Talk:Rolfing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rolfing SI and other structural integration are not considered massage

I have been gathering resources that show that Rolfing SI, and other structural integration work, are not considered massage.

First, in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, the article "Structural Integration: Origins and Development" describes SI as "a system of manual therapy and sensorimotor education that purports to improve human biomechanical functioning as a whole rather than to treat particular symptoms." It does not describe it as a form of massage or deep tissue massage. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3162380/.

There are also more and more states that exempt Rolfers and other SI practitioners from massage licensing because they see SI as a different modality. These include Colorado: http://www.massagemag.com/News/massage-news.php?id=13815&catid=1&title=reiki-rolfing-and-reflexology-proposed-exemption-in-colorado; Illinois: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2469&ChapterID=24; Maine: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/32/title32sec14307.html; and New Mexico: http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title16/16.007.0004.htm. Arizona even has a completely different license from massage: "Sec. 16-208. Rolfing license; special requirements. No rolfing license shall be issued unless the applicant furnishes proof that the applicant has been certified as either a certified rolfer, a certified rolf movement teacher, or as having advanced rolfling certification from the Rolf Institute, Boulder, Colorado." http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/Public+Website/licensing/MassageOrdinance.pdf

This is the trend - SI getting away from massage because it is not a type of massage.

That's it for now. Do state laws and published Journals provide good references for making sure content is accurate? Sbwinter2 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

These sources (a fringe journal, unreliable popular sites and parochial/US-centric ones) do not say it is not massage. Yet the reliable source we use (Ernst & Singh) says it is a type of massage. We'd need a strong source that directly addressed the massage question to overturn that. (Also note our Massage article includes SI). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Massage article is fine to me. Structural Integration is definitely a type of manual therapy, and in turn, massage, when used in the broad definition and not to infer that a massage therapist is trained to do it. That brief definition of SI there is actually more accurate than some of what is on this page.

So why is a skeptic's book not as fringe as a published journal that specializes on the topic of alternative medicine? Why not site that Rolfing is a type of massage from a book that actually has a section on Rolfing instead of a phrase (not even a full sentence)? There are TONS of those. For example, I looked at Dr. Rosenfeld's Guide to Alternative Medicine (http://books.google.com/books?id=cGc-djsTeuQC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=Dr.+Rosenfeld%27s+Guide+to+Alternative+Medicine+rolfing&source=bl&ots=iTM4fO86Qz&sig=yjGpizYJRrYd79SmNQoj58dgToE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=97coU9r8McicrAGN_4HQDg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false). Rolfing is on page 79. I can provide other newer books too (this one was just open in my browser) that explain Rolfing and don't just refer to it in passing. That would be a real source to me.Sbwinter2 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I learned a few things this past weekend on how Wikipedia operates, including a vast history of people, who really want to be a part of the participatory process, having the same frustrations as I do - reverts with no explanation, condescending attitude, no responses in Talk, and an overall impression that the Wikipedia editors do not want outsiders to edit. I also had a major page section that I created three years ago (and took me over a week to research and build) taken down claiming no reference, when the reference was clearly there. I also learned that the founder of Wikipedia is not objective about Rolfing or other forms of alternative medicine (accepting skeptics sources over neutral ones). Therefore, I am no longer interested in pursuing making Wikipedia a better site at this time. Thanks to the few (and only a few) editors who did really try to help. Sbwinter2 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are upset that the content you added has been removed, but at the top of every edit box it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, ... —by anyone" and "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. " which links to Help:Introduction to referencing/1 which states "One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material. "

Wikipedia editors are volunteers and so responses to talk page questions and comments come when there is a volunteer who sees the question, has the time, and feels they have an appropriate response. this might be within minutes, or hours or days or years. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. One thing I have learned is that the tools that that the editors assigned to pages, whether they are volunteer or not, get are different than what us outsiders have. For example,they can revert with a single click and get alerted when something changes on a page they monitor. I think part of my frustration is that for my other page that had a reference, the table was still removed with the claim that it didn't. So, do I get into an edit war just because someone else can't read? I posted to the Talk page saying that the reference was there and indicating what it was, but no response.

And for this page, the sources being used are just not the most valid - there is definitely a bias. I just went back and looked at an old version of this Talk page (a lot has been removed). There was a whole discussion by others about the bias of using skeptic books as sources instead of any of the numerous published books that actually discuss Rolfing (instead of just mentioning it in a list as the Ernst book does). And there is a lot of research on the effectiveness of fascial work, which is what Dr. Rolf created when she created structural integration, Rolfing being the nickname given to it later. I found several submissions on research on Rolfing itself, and they had all been rejected. I get questions often about why this section is so incorrect, and I keep telling them that I have tried, but I get reverted almost every time. I will need to create a formal response as to why wikipedia can't get it right, even with good sources.Sbwinter2 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no editors "assigned" to any page. Any editor can edit any page they feel like (with a few exceptions: editors should not edit pages about subjects where they have a conflict of interest; and editors that have been disruptive may be WP:BANNED from certain pages).

Every registered account gets the "watchlist" where they can add any number of pages they wish and be notified of changed. That is one of the benefits of registering.

While some editors get a "one click rollback" option, it is only to be used only to remove blatant vandalism (and they will be subject to having that option removed if they misuse it). and some editors have added tools to their system that help them quickly complete repetitious tasks and have special methods of monitoring for vandalism, but those are handed out like candy to anyone who shows some basic understanding of policy. see for example WP:TWINKLE or WP:STIKI.

every editor, with an account or not, has the option to view previous versions in the History and restore appropriate content with just a few clicks.

And yes, people who have been editing longer know how to use the various functions of the site to operate effectively, that is because they have dedicated their time to volunteer and learn how to use the functions to operate effectively.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that your experience in editing WP has been frustrating. I strongly suggest taking some time to familiarize yourself with some of the Policies and Guidelines. Your comments would indicate that you have not done so. Participating in a collaborative activity requires some commitment to understand how the activity is carried out. In regards to sources for articles or content that deals with biomedical information WP:MEDRS is an important guideline. For all proposed content it is important to note the content must be clearly supported by the reference. To support that SI or Rolfing are not massage a high quality source must actually state that. Conclusions based on implications of sources are original research. Sources are evaluated based on established criteria set forth in the policy WP:VERIFY and as mentioned MEDRS for biomedical content. The guideline WP:FRINGE also provides explanations you might find informative as does the essay WP:TRUTH. I realize there are quite a few policies and guidelines (not to mention essays) to wrestle with but the mistaken idea you have about "editors assigned to pages" and "outsiders" can be cleared up with some basic research. I think you will find the attitude you encounter is different when you display an understanding of policy. Those who have been here some time and made a substantial number of edits have invested a good deal of time and effort in learning how things work in WP their respect may be earned through making such an investment yourself. As for tools a very few editors have special powerful tools and their use is very limited. Rollback is a tool more editors have and a functionality of some tools available to all but it's use is limited. Undo is available to all for the latest edit and watchlist is a part of all registered accounts. I am sorry if you have been treated in a condescending manner, that's not in keeping with the guideline WP:DONTBITE and is rude. Edits should be explained briefly by their WP:Edit summary and it is not good practice not to provide such an explanation. If an editor is not providing edit summaries you may notify them on their User talk page. For a user friendly environment for learning about WP and asking questions I suggest WP:TEAHOUSE and for specific questions there is the WP:Help desk other resources are listed at WP:Questions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding. I actually have read the policies and procedures on how to edit. The problem is that what I have experienced is different than those policies. I think there are editors that absolutely overuse the instant rollback tool since not even a minute after I fix something, it is already reverted (and without explanation), as if someone is watching that page. I have a watchlist, of course, but I have no idea when something actually changes on that list unless I actually go to the page and check (like I had no idea you even posted a response to me until I looked). Some editors must receive notifications because they are reverting changes too quickly.

I actually have provided quality references (and so have other people, as I found in older versions of this Talk page that have been deleted), but they have all been ignored. I have asked questions as to why some more fringe sources (like biased skeptics sources) were being used instead of objective ones and did not receive a good answer. I have asked for advice on how to help clarify terminology and have not received a good answer. The page currently has become more and more inaccurate over time. There is a quote attributed to the Rolf Institute that is not on their website because it does not exist (and hasn't since I have been trying to fix this page). I have a copy of the Thomas Myers' article on the history and am trying to verify the validity of how it is being referenced. There are many more structural integration schools than just the Guild (it has not the only certifying body of SI for years) but that misinformation was added after I started working on this page. There is also research that shows effectiveness of fascial work - a lot more in the last several years. To say there is none, is false. Meanwhile, the SI community is getting more and more frustrated with how inaccurate the page is factually because it is confusing the public. This is not from the point of view of trying to "sell" SI, but just get the facts right on what it is and where it came from.

I have not considered going outside of the Talk page, but maybe that is what needs to happen next. Although based on the recent article on the founder's views on alternative medicine, I am not optimistic (An example: http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-holistic-alternative-medicine-fair-petition/). I have also put a lot of time into this page and into others (my largest project getting deleted a few days ago even though it had a reference). Like I said, I had no problems trying to make Wikipedia better until this weekend.

There have been a few of you have that have been helpful, and I thank you for that. I wish there were more like you.Sbwinter2 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

there are very few things that are "deleted" from a talk page (some vandalism or completely off topic chat might be). They are generally archived, as the contents from this talk page are at Talk:Rolfing/Archive 1 (see the Archive box at the top of the page) and even if they were improperly deleted instead of archived, all comments are still available in the history tab. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And yes, if you are here to promote alternative medicine without actual medical sources, then you will find your editing time here unpleasant and generally not successful. We follow WP:RS (and in the case of medical subjects the stricter WP:MEDRES) and WP:UNDUE which means that non mainstream ideas are treated as non mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Then what I am calling deleted, must mean archived since I can still find the old discussions in the past versions. They are just no longer available on the present page even though some of those discussions are still pretty relevant. I thought copies of any change made were automatically kept, so there is really no way to permanently delete anything. And I am absolutely not here to promote anything on this page. That is the opposite of what I actually said. I just want the facts to be correct. I listed above several actual facts that are completely wrong - wrong quote, wrong assumptions, all verifiable. But someone added that incorrect content without checking their sources and the wrong info stayed. That is the problem. Sbwinter2 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's get back to specifically discussing editing this article. Wrong quote, see the reference I added [1] that should address your concern about the quote. Your objection to characterization of Rolfing/SI as massage has been well addressed including discussing sources. If you have sources you would propose to be more reliable than those used post them here. A concise explanation of what you think is incorrect in the article and the sources that support your assertion is likely to be clearly addressed, as has much of your commentary above. Remember that Rolfing/SI is WP:FRINGE and will be treated as such and biomedical information requires WP:MEDRS quality sources. I think the above discussions and those in the archives provides a pretty clear explanation of why WP characterizes Rolfing/SI as massage.

Regarding archives it is suggested that the archives be searched for relevant discussions before starting a new discussion, the current version of a talk page is for current discussions. When asserting "someone added that incorrect content without checking their sources" provide a WP:DIFF and an explanation of how you feel the edit is inconsistent with the source. When looking for sources from the web archive.org is a useful tool.- - MrBill3 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a crew of people who are putting together better sources, as well as have been in contact with the authors of the sources currently being used. There will hopefully be some quality submissions soon. I will try to help them with the guidelines I have learned over time so that they do not make the same mistakes. Sbwinter2 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Trick of Treat as source

The book Trick or Treat is clearly not a primary source. Read WP:PRIMARY. As rolfing is WP:FRINGE it is an appropriate source for the subject. See the above discussions. Before removing sourced content that has been discussed on this talk page I suggest looking for some reliable, independent, secondary sources on the subject. In the absence of such sources per FRINGE Trick or Treat is among the best sources we have on the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on this reversion. I have several sources that are better quality, with more detail and actual investigation on the part of the author backing them up, and I will be adding some content from these sources shortly. I contacted Simon Singh, one of the authors of Trick or Treatment to ask him if he had a source for his one sentence comment about Rolfing. He replied, "I think our summary is not particularly helpful - too brief and does not deal with Rolfing's unique features.... I am surprised that a Wikipedia page is using our book as a reference, as we only make a fleeting mention of Rolfing. I would have thought there are better references for defining Rolfing. I don't think our description was based on a particular authority." (Simon Singh, by email) MrBill3, Do we have an understanding that, once several other quality sources are provided, we can remove this rather weak source? Thanks! --Karinpower (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It would depend on the content proposed. If the "investigation" by the authors of the sources you are suggesting is secondary in nature and the sources meet WP:MEDRS standards, then content based on them can be included. Once such content has been included the WP:DUE weight of the content from Trick or Treat can be re-evaluated. I look forward to seeing your proposed content and sources. This article could benefit from some MEDRS sources that provide evaluation of the subject. I am not aware of such sources nor adequate support in the mainstream scientific/academic world that would make rolfing other than, "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field" per WP:FRINGE. That I am not aware doesn't mean its not so. The important policy to keep in mind is WP:NPOV in particular the section WP:DUE. I am interested to see what reliable sources have to say. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't plan to contest the Fringe status. Just interested in improving the source quality and accuracy of this and a handful of other health related pages. At least two of the sources I have in mind are quite objective in tone, and from main-stream sources which give a detailed discussion of various bodywork modalities without attachment to any of them. Perhaps it would be most useful to post sources here first, so we can discuss the validity (before I take the time to craft edits based on them). Are you willing to take a look? Thanks again for your help.

Don't forget to sign your posts. Posting proposed sources here first is a great way to go, particularly for a new editor. I will certainly take a look. Posting proposed content here before including it in the article is also a very good idea. It gives other editors a chance to comment and the proposing editor an opportunity to offer policy based support. Once content has been discussed on the talk page and a consensus reached it has much more "staying power". This is often a better way to go than boldly editing, getting reverted, then discussing. With some experience it will become clear when being bold will work. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Good call on the simplification of the language involving the evolution over time. That sentence structure was from a previous edit; I only changed the ordering of sentences. I also agree with removing the www.rolf.org references when we have external printed references to cover the same material with more authority.

Why did you remove the information about the other certifying bodies? Is is because this is more pertinent to the larger field of Structural Integration than to Rolfing specifically? I believe this speaks to a previous debate, about whether the page should be called "Rolfing" vs. "Structural Integration".... Given the lack of an SI page, this page can include this very basic information about the scope of the field. On a related subject, I'm reverting your removal of the IASI information (with some revisions) - you noted that the source was dead, but it is functional. (www.siexam.org). According to http://www.siexam.org/?q=articles, the CBSI exam group is a financially separate entity but was started with funding from IASI, so that clarifies the relationship between these entities. It would still be beneficial to have secondary sources for this information. The information about SI would fit better in its own section - would you agree? Currently the info is partly in history and partly in theory and practice. --Karinpower (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It was another editor who removed the information on other certifying bodies and the self promotional material based on their website. An edit I support. Anyone or group can establish an organization and a second "certifying" organization. This is self published, self promotional material. What reliable source finds these organizations existence or the certification they offer of any meaning or substance? How are these organizations and certifications discussed in reliable sources? For inclusion in WP a subject and the content about the subject need to be discussed in reliable sources otherwise it is not encyclopedic. Essentially if one wants to support much more than "Rolfing is a form of massage developed by Ida Rolf based on a unsupported theory assembled from a variety of marginal ideas that is now offered commercially." it needs credible, high quality sources that discuss it as something else. Any "treatment" must have an explanation of the current medical understanding of the treatment and theories behind it. The level of acceptance in the mainstream scientific/academic community needs to be made clear. The best source would be a review article in a peer reviewed journal. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Trick of Treat as source

The book Trick or Treat is clearly not a primary source. Read WP:PRIMARY. As rolfing is WP:FRINGE it is an appropriate source for the subject. See the above discussions. Before removing sourced content that has been discussed on this talk page I suggest looking for some reliable, independent, secondary sources on the subject. In the absence of such sources per FRINGE Trick or Treat is among the best sources we have on the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on this reversion. I have several sources that are better quality, with more detail and actual investigation on the part of the author backing them up, and I will be adding some content from these sources shortly. I contacted Simon Singh, one of the authors of Trick or Treatment to ask him if he had a source for his one sentence comment about Rolfing. He replied, "I think our summary is not particularly helpful - too brief and does not deal with Rolfing's unique features.... I am surprised that a Wikipedia page is using our book as a reference, as we only make a fleeting mention of Rolfing. I would have thought there are better references for defining Rolfing. I don't think our description was based on a particular authority." (Simon Singh, by email) MrBill3, Do we have an understanding that, once several other quality sources are provided, we can remove this rather weak source? Thanks! --Karinpower (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It would depend on the content proposed. If the "investigation" by the authors of the sources you are suggesting is secondary in nature and the sources meet WP:MEDRS standards, then content based on them can be included. Once such content has been included the WP:DUE weight of the content from Trick or Treat can be re-evaluated. I look forward to seeing your proposed content and sources. This article could benefit from some MEDRS sources that provide evaluation of the subject. I am not aware of such sources nor adequate support in the mainstream scientific/academic world that would make rolfing other than, "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field" per WP:FRINGE. That I am not aware doesn't mean its not so. The important policy to keep in mind is WP:NPOV in particular the section WP:DUE. I am interested to see what reliable sources have to say. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't plan to contest the Fringe status. Just interested in improving the source quality and accuracy of this and a handful of other health related pages. At least two of the sources I have in mind are quite objective in tone, and from main-stream sources which give a detailed discussion of various bodywork modalities without attachment to any of them. Perhaps it would be most useful to post sources here first, so we can discuss the validity (before I take the time to craft edits based on them). Are you willing to take a look? Thanks again for your help.

Don't forget to sign your posts. Posting proposed sources here first is a great way to go, particularly for a new editor. I will certainly take a look. Posting proposed content here before including it in the article is also a very good idea. It gives other editors a chance to comment and the proposing editor an opportunity to offer policy based support. Once content has been discussed on the talk page and a consensus reached it has much more "staying power". This is often a better way to go than boldly editing, getting reverted, then discussing. With some experience it will become clear when being bold will work. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Good call on the simplification of the language involving the evolution over time. That sentence structure was from a previous edit; I only changed the ordering of sentences. I also agree with removing the www.rolf.org references when we have external printed references to cover the same material with more authority.

Why did you remove the information about the other certifying bodies? Is is because this is more pertinent to the larger field of Structural Integration than to Rolfing specifically? I believe this speaks to a previous debate, about whether the page should be called "Rolfing" vs. "Structural Integration".... Given the lack of an SI page, this page can include this very basic information about the scope of the field. On a related subject, I'm reverting your removal of the IASI information (with some revisions) - you noted that the source was dead, but it is functional. (www.siexam.org). According to http://www.siexam.org/?q=articles, the CBSI exam group is a financially separate entity but was started with funding from IASI, so that clarifies the relationship between these entities. It would still be beneficial to have secondary sources for this information. The information about SI would fit better in its own section - would you agree? Currently the info is partly in history and partly in theory and practice. --Karinpower (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It was another editor who removed the information on other certifying bodies and the self promotional material based on their website. An edit I support. Anyone or group can establish an organization and a second "certifying" organization. This is self published, self promotional material. What reliable source finds these organizations existence or the certification they offer of any meaning or substance? How are these organizations and certifications discussed in reliable sources? For inclusion in WP a subject and the content about the subject need to be discussed in reliable sources otherwise it is not encyclopedic. Essentially if one wants to support much more than "Rolfing is a form of massage developed by Ida Rolf based on a unsupported theory assembled from a variety of marginal ideas that is now offered commercially." it needs credible, high quality sources that discuss it as something else. Any "treatment" must have an explanation of the current medical understanding of the treatment and theories behind it. The level of acceptance in the mainstream scientific/academic community needs to be made clear. The best source would be a review article in a peer reviewed journal. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Structural Integration is not Massage

This comment is not just for Rolfing, but for all types of structural integration.

It is NOT a form of massage, and never has been one. Structural integration is a completely different modality, just like acupuncture, chiropractic, reiki, etc. Just because someone is on a table, it does not mean they are getting a massage. Rolfers, and other SI practitioners, look a the body differently than massage therapists. They also use different techniques in the SI process (Rolfing, itself, is not a technique). Getting an SI session does not feel like getting a massage session. Rolfers also use a bench, and not just a table. The whole experience is different. So, please do not call SI or Rolfing a form of deep massage or forceable massage. It isn't massage in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert of lead

The lead had been changed to call Rolfing a manipulative therapy rather than a massage therapy, I reverted that. The secondary sources in the article all use the term massage. Are there secondary, independent (preferably MEDRS) sources that refer to Rolfing as manipulative therapy? Are there WP:MEDRS sources on Rolfing or is it clearly WP:FRINGE? The article needs improved references. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Just curious: according to the [Medicine] page, these types of practices do not have scientific basis. So why does Wikipedia evaluate alternative medicine as it does medicine when clearly Wikipedia knows they are different? The WP:MEDRS looks like it is about regular medicine. At least from the Rolfing world, no one is claiming that they do medicine or are doctors.

I also asked the following on another page: Which journals are considered acceptable to Wikipedia? It looks like the American Psychological Association Journals, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, the Journal of Alternative Medicine and Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies are not. So how can one tell which published Journals Wikipedia will acknowledge and which they will not?Sbwinter2 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS applies because we're dealing with medical claims:"This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like some assistance from the editors on understanding how to post a description if Rolfing/Structural Integration that is not simply "massage." I would like to ask the editors how to phrase this in an acceptable manner. I would like to add a sentence at the end of the first paragraph such as "Structural Integration does not self-describe as massage; the professional designation of Structural Integrator should not be confused with the professional designation of Massage Therapist." Are there suggestions from the editors on different verbiage? SIboston (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SIboston. This is an interesting issue; there is disagreement among the sources on whether massage is an appropriate term (vs. bodywork, manipulative therapy, manual therapy, etc). Above, MrBill3 stated in March that the secondary sources in the article at that time all used "massage." I've been working to improve the number and quality of sources (the article relied too heavily on www.rolf.org and just a few other sources) and have found that authors are quite split on the question. Some use "massage," others say that Rolfing is often mistakenly called massage and explain why this is the case, and others carefully write around the word "massage," sometimes with a few paragraphs or a few pages that never use that word. My impression thus far is that the sources that seem the most knowledgeable on the subject are mostly not calling it massage. This is further supported by the existence of schools that teach Structural Integration (and nothing else), while massage schools are not able to provide certification in Structural Integration (the generic term for Rolfing, which is a brand name of just one school). I believe there is evidence to argue for a shift in the language of this article and in the category for Rolfing. I hope to have time in the coming month to review the sources that I've been reading (some are not cited in the article yet) so our group of editors here can have a look and make a consensus-based decision. This is a big change for this page, one that has been argued without adequate support in the past, so we'll be working with it in "talk" and get consensus before making the change on the page. --Karinpower (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What does it mean "the most knowledgeable on the subject are mostly not calling it massage"? Often in cases like this, practitioners use terminology to distinguish their work from others' for marketing purposes. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good question. By "knowledgeable" I mean sources that have done their homework and are providing accurate and detailed information on the subject. For instance, a source that has two or more pages of information on Rolfing and takes the trouble to list the goals of each of the 10 sessions in the standard Rolfing series would be more credible than a source than spends only a paragraph or two, has an error or two in that span, and doesn't cite any sources for its information.

As to marketing, that would be a valid comment if Rolfing had originally been a part of massage and then tried to split off. Since it was always a distinct discipline, that is not the case here. The massage industry has famously sticky fingers and tries to pull in any touch modality (Thai, Shiatsu, etc, which were completely separate full trainings prior to being taught in brief at massage schools). So, that's quite a distinct circumstance. Thanks for your question. --Karinpower (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The question still remains, are these sources, practitioners/proponents/advocates attempting to create a distinction for what they seek to promote? An independent source providing a summary carries more weight than a primary source giving details of something it seeks to promote.

I think the underlying question is; although Rolfing/SI falls within the broad definition of massage therapy is there a more narrow definition that is appropriate under which Rolfing/SI would not be considered massage therapy? Is there a high quality source that speaks to this? Or only Rolfing advocates seeking to set themselves apart? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are quality non-Rolfer authors that clarify that difference. And you've nailed it, there are two different definitions of massage, as the word is sometimes used very casually as a replacement for the term "bodywork" but it is more accurately applied to an actual field of study with its own culture, schools, and teachers. Since Rolfing (and Feldenkrais, Alexander Technique, and many other forms of bodywork that are not massage) is not a part of that field and never was, that's why the practitioners and some quality sources are careful to explain the difference. Thank you for helping to frame this question. Again, I need some time to "massage" the sources a bit - I've been swamped with other projects but hope to get back to it soon.--Karinpower (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a case can be made for this distinction and look forward to your contributions/sources. Just to let you know, be careful with multiple reverts, there is a brightline rule on 3 in 24 hours. Also it occurs to me that COI might be involved here, not an allegation just bringing it up. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I recognize this is a hot topic; that's why everything around it will get fleshed out here on the talk page first.... I'm gradually learning the ropes and I do see the advantage of talking first. --Karinpower (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Order of sections

Three editors have now expressed an opinion on the appropriate order of sections. In order to support a different order consensus should be reached here. Consensus is not a majority vote, so policy based arguments should be supplied and discussed. I think the effectiveness section should be prominent per due weight and MEDRS (also FRINGE). - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits

Hello to the experienced editors on this page. Looking for your perspective as I wish to modify two reverted edits but don't want to be perceived as warring. Regarding "Dr. Rolf was inspired by" vs. "Structural Integration incorporates," there is still the problem that SI does not actually incorporate chiropractic techniques; that would be illegal. The other items on the list could be said to be incorporated. If I understand correctly, TheRedPenofDoom (excellent moniker, by the way) made the reversion because the source that has been used for this line is primary, therefore not strong. I have found a slightly better source, one that is already cited in the article, the Skeptic's Dictionary. It is still weak in that it doesn't cite any sources (none of the further reading items address the topic), but at least it is not primary. It adds yoga and Alexander Technique to the list. It specifies that Ida Rolf studied those areas of interest but doesn't apply that they were incorporated into SI. Can I have some support for making these changes? --Karinpower (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"There is no evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition." This line appears in the introduction but should be moved to the Effectiveness section. It is essentially redundant with the current sentence in that section, both citing the same source. I propose moving this line there, and deleting the current sentence, "Rolfing is of no benefit in treating disease." The cited source is strong for "no evidence" but no sources are cited that say it is "of no benefit." May I please have support for this change? --Karinpower (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The lede should reflect the body and contain key criticisms. For anything biomedical, "no benefit" is a neutral way of expressing for the lay reader what "no evidence" means in an evidence-based context. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

SI can incorporate theories from chiro without an legal violation so that's not an issue. What Ida Rolf studied in developing Rolfing can be added to the part about her development of Rolfing with the QuackWatch source. That might make sentence on SI need to be edited. I haven't seen any reliable source that makes a distinction between SI and Rolfing other than Rolfing is a service mark. As above lede should summarize the conclusion is key content and in medicine "no evidence" that somethings works is paraphrased for WP as "no benefit". Take a look at the source I give below and see what you think could reasonably be added to the article then post it here. I'm sure editors will provide feedback and perhaps consensus can be developed for some improvements. I urge everyone to remain collegial and avoid biting or discouraging newer editors sincerely working to improve WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the article below, I'm honestly not clear on how that could be utilized. Would you be willing to make an appropriate addition based on it? It seems that couching it in very limiting language would be a necessary start. Certainly it seems that the field of Rolfing, including the author of that study, are very aware of being on the beginning of the path toward scientific evidence. It seems that many alternative fields "practice doing science" with studies in less prominent journals, which can lead to a well-designed study in a good journal. But not yet.

I don't think we have any evidence that any theories from chiro have been incorporated. One of the main chiro theories, subluxation, is not. Nor the idea that treating the spine fixes more peripheral disorders. Some ideas, such as holism, are in common but are expressed in divergent ways. Yoga and Feldenkrais concepts were likely incorporated to some extent, though again I think we need a stronger source to be able to state incorporation. I will flesh out the change as I see it and post it here. Best to just include it in the text, or is there a fancy way to make a draft and link to it? --Karinpower (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "Structural Integration incorporates..." vs. "Dr. Rolf was inspired by...": I have looked at the sources again and was able to find support for osteopathy but not for the other items in the list. Since "inspired by" is the more limiting of the two statements, I think that is more appropriate. If the sentence is to be "incorporates," perhaps simply deleting the other items until support can be found is the best solution. Will others please weigh in on "inspired by" vs. deleting the rest of the list, vs. another solution?--Karinpower (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have found specific evidence for the influence of osteopathy and yoga, in Stillerman. Working to put together a draft of that material to offer up. Still have not found any evidence of chiropractic influence except in very limited statements such as the one discussed, where it is included in a list of things that Dr. Rolf explored. There is evidence from several sources that she taught her method to chiropractors (and D.O.'s) in the early years but not that she studied under them, so far. --Karinpower (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye out for chiropractic influence as I read the various historical accounts. In my view, it's not credible until there's an actual name of a school or a teacher mentioned (there are several names of osteopaths, for instance). There's an article by Dr. Rolf's son, http://www.somatics.de/DemmerleR_memories.pdf, that mentions she studied anatomy with Arthur Nilson, DC, in Los Angeles. Given the author and the publisher (the Rolf Institute's journal) this is certainly a primary source and therefore I'm not going to add it to the article - but it does help inform why various sources mention a chiropractic influence. --Karinpower (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Rolfing is in itself a specific stand alone method which needs to be defined on its own merits, not as a derivative of any other form of bodywork, and certainly not according to any criteria asked for by the orthodox medical world. Have a look at how it is defined by Dr. Robert Schleip (a primary source admittedly) "The primary aim of Rolfing is the improvement of structure, posture and movement. Therefore, any overall lack of well being that relates to these issues can be responsive to Rolfing. The improvement of structure through Rolfing is a process designed to benefit the whole person. It is not a therapy for medical conditions" (note this clear point!!). See also its role in the field of fascia research. Osioni (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Osioni wrote, "and certainly not according to any criteria asked for by the orthodox medical world" It would violate NPOV, MEDRS, and FRINGE to do so. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, I don't think Osioni is suggesting anything that violates NPOV, MEDRS, or FRINGE. And, could you clarify, what exactly are you quoting? I googled your quoted words to try to find a source but found nothing. Wondering if you just threw on some quotes for the heck of it. --Karinpower (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I quoted Osioni. I've changed the comment to make it clear. --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have an unconventional idea of what "quote" means. --Karinpower (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

He wrote it, I quoted it. I don't see the problem, nor any reason to not WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you meant that you edited your previous comment. Got it. Thanks for clarifying. --Karinpower (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Alignment within gravity

What is the current medical science on the notion of "alignment within gravity" or "organizing the whole body in gravity"? If this idea is not supported by high quality MEDRS it probably needs to be stated that this idea is not supported by science or recognized in medicine as purported by Rolfers. The alignment and organization in gravity as commonly understood would mean not falling down or leaning, but how is the concept understood in the field of medicine? I suspect there is some study of this by physical therapists or in sports medicine that may provide an explanation of the current mainstream concept, is there any RS that discusses this idea as put forth in Rolfing/SI? As a recent edit summary says, "still need a source or two to help explain what is meant by that" also some source regarding its acceptance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Deutsch page 267 [2] has a summary of the purpose of each session in the basic series; I think some of these goals help explain what is meant by alignment. There are a few other sources that I'm looking at that may help explain. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what is meant by it, and so I'm not ready to propose any text additions to the article yet. It's tricky because the sources that go into more detail about explaining what is meant by this are written by Rolfers and are therefore primary - the secondary sources [that summarize multiple modalities] are mostly skimming over the details of this, probably because it is complex and hard to explain/understand. I agree that the physical therapy research (and sports med) will be good places to look for some mainstream concepts of this. I have not even begun to delve into that; maybe someone else will take that piece. Thx for your comments. --Karinpower (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I just had a thought. Anterior head position is a major problem, causing neck strain, decreased blood flow from brain (a risk factor for neurological decline of various types), and puts strain on the arm nerves, which increases the risk for repetitive stress injury (RSI - commonly misdiagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, etc). This pattern is clearly understood in western medicine, I believe. Deutsch says Session 7 goal is to align the head - that's what made me think of this. Now sources are needed - if found they could also be added here:Forward head posture. --Karinpower (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Careful use of primary sources for explanation of what Rolfing/SI purports is within policy to provide an explanation of the topic. Such content would need to be balanced as due by what secondary quality MEDRS has to say on the subject if it exists. If MEDRS doesn't discuss these ideas, WP:NPOV due will likely involve content that is negative towards Rolfing/SI. WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY often leave us with sources that clearly have a "anti-altmed" position (careful paraphrasing can be employed to maintain an encyclopedic tone).

This would not be the case if Rolfing/SI were supported by good current research and analysis by the mainstream academic community. I have to admit I am quite skeptical of the idea that "the secondary sources are mostly skimming over the details of this, probably because it is complex and hard to explain/understand". The sciences of anatomy, physiology, biology and physics take on a great deal of extremely complex and hard to explain/understand material. Try looking at the current level of research/understanding of say kidney, pancreatic or cardiac function or genetics, immunology or particle physics. Closer to the subject of the article the subject of how muscle tissue functions is explored to a pretty high degree of complexity. Need I mention the level of study of gravity? I suspect the reason there aren't quality in depth explorations of the concepts behind Rolfing/SI is because these concepts have a very low level of validity (as currently understood in mainstream academia).

The potential problem with forward head posture is, where is the MEDRS research that says Rolfing/SI session 7 has any benefit in terms of forward head posture? Are there secondary sources that discuss Rolfing/SI as effective in modifying head posture? To some benefit? - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I misspoke. I have amended my text above - the secondary sources that summarize multiple modalities (that's the main source type that I've been looking at so far for this article) often don't go into detail on explaining the finer details about what Rolfers are talking about regarding gravity.... I definitely can't claim to have looked at even a fraction of the secondary sources out there that might be relevant to the topic of gravity and the body, so I imagine with thoughtful research and creative search terms, such sources will be located. I too am curious what evidence can be found that validates the goal of Session 7 - though I'm pretty sure that there is no MEDRS that assesses how successful Rolfers are in accomplishing that goal. A potential use of a primary source might be to explain *how* Rolfing attempts to make such changes - what tissues are addressed or what movement instructions are given, etc - but I think including such detail risks turning this into a longer article than its due weight warrants. Probably better to include such sources in a list of further reading.

As to WP:DUE, it seems that the main criticisms against Rolfing are 1) lack of MEDRS quality studies and 2) sometimes painful application. So far these are both covered in the article. Are there any other points of criticism that you are aware of, which should be considered for inclusion? --Karinpower (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been amused by this earnest discussion of the Rolfers "alignment within gravity" or "organizing the whole body in gravity" treatment modality. I don't think we should worry about it too much, as it is obviously no more than a cynical attempt to give itself a unique selling point to elevate and distance itself from all the other woo modalities that exist on the fringe. "Stand up straight Ariadne dear, or you'll stay that way." How about a Gerson coffee enema or some Reike distance healing? Everything that real medicine does is aligned with gravity, because except for the lucky few who make it into various astronaut programs we are condemned to be "aligned within gravity" for our whole lives at the bottom of this gravity well. Good grief. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

See below for some explanation of the kind of balance that would be required for content from primary sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent review

Jacobson recently (2011) published a review, "Structural integration, an alternative method of manual therapy and sensorimotor education" in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Of note is the author can not reasonably be considered uninvolved, "The author is a practitioner of Structural Integration, chairperson of the research committee of the Rolf Institute of Structural Integration, and a member of the scientific review committee of the Ida P. Rolf Research Foundation." This makes the review questionable as a reliable source. It may provide some material for description of SI and or Rolf's theories. The methodology is at best questionable, "The author's personal knowledge of SI literature, theory, and practice was supplemented by a database search, consultation with other senior SI practitioners, and examination of published bibliographies and websites that archive SI literature." with the inclusion of only 12 actual studies of which the lack of a control arm was significantly noted. Also of note are the following statements after almost every description of theory or treatment, "None of these hypotheses about the local effects of SI manipulation have been quantitatively assessed.", "However, neither this hypothesis, nor its association with improvements in joint pain and function, has been quantitatively studied.", "However, none of these hypotheses has been quantitatively investigated.", "These changes in posture and movement could be the result of alterations in muscle tone as well, but neither Rolf's hypothesis nor that of change in muscle tone have been quantitatively investigated.", "However, the association between biomechanical improvement and psychologic benefits has not been quantitatively evaluated.", "However, the association between increased soft-tissue pliability, emotional catharsis, and subsequent psychologic benefit has not been quantitatively investigated." Problems are identified with almost all the studies discussed and the interpretations of the results by those conducting the studies are sometimes qualified. Although not mentioned repeatedly for each study, there seem to be a lack of controls. Most of the studies are very small (n=10, 20, 31, 9, 40 [12 were inappropriate controls], 11). So studies reviewed included 111 subjects (including 28 controls) that doesn't exactly make for quality MEDRS. The author concludes, "The evidence for clinical effectiveness and mechanisms alike is severely limited by small samples sizes and the absence of placebo or other comparison control arms in most studies. In particular, the contribution of placebo effects to reductions in pain and to psychologic benefits may be significant and should be investigated." So even an Rolf/SI advocate has pretty much stated there is no meaningful support for theory, treatment or effectiveness and felt obligated to point out that placebo effects might account for most of the results. Even as a basis for explanation of theories and practice this article is based on the author's personal knowledge, so it would have to be Jacobson describes... Personal knowledge published in a journal does not constitute MEDRS for a description of a treatment or it's theoretical basis. Did I mention the journal is pretty fringe (see the WP article). - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Jacobson, Eric (October 2011). "Structural integration, an alternative method of manual therapy and sensorimotor education". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 17 (10): 891–99. doi:10.1089/acm.2010.0258. PMC 3198617. PMID 21992437. 07:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3, is there a list of recommended journals for MEDRS-quality publication? Having read through the WP:MEDRS a few times, I haven't been able to find a link to such a list. Thanks.--Karinpower (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources are evaluated on a case by case basis for the specific content they support. MEDRS provides the guidelines for evaluation. The core policy verifiability also provides guidance on this. For biomedical information in general reviews, meta-analyses or highly respected textbooks are the most desirable. For content based on subjects that have not received that level of consideration in academia the best available sources are generally used. For subjects that do not have widespread acceptance in academia WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY provide guidance.

Sorry to provide such a non answer. The short answer is no there is no such list. Even highly respected journals sometimes publish garbage (see Andrew Wakefield) so evaluation of the specific source (article, chapter, book etc.) in terms of the specific content is how we proceed. Individual papers are sometimes evaluated based on their specific merits (value of n, statistical strength, methodology, proposed mechanisms, outcome measures, comparison to other work in the field etc.) The peer review policy of a journal is often considered as well as its reputation and independence/involvement with the subject. For books the publisher and the reception/reviews in the scientific press are considered (as well as the reputation/qualifications of the author[s]). As you can see this can become rather involved and contentious depending on the content an editor seeks to add.

For the most part, to paraphrase Jimbo, if its legit (and worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia) there will be plenty of coverage in multiple quality sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Some remarks

I've been invited to comment on the article as an uninvolved editor. I can't comment on the rather extensive discussion in this talk page, but here are my two concerns.

The "Effectiveness" section which simply says that "Rolfing is of no benefit in treating disease" violates WP:UNDUE and looks like an example of straw man argumentation. The article does not provide any effectiveness claims from the therapy's proponents or otherwise: all we learn is that it is a "holistic system of soft tissue manipulation and movement education that organize(s) the whole body in gravity", which is vague at best. Still, the article disregards this completely and engages in "debunking" in a non-NPOV way, devoting to it an entire uncalled-for, single-sentence section.

If you find that you disagree with this view, consider this hypothetical section named "Effectiveness" in the Aerobic exercise article:

Aerobic exercise is of no benefit in treating disease

Two questions arise: 1) does anybody claim otherwise?, 2) does providing no benefit in treating disease mean that the practice is not beneficial at all?

My second objection is on the use of the {{Primary source-inline}} template: not a single instance is warranted. Some editors simply slap these templates on because they believe primary sources should not be used at all. This is wrong: see WP:PRIMARY. Here is an example: suppose there is the Acme Widgets company website with the following claims:

1. Acme Widgets has 2000 employees
2. Acme Widgets makes blue, red and yellow widgets
3. Acme Widgets makes best widgets in the world

Claims #1 and #2 are perfectly fine sourced to Acme Widgets website, because they are factual (non-interpretative), related to they own activities, and not unduly self-serving. It is nonsense to ask for "secondary sources" for these. Only the claim #3 is not OK, and that is what {{Primary source-inline}} is really for. GregorB (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Effectiveness section seems fine, especially in light of MEDRS and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Effectiveness section may be fine in light of WP:MEDRS, but that is not relevant to my remarks. WP:FRINGE is chiefly applicable to articles where the main topic is not a fringe topic itself. It's not really about the sources, it's about providing the "Criticism" (="Effectiveness") section without bothering to explain what exactly is being criticized. GregorB (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually claims #1 and #2 are not appropriately sourced to a company website except as, "Acme Widgets' website states the company has 2,000 employees." There are numerous instances of false information on self published websites about various companies. Facts require reliable sources. Now if Acme Widgets is a company listed with a major stock exchange and subject to SEC regulation you could argue for the reliability of the website as a source, but again companies have often been known to inflate or even falsify such information. Companies have also claimed to make products they don't actually make, perhaps you've heard of vaporware. Surely you cannot be asserting that self published primary sources from entities that stand to profit from the subject are quality reliable sources. As I said above careful use of primary sources to explain the subject is appropriate but must be balanced with mainstream academic and medical knowledge. For example Ida Rolf suggested that tissue manipulation can change the degree of the pelvic angle in a way that she thinks is in better alignment with gravity. This would need to be balanced by quality sources that discuss 1) if tissue manipulation can change the degree of pelvic angle 2)evaluation of the pelvic angle Rolf purports to be better and 3) discussion of the validity of the idea of "better alignment with gravity". I hope this explanation makes things a little clearer.

The effectiveness as stated is perfectly acceptable because it directly reflects the source. If something has been evaluated by MEDRS quality sources and the sources make such a statement that content is virtually required.

I think the article actually explains what Rolfing/SI is pretty well, forceful massage with a bunch of handwaving unsupported woo. However if there are MEDRS sources that describe the biomedical information about what it actually is by all means provide them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So, Acme Widgets just claims they have 2000 employees, but secondary sources somehow know better? How are secondary sources supposed to find about the number of employees, if not from the company itself? An even better question is how and why are secondary sources better at describing the views of the proponents of rolfing then the proponents themselves?

No, the effectiveness section isn't perfectly acceptable simply because it reflects the source. WP:UNDUE is a matter of balance, not sources and their reliability.

"Bunch of handwaving" - the gravity stuff does appear like bunk to me, but the question is: do the proponents make any claims to the effect that rolfing is beneficial? No such claims in the article, yet "debunking" is done twice, once in the intro, and once in the "dedicated section". That looks like making a point, and then driving it home just to be sure.

From what I'm seeing, rolfing is just massage with some fanciful "explanations" thrown in. I'm not aware of any kind of massage treatment that is of any benefit in treating disease, yet massage is not normally debunked and/or perceived as pseudoscience. GregorB (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources use a great number of techniques to gather information and evaluate it. Seriously try taking a look at List of corporate collapses and scandals. False employment and production numbers are not even uncommon, secondary sources have exposed numerous examples. Secondary sources with a reputation for fact checking are what WP relies on as a matter of policy. The rationale is clear self published promotional material from entities with a conflict of interest have been found highly unreliable, quality secondary sources with a solid reputation, editorial oversight and fact checking are the standard for use as references on WP for reasons that should be obvious enough not to have required this repeated explanation.

WP:DUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So what is published in a journal article about the medical effectiveness of a therapy is clearly due. Balance is not the false balance of modern media but reflection of mainstream consensus predominately. See also WP:MEDRS.

Lead summarizes and presents the key content from the body. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the Effectiveness issues, and how all of that is handled and balanced, is really the big deal here. Actually I think there is a need for WP as an organization to decide on a template of sorts for alternative medicine, to say what basic sections should be present and in what order. I have never seen an encyclopedia that is so blatantly negative toward any subject as Wikipedia is toward some alternative medicine topics; I agree with GregorB that the "debunking" is rather overzealous. The overall tone is that someone has a ax to grind, not an encyclopedic tone.

The primary source question is relatively minor. Luckily there are indeed secondary sources that state the majority of the info on the cited websites (rolf.org and rolfing.org). I'm working on prepping that sourced material and including it so that in the near future we can remove websites from the reflist. The other primary source, by Meyers, doesn't need to be used as heavily as it currently is. There is one website that may need to be included, theiasi.net. Presently there is no information about the larger field of Structural Integration (seems to be about a dozen schools other than Rolfing). Since the two articles were merged a number of months ago, it would make sense to have that information included here but it has been deleted due to overreliance on the website. I expect that a secondary source will be found to support it and then plan to propose reinstating that section hopefully with some improvements. I agree with the above comment that primary sourcing is most appropriately used as "Such-and-such entity states...." and think that should be used for any "facts" from the iasi website which don't have a secondary source as back-up. --Karinpower (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Effectiveness" is something that falls clearly under MEDRS. No claims of effectiveness or other biomedical information can be presented as "so and so says" without a full, clear and prominent presentation of the current medical science understanding of any such claims or info. A template for alt med would be pretty difficult as there are not quality sources to support a set of basic sections. In my opinion most alt med coverage on WP is factual and in compliance with high standards for biomedical information. The axe ground here is accurate presentation of the facts. WP is a tertiary encyclopedia with a level of verifiability lacking in many other publications. Alt med topics do get a high level of scrutiny from a number of editors who insist on presenting anything that is fringe as such. Some approach this with a remarkable level of zeal. A few (myself included) are interested to see if any solid evidence for a variety of alt med approaches emerges. Others (myself sometimes included) act as a stalwart vanguard to prevent the promotion (by those who would profit) of practices that lack proven benefits based on questionable (or worse) ideas of the nature of biology and the other sciences.

I would think there are secondary independent sources that discuss the field of SI. Somebody other than those involved must have noticed it and found it worth exploring as a phenomenon at least. A source that may not be MEDRS to support explanations of "alignment in gravity" or "optimization" of physical condition may still support a discussion of a number of schools, variety of practices etc. SI has some level of popular interest I'd think some newspaper would have reported on that, the business angle etc. This is the sort of sourcing that will be required for content about iasi. To be blunt "who cares" if iasi says blah blah. Somebody probably does and wrote it up in a reliable source. Once that reliable source is presented some content from iasi beyond just what is reported on could probably be added. If no reliable source has considered iasi or what they say worth reporting then why would it be encyclopedic content? WP is not a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Explanations referenced to independent sources are needed.

All that said I think the sources are (probably) out there and look forward to the improvement of the article. I appreciate your thoughtful effort to improve WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)