Talk:Kinesis Myofascial Integration

KMI and Myofascial Release

I am a new Wikipedia editor, although I've been an editor in other fields since the mid-1980s. My interest here is to look at and contribute to pages related to topics that I have a good understanding of. I reverted an edit by 2over0 that directed the Kinesis Myofascial Integration (KMI) page to the Myofascial Release (MR) page. At that time I suggested that we speak about this on the Talk page but 2over0 did not respond other than to suggest that I am a sock puppet. Recently, 2over0 made the same redirect. I have reverted the page, again, as this really needs to be discussed. I have attempted to explain the reversion I made, and I'll do it again here, inviting 2over0 to join the talk. The redirect of KMI to MR doesn't make sense in light of the historical derivation of both KMI and MR from Ida Rolf's work. Both have antecedents there, but so do many other forms of bodywork like Hellerwork, Soma, Structural Medicine, etc. that are not MR. Moreover, MR borrows only technique for fascia from Ida Rolf's work, and takes it into the massage realm, whereas KMI is a further development of IPR's work of structural integration, bringing in Rolfer Tom Myers' work on "anatomy trains." Were one to redirect the KMI page, a redirect to the Rolfing page would be the logical place, as KMI is clearly in the Rolfing/Structural Integration "family" of bodywork. In contrast, MR has appropriated from various sources, not limited to Ida Rolf's work, and has developed those in ways that are akin to massage, not to structural integration, in both theory and practice. 2over0, would you be willing to join this conversation? I'd like to hear what you have to say. Wordsmith99 (talk)Wordsmith99 — Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wordsmith99, BullRangifer, 2over0, Qykslvr, Deor, I'm tagging those who have edited recently to encourage people to state their opinions. The edit summaries have not really made it clear what issues are being perceived, so it would be good to have some communication. I'm a bit slow to the discussion myself because I wanted to take time to look up KMI in the various alt-med-compendium books that I use for general information about modalities (clearly, not WP:MEDRS so not for medical benefits). It seems like the problem with this article is a lack of notability, and I wanted to see if we were missing sources that exist. KMI isn't mentioned in the dozen or so books I've been using. I expect there is probably some mention of them in periodicals but if books aren't giving it note then it's a good case for delete/redirect.

The point made above that the redirect should be to Rolfing rather than Myofascial Release is a good one. I actually would say that the redirect should be to the broader field of Structural Integration but that was merged with Rolfing (note that Rolfing is a brand of one particular school). Rolfing is one of the pages I've been working on; I recently added a section about SI in general to help make up for the awkward lack of a more general SI page. Perhaps the best redirect would be to Rolfing#Other_disciplines_of_Structural_Integration? Looking forward to hearing others' opinions. --Karinpower (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Rolfing and Anatomy Trains (KMI) are two flavors of Structural Integration. Some would say that Anatomy Trains Structural Integration builds upon Rolfing, and is NOT a subset of it. I have recently been working with an ATSI practictioner to help me deal with my scoliosis. And my daugher is currently being certified as an ATSI practitioner. ATSI is NOT Rolfing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E40:97D0:58BD:6970:D0FD:35F5 (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)