Talk:Alexander technique

Requested move 31 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Technique → Alexander technique – There are valid arguments to be made for either version of the pagename, as discussed in the talk section just above, and I feel that it would be best to have a discussion that brings in more editors. There is a strong case to be made that using a title with a capitalized "Technique" reflects the fact that overall search results show that capitalization is significantly more common than lower case: [1]. On the other hand, such a title construction tends to go against MOS:AT, WP:NCCAPS, and WP:LOWERCASE. It is also atypical for us to capitalize "technique" in titles of other pages: [2], or in other pages about health-related techniques. I think that this comes down to whether or not the capitalized version is truly a proper name, or something that has arisen from promotional efforts on behalf of a fringe-y alt-med technique. In the talk section above, I link to some mainstream sources that eschew the capitalization. So, what do editors think? -- Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listed at WP:FTN: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this has been a proper name for over half-a-century, as reflected in the overwhelmingly uppercased n-grams. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The first two scholarly sources that I picked that were cited in the article were this and this. Neither of them capitalizes the word "technique". I had a little difficulty accessing another one, but found it here, and it doesn't use capitalization either. I was a bit surprised by this, because the citations in the article make it appear that uppercase is used in the cited titles, but it isn't in these actual sources. Some other sources do capitalize it, but it doesn't seem necessary, and Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. My rough impression is that the sources I notice that capitalize it are mostly the lower-quality and non-independent sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:NCCAPS: For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. The ngram search (here) at 69% capitalisation shows that this is far from always capped in sources and therefore not a proper name that we should cap per NCCAPS. Note, the ngram search does not exclude normal uses of title case such as headings and titles in citations but nor does a search for the Alexander technique reasonably exclude use in citations. We would also lowercase this per MOS:SCIMATH, a specific exception to the general advice at MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. On balance the WP:PAG scales tip in favour of Tryptofish's argument. Bon courage (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – We usually avoid capping methods, techniques, syndromes, schools of thought, etc., and this one is not consistently capped in sources, so is not exception. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for wording review regarding definitive “pseudoscience” labeling

Hi, 

I’d like to propose revising the way the term “pseudoscience” is presented in the article, not with the intention of removing reliably sourced criticism, but to ensure the wording fully complies with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy and accurately reflects the range of positions in high-quality secondary sources.

Currently the article states (or strongly implies) that the Alexander Technique is pseudoscience in Wikipedia’s voice. While several medical and scientific reviews do classify it this way, other reputable bodies (including the NHS and NICE in the UK) describe the technique as having limited, mixed, or condition-specific evidence, rather than categorising it strictly as pseudoscientific. NICE also notes some areas where it “may help,” which is more nuanced than outright dismissal. Under WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should avoid taking a definitive position when high-quality sources themselves differ in their characterisation or use more cautious/qualified language. Under WP:WORDSASLABELS, terms like “pseudoscience” should be attributed, not stated as a Wikipedia judgement. Proposed change: 

Replace unqualified statements such as “The Alexander Technique is pseudoscience” with something like:

“The Alexander Technique has been described by several medical and scientific reviews as lacking high-quality evidence and has been characterised by some critics as pseudoscientific, while bodies such as the NHS and NICE note limited or condition-specific benefits.” This still includes all the critical sourcing but avoids Wikipedia asserting the classification in its own voice. It aligns better with: WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (Statements of opinion require attribution) WP:WORDSASLABELS (Avoid contentious labels in Wikipedia’s voice) WP:MEDRS (Ensuring claims reflect the exact weight of medical sources) I would appreciate feedback from other editors before making any changes. If consensus is that current wording adheres to NPOV and MEDRS, I’m happy to leave it as-is. If a more precise attribution is acceptable, I can draft a proposed wording. Thanks! ~2025-34416-14 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit you made, and I think this is unlikely to get consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted Tryptofish, because including "pseudoscientific" violates WP:LEAD by introducing information in the lead section that appears nowhere in the body text, and as far as I could tell, the cited sources for the lead sentence say nothing about pseudoscience.
Propose a body text that discusses the topic in the context of pseudoscience, and only then can we consider mentioning it in the lead section. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please log into your account before you edit, so your edits can be properly attributed to you. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to edit war over it, but I'm surprised. The page repeatedly describes it as lacking scientific justification. I'm willing to wait and see if any proposed new language is worthwhile. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something that lacks scientific justification doesn't necessarily equate to pseudoscience. It may be pseudoscience, or it may be something that science hasn't explored or explained, which is often the case when dealing with psychiatrics and biofeedback. Some claimed health effects may indeed be pseudoscience, but the effect on posture improvement seems to be validated, and even our article says there is evidence of benefits for chronic pain and Parkinson's disease. There seems to be a mixed bag of claims, some valid, some not. Therefore, a blanket label of "pseudoscientific" in the lead just seems misleading. If we're going to apply the pseudoscience label, we need to find reliable sources that use it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that we do have a source saying that the technique is considered experimental (Aetna). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexander_Technique