incidence of back pain in a selection of countries from around the world (but notes that the numbers are unadjusted). There is no statement in this paper that the incidence of back pain is uniform across the world, just that it is common. There is no effort in this paper to compare the incidence of back pain between industrialized and pre- or less industrialized countries.

citation [21] There is a statement from one expert, Bruce Latimer, that they can find plenty of incidences of arthritic backs in pre-contact Native American skeletons. This expert cites no research by himself or anyone else to compare the rate of back arthritis in pre-contact Native American skeletons with current populations.

Either the statement needs to be modified or better citations need to be found

William Wilcock (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed, William Wilcock--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal is probably out of the question per WP:FRINGE.

uniform across the world We aren't saying that.

Well you kind of are because if it was less common in less industrialized countries then that would be consistent with the premise of the Gokhale method. In Table 6.24.2 of reference [20], the rate of back pain is low in India which is one of the countries cited in Ester Gokhale's book as having good posture (but it is also low in Australia). Other region cited by Gokhale - sub-saharan Africa, south America - are not in the table so this reference is just not very definitive either way. William Wilcock (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

from one expert, Bruce Latimer If you can find similar experts claiming otherwise, please provide the sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of Bruce Latimer, citation 20 does not support the content, and thus amounts to WP:SYNTH. This citation must go, to follow policy.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding finding citations for experts with opposite view but this would be more convincing if it cited some of the studies Bruce Latimer alludes to in the article. William Wilcock (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Complete removal would violate NOT and POV. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

To be consistent with the references cited and thus more objective, I suggest that the penultimate sentence be modified to "However, one of the main assumptions of the Gokhale Method, that people in less industrialized societies have less back pain,[4] has not been demonstrated by mainstream science. Although the reported incidences of back pain can differ significantly between countries [20], back pain is a major health problem throughout the world [20][21] and arthritis of the spine was common in pre-contact Native American populations [21]." William Wilcock (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave it a shot [2], and wonder if a short statement belongs in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I still quibble with "is contradicted by mainstream science" because it not clear that there are any scientific studies that have looked at the incidence of back pain pre-industrialized populations (a subset of the population in most undeveloped countries) and compared it to industrialized populations using comparable metrics. It would be more objective if you substituted "has not been demonstrated by mainstream science".

I think the most important statement from this section to put in the lead is a statement that the method has not be scientifically evaluated. This is acknowledged on the Gokhale web site - https://gokhalemethod.com/data - so there is no need to preface that with 'As of June 2015". In terms of evaluating the technique, the key question is whether it reduces back pain and not whether some populations have lower incidences of back pain so focusing on global patterns of back pain distribution in the lead seems a bit of tangent.

Finally, there is plenty of scientific evidence that posture modification is an effective treatment for back pain (e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145000/). This is essentially what the Gokhale method teaches so one could modify the final sentence to statement with "but other posture modification techniques have been proved effective". — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Wilcock (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with William Wilcock that contradicted by mainstream science is something we can't write, because the Newsworks article does not directly state this. The paragraph will still give the same facts without it, but just not draw any conclusions yet. A second issue is that only one expert was consulted, that is Bruce Latimer. We do not know for sure whether this is mainstream opinion. Using the WHO article is problematic and possibly in violation of WP:SYNTH, since it does not mention the subject of the article at all. I still believe it should be removed from the article, per WP:OR guidelines. We cannot just pick sources that do not directly discuss the subject of the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

With regard to the "as of" statement, that is in there because Gokhale has a plan to have her method scientifically studied. It is mentioned in the source cited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The feeling I'm getting from all that is that we're trying to run around FRINGE. Latimer is an expert. Rather than waste time trying to nitpick the experts, and stray from writing an encyclopedia article, we should trim away anything where the authors took Gokhale's self-promotion whole cloth. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the correct approach to FRINGE is to make the whole article objective. There are no scientific studies that have specifically set out to test the hypothesis that back pain is less common in indigenous cultures. The 2010 Global Burden of Disease Study shows about a factor of 2 variation in the age-adjusted incidence of lower back pain regionally (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261070129_The_global_burden_of_low_back_pain_Estimates_from_the_Global_Burden_of_Disease_2010_study) which appears to be unexplained. Stating that Ester Gokhale's hypothesis is "contradicted by mainstream science" is not an objective statement. The article could justifiably state that it has not been demonstrated by mainstream science, that there are no scientific studies that support it, and/or and that scientists have expressed skepticism but if states that it is "contradicted by science" the article should to be able to cite a study that reaches this conclusion (not an expert expressing an opinion). So with all due respect I think Ronz is hiding behind FRINGE rules to preserve wording that cannot be justified William Wilcock (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

with all due respect Please WP:FOC instead.

the article should to be able to cite a study The whole purpose of FRINGE is to address claims where we don't expect any studies to exist because the claim is fringe... --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why it is required to refer to WP:FOC, when the issues at hand are still being discussed, and supported by good arguments.

1. Furthermore, I agree with William Wilcock that "contradicted by mainstream science" is not supported by the sources, as William Wilcock and I already explained above. There is no source cited that compares the method to mainstream science.
2. Secondly, the WHO source does not even contain the word Gokhale and including it is a form of OR. It does not say anything about the Gokhale method, let alone that it is contradicted by science.
3. When looking back in history,[3] we can notice that content about mainstream science was included to prevent violating fringe policies, but this content was initially unsourced. Afterwards, sources were found and included. This manner of working is of course not ideal, even if your intentions are to indicate fringe as such. Other core policies also must be uphold, including WP:V and WP:OR. Therefore, the phrase "contradicted by mainstream science", which was never sourced in the first place, must go.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ronz states that "The whole purpose of FRINGE is to address claims where we don't expect any studies to exist because the claim is fringe". I think this is incorrect. The Wikepedia page WP:FRINGE states right off the bat that " fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views". To me "very broad sense" means that it covers more than crackpot ideas that no scientist would even consider. It is a matter of opinion, but I would argue that Gokhale's hypothesis is a perfectly rational idea that deserves testing and would provide a basis for explaining why postural modification in general (if not the Gokhale method) are a mainstream treatment for back pain. Now because Wikipedia was wise enough to define FRINGE broadly, I accept that my argument is not a basis for arguing that the idea is not FRINGE. William Wilcock (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added a footnote, quoting from the reference, the same quote discussed earlier.

If editors wish to rephrase the medical consensus, please make an edit request. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest simply changing "is contradicted by mainstream science" to "is not supported by mainstream science". This subtle change in wording does not give the incorrect impression that there are scientific studies that refute the hypothesis, but instead conveys that (1) there are no scientific studies supporting it and (2)there is scientific skepticism. These two points are supported, respectively, by references 20 and 21 and amplified in the following sentence. William Wilcock (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've incorporated your suggestion. Thanks. I also pulled the quotation out of the footnote and added it as a direct quote. We could rephrase it if we like. It would be fine to use in Wikipedia's voice, and doing so might be slightly better. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you William Wilcock (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)