How to qualify a topic in the lede of an article that falls under WP:fringe is an excellent question you for wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. See for instance wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard5:2 diet for a similar question being treated there. I would be wrong not to point you in the right direction on your question. This talk page is about the content of the wikipedia:Criticism page. I'm not sure what you would like to see improved to that page? Then even if the page is improved, it is an essay (see notice at the top of the page not a guideline or a policy, so anything written there is superseded by, for instance, the guidance at WP:fringe. Nor is this talk page, probably only monitored by those who are interested in the content of the actual essay, something that will attract much attention for multiple views on how to write (the lede of) the rolfing article.
Again, the question is about whether "massage" is used in the first sentence of the article as part of the basic description (and currently it is used in 4 other places). And again, the secondary sources are split, with several sources acknowledging the confusion and explaining why massage is the incorrect term. Comments from others, please? Thanks!- karinpower ( talk ) 04:15, (UTC) If calling it a fringe theory isn't the problem, then surely wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is a better venue for your question. Your question is in no way unusual there, see intro of that noticeboard's page: it's about helping you to put together the content of any fringe-theory related page (as much as drawing the fringe / no fringe line which is no concern here i see). francis Schonken ( talk ) 04:37, (UTC) my question is quite pertinent to this subject of how to deal with controversy on wp, i think, and it's not addressed in this article which I think is an opportunity. The question of a disagreement about how to categorize something has to an issue that has been found in many other areas, not just alternative health. Can anyone else chime in on this, please? Thanks!- karinpower ( talk ) 17:59, (UTC) categorize can have a specific meaning in wikipedia, see wikipedia:Categorization, but i assume that's not what you meant.
Academics - sandhills Community college
The word "massage" comes from the word for dough ( masa for instance) and it has a connotation of kneading the muscles. Hands-on approaches that are more sophisticated than kneading will sometimes avoid the term massage. Another factor: there is a massage tradition that has developed over time, and Rolfing does not have a place within that tradition but rather has its own history, teachers, schools, etc. One cannot attend massage school to learn Rolfing. Is there a wp policy on how to handle this sort of problem? I welcome suggestions, and also if an experienced editor would be interested in collaborating with me to put together a draft of changes to propose to the page's editors, i would appreciate it! karinpower ( talk ) 03:36, (UTC) The core of the difference in opinion appears to be whether or not this is medicine business (therapy).
This is something that should be explained in the article, all relevant views based on sources (that is sources directly relating to rolfing ) should be in the article. Don't bother about the "dough" translation (for instance) if that is not in sources directly relating to rolfing (otherwise drawing it in would be original research ). Whether or not the medicine / no medicine controversy should be in a separate section is not the first concern. The first concern is to describe it properly, based on sources, in the article. All in all I rather recommend wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard if you need further help on this (you'll see the case isn't all that unusual as you thought). francis Schonken ( talk ) 03:59, (UTC) Nope, i think you've misunderstood. This is not at all a debate about whether it's medicine and the wp:fringe status isn't being contested - the studies that have been done weren't published in a mainstream WP:medrs quality journal, so that's that, resume til better quality studies emerge.
noleander ( talk ) 15:42, (UTC) This page says (in WP:criticismliving persons ) that there are strict rules governing the inclusion of negative material on living persons, and we should consult WP:blp for details. On consulting WP:blp i noticed that that page basically says of this issue "don't create attack pages on private figures; don't add negative material on public figures unless you can find multiple reliable sources". Virtually every instance of the word "negative" is in the context "whether positive or negative". Since the relevant policy page has so little to say on the subject, shouldn't we just include it on this page and link to the relevant policy page anyway? ( talk ) 00:50, (UTC) Controversy on how to classify a topic edit This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify.
Hood ( talk ) 21:25, (UTC) I have a unusual case that isn't covered by this article or the above talk points. When there is disagreement (from sourced material) on how to categorize a topic, how shall this be handled? It certainly doesn't need a section discussing the disagreement, nor is it clear how to mention it in the text or how to deal with it in relation to related topics. The case i have in mind is an alternative health modality, rolfing. The debate is whether it should be described as bodywork, manual therapy or manipulative therapy, or massage. Presently the article uses the term massage, however practitioners of Rolfing say that it is not massage. This disagreement comes about because a number of secondary sources call it a type of massage, while a number of other secondary sources avoid using the word massage and some even bother to clarify that it's often mistaken for massage. The word massage is sometimes used by the general population as a synonym for bodywork, yet bodywork practitioners often understand that the term "bodywork" is more inclusive; see bodywork (alternative medicine) for a brief review of this.
Personal Statement Help at Pro personal Statement Writing
For example, in the approaches section, would we only want to suggest that negative criticism be integrated into sections, or should positive critical response also be integrated? I am wondering how the article would read if "negative criticism" were to be replaced by "critical reception" wherever possible. There would still be places where negative criticism is being exclusively addressed, of course, and those should remain. I've tried to explore what this might look like: wikipedia talk:Criticism/Criticism workpage hgilbert ( talk ) 11:06, (UTC) That's a good question. I suppose the essay focuses on negative criticism because 99 of the time the essay is invoked to address a situation where an editor erroneously emphasized negative critical material. The purpose of the essay, in those common situations, is to educate the offending editor: "look, if you want to include negative material, fine, but it has to be done as follows.". Changing the title or emphasis of the essay to "critical reception" in general would somewhat undermine that primary purpose of the essay. You are correct that the essay could be written symmetrically, applying equally to positive negative criticism. The risk is that changing the emphasis would dilute the message - strange and editors sent to this essay may miss the primary point.
Consensus seems to be that any valid and notable criticism should be worked into the article where it applies rather than concentrated in a special section.- charles ( talk ) 08:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC) i agree, and so do the authors of the essay. Is that essay adequate, or should we promote that essay to a wp:guideline? davidCary ( talk ) 16:50, (UTC) Support promoting WP:criticism to a guideline. It's been standard practice to avoid criticism sections and articles for years, but they still pop up in places they shouldn't. Having a guideline would make the existing consensus clearer. Hood ( talk ) 21:14, (UTC) Support As i explained here. Mhhossein ( talk ) 06:20, (UTC) Criticism. Critical reception edit i am sure that there are very good historical reasons why this article focuses on negative criticism, as this is likely to be controversial. It seems to me, however, that much fun of what it says applies to positive critical reception, as well.
: There's definitely a way to cover criticism of a topic in a neutral way, but in many cases we fail. A few sentences on this would be helpful. Randomran ( talk ) 20:35, (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Relisted with discussion moved from WP:RFC/board please add new comments below this notice. Hood ( talk ) 21:14, (UTC) In a number of articles on wikpedia, there is a section labeled "criticisms" but no section for the opposite viewpoint. I believe in order to remove this subtle bias from articles and to keep wikipedia neutral a different approach should be followed. Either there should be an opposing and opposite section, or the criticisms section should be changed to something with a bias-neutral title like "opposing viewpoints and criticisms as well as accolades for disputable entries should always include both sides for a balanced view when reasonably.
As a first question, is a guideline about criticism worth having or will it cause more problems than it solves? If there is a guideline, what should it cover? Just for simplicity, i'll include my response to the question here: Support having a guideline. I would propose that the guideline cover situations when dedicated criticism sections or articles are appropriate and guidelines for use of potentially biased secondary sources. Much of the current content can be retained as an essay, since it is mostly suggestions rather than expectations. Sdy ( talk ) 01:08, (UTC). Support only if it discourages them. Sceptre ( talk ) 08:09, (UTC). Oppose, we're getting far too much instruction creep at this point, and I prefer the "exceptional cases make bad law" pdf concept - we should not create a guideline because a controversy has erupted over a single article, nor should a guideline be written while criticism.
The body: An Essay: Jenny boully
This page is within the scope. Wikiproject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory. Mid, this page has been rated. Mid-impact on the project's impact scale. Edit, this has been an essay for quite some time, and there has recently been at least one controversy about hippie a criticism article which has even left the wiki into the (sort of) real world. Many people have strong opinions on how the project should handle criticism, particularly dedicated criticism articles.