User talk:73.92.242.230

This article reads overly biased and disassociated from reality of the practice. There are several sources the suggest potential positive outcomes of myofascial release. There is no room in this article for that representation. We can have both skepticism and acknowledgment that there is a current lack of support from the scientific method, while also incorporating an approach that acknowledges that the field is open to further research. Using frank language, not incorporating that research and POV is dumbing down the readership.

The work around fascia and its role in the body, facilitation of muscle formation and separation, and its connection to nerve endings are also well documented.

Right now, the article reads incredibly biased. Or, colloquially, “closed minded.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634830/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526038/

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/muscle-pain-it-may-actually-be-your-fascia

Discuss your concerns about bias on the article's talk page and wait for a consensus before making similar edits. You have to do more than convince me (and I'm not convinced), you must convince enough people who edit the article that you have legitimate points. And you should not make unilateral decisions about the content of the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Sundayclose (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

There have been several other people with the same critique. I am presenting the necessary research to contribute that there is NOT a strong scientific consensus to refer to myofascial release as a “pseudoscience.” There is a growing consensus that there is room for further research, and that should be enough to not use such conclusive language as “pseudoscience.”

This same inaccurate and circular interpretive approach is also being displayed on the Mehmet Oz page. If you want to critique alternative medicine, you should do so in the alternative medicine page. Dr. Oz does not promote what he refers to as “pseudoscience.” He promotes what he refers to as “alternative medicine.” If you disagree with alternative medicine’s science, you should be doing that in the alternative medicine page. Otherwise, you are promoting inaccuracy and misrepresentation of an individual’s work.

• Your complaint is baseless: the article on Myofascial release doesn't even call it "pseudoscience". It falls under the heading of "Alternative and pseudo-medicine. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

My complaint is extended to the term “pseudomedicine.”

Again, take your concerns to the article's talk page and wait for consensus. Please click all the blue links here and read the policies. That's how things work on Wikipeida. Sundayclose (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

My complaint is not "extended". I just note you are complaining about something that isn't there, which is...well, a waste of everyone's time. But let me complain about...eh... Drmies (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• My* complaint is extended towards the use of the word “pseudomedicine” for a field that is still open to further research by practicing experts in its field.

To say something is “not supported by good science” is not objective language, and my edits were only to capture the language of the authors of the study referenced. It’s like saying pizza at Domino’s is good or not good based on one review, and an inaccurate paraphrasing of the review in fact.

Wikipedia is going downhill and it infuriates me. I am no longer donating.

February 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mehmet Oz. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Mehmet Oz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---