Talk:Bowen technique

Unreliable Source of Information

The Bowen page has been hijacked by those refusing to give an objective view of a subject and instead promote their own standpoint. Users interested in Bowen should refer to the wide ranging information available on the internet from more reliable sources and the half a dozen or so published books on the subject.Joolsbaker (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hamstring study yet again

I don't expect we'll here from the ip's edit-warring over the material, but if hear from anyone at all shall we take this to WP:NPOVN over the use of a primary source without any secondary sources that demonstrate it's worth mention, violating both NPOV and MEDRS? --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Substantially rewrote the page.

Primary sources are not appropriate, and the For Dummies book is perfectly acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source is a source which analyses a primary source. The resource here is from a peer reviewed journal which is therefore a secondary source. http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Rather, [1] looks like cherry picking information and sources to suit what is presented. Please explain in detail why the two sources should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If no one is going to explain why sourced material doesn't belong, then it should be restored.

As for the hamstring study, it doesn't belong as pointed out in our numerous discussions on the topic. If someone can provide new references, or new arguments, maybe it's worth discussing again. --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean up / COI

I've had a go at cleaning the article up and getting some sourcing backbone in there. I think it's reasonably neutral now and propose that the COI tag be removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The quack watch insertion is unwarranted given the lack of objectivity on the site. A peer reviewed paper published in a respected journal is a secondary source and in the interests of facts on the subject, must be listed. No evidence that Bowen called it a gift from God. Ossie Rentsch assertion made 20 years ago. Joolsbaker (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Quackwatch has repeatedly been found to be RS on the topic of altmed. That BT is on its radar is noteworthy and we need to include it.
• In WP:MEDRS terms peer-reviewed publications are not necessarily secondary sources: they need to be a review of some kind at a remove from the original research, and adding an additional layer of scrutiny and peer review.
• The "gift from God" thing is in the Dummies book, which is a reliable enough source for it. Do any sources contest this? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a more authoritative source would be the books written on Bowen by experts on the subject? Sigh. I give up. I have tried to present an informative yet objective perspective, but when published research is bumped in favour of silly sources such as Comp Therapy for Dummies, then all sense of reason is lost. Science changes when a different view is presented, sceptics sadly are unable to step away from the religious rigidity of viewpoint. It turns out that Wikipedia is controlled by those with an axe to grind rather than those who wish to present factual information and evidence. Joolsbaker (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"In other situations, such as randomized controlled trials, it may be helpful to temporarily cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published. When using a primary source, Wikipedia should not overstate the importance of the result or the conclusions. When in doubt, omit mention of the primary study (in accordance with recentism) because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them). If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning, they should be described as being from a single study" Helpful to cite primary research. Helpful being the operative word rather than obstructive. Perhaps some degree of consensus and flexibility is required from editors ignorant of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolsbaker (talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We cite a 2011 systematic review a true secondary which points out the poor quality of the primary research (another good reason for not citing it). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You cite selectively the systematic review. Joolsbaker (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Its conclusion is accurately represented. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Now you've cherry-picked it to make it seems like it's saying the opposite to what it concluded! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to quote it, let's quote it a bit more accurately so that it represents what was said rather than what you heard. It's conclusion was completely inaccurate and totally misrepresented by your edit. At no stage was the word 'poor' used. Your edit gives the impression that the review came down heavily against Bowen. In fact it did the opposite and cited the potential usefulness of the work, whilst at the same time acknowledging and referencing Mannheimer and Berman. If you want to reproduce the whole conclusion, let's do that. Joolsbaker (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the whole paper. It says

the studies reviewed had varying degrees of methodological problems, including type of sampling technique, incomplete description of the study sample and procedures, and the lack of standardized measurement tools.5,10,15,16 The majority of the studies reviewed require greater attention to design details and methodological issues, in order to support the validity of the reported health-related outcomes, before recommending Bowenwork for use in clinical practice.

which is no doubt why the whole piece is hedged with "may potentially" type phrasing, and states no recommendation can be made. Trying to present it as supporting the case for BT is a misrepresentation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to put a link to the full article. I have read the full article many, many, many times. It's my job. The article presents a balanced view, correctly comments on methodologies and reasons as to why this might be the case. It is a balanced piece of work that deserves to be reflected well and does not use the word poor in respect of any research or study conducted. It's conclusions are quoted and are generally if not overwhelmingly supportive of the technique and its role in varied healthcare environments. Either way, if you want to quote it, then a) quote it correctly, and b) don't be surprised when others wish to quote it too. Joolsbaker (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch does not list Bowen under it's questionable treatments but on a page written in 1997 that has no bearing 18 years later. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/dictionary/mdb.html Joolsbaker (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Err, there's no other way to say this other than: you're wrong (The URL you give about is not the URL you removed. The URL you removed is: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/treatmentindex.html). It's there on the page (search for "Bowen Therapy"). BTW, I think you're well past 3RR now - certainly edit warring - and this is likely to get you blocked. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was going mad. The URL I removed certainly does not mention Bowen anywhere on the page, so not wrong after all, phew. It turns out that Bowen is NOT in the list of questionable therapies as claimed, but NST an offshoot of Bowen not recognised as Bowen by UK Professional Standards Board, is indeed correctly listed. NST is considered by many to be an unsafe and unpleasant therapy, using excessive pressure and creating discomfort to users and would not be included Bowen and does not come under the Bowen banner or comply with the main definition of Bowen. The danger of not knowing nuances and variation. Understandable. I would be more than happy for NST to be mentioned as part of a quackwatch element, but this needs to be clarified. Bowen as it stands is not mentioned. Could it be that someone had correspondence with Quackwatch and that Bowen, quite deliberately is not on this site? Joolsbaker (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to resort to conspiracy theories to support your editing, then it's time to take a long break from the article.

The source says "Bowen Technique." --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please indicate where the source says "Bowen Technique" Joolsbaker (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to have some balance? Please? The systematic review does not use the word poor at all. The review was regarding the literature and research methodology which it, rightly criticised. However throughout the entire article it is broadly supportive of the technique and its efficacy and this is reflected in the extended conclusion. This quote mis represents the article.

Secondly, quackwatch refers to NST and this is something which should be clarified. There is a real and very important distinction between Bowen and NST which is what quack watch is commenting on, having previously removed Bowen from any mention or list. Joolsbaker (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Bowen and NST are synonymous, according to the Pennington source we use. And QW puts "Bowen therapy" in brackets after mentioning NST. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. Quackwatch has defined NST and from your suggestion this too has been clarified. The whole of the section from the Systematic Review is worth quoting to give balance and a better idea of author conclusions. Joolsbaker (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, slicing a selected paragraph out the article is undue and unrepresentative of its overall content. The key point is that there is a lack of evidence to recommend BT for use. The rest is opinion/fluff. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The SR was not a review of the effectiveness of Bowen. You might want to read the whole article. "The objectives of this study were to systematically review the literature available on the comple- mentary approach to healing known as Bowenwork and to examine reported research methods." "The literature indicates that Bowen is a useful CAM practice." Nowhere does it use the word poor. Edits should not create words or meaning where no such meaning exists. The whole review is widely supportive of the technique and critical of the research methodology. References to source material should accurately reflect the source material. You cannot pick and choose. Either it's RS or it's not and if it's reliable then it is valid to quote from it to give balance. Joolsbaker (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

RS is not a binary concept that applies to an entire text. There are different things in a text and different degrees of reliability for those things. Because this text has an empirical core, it is useful for that (i.e. a description of the evidence and a conclusion that it does not permit the treatment to be recommended). The article is also full of what you call "wild enthusiasm". This is not suitable for inclusion because it's .... well, "wild enthusiasm". It's opinion, but it's not notable and - if used to promoted BT here, runs afoul of the WP:FRINGE guidance and the WP:PSCI policy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused. Can a RS only quote something if that something is negative when it comes to CAM? If the starting point is that all CAM is bogus and text is be found to support that premise irrespective of context, then this seems an impossible place to work from and creates an unbalanced view. The text does indeed state what you say, but also has an 'on the other hand' statement which I cannot see is anything other than reasonable. The conclusions of the review are not cut and dried along one direction and to extrapolate a personal opinion that the empirical core is 'no recommendation' from a text of thousands of words, is to read something in to the text that isn't there. Joolsbaker (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The guidance that applies is WP:MEDRS and particularly WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia will not carry content that contradicts the mainstream, except when it is properly contextualized by the mainstream view. In the case here it's a bit more involved. The article in question carries a mixture of opinion and empirical assessment (which latter it will have been peer reviewed on; the opinions are the opinions of the authors and in line with what we'd expect from a CAM journal). For something that's dubious like BT we don't want an "on the one hand ..." type of view, we need to make sure that that fringeiness is clearly evident (as with homeopathy, magnet therapy, Rife machines, and so on). This is why going large on the authors' opinions is not a good idea. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

NST needs to be differentiated from Bowen for public safety and trading standard reasons. NST is considerably different and nobody either in the world of Bowen or NST would consider them synonymous. Bowen by the most recent published literature (2013), is a "gentle, light touch therapy." NST is not and has differentiated approaches which also use different approaches in terms of the breaks. The Professional Standards Board in the UK has not admitted NST as a Bowen therapy Joolsbaker (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You'd need a reliable source to state they're different. The RS we use doesn't distinguish. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Quackwatch link shows NST (Bowen Therapy) under the questionable treatments and the comment must reflect what the link is to. Not to do so is mis-informing. If you wish to demonstrate NST as synonymous with Bowen, you should quote the RS directly and place it adjacent to the QW link. As this RS is not widely available to the GP it seems reasonable for you to quote. Joolsbaker (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the article shows a degree of balance now. It's a case of 'on one hand this but on the other hand this' Hope you agree! Joolsbaker (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Alexbrn has made several edits, one of which linked Bowen to Quackwatch and gave a link. The link clearly shows that Bowen is not on the list of questionable treatments, yet Alexbrn has lied repeatedly by outting this link back up. Why would anyone with serious digital credentials edit something so blatantly badly were it not in a desperate and deliberate attempt to discredit something. Is this in the spirit of Wikipedia? I hardly think so. Joolsbaker (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Previous comment withdrawn. Joolsbaker (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:NPA is something in the "spirit of Wikipedia", something you might want to consider in the light of the mistake you have just made. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fringe

FYI, I have raised a query related to this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns met?

I have read the article over and from my point of view, at least, it seems that the concerns raised in the tag at the top of the article, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject, etc.," have been met. The article seems now to be pretty well balanced, and I can see no obvious bias. I will remove the tag soon if no one objects. EMP (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)