Talk:Rolfing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Rolfing is essentially identical to Structural Integration

This is in reply to Boser,A discussion on my talk page. I don't have any strong objection to stating that Rolfing is service-marked by the Rolfing institute, although it does seem unnecessarily technical and 'marketed' seems to get the idea across more succinctly and accurately. I misread the sourcing of Myers and see how it could be a good source for saying that Rolfing is the more publically known name and think this could be a good thing to add. However, I don't think we should take out that Rolfing is essentially identical to SI. Your source doesn't seem to clearly contradict this. --Pengortm (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding trademarks, WP:trademark gives rules like don’t use ® and ™ marks but it doesn’t specific how a brand name should be discussed in the article. So, I consulted some random examples to see how it’s being done. Generally in the opening sentence, it is just simply stated that “Lipton is a brand of tea….” “Green Giant is a brand of frozen and canned vegetables owned by General Mills.” “Captain Morgan is a brand of rum produced by alcohol conglomerate Diageo.” In this three examples and many others, the fact that the subject is a brand name is stated in the first sentence, sometimes with a mention of what company owns it.

In this case, to say that "Rolfing is a brand of Structural Integration" still leaves the reader wondering what Structural Integration is, so we have to solve that problem as well. Not sure what wording would be optimal.

Regarding "essentially identical," how about a compromise: "Rolfing is a brand of Structural Integration, and they are essentially identical in practice." Or, if they aren't identical in practice, a sentence explaining what differences exist. The cited source for that, Sherman, seems to be an authoritative source on massage but not on Rolfing, so I wouldn't assume it is exactly correct.--Karinpower (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion on this topic and agree that keeping the Sherman reference and statement that Rolfing is essentially identical to SI is the right thing to do, in addition to a clarification cause. I will make a new edit keeping the Sherman language and adding the Myers' language. Although Rolfing is a brand and other pages typically include that information early in the article, it does seem to sidetrack the reader since this isn't a well known subject/brand. Ideally, in my opinion, a separate page for Structural Integration would one day exist to make this subject more consistent with the way other topics are organized. Boser,A (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Structural Integration, frequently marketed under the brand name Rolfing, is a form of alternative medicine that focuses on body manipulation and movement.
• Rolfing, a trademarked type of Structural Integration, is a form of alternative medicine that focuses on body manipulation and movement.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent wording, that seems accurate.--Karinpower (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wording regarding sources that have a long list of pseudoscientific alt-med modalities

{u:Pengortm}, can we discuss the wording on this? You wrote "the article is clear that there is no evidence for Rolfing being effec and this just echos that from more general sources" - sure, that's true. But two things - 1) Is it helpful to have more sources echoing "no evidence"? The fact of no evidence in WP is usually pretty declarative. No additional sources needed. 2) While I agree with your statement, the current wording doesn't match that. Current wording says that the sources criticize Rolfing for its lack of scientific support, for diagnosis and treatment. But these three sources do not have any specific criticisms of Rolfing. I think my most recent edit is accurate and fair - to say that "Skeptics have included Rolfing in lists of alternative health methods that they consider quackery" is a precise summary of those sources. The second part of my edit, " based on a lack of scientific evidence as well as questionable assessment and treatment methods" describes their broad criticism of that list (not a specific criticism of any one method) so it's positioned in the correct part of the sentence. Given that, can you suggest a wording for this edit that is both accurate to the sources and seems right to you? Thanks in advance.--Karinpower (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Makes sense. Thanks for bringing it up for discussion.--Pengortm (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Memories stored in the body - Rolf's idea?

I'm attempting to investigate the sources regarding the recent edit. This line of the article has always seemed strange to me; it's not congruent with what I've read in many of the sources, which generally focus on physical alignment and movement. The editor's assertion that this concept is Reich's rather than Rolf's idea makes some sense and I'd like to check out any evidence that ties it to Rolf. There are two sources presently cited, the Skeptic Dictionary and Penguin's Dictionary of Psychology. The Penguin source isn't available for free viewing on GoogleBooks or Amazon. MrBill3, it appears that you added the Penguin reference, does that mean that you have access to it and could provide the text? Much appreciated. --Karinpower (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the applicability of psuedoscience to Rolfing: The reference for this is an article in “Popular Psychology: An Encyclopedia” that evaluates Rolfing in terms of psychology, basically on the claim that emotions are stored in the body and get released. This idea of emotions getting stored and released is what is deemed pseudoscience. Rolfing is not a psychological modality, nor is it described as such, therefore this reference and statement is appropriately included in the third paragraph of Theory and Practice rather than in the introduction. --Thatcher57 (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem that I was pointing at last year when I started this comment thread.... I don't think there is good evidence that Rolfing makes the claims about muscles and emotions that are mentioned in those three sources (Pop Pysch, Skeptic, or Penguin). These sources don't seem to cite a clear basis for their assertion, which makes me suspect they are drawing on a shared, unnamed, incorrect origin. Unless evidence can be produced that Rolfing does make that claim, these statements should be weighed for possible removal. For comparison, an author could state that acupuncture claims to exorcise ghosts, but unless there is proof that acupuncture does make that claim, there's no need to debunk that claim in the Acupuncture WP article. --Karinpower (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop reverting appropriate and accurate edits

Policy on reversion: "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary The edits were not vandalism and they corrected factually incorrect statements.

It is factually incorrect to claim that there is no clinical evidence. The articles from skeptics are all more than 7 years old, one of them is over 20 years old. The clinical evidence has been published since then. It is bad practice and POV to cite opinion articles making claims that are no longer accurate. If you disagree, make your case.

I am not a rolfer, but I am a PhD researcher at a medical school. MBVECO (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say there is "no evidence". You shouldn't use primary research for medical content per WP:MEDRS and ideally we want mainstream sources (i.e. WP:FRIND) to maintain neutrality. As regards reverting, WP:BRD is one way to go ... but it's just an essay, like what you quoted, not "policy". Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't get much more mainstream than PubMed indexed journals. There is no way that this: http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/revsalud/beyerstein_cience_vs_pseudoscience.pdf is a mainstream, non-POV, current and relevant source? It's a personal essay, unreviewed and published on the internet and nowhere else. That source used the word "rolfing" exactly once, in a long list of unrelated things, and provides zero evidence that it is "pseudoscience." Similarly, the Dan Agin book written a decade ago does not actually make any case whatsoever about Rolfing but simply lists it along with other techniques the authors broadly claims to be "junk science" including techniques that are now widely accepted as efficacious for certain conditions such as mindfulness meditation, massage therapy, and yoga. The words "rolf" or "rolfing" do not even appear in the index. Nor do they appear in the index of the other cited book by Rose Shapiro. One cannot cite sources that do not even discuss the topic at hand.

There is no way that decades-old opinion pieces by pop-science skeptic writers that don't bother making scientific arguments should garner more credibility than current primary research. If you're troubled by the primary research, edit the text to make it clear that it is primary research instead of simply reverting. One cannot hold fast to recommendations about primary vs secondary sources, but ignore recommendations about how and when to revert edits made in good faith. Books and articles that don't even make an argument are neither primary nor secondary research. A major point reiterated by the "skeptic" sources is that there is not sufficient clinical research about rolfing. The sources cited for those claims - which do not actually articulate the claims they are cited for - were written years ago and there has been subsequent research. I have provided examples of primary research which counter the claim - again, not actually discussed by the cited "sources" - that there is not primary research.

I say again - please stop reverting my edits, and if you want to write something that is fact-based and on topic - based on sources *you have actually read* - then made additional edits.MBVECO (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Given WP:FRINGE and the general consensus on how to identify and address pseudoscience, I don't see how we cold justify such changes without far better, WP:MEDRS sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The cited books literally don't even talk about rolfing. Please justify their use as citations. MBVECO (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I heartily agree that the "opinion pieces by pop-science skeptic writers" should be removed as sources. It's embarassing to Wikipedia to have such poor quality sources included. As you said, some don't even describe Rolfing, only include it on a list of alt-med methods that they disapprove of, while others are full of inaccurate statements and don't cite credible sources for their information (the online Skeptic Dictionary). --Karinpower (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I see MBVECO has not been editing this article in a while but this user is confused and actually quite dishonest if you look at his edits in October 2015. He says he added a mainstream peer-reviewed paper that provided evidence for rolfing and it was removed for no reason, what he actually added was a paper from the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in 2011, a journal which has widely been criticized for promoting quackery. This journal is fringe at best, if there is indeed valid 'clinical evidence" for rolfing surely we would expect to find this information from a better journal and not just a single study. MBVECO also says that rolfing is not mentioned in Rose Shapiro's book in the index? Since when is this a requirement for Wikipedia? Some books do not even list an index. On page 2 in Shapiro's book, rolfing is listed as a method that has "no proven, factual basis or involves unsubstantiated or disproven claims of effect and benefit." Shapiro is a reliable source and this book was written in 2008 and republished in 2010. It is not a decade old is it? It is six years old. And MBVECO himself was trying to add a journal sourced from 2011... funny. MBVECO also tried to add a 2014 paper by Stecco et al to the article, but that paper did not even mention rolfing, so it was removed. Yet this is the user who claims "One cannot cite sources that do not even discuss the topic at hand." HealthyGirl (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

MBVECO wrote "A major point reiterated by the "skeptic" sources is that there is not sufficient clinical research about rolfing", actually this statement is entirely valid, and you seem to have contradicted yourself because in your own edits you seem to have inserted that claim into the article [1] (lack of clinical trials). Above you mention pubmed indexed journals, but pubmed only has a handful of papers on rolfing (and some of those are published in fringe journals or forums) yet we are in 2016 now, no repeatable evidence has been found from robust studies. Perhaps that should tell you something. There is not a shred of current reliable evidence that rolfing has any health benefit according to the sources cited. The Wikipedia article is entirely correct in what the reliable sources say. Your personal beliefs about skeptics are entirely irrelevant I am afraid. There is no reason to be removing such sources from the article. HealthyGirl (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Karinpower appears to have some POV issues. Claiming the Skeptic's Dictionary violates WP:EL, since when? I check the history of the article and all this user has been doing in the past is trying to delete or tone down skeptical references or criticism of rolfing. This is getting tiresome. HealthyGirl (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing that makes it unsuitable as an EL per se but it is redundant as we have a full reference to it in the article itself. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Healthygirl, the problem with EL has nothing to do with Skeptic as a source - it's only about following the EL policy. I did reference WP:EL in my edit summary; especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Minimize_the_number_of_links. Editors often mistakenly try to add many external links to WP pages and they are taken down in favor of the EL policy - I've seen this happen on many other articles. This is not something that I thought would be a controversial edit. --Karinpower (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Changed wording about evidence of effectiveness of Rolfing

I have edited two statements regarding evidence for the efficacy of Rolfing as they were too strongly worded. In the Introduction it stated that there is no evidence that Rolfing is effective, and under "Effectiveness and reception" it actually stated that Rolfing is not effective for any disorder. The citation is an 11 year old review which notes "Only a few clinical trials specifically have looked at Rolfing" and "Important clinical outcome measures, such as pain levels and function, have not been looked at specifically … in clinical trials". This is certainly not enough basis to conclude that Rolfing is not effective. It is also too strong to state "there is no evidence" for efficacy; see for example Functional Evaluation of Rolfing in Cerebral Palsy (DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1981.tb02060.x), which is more recent than the cited review. The evidence quality is admittedly poor, but that is different from stating there is no evidence for the benefit of Rolfing, which is an overly strong statement contradicted by the current scientific literature. 137.110.37.28 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The edits are being reverted. Is it the policy of Wikipedia to flatly mischaracterize the sources being cited? 137.110.37.28 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done but the cited primary research is not usable here. Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. 137.110.37.28 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is far too harsh. A lack of clinical trials does not make something "pseudoscience." The citation for that term demonstrates that the author doesn't understand the technique. The characterization given is not one of the "basic ideas of Rolfing," and such language is nowhere to be found on official Rolf Institute documents. It's a massage technique. Here is what Rolf Institute says: "Rolfing Structural Integration is a form of hands-on manipulation and movement education developed by Dr. Ida P. Rolf over 50 years ago. It works on the web-like network of connective tissues, called fascia, to release, realign and balance the whole body, potentially resolving discomfort, reducing compensations and alleviating pain. Rolfing SI aims to restore flexibility, revitalize your energy and leave you feeling more comfortable in your body." MBVECO (talk)MBVECO —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I should add - "Rolf" is a registered trademark, and so that term does not appear in PubMed. But there are studies and small clinical trials of rolfing techniques, for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23588488 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22619101 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575360 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524848

Therefore it is inaccurate to cite skeptics claiming that it has not been studied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBVECO (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

MBVECO, while I see your points overall, it's incorrect to state that Rolfing is a massage technique. I did some detailed research on this previously and came to the conclusion that it is accurate to call it bodywork, or somatic education, but there is good evidence for it being separate from the massage field. More details in a past Talk section if you are curious. FYI. --Karinpower (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The four papers that MBVECO listed do not even mention "rolfing", this user is obviously confused about what rolfing is. HealthyGirl (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, those papers do not pertain to Rolfing. Two pertain to foam roller use, and the other two to fascial bodywork in general. While Rolfing does address the fascia (and historically seems to be a primary root of the various forms of fascial bodywork that exist), it is not interchangeable. The main differences seem to be that Rolfing has ideas about human posture in gravity, and uses a 10-session series and movement training to attempt those changes in the body. Fascial bodywork in general is more about pain relief and sports medicine. Hope this helps, and I hope I've got it straight myself. --Karinpower (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

This

• Cordón, LA (2005). Rolfing. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 217–218. ISBN 978-0-313-32457-4. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

is a perfectly good source for Rolfing being pseudoscience, being from a respected academic publisher. This article is in the category of pseudoscience too so we need a sourced statement. Per our WP:PSCI policy we are required to identify pseudoscientific topics as such. Also note that editors editing this page are subject to discretionary sanctions and that removing well-sourced text is problematic behaviour. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This source makes statements about Rolfing that seem to be incorrect. I'm looking at the googlebooks and it won't allow me to see whether any sources are cited for this information; it's unclear where the author gets the idea that Rolfing makes claims to be a psychological discipline. At the start of this article: "The Institute states that Rolfing is a "holistic system of soft tissue manipulation and movement education that organize(s) the whole body in gravity." There is no claim to release traumatic events from the muscle memory, or to rebalance energies. I agree, those sorts of claims give me the willies but they aren't the claim made by Rolfing, they are claims made about Rolfing by this author. --Karinpower (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what is published in good sources. If Rolfers have an "in-universe" view that differs from the view of the world at large, it does not matter. We reflect the wider view. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with what the Rolfer's "in-universe" view would be - I admit that I haven't read the book that Ida Rolf wrote. I am referring to what other sources describe as what Rolfing is. If sources from the "Skeptic" viewpoint are the only ones that talk about the psychology aspects, and they don't cite their sources for that info, it should be taken with a grain of salt. When sources are split on a topic, it's appropriate to make that clear in the article. Perhaps a survey of sources is in order.--Karinpower (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, did I miss something? Is there a source that considers the pseudoscience categorization and comes out against it? Alexbrn (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let's back up a bit. I'm not presently debating whether trauma/muscle memory/emotions/vital energy are psuedoscience. I'm debating whether Rolfing even makes those claims. Two Skeptic sources say that, but they don't cite their source for that info (they may be leaning on the same incorrect source). Most sources talk about Rolfing as being about posture/alignment, movement, and fascia. Most sources do not mention the psychology piece - those ideas (especially vital energy) are actually from Wilhelm Reich, a contemporary of Rolf. You might say they were both part of the "Human Potential Movement." I haven't heard of much direct connection to Reich, though Rolf was friends with Fritz Perls, the founder of Gestalt Therapy - but that doesn't seem to have been a part of the official Rolfing teaching. Please see the Talk thread I started a while ago, "Memories stored in the body - Rolf's idea?" Anyway, I'm genuinely curious about this split in the sources because it comes down to a basic problem of how this article topic is defined. If the Skeptic authors would cite their sources, that would help clear it up. Any thoughts?--Karinpower (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not our job to question good secondary sources. The Cordón is not a "skeptic source" (whatever that means). It is very basic tenet of Wikipedia that we reflect what good sources say, and we call out nonsense for what it is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

When sources disagree, and there are enough credible sources on each side, it is appropriate to address that controversy (briefly) within the article. --Karinpower (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll ask again. What good source disagrees this is pseudoscience? Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read my above comments more carefully. I'm not debating the pseudoscience question right now. I'm saying that there is a basic disagreement about what Rolfing is, or what Rolfing claims to be. What Cordon says about Rolfing is dramatically different than what many other sources say. --Karinpower (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, we should then start removing sources which do not conform to WP:FRIND as Cordón does. This article needs a good trim as there's too much in-universe flapdoodle at large. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, regarding your comments about quackery and fraud: To imply an intent to defraud and the utter worthless of any method is a serious charge which needs significantly more damning evidence that what we've seen here. Too many of those sources only mention the word Rolfing once (in a list of unproven methods), with no other critique or detail, so these do little to support the idea that Rolfing is true quackery. Cordon criticizes the psychological "claims" of Rolfing, which Rolfing does not seem to actually make. Other credible sources say that Rolfing is concerned with physical alignment, movement, and the fascia, but Cordon does not address these basic aspects nor does he attempt to debunk them. I don't think you've got many sources that critique those basic concepts, do you?

It's absolutely essential that we address this problem of the disparity between what Cordon speculates Rolfing is, versus what other sources say. If indeed this method is about physical alignment, movement, and fascia, then it is based on plausible principles rather than the outlandish concepts that Cordon mentions. Consulting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories, there's a difference between pseudoscience and questionable science.
"Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point."

Compare to this: "Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature." The physical goals of Rolfing are within the realm of the basic laws of nature. The adjacent fields of physical therapy and massage have been able to show benefit for their physical goals and are not widely considered pseudoscience. So, a detailed inquiry into what Rolfing actually *is* seems warranted. I will begin to survey the sources and will create a summary of the range of opinions.--Karinpower (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)--Karinpower (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing has (as you put it) "ideas about human posture in gravity" (among other ideas) and so adopts the trappings of science without any real science being present. This is classic pseudoscience. But we don't need to argue about this since we have sources saying so, and simply follow them. We also know that Rolfing is not effective for many conditions, yet practitioners still sell it for them (a bit of simple googling will confirm the reality of this). That is classic quackery. But we don't need to argue about this either, since this too is sourced. What you are basically objecting to is reality, and Wikipedia is ultimately a reality-based project (unfortunately for proponents of Rolfing). Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality in the intro

Let's clear up some issues regarding neutrality. In this diff, the right side is neutral, while the left side is not. Why is it so?

Let me use a crude, but illustrative example. If you take a look at articles about Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, they don't begin with:

Adolf Hitler was a war criminal who...

nor:

Joseph Stalin was a mass murderer who...

...because that's not the way to start an intro: it invariably should start with a definition, and assessments and qualifications are secondary. Pushing assessments and qualifications into the very first sentence, then repeating the same statement (Rolfing being "pseudoscience") again in the second paragraph, quite obviously comes across as trying a bit too hard to drive a point home, which is the very definition of non-neutral writing. Just because something is "real-world-true" does not mean one should start the article with it. Also - obviously - not starting the Hitler and Stalin articles in the way described above is not denialism, it's neutral writing. The reader will understand. GregorB (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

While the first paragraph is now nicely corrected, the second is still quite non-neutral. While the word "psuedoscience" is certainly critical (and perhaps fairly so), the word "quackery" is pejorative. It has the air of "snake oil" and implies intent to defraud, and a complete lack of value of product being sold. In fact what we have here is insufficient scientific studies to support any claims of health benefit (worth noting that the two metastudies were mildly positive in their tone - there was no suggestion of this method being worthless). We've recently had a spat of editing but before that, we had a stable version that read: "There is insufficient evidence to claim that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition[4] and it has been characterized as a pseudoscience.[5]"

This fine piece of wording was negotiated on the Talk page by a collaboration of editors from various points of view. Any objections to reverting to this stable version for this paragraph? --Karinpower (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If something unsupported by evidence is sold as a treatment then we are into the realm of quackery/fraud. Which is why sources say so. We reflect them, as we must. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There is obviously a difference of opinion on what is neutral here. To begin the article with a description of Rolfing as pseudoscience before any other information is given seems to be an attempt to influence the reader, especially as the source cited for the first sentence does not say anything about pseudoscience. In my edit, I suggested that the discussion of pseudoscience wasn't even applicable in the first section and was more applicable later in the article when describing its use. I even wrote in the Talk page about my reasoning and anticipated some discussion. Instead, pseudoscience was reverted in the second paragraph and added to the first sentence without any discussion until several edits later. If you feel it is important to label Rolfing as quackery in addition to being pseudoscience, doing so in the introductory section appears to be a lack of neutral viewpoint. Thatcher57 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you've been involved in editing this article for at least several years, and you were present during the negotiation that resulted in the previous wording choice. This compromise specifically addressed the WP:PSCI concern that you mentioned. This was deemed sufficient to represent the concerns of all parties involved, though there were dissenting voices who wanted stronger wording (and it's likely that you were among them) as well as those who thought the compromise wording was too extreme. That is the nature of compromise. That previous compromise is still in effect, as no new compromise has been reached.

I will address the psuedoscience aspects separately in the talk section that pertains to that.--Karinpower (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The current version satisfies WP:PSCI better. We need to follow policy and not forge a spurious WP:LOCALCON that is adrift of it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and you haven't got anything resembling a consensus on that point. A previous consensus was reached with much consideration by all parties. That stands, and it certainly does clearly attend to WP policy - it was crafted with that in mind. Please work toward a new consensus if you think this is now inadequate. --Karinpower (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As to LOCALCON, this article is presently within the bounds of current practice on WP. This article tends to reflect a high level of scrutiny compared to other topics in the "Manipulative and body-based methods" sidebar. Some of these need to be tightened up a bit, but presently many do not mention pseudoscience (ex. Shiatsu, Bowen), and some fail to even state the lack of support for medical benefit (Thai massage, Lomilomi). Watsu implies medical benefit; I haven't examined the sources to see if there is a sufficient metastudy but I doubt it. Psuedoscience is mentioned in Acupressure, Chiropractic and Craniosacral; in each of these cases it is either mentioned in a one-sentence comment at the end of the introduction (as it is in Rolfing now) or it is limited to the "reception" section. From this brief review, the Rolfing article is presently at one end of the spectrum on how Manipulative Methods are described.

WP:OSE, but we are guided by the WP:PAGs here, not what other stuff does. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is that by mentioning pseudoscience at the end of the intro, we are absolutely fulfilling the guidelines. As we determined in the Talk page many months ago. Your sudden insistence on extreme wording is bizarre and I believe your behavior is edit-warring, not mine. In these cases it's best to revert to the last stable version, the one that I've used (from March of this year), which stood for many months without debate. --Karinpower (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That would destroy a lot of other editors' work which has expanded and improved the article, so would be a very bad idea. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not just thoughtlessly reverted. I have moved the citations to the appropriate place in the article - they join a list of authors who include a long list of methods but no details. The fact that they only have a single-word reference to Rolfing means they probably should be removed, but for now they can sit in the Reception section.--Karinpower (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Insisting on a completely negative point of view on Rolfing, by bullying, and using the mechanisms of Wikipedia, should be completely unacceptable. Yet this is exactly what has been happening here. AaronMFeld (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not true. Its just reflecting what reliable sources tell us. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Plain and simple: Rolfing is a pseudoscience, and a "completely negative point of view" is the scientific consensus, a.k.a the thing that stops Wikipedia from promoting crackpot remedies (such as this). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am making a change in the lead that I know will be opposed by some editors. I am attempting to find a consensus so this page meets the standards: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Repetition of lack of evidence for any effectiveness is not concise. I added "safe" to the first sentence and moved the final sentence to Effectiveness section. I also added a sentence that summarizes the description to give a better overview.

My preference would be to either move the statement about quackery to the effectiveness section or to clarify that the sources that characterize it as such do so because of psychological claims. But I know how controversial that is, so think it should be discussed here and if we can't reach agreement, then we can ask for a specific RfC about it. Thatcher57 (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Quackery

Regarding the repeatedly removed content:

Skeptics have included Rolfing in lists of unproven alternative health methods that they consider quackery, based on a lack of scientific evidence as well as unproven assessment and treatment methods.

References

And the attempts of compromise by removing mentions of quackery and pseudoscience:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolfing&diff=prev&oldid=727722802 21:22, 30 June 2016
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolfing&type=revision&diff=727772704&oldid=727729766 04:29, 1 July 2016
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolfing&type=revision&diff=727810448&oldid=727783418 11:25, 1 July 2016
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolfing&type=revision&diff=728455376&oldid=727814090 15:17, 5 July 2016
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolfing&type=revision&diff=728462169&oldid=728460453 16:13, 5 July 2016‎

We've SYN, NPOV, FRINGE, and MEDRS violations in these edits. It appears the only rationale is that the sourced material that is repeatedly removed puts Rolfing in a light that some dislike. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hear hear. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Talking about the POV as set forth by Alexbrn, the term "quackery" is just a pejorative, with little meaning, and the insistence on its inclusion slants this article into an attack ad, rather than a scholarly explanation. The complete absence of citation of anything positive in the Alexbrn version,likewise makes it extremely negatively biased. AaronMFeld (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's sourced. As I said, "It appears the only rationale is that the sourced material that is repeatedly removed puts Rolfing in a light that some dislike." --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking the very first sentence of the proposed changes, "There is a growing amount of mainstream scientific research documenting the effectiveness of Rolf therapy." That is WP:SYN from sources that violate WP:MEDRS. Using that sentence to replace the removed material violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolfing&type=revision&diff=728464503&oldid=728463506 16:33, 5 July 2016

  I didn't expect the edit-warring would continue. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You folks may know all about "SYN, NPOV, FRINGE, and MEDRS" and I really know nothing of it. But I know right from wrong, I know bullies when I meet them. You have yourself vandalized this page by insisting on using the pejorative "quackery" at the beginning and at the end, and by relentlessly not permitting any other POV other than your own, very narrow, negative view. AaronMFeld (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, not true. As I replied to you above, we are just reflecting the reliable sources. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed all of the "danger, danger" notices you posted on my talk page. I guess that's how you managed to keep this page negatively slanted for this long, by relentlessly using your greater Wikipedia experience to cow other editors. I would think that there is quite possibly a policy in place for that type of behavior that you are violating. Possibly this one "WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." I noticed that I am certainly not the only one that noticed that you are leaving this page in a ridiculously negative POV. AaronMFeld (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The following all seem to be valid sources:Research and general acceptance of RolfingA Three-Paradigm Treatment Model Using Soft Tissue Mobilization and Guided Movement-Awareness Techniques for a Patient With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Case StudyShifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation.Effects of Soft Tissue Mobilization on Pelvic Inclination Angle, Lumbar Lordosis, and Parasympathetic Tone: Implications for Treatment of Disabilities Associated with Lumbar Degenerative Joint Disease Are there any objections to including these in the article as examples of studies where rolfing has been considered to be effective? AaronMFeld (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

For biomedical claims we need WP:MEDRS, not old Gale encyclopedia articles or primary research. For background maybe see WP:WHYMEDRS. Sources in the topic area should also be WP:FRIND ones. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire paragraph was copied directly from the source identified above, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Rolfing.aspx . I have no idea why the other references were even added. The medical material is outdated by our WP:MEDRS standards, specifically WP:MEDDATE which encourages such information be from medical sources published within the past five years. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I just thought it was horrible! -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay here is one that is 2015, does anybody have an objection to the following being cited? I would think that an article about rolfing helping children with cerebral palsey from "frontiers in pediatrics" might be relevant. Or really do you think that your own POV is the only POV? AaronMFeld (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And it seems you are purposefully misunderstanding my query regarding the encylopedia source. I am not proposing to quote it verbatim, but to use it as a tertiary citation as per "A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate textbooks, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are examples of tertiary sources." Any objection to citing it as a source? AaronMFeld (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean PMID 26442234 ? This is a primary source (a RCT) and so fails WP:MEDRS. It's from a journal published by Frontiers Media, a known predatory publisher, which makes it doubly unreliable. It lacks WP:FRINDependence since it's Rolfers writing about Rolfing. It's obviously junk too, if you, read it - using testimonal-like endoresement (“Rolfing – she loved it! And we saw many gains during therapy”) to promote this nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be kind of Your personal quest to discredit rolfing, and that I think is why the POV you introduced is so slanted. And I have to point out that every single source for "quackery" is ridiculously old. And that alternative medicine is "quackery" is a ridiculously outdated concept in of itself. AaronMFeld (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There is only one "personal quest" evident here. We must WP:FOC. And without new usable sources I think we are done here. Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If nothing significant has changed with Rolfing technique, it would seem that the old citations would apply equally well. Jim1138 (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE guides us to use recent sources (ideally with 5 years) for biomedical information. The Gale source is 10 years old and is an entry written by one guy in a general medical encyclopedia. We can't use it (a weak tertiary source) to undercut what we know from recent higher-quality strong sources. And also of course we can't use a statement from 2006 to undercut the knowledge of 2015. The designation of Rolfing as quackery etc. is not a biomedical consideration so does not need WP:MEDRS; I think some of the sources could however be rationalized for this aspect of the topic. Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"recent higher-quality strong sources" Are you kidding? For your "quackery" reference you cite from 1988, 1998, 2006 and 2008, the 2008 reference being to a "polemic". For your "pseudoscience" references you cite a 2005 article in "Popular Psychology" and a 1995 handbook on "Parental Alienation".

Please note WP:MEDRS applies to WP:Biomedical information. For other aspects of this topic (whether it is "quackery") the normal guidance of WP:RS applies, which has no 5-year window. We could, however, rationalize these sources as there is some over-citation here I think. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Old citations, to 21 year old child custody handbooks and popular psycho rags, are okay for you and your POV. But for any other POV these citations have to be "fresh" and "reliable". I checked the 5th edition of the Gale Encylopedia of Medicine, from 2015, and it remains unchanged. It also mentions as a source "Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine: The New Approach to Using the Best of Natural Therapies and Conventional Medicine. New York: Time Inc. Home Entertainment, 2007." I guess Mayo Clinic is also pushing quackery because it considers alternative/natural therapies? Like I have been saying, the negative POV that is being attempted here is way behind the times. AaronMFeld (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The only POV that matters is that expressed in the best sources. For the question of efficacy, we have a very strong 2015 WP:MEDRS from the Australian DoH that reviews the literature and tells us "no reliable conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of rolfing for any clinical condition." For the question of quackery there are other sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice try, but you really did not address how old your citations are, and how they are not at all reliable. Saying "there are other sources" means nothing. And of course you have decided what are "the best sources". The "Australian study"? An Australian government determination of what would be 'not covered' for health insurance purposes, and thus has financial bias in that the more that was debunked the less the Australian government has to reimburse. AaronMFeld (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What's unreliable? The designation of rolfing as quackery seems long-settled and so it is not surprising recent sources don't revisit the question. From a quick search it seems this "quackery" aspect was discussed mostly in sources between 1997 and 2003. Recent medical investigations have confirmed rolfing is useless. Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, what has changed in Rolfing that would invalidate the quackery sources? If little has changed, then if Rolfing was quackery in 1990, it would still be quackery today. If not much has changed, there would be little incentive for researchers to re-evaluate Rolfing. Has there been significant development since the quackery declarations? If so, where are the wp:RSMED] papers? Jim1138 (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You underlying assumption, that the quackery sources were ever good sources is wrong. That the label was "settled" is wrong. One has only to read this talk page. And both using the "quackery" and "pseudoscience" labels are contrary to established Wikipedia policy:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery and this is precisely because of the POV problem associated with such labels AaronMFeld (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The quackery sources are valid and still relevant. You have not produced any RS supporting Rolfing being otherwise. I'm done here. Jim1138 (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to produce references proving an absence. The POV is very negatively slanted, and this was never justified by the cited sources. AaronMFeld (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrwn and Ronz. Using administrative tools to attempt to silence another editor, when you yourselves are involved in the debate is contrary to the spirit and regulations of Wikipedia. Kindly remove what you have placed on my talk page. AaronMFeld (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In this as in everything here so far, you are mistaken. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the WP:PAGs that multiple editors have pointed you to. If you want to discuss editor behaviour you need to post at WP:AN/I. Here, please focus on content. Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And in any case if you use contentious labels you must use in-text attribution. If you want to focus on content then respond to my contentious labels concern. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels AaronMFeld (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As with many altmed offerings, the characterization of rolfing as quackery is not (seriously) contended. Or have you got some sources now? Alexbrn (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to read this talk page for a reality check then. AaronMFeld (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk pages are not reliable sources. They can contain all kinds of nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

By that rationale, look to your own writings on this page. And the other editors that opposed your successful attempt to slant the POV to the negative had good arguments and good citations. That and understand that the World has changed greatly during the time that your references were made and now. AaronMFeld (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Source? Alexbrn (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You know, nobody at all has responded to by "contentious labels" concerns. Both for the word "quackery" and for "pseudoscience". So any objection to changing those to descriptions that do not contain POV slanting contentious labels? AaronMFeld (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I responded that it's not contentious. It isn't. If you want to argue otherwise you need sources to back your case. Good sources are always welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This is simply Tyranny_of_the_majority, "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority". With the majority editors with one POV, actively suppressing those sources contrary to their own POV. Being in the majority (of those interested in editing this article) does not equal being accurate or fair minded. I remind you all that chiropractic was a crime, not so long ago, now it is licensed throughout the United States, do you really think that the World has not changed? AaronMFeld (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

At the risk further wp:stick I note that Chiropractic is classified as pseudoscience according to wikipedia. Perhaps more mainstream pseudoscience with licenses and all--but that is not what we are discussing. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that the results from my RFC show consensus that there is a problem with "quackery" as a contentious word, but that pseudoscience is more accepted by most of the responding editors. The citations for "quackery" have also been proven to be weak at best, both being from journalists biased point of view (look at the titles, one is an "indictment" the other speaks of "betrayal") and in both the mention is weak and questionable. If it is not taken out the page should acknowledge that there is a POV contention taking place. Saying "characterize" is weasel wording it to a softer tone, but really it should be removed. AaronMFeld (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the word quackery should be removed and pseudoscience should remain.--Karinpower (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The main policy-based concerns that I'm seeing are:

1) The sources may not support it being in Wikipedia's voice.

2) It may not be due in the lede as presented and sourced. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a consensus regarding this, I am going to take the quackery references out. AaronMFeld (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You do not have consensus. Dont. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay I will weigh in. I definitely think that you should eliminate "characterized as quackery." It seems needlessly pejorative and not helpful or descriptive to anyone perusing Wikipedia. And according to my rolfer the practice and training at the Rolf Institute has evolved much over the years. I would suggest you guys dig a little further before you go talking about energy fields. I have never heard him talk about any of this garbage. When I read things like that it sort of seems like you guys are cherry picking the silliest things that you can find and choosing to not include some of the positive findings that have been sited here on other threads.

Pantselves (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV - Request for Comments - Contentious Labels - "Quackery" "Pseudoscience" Opinions Stated as Fact

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels

1. Is the use of the word "quackery" in this article contentious?
Does the use of the word "quackery" make for a POV that is biased?
If yes, then what would make sense to replace it with?

2. Is the use of the word "pseudoscience" in this article contentious?
Does the use of the word "pseudoscience" make for a POV that is biased?
If yes, then what would make sense to replace it with?

AaronMFeld (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@AaronMFeld: Obviously, you and I suspect, others associated with Rolfing, find the labels quackery and pseudoscience contentious. You have been requested numerous times to provide WP:RSMED supporting Rolfing as not being quackery or pseudoscience and have not. Quackery and pseudoscience are reliably sourced, and per WP:LABEL, they should stay. Jim1138 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I requested comments, but not on myself personally. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Being reliably sourced has no bearing on whether they are contentious labels. AaronMFeld (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No. See WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTCENSORED to start. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I read both. They don't seem to contradict my above statement "Being reliably sourced has no bearing on whether they are contentious labels." And they seem to support the idea that personal attacks should be avoided.

As far as the idea that the theory of rolfing is a fringe science idea, I just don't get it, especially since recent science has determined that stress relief, by itself, has profound effects on blood chemistry and biological structures, including telomere length, body fat distribution, overall life expectancy, brain function etc. But the theory isn't really crackpot at all, there was never any claims that it cures cancer, or treats bacterial or viral infections, etc. And yes the world has changed around us since those "quackery" sources were cited. I don't think that anyone would care to dispute that all of naturopathy\alternate health care, has only gained in acceptance since that time. Using the "quackery" label for things like this is simply living in the past. AaronMFeld (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

None of that addresses my concerns, nor demonstrates any understanding of the policies and guidelines. I don't see any reason why it should influence consensus. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• No to both questions, as per answers above. I also dispute your ridiculous claims about AltMed. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I think that the manner in which it is stated also runs afoul of the "do not state opinions as fact" portion of the policies and guidelines. I'll update this soon to request comment on that aspect. Regarding contentious words "They just aren't" is pretty meaningless. Nobody has thus far stated any good faith rationale supporting that these are not, in fact, contentious words, and therefore have no place in what should be a NPOV article. AaronMFeld (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

*shrug* we follow what the sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is just more avoidance of any real, good faith, dialogue regarding the issues of contentious words and of presenting opinions as fact. AaronMFeld (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The point is they're no contentious if there is no serious contention (e.g. in RS). Your personal disagreement doesn't count I'm afraid. You have been repeatedly asked to provide sources yet I'm seeing nothing. What we would need is RS which classifies Rolfing as some kind of science other than pseudoscience (proto-science e.g.). Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@AaronMFeld: I agree with Alexbrn. You have failed to supply RSMED for your claims. There is no reason to thrash this anymore without RSMED. Please drop the wp:stick. Jim1138 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Contentious words has nothing to do with sources, medical sources, or reliability. It simply has to do with language that tends to excessively slant, exaggerate, inflame, or otherwise take an article into NPOV. Both "quackery" and "pseudoscience" do that. I, and I am sure others, have no problem with stating "There is insufficient evidence to claim that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition.." because that is objective language, standing for what is true. The other is just name calling, and negative opinions presented as facts, and that is the problem I, and others have noticed. Just because you don't see a problem with your own perspective does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. AaronMFeld (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Not the way wikipedia works. Pseudoscience must be clearly identified per policy. Check out List of topics characterised as pseudoscience to get a fell for how this works. If in doubt, raise a query about the designation at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If one could have content removed by claiming it was "contentious", I suspect most of Wikipedia would have been deleted. The best way to get "pseudoscience" and "quackery" removed is to provide MEDRS sources stating unequivocally that Rolfing is safe and effective. Please do so and I will gladly remove these words myself. As Alexbrn suggested, List of topics characterised as pseudoscience and WP:FT/N. Jim1138 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, purposefully misunderstanding. You state "quackery" and "pseudoscience" as facts, they are not facts. You act as if these words are accepted definitions, they are ill defined and vague, much more akin to slurs than scientific terms. If you are fighting for more science, then describe things in scientific terms, describe why rolfing is supposed to be quackery or psuedoscience, and cite accurately the source of those ideas. As the article stands today is has a biased POV precisely because of the lack of anything other than highly negative rhetoric. AaronMFeld (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

They are facts per WP:ASSERT "information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute". By your argument nothing would be described as "pseudoscience" - not orgone, not homeopathy, not rolfing. All these nonsenses have their proponents, who regularly turn up at Wikipedia with exactly the angle you take. It won't work: we shall follow the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Yes, the use of quackery is contentious - this discussion has met theWP:CONTENTIOUS criteria "if another editor says it is "contentious" then it is." I'll add that the phrasing with sensational or insulting terms seems inserted into the lead gratuitously as it is not part of the main article, and the phrase 'is considered' is declaring it as a fact or common position which is not sufficiently supported by just a sources of no particular note, one could also point to a number of sources saying it is of value. Either delete the insult or make the phrase 'unproven benefit' or 'some consider it quackery' and put it down in the body seems more appropriate handling.
  2. Yes, the use of pseudoscience is contentious - again, this discussion has met theWP:CONTENTIOUS criteria "if another editor says it is "contentious" then it is." I've seen a lot of other articles where folks seem to love the dramatic word and this vague pejorative, and this seems an inappropriate word for this topic. If you just follow the cites the dominant MEDRS seem to be that this is an 'unproven' but allowed form of physical therapy, some health plans cover it, and many published works give it some weight. The WP:FRINGS/PS would seem to say that is at worst a 'questionable science' at worst, but I think the larger issue is the topic is inappropriate for the field. This should fall under WP:MEDRS instead and should not be discussed as a matter of science, it is a matter of health practice and standing in that community. Markbassett (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Markbassett: What you are trying to link to? There is no WP:CONTENTIOUS or WP:FRINGS/PS. I think you're after MOS:WTW and WP:FRINGE, but you seem to have particular "criteria" in mind written somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺ - umm, here's more functional wikilinking to the relevant essay and the relevant section of WP guidelines. The pre-existing essay about contention is at Wikipedia:Contentious. The section of the WP:FRINGE guideline where it is describing a demarcation between Questionable Science and Pseudoscience is shortcut WP:FRINGE/PS here. Markbassett (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Our editing criteria don't come from essays. And that one doesn't make any sense, per WP:GAMING. E.g., I say it is contentious to refer to rolfing as medicine, medical, medicinal, healthy, healthful, health-promoting, healing, beneficial, helpful, or anything else that implies WP:MEDRS-relevant claims, ever, period. But WP doesn't work this way. We go by what the reliable, independent sources say, not by what an editor stomping their foot and waving a "my way or the highway" sign says. Nor is the essay cogent in other ways. The fact that dictionaries do not all agree on a definition for everything and sometimes provide definitions that are not very helpful does not in any way prevent the WP community from producing very clear WP-specific usage as terms of art. That it has not done so here indicates that, as in many other cases, the WP editorship doesn't want a hard-and-fast rule about what "contentious" means here. And it would never conclude that "any single editor contending" = "contentious". Everything that WP has evolved about its WP:Consensus system is against that proposition, which amounts to the idea that consensus really does require unanimity, and that WP:FILIBUSTER / WP:STONEWALL behavior is legitimate rather than disruptive, and that the way for a minority viewpoint to dominate is by tendentious WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:SOABOX / WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. It's actually fairly likely that MOS:WTW would add quack[ery], but not more objective terms like pseudoscience or fringe theory.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Markbassett's suggestions on how to handle this topic, which is indeed contentious (even if the opposing side is unrepresented in this forum). The words "pseudoscience" and especially "quackery" are pejorative, and are not supported in the mainstream literature. As Mark stated, many sources give this topic some weight. The lack of MEDRS studies means that no health benefits can be claimed, but that absence does not prove pseudoscience. Nor does the haphazard inclusion in random lists of modalities ranging from iridology to colonics, which lack any specific criticism of Rolfing (6 of the sources cited!). Shooting a flaming arrow over the wall is not an adequate argument.

The word quackery should be removed - quackery implies an intent to deceive and a complete absence of real value. There is no evidence for that.

The pseudoscience comments should be restricted to the "reception" section. The lede should state that there are not adequate studies to support claims of medical benefit. --Karinpower (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, especially on Quackery. I see serious inconsistency in examples of quackery. Do we just google for examples for claims from some Rolfers? We could just as easily google for obvious quackery claims from various MDs for claims in nearly any area of medicine. (My favorite is neck surgery, which studies are showing often turns out to be more dangerous than no neck surgery.) So are we using samples of one or two, or definitive reviews from non-predatory sources? When the current article in WP opens with a definitive sentence on Rolfing's pseudoscientific quackery, the reader may not go further in the article. That may be fine or even intentional with skeptics, but looks immediately negative to a reader merely trying to understand what Rolfing is. However, I see Alexbrn has categorically stated that WP policy must continue to label Rolfing as pseudoscience and quackery, and early in the article, so this discussion may be futile, as apparently policy trumps full discussion of contention. Or am I misunderstanding? What bothers me about the skeptic insistence through all of alternative medicine is that there is no discernment from vitamin supplements or orgone therapy to chiropractic and acupuncture. (There is no skepticism of skepticism!) All alt-med is pseudoscience and quackery, and apparently will remain so. Have WP's skeptics considered the US federal NIH categories of complementary and alternative medicine, which clearly define differences? In the states, and I suspect also in Oz and the UK, MDs will prescribe additional therapies that WP only categorizes as alternative, yet in the US are called complementary because they are not used "instead of" but "in addition to" traditional medical practices. In the US Rolfers work on staff in the five Veterans Administration hospitals in New Jersey. WP would call that quackery, but I bet the Veterans Administration sees it differently. See https://nccih.nih.gov/health/integrative-health Trobster (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Karinpower - I'll expand my prior RFC input a bit - First I consider the use of these labels contentious pretty well shown because (a) there is factually contention between editors which is the quote of WP:CONTENTIOUS, and (b) more than one editor each side, and (c) evidenced heat with lots of WP bombs and accusations such as lack of good faith, and (d) an RFC is getting inputs commented on and objected to instead of just letting the WP:RFC run for outside opinions to help WP:Dispute resolution.

Second -- In terms of article content I've suggested to delete it or put a milder phrasing down in the body supported by WP:MEDRS. The current content is solely an tail line at the tail of the lead with nothing further in the body, so it comes across as just a declaration of judgement without information and to be WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA there either has to be some expansion of what is the substance cause for it and identify the POV party there or it's just not informative. "Reception" section maybe, but somewhere in the article body put up informative explanatory content and fulfill the WP:RS goal of making sure that all majority and significant minority views are covered by presenting multiple POVs. Avoid WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CHERRY. Markbassett (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC) apparently,

WP:CONTENTIOUS does not exist. Wikipedia:Contentious is a user's essay with no weight whatsoever. The relevant policy here is WP:PSCI - pseudoscience must be prominently identified as such. The lede is a nice prominent place, and per WP:LEDE we should be including prominent criticism there in any case. The content should of course also be in the body, ideally in more detail; this is easily fixed. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, to clarify, there is already more detail in the Reception section. Also the section in Theory about emotions/trauma; note these claims do not seem to be actually made by Rolfing even though the anti-Rolfing sources say so.

I suggest a compromise where the lede states "There is insufficient evidence to claim that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition, and some consider it to be a pseudoscience." Then it can be elaborated upon in Reception, including a statement about the controversy of whether Rolfing makes claims to psychological aspects or not - at least two of the pseudoscience sources are based on that, so context must be provided. The sources that have only a single mention of Rolfing in a list of methods should be removed from the article. --Karinpower (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

such downplaying the pseudoscience aspect of rolfing would be precisely the opposite of policy. It is false to say there is a "controversy" about whether rolfing has psychological aspects, as reliable sources tell us it does. Even though there appears to be a push to re-brand rolfing as some kind of harmless body-rub, even at rolf.org there is an FAQ with a section "What about the emotional and psychological effects of Rolfing SI?" where it still says "repressed memories or experiences will arise for which the client and the Rolfer may not have any advanced warning". We mustn't fall into the trap of making Wikipedia part of a whitewashing exercise. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I was able to locate the FAQ you are referring to: http://www.rolf.org/rolfing_faq.php#emot. This page states that catharsis (sudden and extreme emotional release) is not a goal of the work, and that sometimes emotions arise whenever the body is being contacted. That's all bodywork, not just Rolfing. The FAQ states that Rolfers are trained to be present with emotion that arises but are not therapists; the Rolfers' expertise is in structure, alignment, and tissue.--Karinpower (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn WP:CONTENTIOUS speaks to the RFC question - which is whether the edits are contentious. It is obviously being in hot contention for days now. As to the labels, refer to WP:LABEL "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" -- So show what AMA and other MEDRS say, not just Oprah and Skeptic magazine as that smacks of WP:CHERRY. Present ALL POVs with sources indicated in due weight, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Which ignores my point entirely. We have WP:PSCI policy and WP:RS that this topic is pseudoscience (and in WP:FRINGE areas WP:PARITY can relax sourcing requirements), so we must prominently make plain this designation. Obscure use essays are not policy, and neither are style guides. NPOV is a foundational policy of Wikipedia. By your argument nothing on Wikipedia would be described as pseudoscience, because all these fringe topics have a load of editors who don't like their pet topic being so described and make a fuss on the talk page. A truly contentious label would have WP:RS to show it was contentious. Rolfing doesn't have that. Alexbrn (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn Of course, since as I said I was expanding or clarifying my input I did not speak to your discussion, an RFC kind of seeks to get outside inputs you see. I suggest though that you may want to note a couple highlights though:

• (1) The topic of this RFC is contention, e.g. "Per: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels 1. Is the use of the word "quackery" in this article contentious?" The Wikipedia:Contentious is a third-party decent guide independent of this article that speaks to the topic, though it also seems kind of obvious that use of the words is contentious here.
• (2) WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA calls for more explanation than is shown, and yes WP:PSCI guidance also says that "An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly". This would fit to my earlier suggestion of fulfill the WP:RS goal of making sure that all majority and significant minority views are covered by presenting what those multiple POVs are. Just follow the cites and show ALL significant views, conveying who they are and what they say in due proportion to WP:WEIGHT. I suggest the article wording suitable is something milder and down in the body, based on what I see now, and that it needs MEDRS.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contentious is not a "decent guide" but an obscure user essay by a user who has has - how shall one put this? - a problematic relationship with the community. It has no weight whatsoever. The wish to be mild and to move pseudoscience out of the lede is at odds with the policy requirement to make the pseudoscience designation "prominent", and with the requirement of WP:LEDEs to contain significant criticism (you would make the lede a criticism-free zone?). We do not use WP:MEDRS for considering this aspect as WP:MEDRS applies to only WP:Biomedical information and such sources almost never discuss pseudoscience classifications, which are more in the realm of skepticism, rationalism and philosophy of knowledge. Look to WP:PARITY for guidance on sources countering the claims from Rolf marketing sites that it aligns the body within a gravitation field, for example. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - This is an RFC seeking outside input on the question of if use of two words is contentious -- so I've provided input and expanded/explained same. To respect the process I'm juuuust talking to that. Of use of words being contentious and explaining my own inputs around this case. If you want any discussion of another topic it should start a separate thread and I'll respond. Within this RFC though, I think you're likely clear enough on what my inputs were. If you want me to expand on my inputs more, then reply here.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes and No (to both). Both descriptions are contentious as far as rolfers are concerned, though do not appear to be contentious in RS. Both terms may also be biased in favour of a mainstream/science-based approach. However irrespective to the answer to these questions the terms are okay here since they align with Wikipedia policy on WP:PSCI and are sourced. The supposition behind the RfC is that if (enough) editors don't like a term, then it can be voted out. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes and No. I'll accept that these terms are contentious if other editors find them so, but we solve that by having a discussion and establishing a consensus under wikipolicy. With reliable sources to back up both claims, we're doing fine on NPOV. --Pete (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes to quackery to and Strong No to pseudoscience . Quackery is a very value laden term. Pseudoscience merely means that something seems to be scientific, but isn't. It's equivalent to saying that a claim is not based on valid scientific evidence. This not only allowable, but required under WP:FRINGE/PS. Quackery, by contrast has negative associations regarding motive, which puts it in the same category of moral claim as the freedom freedom fighter terrorist distinction.

Wp:LABELS says "With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy WP:NPOV, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline, fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources." We can't let a local consensus overturn a global one. Tamwin (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes and No. Changed to No. Given that quackery is defined on Wikipedia as "the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices", describing Rolfing as quackery potentially denies that practitioners may sincerely believe their activities to be effective. On the other hand, rolfing is clearly an example of pseudoscience, just as homeopathy is - it is neither biologically plausible nor supported by credible evidence. Virtually everything at the top of the homeopathy talk page would seem to apply here. --tronvillain (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• What if they believed it ignorantly? Wouldn't that be in line with the definition? (and we use "quackery" of homeopathy too) Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically, hence the "potentially" - the dual definition can be used to imply that sincere practitioners are fraudulent. And while it's used in homeopathy, I think the way it's said is better, with "The continued practice of homeopathy, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense, quackery, and a sham" being near the end of the lede, separated from the earlier identification as pseudoscience. --tronvillain (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"Being characterized as" is good phrasing. We could use that here. --Karinpower (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

tronvillain, your RfC input is appreciated. Could you explain which aspects of the theory are biologically not plausible? To me it seems that the alignment concept is plausible (ex. anterior head position is known to be detrimental). Ditto for the concept of making changes in the tissue via bodywork. And the idea that improving movement is worthwhile - this is akin to athletes doing technique training. What's not so plausible to me are some of the psychological claims. Some anti-Rolfing sources *claim* that Rolfing makes some bizarre claims but Rolfing itself doesn't seem to make those claims. In fact many sources describe it as a physical process. Does that match your understanding of "biologically plausible"? Thanks.--Karinpower (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Err, you just reverted the "has been characterized as" wording. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Karinpower in your large revert you have just removed text sourced to Rolf herself (via a secondary source) which showed what her strange claims were. To claim that it is only anti-rolfing people who make these claims would, under thiese circumstances, seem disingenuous. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

KarinpowerWhat is not biologically plausible is shaping fascia via manual manipulation - it's too tough to mechanically deform. -(Tronvillian?)

There has been a shift in the explanation of how fascia changes. Back in the 70's, they thought it required pressure to "melt" the fascia - this was called the gel/sol idea. It is still taught in some myofascial books but it's wrong. The current belief is that mechanoreceptors in the tissue regulate fascial length, and this is the explanation that is currently given. --Karinpower (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Strong Yes the term quackery is contentious and creates a biased POV. The definition of quackery includes "fraudulent," "pretends," and "charlatan," which create a strong bias. Although there are sources that use the term quackery to describe Rolfing, they are not mainstream sources and seem to be chosen by editors for the purpose of discrediting rather than educating.
  2. Yes that the term pseudoscience is contentious, but not that it creates a biased POV. Pseudoscience is used to describe other alternative therapies and therefore is being applied in a neutral way across topics, even if the word is contentious among editors on this page. However, old sources refer to parts of rolfing that aren't considered part of current standards of care in that field. These old, fringe viewpoints of the topic (rolfing), such as releasing emotional trauma, are what are considered pseudoscience. So this label should be restricted to those parts rather than the broad brush use of the term for the entire field.
  It is worth noting that the National Institutes of Health does not discredit alternative health practices to the extent that certain WP editors do. The NIH even changed the name of the department that studies alternative care to be more inclusive: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. It seems to me that part of the problem is that good studies take time to develop and the secondary sources and meta-analysis required by WP for inclusion are in the process of being created. Thatcher57 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes the term quackery is contentious and a biased pov and should be excluded. Yes the term pseudoscience is contentious, and if it is retained in the article should be attributed to who said it. The NCCIH defines Rolfing Structural Integration as a “complementary health approach” as opposed to “alternative medicine”. The Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Health describes it as a "holistic system of bodywork", and from The Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, Second Edition, Volume 4, pages 2912-2914, ISBN 0-7876-5493-0 - There is a growing amount of mainstream scientific research documenting the effectiveness of Rolf therapy. A 1988 study published in the Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association indicated that Rolfing stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system, which can help speed the recovery of damaged tissue. Other studies done in the 1980s concerned the effectiveness of Rolfing in treating figure skaters and children with cerebral palsy. In 1992 a presentation was made to the National Center of Medical Rehabilitation Research regarding Rolfing in the treatment of degenerative joint disease. A 1997 article in The Journal of Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy reported that Rolfing can provide effective and sustained pain relief from lower back problems. There are no reported serious side effects associated with Rolfing when delivered by a certified practitioner to adults and juveniles.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's see... the "1988 study" is presumably "Shifts in Pelvic Inclination Angle and Parasympathetic Tone Produced by Rolfing Soft Tissue Manipulation", which compared Rolfing to doing nothing as opposed to comparing it to massage or general physical therapy, which might actually have established an effect unique to Rolfing. Other than that, this seems highly questionable: "One experimenter performed and recorded all measurements for the study and was aware of subjects' group assignments." Then there's the figure skating pilot study, which doesn't seem to have ever been published anywhere peer reviewed, a case study of ten children with cerebral palsy, and another case study of a single patient with lower back pain. Not too impressive. --tronvillain (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations

• Comment. Both labels are contentious, but Rolfing is obvious pseudoscience, and sources back this up. I think it is properly called pseudoscience in this article, per WP:FRINGE/PS. I am neutral about quackery. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Further comment. This RfC is ill-formed. The guideline WP:FRINGE/PS states that "Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." That is the case here, and we have sources to back it up. The Arbitration Committee decision regarding this is available at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes but no As Slawomir Bialy said, both labels are contentious, but are called as such in many sources. Also, any "Holistic system of bodywork" is known as quackery. If it works about as well as a placebo, it's pseudoscience. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• No. Rolfing is pretty obviously pseudoscience, it should be presented as such.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish that someone would point out from their sources why rolfing would be considered a "pseudoscience". I've been close to science and scientists all my life, and the basic theory of rolfing, that fascia can be stretched and manipulated to ease bodily discomfort and to allow one to be more at ease with the force of gravity, seems grounded in scientific concepts like "gravity", "balance", "elasticity", and the like. I just don't see the tin foil hat here, and I would guess that the sources for pseudoscience are solely opinion based, and thus suspect. AaronMFeld (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not for us editors to debate the point; we follow the sources. But from them it's blindingly obvious why this is a pseudoscience, what with Rolf's mumbo-jumbo about energy field alignment and so forth. It's a useful skill to be able to distinguish between being "grounded in scientific concepts" and adopting the trappings of scientific vocabulary in order to seem "scientific", as Rolf evidently did (the fact she was a keen homeopath tells us pretty much all we need to know - something, BTW, which is strangely absent from these articles). Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently pseudoscientific about massage therapy, or even claims that massage has certain specific health benefits. What is pseudoscientific here is the causal claim that the benefits of Rolfing are because of certain mystical alignments between the body's energy field and the gravitational field of the Earth. Although this appears to use the scientific concept of gravitation, it does so in a way that is entirely speculative and unrelated to any known properties of the gravitational field. Just because something appears to use scientific concepts does not mean it is science. On the contrary, this is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience! Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

And rolfers are keen to distance themselves from conventional massage it seems. For them there is a magic layer under the skin which interconnects all, and by prodding this they can bring about their health benefits. The debt to Still's osteopathic manipulative treatment is marked. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems a lot like chiropractic: if they all wanted to abandon the extraordinary claims unsupported by evidence, they'd just be a form of massage/physical therapy. --tronvillain (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the trouble though with these belief systems built on dogma is that if you remove one element, the whole edifice comes crashing down (why trust Rolf for anything?). It would be good to have more sources on Rolf's amazingly implausible notions. We could perhaps delve a little deeper in the alternative literature so long as we were sure to balance it with something mainstream, maybe. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

To say nothing of the well established lack of evidence of effectiveness, even the proposed mechanism doesn't seem plausible given what's apparently known about fascia (see here, here, and here. --tronvillain (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please share your source, with quote, from an authoritative source on what are rolfing claims, that rolfing has anything to do with the bodies "energy field". I think that you simply are confused as to what the actual claims are. AaronMFeld (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

There are quotations from Rolf herself in the article (as quoted in secondary contexts). I am supposing she is an authority since Rofling was her invention. And for the avoidance of doubt we have RS telling us it's pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually tracked down the original quote from Rolf in "Rolfing and Physical Reality" (1978) (emphasis mine): "Rolfers make a life study of relating bodies and their fields to the earth and its gravity field, and we so organize the body that the gravity field can reinforce the body's energy field. This is our primary concept." --tronvillain (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Gotta get me some of that gravity stuff... Oh, wait -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The rather florid language of the quote could have just as well been rephrased as 'Rolfing makes you feel better if you are better aligned'. To be clear, the "Rolfing and Physical Reality" book is a collection of Ida Rolf's personal musings. However, I have to point out that every living being has energy fields. Some animals can detect energy fields, see Magnetoreception, and the recent scientific discovery, by Steven_M._Reppert, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, that human beings have a protein in their eyes that possibly functions to detect magnetic fields http://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2011/06/can-humans-sense-the-earths-magnetism/. By the way, this page is in rather hot contention, why in the world would anyone remove the badging, except to push the current state of the page? AaronMFeld (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule, any therapy that claims to exploit the "energy field" that "every living thing" possesses is obvious pseudoscience and shold be labeled as such per the arbcom ruling. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It could be rephrased that way... if one wanted to misrepresent what was said in order to show Rolfing in a more positive light, but I think the quote speaks for itself. Talk of "energy fields" is symptomatic of pseudoscience. --tronvillain (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• No. to 'pseudoscience' probably Yes to 'quackery', which implies a conscious intent to deceive. NPOV might be better served by declaring WHO has designated it 'pseudo' (conventional/mainstream medicine? most scientific consensus?). 'Pseudoscience', has nothing to do with the efficacy of a treatment, since we know anything may be beneficial when it benefits from an 'attenuated' placebo effect. Pseudoscience simply refers to the underlying scientific principles espoused having no basis in known science and would appear to be accurate and sourced. Failing to say that would be a greater failure of NPOV. Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I said essentially the same thing, though quackery doesn't necessarily imply conscious intent to deceive: "U.S. courts have ruled in defamation cases that accusing someone of quackery or calling a practitioner a quack is not equivalent to accusing that person of committing medical fraud." --tronvillain (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

necessarily? I note that the article text says 'has been characterised' (rather than is), which is more justifiable. But are both needed in the lead, since ps is more exact? Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that calling something quackery doesn't always mean a conscious intent to deceive, though it often has that connotation. It's similar to the language found in the homeopathy article: "The continued practice of homeopathy, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense, quackery, and a sham." --tronvillain (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Meh Strictly speaking the answers are: 1. Yes; No; NA. and 2. Yes; No; NA. But the second sentence of the lead says the method is based on "ideas about how the human body's 'energy field' can benefit when the body is aligned with the earth's gravitation field," which tells anyone with a scintilla of critical thinking skills or scientific literacy that we're in la-la-land. If someone reads that and is too clueless to get the clue, adding labels isn't going to help them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes on quackery (subquestions: yes it's biased, replace with pseudoscience); no on pseudoscience (subquestions: no it's not biased, does not need to be replaced).
  Calling someone a quack and their work quackery is just name-calling without a clear definition, and people who use these words often turn out to be flat wrong, e.g. with regard to properly conducted chiropractic medicine (as opposed to "smell these oils and rub these crystals while I mess with your neck" so-called chiropractic) and osteopathic medicine in the United States (versus hoodoo "osteopathy" in places where the term is used for a not-really-medical practice with a lot in common with pseudoscience like homeopathy and feng shui and waving a bleeding chicken). People who throw the word quack[ery] around usually a) are overgeneralizing beyond the data they have and know, and b) have a professional conflict of interest, a direct rivalry against whatever it is they're denigrating.
  However, pseudoscience is a testable proposition and is not name-calling. Either something follows, and can be independently verified via, the scientific method, or it does not and cannot. The RS tell us that rolfing is pseudoscience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If only it were that simple. I have no position on Rolfing, but don't get between me and my chiropractor, whatever you think the science says. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we're making the same point; good chiropractors are real doctors, practicing actual medicine, but orthopedic surgeonss like to call chiropractors "quacks", because they're the competition, and [the US, actually-medical kind of] oestopaths get the same kind of treatment from the same surgical canon. Both forms of practice lean just enough toward "alternative medicine" that they do attract real quacks who want to align your chi with your chakras using their solstice crystals and aura oils, but there's real medical data behind what the serious practitioners are doing. There is no medical degree for being a "rolfer", it's just aggressive massage, commingled with a few other dubious things, about which extraordinary claims have been made without sufficient evidence to back them up. Some of them are clearly WP:FRINGE, e.g. that despite billions of years of evolution in a stable gravity well, we are not "aligned" with gravity, and that periodic, painful abuse of muscle-sheathing fascia will "realign" us [2]. So, definitely pseudoscience, but there's no reason to call it "quackery" in Wikipedia's voice. It's like WP calling professional "psychics" by terms like "fraudulent assholes". >;-) That's Penn & Teller's job.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺ - There is no medical degree for being a "rolfer", correct; it is a certificate program. Basically it seems she got semi-famous so Trademarked this name and crafted a course for the 10-treatment approach, then made a living at teaching it for 50 to 100 people a year. Markbassett (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Point was, it's not something you can get a medical degree in from any accredited university, because science does not take it seriously; it's in the same category as homeopathy and orgone treatment.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

False assumption. Certificate programs in health fields generally lead to being eligible for state licensing. Most states have a license that covers bodywork (ex. LMT) which requires that certificate with a certain number of hours of training plus passing a standardized test. Rolfers are licensed through those state boards. I believe this is how nursing operates as well - the school grants a certificate and then the state nursing board gives the license.--Karinpower (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good assumption in absence of sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The operation of state license boards is not something that I'm just making up on the spot. Here's a link that summarizes state-by-state massage licensing: http://www.massagetherapy.com/_content/careers/MTreg.pdf. Looks like all but 6 states (and this includes DC and Puerto Rico) have licensing, requiring graduation from a certificate program of 500-1000 hours, usually plus passing a standardized test. --Karinpower (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Great-- states also licence cosmetologists: http://www.beautyschoolsdirectory.com/faq/state_req.php - Pengortm (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

My point is not to prove legitimacy, but to counter User:SMcCandlish's comment that a certificate program means it's inherently less valid. That's just not true. It's a fact of how many health professions operate (including nursing as I mentioned), the schools grant a certificate and the states grant a license. --Karinpower (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, but it doesnt address Rolfing. A certificate is just a piece of paper unless someone has reason to respect it. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

And it's a straw man anyway; I never made any "comment that a certificate program means it's inherently less valid." My point is that people do no go through medical training to become rolfers; it's just a form of massage. The difference is that CMTs as a general class to not make [qu|w]acky claims about what massage is and does, and why and how it may be beneficial. The pseudoscience is in the claims, which are not backed by reliable, independent sources. To address Karinpower's other hand-wave: No, going through a "bodywork" state certification program is absolutely not how people become, and get licensed as, nurses. They go through years of medical training, and then a totally different licensure procedure (several different ones for different types and levels of nursing). Two thirds of my siblings are nurses; I also know several chiropractors and EMTs, and several CMTs and other bodyworkers. There's a major difference between the kind of training it requires to become a nurse, chiropractor, or ambulance EMT, and that required to do massage-based work. And again, this discussion isn't about how much training is involved, it's about the fact that rolfing is defined and promoted in a Dianetics- and orgone-style pseudoscientific manner with extraordinary claims about both the nature of alleged conditions and the supposed benefits of this particular bodywork. The RS tell us these claims are outlandish, and that they are not supported by actual science. This is thus pseudoscience, by definition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I was not stating that nurses are regulated by the Massage Boards, but that they have a a parallel process of certification by a school, and licensure by a state board. Please read comments a bit more carefully before rushing to disagree.

I've done extensive reading on this subject since I started editing this article, and I encourage you to be skeptical of which sources make Rolfing sound orgone-like.... that is simply not the overall gist of the sources that have a more neutral take on the subject. --Karinpower (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Weak yes (quackery) and no (pseudoscience). As for the second question, I criticized an earlier version of the article that was quick to label Rolfing "pseudoscience", yet failed to provide any substance for that assessment (i.e. what does Rolfing exactly claim). Quotations added since, such as [...] organize the body that the gravity field can reinforce the body's energy field, both pass the duck test for pseudoscience (in my view, at least) and are reliably described as such, so I feel this cannot be reasonably contested. On the other hand, "quackery" is a much more serious qualification: to me, it implies either a willful misrepresentation of the treatment, or at the very least a gross disregard for its effectiveness, all in pursuit of material gain. The Junk Science book, p. 114, indeed lists Rolfing among two dozen types of "alternative medicine" treatments, and describes it as a "raucous bazaar" of "current quack medicine in America" and a "large courtyard filled for the most part with quacking entrepreneurs". This is a rather sweeping, drive-by indictment, which is in turn somewhat moderated by restricting its scope ("for the most part" leaves the reader wondering what - if any - are the exceptions from the quackery accusations). There is zero elaboration, so we have nothing more than a ipse dixit statement, and I don't feel this is sufficient. GregorB (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your critique of this source.... it doesn't give specific points and therefore it's conclusion is quite weak. Along with the other sources that only mention Rolfing once, in a list of twenty of so other methods, these weak sources should be removed now that stronger ones have been provided.

Regarding the gravity field quote, this quote has been selected to highlight the woo-woo mention of energy. But in general Rolf's book is about structure and movement, and those concepts are biologically plausible. I am not at all convinced that she was referring to the (clearly pseudoscientific) Reichian vitalistic energy ideas; some of those ideas certainly permeated the "healing arts" culture at the time, but it doesn't seem to be a primary focus within Rolfing. And over the decades, it seems that Rolfing has moved squarely into the structural realm. Sources with anti-Rolfing bias mention the energy claims but we have little evidence that the field of Rolfing is currently making those claims. I plan to do a survey of the sources and will present an analysis when I'm finished. --Karinpower (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"this quote has been selected to highlight the woo-woo mention of energy" ← It was though "selected" by good secondary sources. The editor of Rolf's work even selected it. So we have agreement between independent secondary sources and Rolf herself that this "woo-woo" (as you put it) is "gospel" and so fundamental to rolfing. Wikipedia accordingly reflects that. Now, it may be that the sellers of rolfing are in some places trying to present a slightly less "woo-woo" face to the public, but we are meant to be writing encyclopedia articles, not sales brochures, so this presentational aspect is of no interest here unless we have sources talking about how rolfing is promoted. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is some of the "research" that the various Rolfing centers currently cite: [3], [4], [5]. It explicitly discusses reading chakras and auric clouds. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the motte and bailey doctrine[6] is deployed for the promotion of rolfing, just as it is for many of these altmed scams. In the same way, for example, homeopathy is sold as "gentle", "natural" etc with all the underpinning woo kept hidden away. It would be great to have sources for this: Carroll hints at when he notes how prominent the word "gentle" is in the rolfing advert he reads. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: a good point. Indeed, we don't know whether sellers subscribe to (pseudo)scientific theory behind Rolfing or not. However, I'd argue that this is a rather important aspect of the issue at hand. For example, psychoanalytic theory, as originally formulated by Freud, is heavily dependent on many concepts which are - by modern standards at least - considered pseudoscientific. However, the field has moved on, modern practitioners no longer subscribe to many of these concepts, so psychoanalysis is today generally not considered outright quackery (even if both its theoretical foundations and its effectiveness are routinely criticized). That's why it would be useful to say what current adherents of Rolfing are really about, provided sources are adequate. GregorB (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Presumably when rolfers are trained they are given a taste of Rolf's notions. Hmm, wonder if there are sources describing the training process - I don't think we have anything on that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

These are all useful comments and I see your points. I wasn't aware that that early 1977 study included "auric photography"; geez, I wonder what that even means. That was 39 years ago and certainly it seems from many of the sources that current Rolfing is focused on physical structure, alignment, and movement. I appreciate GregorB's comment about Freud. I agree that it would be interesting to find source material that addresses this shift (if my impression is correct), and also sources that pertain to the current training content. As an experiment, I just phoned the Rolf Institute to ask if "energy work" is a part of their curriculum and the receptionist laughed and said "No, not at all, I think you are confusing it with Reiki. People get them mixed up because they both start with an R." Now to locate printed sources on the matter.--Karinpower (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is a "research" article from 2000 that is also linked from some of the Rolfing sites: [7], [8]. From the abstract "These changes occurred only after his worldview underwent a shift from a dualistic split of mind and body to a nondualistic orientation." Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• NO. There is precious little to add to the foregoing (and following), so I simply remark that Rolfing is precisely a textbook example of quackery (in spite of an argument to the contrary on semantic grounds) and of pseudoscience of the variety expressively referred to by the Feedback column of New Scientist as fruitloopery. There is a long-established tradition among supporters and purveyors of such, that relies on the fact that if you go on nagging long enough you may wear down the resistance of the honest, competent, and reputable, because serious workers simply do not have the time devote to permanent vermin-alerts. Furthermore, the quacks do not need to present sound work or sound argument, so a single social parasite can produce in half an hour what could take a team of scientifically competent and conscientious practitioners months to refute. Furthermore, the quack needn't even win to win; his prey are the determinedly illogical and unscientific, so all he needs is the publicity. There is not much we can do about that, but we need not commit ourselves to supporting their publicity budget after the fashion of Megalopsychus Brown. [9] JonRichfield (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This response is heavy on the personal attacks, yet light on any kind of policy-based arguments, so I suggest that it be disregarded from this RfC. GregorB (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

An interesting example of impersonal assessment to say the least of it; well done! No person had been mentioned, only the nature of the topic,and yet the response to the RFC is an attack, and personal at that? More, the question in the RFC had been whether the use of particular words had been contentious, and the answer had been unambiguously "NO", which is about as unequivocally to the point as possible. Categorical certainly, but it could hardly be less personal. The reasons given for not elaborating on the justification had been that others already had covered the ground well and even repetitively. In context, why should better reasons be required for not elaborating on the material? And yet the response did urge the scientifically competent participants (admittedly redundantly, given the hoariness of quack tactics) about the dangers of relaxing their guard, but this response demands more policy-based arguments? In the gentlest spirit, I suggest that the suggestion to disregard the response to the RFC would have been omitted, had it been based on logic aforethought. Meanwhile the response to the RFC remains NO. And the reason is that that the terms objected to in the article are thoroughly justified and that it would betray the principles of WP and the interests of the readers, to let down the guard against such quackery and pseudoscience, when as it happens, it is against WP policies to support anything of the kind. I trust these points satisfy anyone who thinks the answer still too light on policy-based arguments. JonRichfield (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a long-standing disagreement over this article among a number of editors. When, in this context, you write that "if you go on nagging long enough you may wear down the resistance of the honest, competent, and reputable, because serious workers simply do not have the time devote to permanent vermin-alerts", it is fairly easy to construe this sentence as referring or alluding to the some of the editors who took part in the earlier discussion and this RfC. If it's not, then it seems unnecessarily inflammatory and off-topic at best.

Regarding your argument about not "let[ting] down the guard against such quackery and pseudoscience": fighting against quackery and pseudoscience isn't and shouldn't be one of Wikipedia's goals. Wikipedia's guidelines may effectively work against quackery and pseudoscience in the long run (well, one would certainly expect that), but this is a consequence, not an objective. GregorB (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia does have a policy-based obligation to guard against pushing pseudoscientific views, per WP:PSCI (a part of WP:NPOV): "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but that's nothing more than WP:WEIGHT as specifically applied to pseudoscience. (There's also WP:FRINGE/PS.) My point is that the purpose of these guidelines is neutrality and balance, not fighting or "unmasking" pseudoscience or any other fringe view. Wikipedia doesn't take sides one way or the other apart from what is necessary for proper balance. GregorB (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Proper balance is not achieved by giving equal time to "both sides" of an issue. Neutrality is achieved by presenting a topic as the majority of the reliable sources report it. We say that, "...Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory..." and that "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view...", because they are true statements. To present them or this article as anything other than pseudoscience an quackery is taking a side against the reliable sources. It would be the very definition of a non-neutral point of view.--Adam in MO Talk 23:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I never said both sides should be given equal time. My point is that Wikipedia is not an activist platform against anything or anyone, which includes pseudoscience, and thinking that it is or that it should be leads to a completely wrong path when assessing the situation. GregorB (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Which seems to bring us back to Richfield's main point here, which is that we must maintain neutrality in the light of editors who are non-neutral and agenda-driven. This talk page shoes at least one example. Our default position is and should be against the promotion of pseudoscience, because the alternative is that our encyclopedia is taken over by vested interests, to which be have come perilously close many times already. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, they are not contentious. Even if they were, if the preponderance of the reliable sources report this as pseudoscience and quackery, then we should as well. This entire RFC is really about an irrelevant question.--Adam in MO Talk 23:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I would not say that "the preponderance of the reliable sources" report it that way. A large number of the sources cited are from so-called Skeptic authors, who set forth with the aim of debunking alt-med methods. More neutral sources focus on the *biologically plausible* concepts of structural alignment and movement - this seems to be the focus in modern Rolfing and I intend to prove that with source material. (Give me some time, this will be a bit of a project.) Also, precious few of those extreme sources use the term quackery - it's quite inflammatory as it implies an *intent to defraud* and an utter worthlessness of the product being sold. The consensus of the sources is not that it's worthless - even several of the opposing sources give a nod to the general benefit of bodywork. --Karinpower (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Quackery" doesn't necessarily imply an intent to defraud, or even "utter worthlessness" (the product may have some value, but not what is being asserted).--tronvillain (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A quick google provides this definition: Quackery is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices. A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan".

An intent to defraud is key, and that's why that word is inappropriate. There's no evidence of it, and it's a strong accusation to make so carelessly. It makes WP look sloppy and biased. --Karinpower (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make Wikipedia look anything, since Wikipedia is not asserting a view on "quackery" but merely observing this is how some sources characterise it (which they do). By your argument Wikipedia would never do this, right? Not even for homeopathy? I think for the first time ever I might mention WP:NOTCENSORED. I think the only valid counter-argument to the way we have invoked quackery is that it is not WP:DUE. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your own definition includes "or ignorant medical practices", which clearly means that being fraudulent is not required. As Alexbrn points out, the homeopathy article does precisely the same thing. --tronvillain (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Quackery? Rolfing doesn't even come close to the term. Should not be used in this context. Randy Kryn 00:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion?

So what can be concluded from the above? I notice it wasn't properly set up as an RfC so it's not going to get formally closed. I note the lede text wrt pseudoscience/quackery has changed since it started too, so it may all be moot in any case. In future, note it is better to form RfCs as definite questions which clear textual outcomes. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn -- you could address the poster, AaronMFeld, and ask him...

As I see it, results were a sizeable response and variety of inputs so seems to have been productive and interesting. Strongly 'yes' these labels are contentious, and for the lede it was mostly 'remove' quackery, and mostly 'keep' pseudoscience. The part about bias got less response -- and those who did were a variety of yes it is (remove), yes it is (keep it that way), and no it isn't. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beyerstein quote

Jim1138, regarding this, could you please provide a quote from the source in question that says Rolfing is pseudoscience? GregorB (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@GregorB: I would tend to agree, it is not clearly linked. I undid my revert. Thanks for the discussion! Jim1138 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138, I am also interested in seeing that quote please. AaronMFeld (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No need Aaron, the ref has been removed. GregorB (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jim1138 and GregorB, Beyerstein is still linked in the Reception section. Would one of you care to address that? I think if I do it my edit is likely to be perceived as biased and I'm trying to stay out of the firefight for now.--Karinpower (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's apparently gone from the article. I had no objections to the Beyerstein source per se, it's just that it didn't support the text. GregorB (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed it as it seemed a weak source (self-published?) when we have better. Alexbrn (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Distortions

Karinpower what are you doing? In this edit you mangle the text so that it does not represent the source, giving us a WP:V problem. I cannot copy the entry from Hammer as that would violate the terms under which I have access to it. You should not be summarizing sources you can't see (obviously). I will try and dig out a selected piece of text. Alexbrn (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I was able to get a copy. Thank you. --Karinpower (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing? Your summary bears little relation to the source! You say make Wikipedia say rolfing can "affect" trauma, but the source says no such thing. In general, there are a lot of "in-universe" rolfing sources used in this article which need to be reduced/removed and we have a NPOV problem as well as this new WP:V one. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a similar criticism about the sources you choose, and the way you choose to paraphrase them. The source says "activate," you say "unleash" - more appropriate for an exorcism than a bodywork session. "Affect" was my attempt at something milder. Do you have a suggestion for a more neutral verb?

Even if you disagree with my word choice, I hope you can see that the reorg of the paragraphs is a significant improvement. Hope we can reach an agreeable compromise. --Karinpower (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I gave it some additional thought. On one hand, we don't want to imply treatment of trauma (because MEDRS) so words like "address" are out. "Affect" has some of that problem too. Yet words like "unleash" are far too strong, implying that trauma gets activated without resolution or help, and that is more negative than what the source states. So - "awaken" is the olive branch that I extend to you. I have made the edit; I hope that is something you can live with.--Karinpower (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"affect" (or "address" as you had before) means the rolfing acts upon the trauma - a claim the source does not make. Unleash/awaken is good, "trigger" would work too or even just "cause". There is nothing in the source to say there is any "resolution or help" so to try and imply otherwise is rather naughty. Anyway, you've edit-warred your bad text in; I'll wait a while and read-up some more so we can get this article sorted out. Alexbrn (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As I just wrote, my first wording was imperfect - as was yours. I specifically stated that we are trying to avoid implying treatment (and that's why I agreed that "affect" wasn't optimal) so the word "naughty" is unwarranted and a bit condescending. The art of summarizing a source while maintaining the right tone sometimes requires a few iterations. Patience is a virtue in this regard. As is assuming good faith.

Sounds like "awaken" works for you; glad to hear it. My reverting of your edit with an attempt at compromise wording is certainly not edit-war behavior. That is simply the process. If you were to do less wholesale reverting and more attempts at specific wording changes that are likely to be suitable to all, that would be welcome. It's possible to have opposing points of view and still work in a cooperative way.... Starting by avoiding accusations of "naughty behavior" and edit-warring. --Karinpower (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is probably naughty to try and bend the meaning of text based on sources you hadn't even seen (after first trying to remove it), wouldn't you say? Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Prior to my edit, I was able to get that brief one-sentence quote over the phone (from a librarian who was kind enough to look it up) but didn't have a copy of the full text yet and was hoping there might be more substance to it. But indeed it was only a couple of sentences, just an offhand comment within a section on the Human Potential Movement. I have found that seeking the full text often gives more context.

Regardless, the word "naughty" is condescending and is not appropriately applied to adults (unless one is referring to sexual proclivities, which is clearly not what you meant). I am certainly younger than you, and female, so please watch your boundaries and use respect. And assume good faith. --Karinpower (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that Alex meant 'mischievious' rather than your deliberate misunderstanding. Bad form Karin. -Roxy the dog™ woof 01:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a deliberate misunderstanding. Naughty is a word applied to children, and it's condescending. We can express opinions while being respectful. --Karinpower (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies: no disrespect is intended, just mild eyebrow-raising. In general, it is obviously not a good idea to be summarizing sources one has not read. Left unchallenged, we would have been left with a POV misrepresentation of a source, and as it is, the challenge process necessitated by the initial WP:V error was a waste of editors' time. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Roxy the dog™, I think I see what you were referring to, and have slightly amended my comment to make it more clear.

Alexbrn (talk, as I said, I did have the one-line quote which was adequate to work from, but was hoping that the adjacent text would add more clarity. It didn't; it's really just a one-liner. As to my initial wording, it was stab at trying to find something more neutral. Your initial stab was far off neutral so you're in no position to blast me for that. I agree that the word "affect" wasn't perfect and worked to find better phrasing. This is a constructive and collaborative way to engage in the challenging process of finding wording that is tolerable to all. Luckily we are both here to prevent each other's "POV misrepresentations." --Karinpower (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

My initial edit was good and essentially identical to what we've ended up with (unless you are going to argue there is a large difference between the figurative use of "unleashing" and "awakening" for traumatic feelings, which would be silly). The succession of "POV misrepresentations" here have been entirely yours. Alexbrn (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The feeling of these verbs is quite different. From google definitions:

Activate: make (something) active or operative, or to convert (a substance, molecule, etc.) into a reactive form.

Unleash: to cause (a strong or violent force) to be released or become unrestrained.

Awaken: To rouse (a feeling) or to make someone aware of (something) for the first time (ex. "the movie helped to awaken the public to the horrors of apartheid").

The strength of the word "unleash" is significantly greater, and more negative, than "activate." I believe "awaken" is a similar strength and implication, neither positive nor negative.--Karinpower (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Cherry-picked definitions prove nothing. Comprehend: because - in the source - it is a "trauma" being activated it is something strong or violent and since I did not use the word "trauma" (but "memories") it was necessary to convey this traumatic nature with the verb. This is paraphrasing and not a "POV misrepresentation". You, on the other hand, first removed the entire concept and then tried to imply rolfing acted on or addressed this trauma (misrepresentation). Your current wording may fall afoul of WP:CLOP, which I think my initial wording avoided. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wholesale revert

Karinpower has performed a wholesale revert[10] of my many recent edits to this page. This revert removes a lot of new well-sourced material, restores some very weak sources, reverses correction of WP:V problems and reinstates several reference errors. Each of my edits was made individually and carefully commented so could be disagreed with in a granular fashion. This huge revert would seem to be disruptive. I have raised a query at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edits include a lot of highly controversial changes. Let's discuss it all here. Your well-sourced aspects can certainly be added. Your rewordings and removal of existing material needs to be discussed. You are well-aware that your edits would be controversial. You edited Boldy, they were Reverted, and now it's time to Talk about them here and seek consensus. --Karinpower (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well change what you disagree with. Performing a wholesale revert and demanding that even un-bold obvious correction have to be cleared by you is a form of WP:OWNership. You are aware discretionary sanctions apply to this page. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm here because of the FTN post. I don't see anything specifically objectionable to Alex's edit, and it seems overall like a very informative improvement to me. I'd rather it be put back in. Specific issues can be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ownership is exactly my complaint about Alexbrn's behavior. Let's start from yesterday's version and take the edits from there. I'm *not* saying that all of your edits are invalid - but that by making them all at once, you make it extremely difficult to address them one by one. Perhaps that was intentional. You did the exact same wholesale revert to me recently, when I made about 5 edits, some controversial but some not (including improvements to the cites on existing sources). Nor did you make any effort to cull out the non-controversial aspects. Revert and wash your hands of it. Meanwhile, I'm looking through your edits to see what's what. It's a real mix.--Karinpower (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The edits were made individually, not "all at once". Meanwhile we wait with obvious errors in the article for you to perform a personal review ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

An ip has undone the revert, which I would have done myself. The original edits all seem fine to me. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts and making 41 individual edits without adequate descriptions to each edit make it difficult to follow and have adequate discussion. Although the 41 edits were made individually, since there are so many of them, it was basically a rewrite of the entire article. Using a previous version and being able to digest a number of changes at a time seems more workable to me. Thatcher57 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

We're dealing with a "start class" article - the bottom rung of quality. Let's try and get the quality raised. Each edit had a description. Anyway now we have a stable basis, perhaps somebody might like to raise a substantive point of content rather than doing processology? Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Do you people want the wrong version protected and then you can start debating the edits? Cause other than that, I don't see a resolution on which version to go off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the question is: does anybody have anything concrete to say about any particular bit of content (whether new/changed or removed)? So far, nothing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't. The minor technical and grammatical fixes are fine and the formatting seems correct. I haven't checked the integrity of the sourcing but I don't see anyone else disputing particular ones at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with Alexbrn's version. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As am I. It's a bit over-sympathetic to Rolfing, but that's OK. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that if you look at the entire history of this article that it is clear that the reverts and additions made by Alexbrn really pushed this article over the edge into a hostile point of view piece. There is absolutely no excuse for the repetition of "quackery" material twice in the article; once in the introduction and then at the end. That is unless one wants to push the highly contentious and perjorative, and it is a shame that the article is being left in this bad shape, as well as just an example of poor writing. I wholeheartedly agree with Karinpower. AaronMFeld (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be in the lede, but the "reception" part of the "Effectiveness and reception" section may be a little unbalanced. After all, despite the lack of evidence of effectiveness, it presumably enjoys some popularity beyond In 2010 the New York Times reported that rolfing was enjoying a "resurgence" following an endorsement from Dr Oz on The Oprah Winfrey Show. --tronvillain (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should be rationalized. I have however checked the sources and what we now have is at least accurate to them. We probably do need to mention quackery (contentious though it may be here) because it does seem to be a rather frequent categorization of rolfing from independent sources. Alexbrn (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn How come that you are satisfied with the quackery references does not come as very much of a surprise? Given the integrity of the citations, you might as well cite Oprah for evidence of effectiveness. Rose Shapiro is a Journalist not a scientist, not a physician, and her book is a sensationalist piece, full of juicy, tongue wagging tidbits about the Royal Family's use of alternative medicine. Not a good source at all. AaronMFeld (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of obvious that Rolfing is in the realm of quackery (silly nonsense sold with false claims of effectiveness) so we don't really need a strong source for this. Alexbrn (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn But you see that your own personal view on whether Rolfing is or is not quackery has no place in this article. That is the problem here, you don't need strong sources because what exists presently is in line with your own views. You need to learn to compromise. You need to learn objectivity in spite of your own (strongly held) personal views. AaronMFeld (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

We have sources, so this seems to be a red herring. I agree with Alexbrn that Rolfing is obvious pseudoscience. As discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, obvious pseudoscience or "generally considered to be pseudoscience" should be clearly labelled as such. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup, we have sources and per WP:PARITY they are fine - in fact necessary - to counterbalance some of the nonsense we are quoting from the Rolfing proponents. Best to WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

One thing I am not getting. Why is the "quackery" references even needed? Certainly the label "pseudoscience" conveys the message that rolfing is considered "fake science" by some, the addition of "quackery" is subsumed by that label. And I still don't see what is the reason for repetition in both beginning and end of the article. And nobody, in all the discussion here, has given any reason why it should be repeated or why it belongs in the introduction. Care to explain these two issues please? AaronMFeld (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE summarizes the body, and should contain any significant controversy mentioned there. We make mention of "quackery" in the article because sources do too. Alexbrn (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

But this is not being presenting it as a "controversy", it is being presented as a "fact", thus no reason for it being in the lede at all if it is presented in that manner. Have it only in "reception and effectiveness", if at all. And it should not be in there at all, as the sources are not reliable. AaronMFeld (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEDE: we need to include significant criticism. WP:PSCI is also pertinent as the fringe nature of Rolfing needs to be prominent. Alexbrn (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Alternative vs. Natural

Markbassett, here you changed "alternative" to "natural", because that was the label they used for the review, but I'm not entirely sure that justifies changing it here. It seems more likely to confuse than to clarify - "natural therapy" does not seem to be well defined, and actually redirects on Wikipedia to naturopathy. Their own definition isn't even especially clear:

Definition of a natural therapy

In-scope therapies are referred to as ‘natural’, ‘alternative’ and/or ‘complementary’ and are offered through General Treatment cover under complying health insurance policies by private health insurance (PHI) that are not eligible to be subsidised directly under Medicare and are not provided by a health professional registered under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS).

For the purposes of the review, a natural therapy is one which is being offered by a private health insurer, and is defined as a treatment that meets the definition of general treatment under section 121-10 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007

At the very least, we could consider putting "natural therapies" in quotes. --tronvillain (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's already been reverted.--tronvillain (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

tronvillain - this is odd ... I didn't get a ping from the addressing to Markbassett above... I'm just seeing this as I'm coming to talk on unnecessary quotemarks, as I saw that my other edit of that got undone and then saw Alex sent me a vague talk bit to talk here.

Anyway, I put in the word 'natural' as the word used and felt use of alternative instead was incorrect, that someone had applied the wrong word to the cited items. The word natural is used and specifically highlighted in the article cited as lay summary (e.g. 'many "natural" therapies'), which also uses 'alternative' for other things. Natural is also the term in the Australian document the article refers to. I think it improper to paraphrase this into 'alternative' since both sources seem to have made a distinct choice there, and it also would be improper to wikilink it to wikipedia's article as they did not mean naturopathy. (That WP redirects there seems a different problem.) So I favor just follow the cites and convey what they say as best able. Markbassett (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what distinction, if any, is given in the review's use of "natural" and "natural therapies". It's sometimes used as a title, sometimes used in quotes. My reading is that is an Australian synonym for alternative medicine. The Lay summary source does not make the same distinction, and uses almost always uses quotes. "Alternative" is clearer, more descriptive, and more widely used. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That is odd. Do you need to have created your user page in order for that function to work?

Anyway, I am aware that the word natural is in the Australian review (see the quoted material above), but the Science Based Medicine article uses quotes: A comprehensive Australian review has found that there is a uniform lack of good quality clinical evidence to support the use of 17 different “natural” treatments, and The reality with many “natural” remedies is that there is often a lack of good evidence with which to evaluate them. I'm not saying that we should wikilink to natural therapy, I'm using the fact that it redirects to naturopathy as an example of how "natural therapy" is not well defined or commonly used, while alternative therapy at least refers one to alternative medicine (which is also the redirect for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Complementary Medicine). Accurately conveying the results of the review in this article is not the same as just quoting the review directly. --tronvillain (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Because one encounters so much rolfing in nature... - Nunh-huh 23:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary quotemarks & simple english

For the reactions section I'm wanting to drop as unnecessary the quotemarks around one-word or short phrases. It just seems unnecessary to enquote basic English words especially when there is an immediate cite on the line which uses that word. Unless the word use is *externally* contentious so it needs to be clear that it is only them that says so, or the words are unusual, or the short phrase is a combination of special meaning outside normal English usage which needs identification (e.g. the phrase "Black Lives Matter"), there just does not seem to be a need.

The section doing this amount of naming the source, quoting a word, and then giving the cite seems contrary to MOS:QUOTE and intrusively excessive, and possibly giving the appearance of sarcasm or scare-quotes.

Look, I hadn't thought this beyond a simple english-fix on punctuation need, but was surprised to see revert.

If someone has a reason that the article specifically has to say call out ACS as the party, then to specially highlight "concern" in addition to simply saying it with a cite, then please please enlighten me. I really think the article would be more encyclopedic and readable to just say it and tag the cite(s) rather than announcing who the cite is from, and then saying it with the part cite refers to being enquoted.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:CLOP. If phrases (or even distinctive words) are lifted verbatim from sources, it can be wise to quote them to avoid WP:PLAGIARISM. Ideally, content should be paraphrased but sometimes this is not easy when a precise meaning needs to be conveyed. Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I will try again with that in mind. But I'm a bit confused since you also objected at the Australian line to me doing W:CLOP "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy." -- concern you sent to my Talk seemed to be that the Australian study should use verbatim their phrase. I'll try to split the difference and edit the parts of that line seeing where words drawn from the cites goes. The concern is that the line is a bit off from conveying what the items were fully saying or their main points.

• effort characterized as part of having to do Government cuts, not Insurance per se
• a review of the studies 2008-2013 for these 17, a level of evidence evaluation
• conclusion paucity of studies -- found small number that lacked randomized control testing

Markbassett (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think it is a big deal either way, and edit-warring about it risks venturing into WP:LAME territory. I can see that both folks have raised a valid point. On the one hand, using quotation marks makes it clear that this is the wording used in the source. On the other hand, we can probably safely assert this in Wikipedia's voice. But if Alex, the author of the sentence, feels better about it being in quotation marks, then I think WP:RETAIN should prevail here. Quotation marks certainly do no harm. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted editors to be aware that the quotation marks are there for a reason and that they take the danger of close paraphrasing into account when making edits. As to the other issue which I think is being raised here: we should summarize the findings of the Australian review with regard to efficacy, and not start surfacing undue detail about how their conclusions were reached - hence my revert. Starting talking about "selection criteria" and so on raises unanswered questions and gives too much weight to non-essential detail (which is why in Wikipedia's good medical articles, we just don't do it). Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały - Well, I'm thinking the Alex concern above was on a bit not earlier enquoted, part of the conflusion being some lines in that section have an example of the stated as a quote approach. But in general I'll respect that some kind of a desire for quotes exists beyond what I see as needed or as bad style. Where I am paraphrasing per WP:CLOP would not be a quote, where the word(s) are being highlighted as from the source indicated will be I do understand and can reflect that in the Alex concern to draw from the cite for the Austrailian bit by adding quotemarks. I'm still lacking a why (what basis) folks were looking at when they picked a single english word like "concern" to be enquoted, but I'll try to make quotes happen more than I felt good. Meh. Markbassett (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Avoid "scare quotes" (like that) in encyclopedic writing, per MOS:QUOTE and WP:NPOV. All it does is strongly imply the words so-called or supposed before the term put in quotation marks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this this usage of quotation marks seems pretty consistent with this: "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional." The example they give is Right: Siskel and Ebert called the film "unforgettable", and isn't that exactly what Alexbrn is doing? --tronvillain (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

tronvillain - eh. American Cancer Society statement doesn't seem an emotive/emotional opinion. It seems a factual medical caution to not do hard massage of a tumor. Similarly obvious would be to not do it to broken bones, recent surgery, or advanced pregnancy - but ACS obviously has a tumor focus. Why have that single word "concern" enquoted is still not clear to me. Markbassett (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that one seems less necessary. EDIT: Wait, that one isn't in quotes anyway. --tronvillain (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

tronvillain - Yup that's only one this section (Unnecessary quotemarks & simple english) has so far. I'm still thinking where these others are simple English does not need quotes that would highlight it as if it were an emotive or a special-meaning phrase, but respect that others are wanting quotes more than I feel needed or right. I think no need to enquote the single word "resurgence" or the 3 words "safety, quality and cost-effectiveness" either but meh. Markbassett (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Australians - closer to cite's "clear evidence they are clinically effective" "has not been found"

Seems minor substance disconnects in wording for Effectiveness and reception at the Australian item.

This started with just straightening the odd placement of semicolon. Then I saw line 1 said it would 'determine suitability' odd when line 2 goes to 'lack of available' and the meaning of the article words were not very clear. So I looked at the cited stuff and saw that the article wording did not well convey things.

The meaning of just "no clear evidence" was unclear, it is hard to see that cite was saying 'not enough studies to tell' or "paucity of evidence". So better with rewording.

The wording at sought 'suitability for insurance' is different from cites talking about 'rebate' and 'to cut government costs', and that it just stated conclusions about literature 2008-2013. But even stating any 'sought to' seemed going into ugly motives morass away from simply conveying the outcome and better dropped.

So a change (bolded here, not in article) to make the outcome more clear and to remove motives ...

In 2015 the Australian Government's Department of Health published a review of 17 natural therapies including Rolfing which found no clinical studies meeting their criteria and concluded clear evidence they are effective had not been found.[3] The lack of available evidence means that both health providers and consumers are also unable to determine the "safety, quality and cost-effectiveness" of rolfling provision.[3]

Which I think more faithfully and understandably conveys the items in cite than this

In 2015 the Australian Government's Department of Health published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by health insurance; Rolfing was one of 17 therapies evaluated for which no clear evidence of effectiveness was found.[3] The lack of available evidence means that both health providers and consumers are also unable to determine the "safety, quality and cost-effectiveness" of rolfling provision.[3]

Anyone got any other way to word the two points of 'sought studies, insufficient found' ? Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it's good as is. We don't go into the weeds with talk of a review's selection criteria (ever, on Wikipedia, in my memory) as it is undue detail and creates unanswered questions. Readers that want that level of detail can read the cited reference. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better as is in following FRINGE, MEDRS, etc. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The review literally says There is a lack of evidence available from SRs for the effectiveness of rolfing for any clinical condition. The safety, quality and/or cost-effectiveness of rolfing are also unable to be determined, as no SRs were identified as well as There was no submitted literature that provided evidence for the effectiveness of rolfing for any clinical condition. Seems to work as it is, though I'm not entirely sure about the "provision" on the end. --tronvillain (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

tronvillain - The difference of meaning was more what I was looking at, but sure... I also think that's weird wording too and will do the minor edit to whack off that odd ending. Markbassett (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

American Cancer Society source

A careful look at the American Cancer Society source reveals that this phrasing is not quite accurate. The source says bodywork in general can be ok/helpful for comfort (but not for treaating cancer, obviously), however deep manipulations are a concern - and Rolfing can include deep manipulations (implication: that aspect of Rolfing should be avoided around tumor sites). It states that it's not known whether such manipulation can spread cancer (might depend on the type of cancer, etc) so best to avoid it until more is known. It also says to use only bodywork practitioners familiar with working with cancer, and not to do it in the absence of other regular medical care. The linked source is missing some of this text - it's several pages long so I'm not sure how to best provide a copy of it. --Karinpower (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Karinpower - This also isn't part of the Australian 'not much data' report, but sure, that line is also unclear, and not really conveying that ACS seems advising against strong pressure on a tumor, whatever the school of deep massage or other cause may be. It's also not advisable to squish a pregnancy, broken bones, or site of recent surgery... maybe other things. I may go back and try to capture the conditions it is used for and the conditions it is advised against. Markbassett (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake; this belongs in a new section, which I have have created. Thanks for your consideration regarding this other source. I suggest the following wording: "The American Cancer Society says that it is unknown whether bodywork near tumors can spread cancer, so deep bodywork must be avoided in those areas. While bodywork is not a cancer treatment, ACS supports its use to improve quality of life during cancer recovery." This source is overall mildly positive yet cautious, and our paraphrase should reflect that.--Karinpower (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

To say "ACS supports its use to improve quality of life during cancer recovery" [my bold] would seem to be a blatant misrepresentation of the source which says that although there are "reports" bodywork is helpful, "very little scientific research has been done to find out what positive effects these treatments can offer." Specifically on Rolfing, ACS say "Some people find Rolfing painful" and "Rolfing can involve deep manipulation of soft tissues, which is a concern during active cancer treatment." We should reflect what ACS says about Rolfing in particular (perhaps expanding on what the "concern" is), not smudge this into bodywork in general and then misrepresent the source! Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a double standard; many of the quotes that you cite are describing a whole collection of alt-med methods, not specifically Rolfing (Agin and Shapiro in particular). So it's odd that you say we should "not smudge this into bodywork in general." This source is describing just 4 methods with the term "bodywork" so it's not a stretch to apply its comments about bodywork to Rolfing specifically - and Rolfing is a type of bodywork (in terms of how it is performed). Rolfing has a range from gentle to deep; the source says to avoid deep work around tumor sites. Gentle bodywork is okay, and "can be adapted to meet the needs of cancer patients" and it "may be used to enhance quality of life." I agree with your point that the work "support" is best avoided. How about this: "The American Cancer Society says that it is unknown whether bodywork near tumors can spread cancer, so deep bodywork must be avoided in those areas. While bodywork is not a cancer treatment, ACS says that gentle bodywork can be safely used during cancer recovery." This accurately portrays that the source says thata if people want to get gentle bodywork, they can. If you insist I would be fine with an additional phrase about practitioners have training in dealing with cancer, as the source does recommend that. --Karinpower (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No because that still totally misrepresents the source. It says two things about rolfing: that "Some people find Rolfing painful" and "Rolfing can involve deep manipulation of soft tissues, which is a concern during active cancer treatment." WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It says "Rolfing *can" involve deep manipulation" - true, Rolfing has a full range of touch, and can be done gently. So no problem there. Deep manipulation (at the site of tumors) is a concern. Yes, what I wrote covers that. The pain question has been addressed elsewhere in the article; this source could be added as an additional source there. Your reading of sources tends to pull the most negative aspects - yet, this source is not inherently negative. We can absolutely stick to the source, and that includes both the facts and the tone. --Karinpower (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If we're sticking to the source then no change in required, other than perhaps to add that the ACS say some people find rolfing painful. The ACS's general comment on bodywork ("very little scientific research has been done to find out what positive effects these treatments can offer") might usefully go in our bodywork] article. Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

An accurate paraphrase without a slant one way or the other would be: The American Cancer Society say that the deep soft tissue manipulations such as those used in Rolfing are a concern if practiced on people with cancer near tumor sites. Thatcher57 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Thatcher57 (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicely done, I'll make the change.

PS. As I made the edit on the page, the sentence seems a bit cumbersome. Can we simply say "The American Cancer Society say that the deep soft tissue manipulations such as those used in Rolfing *should not be* practiced on people with cancer near tumor sites"? I think "concern" is actually too weak in this case - rather those manipulations are to be strictly avoided at tumor sites. Thanks.--Karinpower (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "concern" as proposed, in quotation marks if necessary to convey it's exactly what ACS says. It will dovetail nicely with the Gorski report if we insert that too ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Supplying quotations

I'd like to ask the editors to try to emulate this edit - that is, to supply all contentious referenced statements with the supporting quotations. This is very important to have with offline sources, although it's definitely nice to have with online sources too.

On a side note: hats off to everyone who worked on the article lately - it may have been nasty at times, but the end result is much, much better content, and that's what matters. GregorB (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree the article is much improved - still some way to go. Maybe WP:GA one day, who knows! Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction, GregorB. The nastiness does make it intimidating for new editors to contribute. Thatcher57 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@GregorB, the edit you asked us to emulate includes a quotation from the source that supports the pseudoscience language, but no quote is provided to support the quackery. Wouldn't that be worthwhile as well? Thatcher57 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact, when responding to the RfC, I felt I didn't have sufficient information: while the references were supplied, of course, there was no way to assess the context. Regarding the contentiousness of the "quackery" qualification in the RfC, my position was "weak yes", but it could have been "no" had I been able to see a good quote that supported it. I didn't want to use {{qn}}, though, even if it's always legitimate to do so for offline sources when there is doubt about their interpretation. GregorB (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning that template! I wasn't aware that there was such a succinct way to ask for a quote. --Karinpower (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the template, unfortunately. I tried to use the format from the edit, but couldn't get it to work. @GregorB, @Karinpower is there a WP page or tutorial on this? I tried to search for it, but couldn't find it. Sorry for my new editor ignorance. Thatcher57 (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, an explanation would help. WP is full of these little tricks! GregorB mentioned . I had to look it up to see what that meant. I just switched to "view" instead of "edit" so I could see how the system renders it - it turns it into a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Request_quotation. So if I understand correctly, you can plop into the article, presumably right after the citation in question. Usually we try to provide a googlebooks link in the citation but sometimes the text just isn't available online. Hope that clears it up - and others please do chime in if I got anything wrong. --Karinpower (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That is very helpful on several levels, Karinpower Thanks for helping a newbie. I figured it out with the visual editor. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What one needs to do is to insert {{qn}} after the statement in question. I'm not sure how it goes with the visual editor, I've heard inserting templates with VE can be tricky. GregorB (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing cancer away?

David Gorski has mentioned Rolfing at ScienceBlogs[11] (a handy source per WP:PARITY) and recounts how one of his cancer patients had had their tumorous breast massaged in an attempt to "rolf the tumor away". I think this content is WP:DUE here and dovetails nicely with the concerns expressed by the American Cancer Society about rolfing cancer patients. Yet Karinpower has deleted it.[12] Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

An anecdote about a patient who reported a strange interaction with a alt-med practitioner who claimed to perhaps be trying some "Rolfing" on them does not make for a compelling piece of information about Rolfing. A patient could claim that a medical doctor offered to do "energetic surgery" on them but that would say nothing about medicine as a practice, nor even about that doctor, as it is a report from a patient, no better than heresay. No responsible practitioner would attempt to massage a tumor. --Karinpower (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No true Scotsman eh? Leaving fallacy aside, the fact is we have the ACS warning about rolfing cancer sites, and here Gorski reporting it happens. We should be going by what these independent sources say, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

ACS says no deep work on tumors because that is an obvious precaution (well known within all types of bodywork). ASC does not imply that any practitioners (Rolfers or otherwise) are violating common sense in that regard. I also can't fathom that any bodyworker (Rolfer or otherwise) would claim to use it to treat cancer - since it clearly doesn't. Gorski's offhand mention of a "patient" who may or may not exist - and the 'tumor massage' that they may or may not have experienced - by a practitioner who is likely not even a Rolfer - is a surprising twist on your approach to this article. You claim to value science and reason, yet your use of this source doesn't fit with that. Just drop this one. --Karinpower (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"who may or may not exist"? What do you mean by that? Be aware the WP:BLP policy applies to Talk pages. It seems likely the ACS warn specifically about rolfing tumor sites because they've heard it actually happens. And here we have a surgical oncologist reporting it does. Anyway, Wikipedia should reflect what pertinent WP:FRINDependent souces say. The ACS and Gorski's account make a good pairing, I submit (Besides, rolfers seem to make all kinds of bizarre claims in this area: this one[13] for example seems to be claiming that Rolfing® SI can eliminate or prevent cancer in dogs!) Alexbrn (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No, ACS does not in any way imply that they have heard about practitioners working on tumors. This is simply a standard contraindication for bodywork. Also, the author does not state the practitioner was a Certified Rolfer, but that they claiming to "try to rolf the tumor away." Massaging a tumor is far outside of the scope of Rolfing, and in fact would be grounds for an ethics case through the Rolf Institute for putting a client in danger (or more likely, a cease and desist letter to a non-Rolfer who claims to do Rolfing). Again, this anecdote is hearsay. Far too many problems to warrant a mention in an encyclopedic article.

As to that book, I was unfamiliar with it. Based on a brief look, it is absolutely not suggesting working on active cancer. Rather it seems to be speculating that bodywork early in life could be part of a wellness plan that might potentially prevent future illness. That's a big speculation, for sure, but it is a far cry from massaging a tumor. --Karinpower (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - This is not WP:DUE any coverage. WP:DUE or WP:WEIGHT is the weight of how many sources say a thing, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As this is a single anecdote report which lacks significant impact on the world itself and lacks any repeats or similar cases, it has negligible weight. One blogger somewhere in the world says X happened once is not a significant view or significant event.

- - This seems also not good as a WP:RS since this is not a scholarly work or serious effort by an independent party -- this is a rant-blog site under a pseudonym 'Orac' relating a tale third-hand as part of a general polemic against CAM. There should be no expectation of the author was given good information, understood the information, or was not intentionally exaggerating and/or fabricating it. Markbassett (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In the light of recent discussions I think this cancer may in fact be due. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, Gorski has no way of knowing what type of practitioner claimed to be doing "Rolfing." Work on tumors is strictly contraindicated in every form of bodywork. Any practitioner who is adequately trained would know that, and in fact untrained people would consider it to be common sense. We would need much stronger evidence that "tumor Rolfing" is being taught or practiced by Rolfers in order to include anything about that. I haven't seen evidence that Rolfing purports to be a cancer treatment. The only discussions of Rolfing for cancer patients is whether is it safe to do in non-tumor areas. The recommendations for that seem to be exactly the same as for other bodywork, and generally include physician approval. --Karinpower (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question - is there any evidence that Rolfing/massage/bodywork affects metastasis one way or the other? I know that Rolfers have this belief that what they do has profound effects, but can Rolfing or other forms of bodywork actually .. i don't know that the imagined mechanism is... mechanically break up a tumor so that little pieces go floating away and become metastases? (this Rolfer says the concern about massage in cancer is that it might increase circulation and cause cancer to spread, which is just nonsense, per the NCI - note that the phrase "energy balance" there means calories taken in vs calories burned, not woo energy) Anyway - is promoting metastasis a risk of Rolfing (and other bodywork) or not? Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the standard recommendations for bodywork (including massage and Rolfing) are overly cautious, however that is the current attitude. Even the ACS source says that it's unknown whether bodywork could spread cancer (and that risk would vary by type of cancer anyway), so it's safest just to avoid work near tumors. I doubt we will see studies about this because of the liability; generally overcautious recommendations don't do harm. --Karinpower (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. I just want to be sure to not drink the koolaid. So easy to slip into that! Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

True! I appreciate your caution about that, and I also appreciate that you are willing to reassess as more information is presented. As the saying goes, "It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."--Karinpower (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Gorski content does not meet the criteria for a good source and I can't see how it's due at all. I thought that we were trying to improve the level of sources in this article. Drawing from blogs and undocumented anecdotes certainly lowers the bar. I haven't done any research about whether there are studies concerning deep tissue massage facilitating metastasis, but since the American Cancer Society source states that it should be avoided, the statement currently in the article is reasonable. Thatcher57 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Scienceblogs is a good source in this context. We need good rational sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a good source, especially for the claim that practitioners attempt to "Rolf away the tumor". This seems to be explicitly contraindicated by other sources of a generally higher quality. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a very well vetted source and is widely used in Wikipedia for things like this. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a blog, which (by default) is not usable as a WP:RS reliable source. Per WP:PARITY we can sometimes use poorer sources like this one, provided we do so carefully, but there are better sources that contradict it. So I think it's unusable as a source to say that practitioners try to "Rolf away the tumors". Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a blog, true. But ScienceBlogs is by invitation only, is under the aegis of the National Geographic, and Gorski is an acknowledged expert both on cancer and altmed. I'm not sure any sources contradict this. While rolfists may well say they don't attempt to treat cancer the two independent sources we have on this say that it is "a concern" (ACS) and that it actually happens (Gorski). However, it may be undue to include this so I won't push. But I don't think we should be dissing the source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

ASC does not in any way imply that anyone is trying to work directly on tumors. Rather the contrary.

For Gorski to be a "expert" on altmed, he should do a bit more investigation before making his comments. He shows a surprisingly lack of familiarity. His comment about Rolfing is pretty far off our other sources, and the same with Feldenkrais where he compared it to "glorified yoga," when actually the two have little in common. How can we trust his assessments if he hasn't done the research?--Karinpower (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing for dogs ...

and cats, and horses, seems to be a thing in the Rolfing literature (though not small pets as they might get squished - seriously). Wonder if there are any WP:FRIND sources on this. Alexbrn (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn Hmm -- seems too small and a sidecomment no longer the human treatment Rolfing and there is no official training for rolfing of horses etcetera. Just some certified rolfers are a tiny part of Veterinary_medicine#Allied_professions massage in Equine massage and Canine massage etcetera using their deep pressure techniques and alignment focus. The difficulty in finding WP:RS items makes me think the subset of rolfers doing such is just below WP:WEIGHT worth any mention. And few sources leaves one without much content to include. I do see these, maybe worth a matching tiny remark in the Reception area ?

• Practical Horseman Magazine
• Animal Healing in Google books
• and the Nov 2015 Rolf journal

Up to you, Markbassett (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I did think on my rambles I saw somebody claim they were certified in equine SI, but this does seem a niche-in-a-niche maybe. Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll stick to evidence based doggy medicine, thank you very much. -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think people do bodywork on cats, generally. Dogs and horses, yes. I don't have a preference as to whether it gets a brief mention in the article or not. I agree that sources are a bit sparse. --Karinpower (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Training, certification, costs, prevalence &c.

Would be good to have some more on this, probably in a section. Some questions it'd be good to have sources for (preferably independent):

• How much does it cost to be trained as a rolfer, and how long is the course (for both Europe and US for a start)?
• What qualifications are required (if any)?
• Course content? (this would really benefit from independent sources or there would be WP:WEIGHT difficulties)
• What proportion of rolfing is provided by certified practitioners?
• What are the typical costs for a 10 session course of rolfing.
• Where in the world in rolfing popular?

Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A section on Education would be a valuable addition, if we can gather independent sources, as it seems in keeping with other similar articles. Thatcher57 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher57 - FWIW, my impression is she trademarked the term so only the Colorado school seems a 'certified Rolfer', which I read taught 50 to 100 per year for many years to do the 10-session deep massage with contortions to adjust body alignment in posture and during movement. There seems to also be a recent British Academy of Rolfing Structural Integation (BARSI) website. (Seems an application interview and then about 2,000 British pounds and several months ?) Markbassett (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

BARSI, Aha! this says to get trained costs £12,117 (approx. us$16,000). Qualification is to be "of university level or able to show that you have had a successful professional career" and be over 25. Training time seems to be ~77 days over 2 years + mentoring. I think we'd need some secondary coverage of this for this to be due however. Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - well that makes more sense, it was hard to see how she could make a living by teaching at the lower amounts ... maybe the 2,000 pounds and several months I was seeing was just one of several parts to the training. Markbassett (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the first I heard of a UK school. Seems to be a project of the US (Boulder Colorado) and the European Rolfing schools. http://www.britishacademyofrolfing.co.uk/about-us/. It's tricky to find secondary sources on data such as costs and numbers of practitioners; if the source is more than a couple years old it's hard to guess whether the numbers are close enough to accurate to be worth citing. --Karinpower (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

I disagree with the assessment made by Karin on Jimbo's talk page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Just sayin' -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Any issues here are a long way from needing to go to arbcom, which is a last (not a first) resort. This talk page is a good place to seek consensus and we have a reasonable number of active people here. In line with WP:SEEKHELP a further posting to WP:FT/N may be useful. Rolfing article problems have been addressed there in the past ... Alexbrn (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#A_question_regarding_the_arbitration_process

It looks like a simple request to understand the Arbitration Enforcement process. An editor has responded and pointed to WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I am glad for that information on this. It seems that as editors we should reach a better consensus on several items. I am a new editor and therefore not very bold as I am unsure how to go about this. It is particularly intimidating as the editors working on this article obviously have opposite POV, and that shows up in the tone. (In other words, I think it could be improved with regards to WP:IMPARTIAL and agree with the recent assessment that it has elements of personal opinion.) Is it better to create a discussion on Talk about specific points or better to make an edit and hash it out after the fact? Thatcher57 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Either approach is good. A lot of people like the WP:BRD approach. Be sure to be specific about things though as this really helps discussion! Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Template Messages

Wow, just came across this article and was quite surprised at how UN-encyclopedic it is. It seems that someone has a bone to pick with Rolfing. I added template messages to get some attention over here. nycdi (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there is an active RfC, that would seem redundant. Alexbrn (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nycdi: Instead of a WP:DRIVEBYTAG, would you please describe how it is unencyclopedic, what is wrong with the tone, and why it is essay-like? Also, please add what you recommend to be done to correct the problem? If you are not willing to do so, perhaps removal of the tags would be best. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Doesn't a template message sort of speak for itself? I was not aware that I was required to explain why I added a template. Okay, so, I added the "tone" template because this article comes across as not very neutral at all. I added the "essay-like" template because it is full of unsubstantiated opinions. Hence, the two issues combined make an UN-encyclopedic article. I have no idea why it seems that some people are very zealous about promoting their view of Rolfing over neutrality. I question the motives of the person who removed the templates I added. We are not supposed to remove templates until after the reason they were put there is resolved. nycdi (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Classic drive-by. Will watch developments with interest. -Roxy the dog™ bark 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

IMO, as one example, this paragraph: "There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition.[5] It is recognized as a pseudoscience,[6][7][8][9] and has been characterized as quackery.[10][11] Neither practitioners nor consumers of rolfing have any good evidence upon which to conclude that rolfing is either safe or cost-effective.[2][12]" does not reflect encyclopedic tone, especially in the intro. The intro section should include an overview of information in the article, but instead this intro unduly focuses on evidence and effectiveness. And, the paragraph itself unnecessarily repeats information. Thatcher57 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:PSCI we are obliged to make pseudoscientific/fringe categorisations prominent and per WP:LEDE significant criticism should be included. For a medical treatment there can hardly be a more important consideration than efficacy and so it should be given prominence, using the strongest sources this article has. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that a statement about the pseudoscientific nature should be included in the introduction, but the current version is overboard with its repetition and mention of quackery when the sources for that information seem limited as noted in other places on this page. Thatcher57 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC on that topic. Rolfing is obviously pseudoscience ("energy fields", emotions in collagen, etc.) and we have very strong sources; the quackery issue seems more nuanced. I suggest waiting for the RfC to finish on those questions. Since pretty much every source outside of the rolfing universe seems dismissive/derisive or Rolfing, Wikipedia is obliged to reflect that to be neutral. That is what neutrality is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

talk stated that sources outside the Rolfing universe agree; this is certainly not true. Sources from a so-called "Skeptic" POV are dismissive of Rolfing but there are a good collection of non-Rolf-affliated sources cited which are neutral to positive; many of them focus on the physical alignment aspects which seems to be the modern focus of Rolfing (I do suspect the vitalistic energy crap is a feature of the history of this method but fell away as the culture shifted away from the Human Potential Movement's influence). So there is indeed controversy in the sources, not consensus, and the article should portray that.

Also there are a handful of critical sources that only mention the word "Rolfing" *once* in the entire publication (in a long list of methods) with no additional critique that is specific to Rolfing; these sources weaken the strength of those arguements and should be removed entirely - there are already enough critical sources that include at least a full paragraph dedicated to evaluating the topic.

Back to the template question, here's my analysis. "There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" is a fair statement and it should continue to be in the lede - and this statement is adequate for summarizing Effectiveness. No evidence is no evidence. We've covered the pseudoscience/quackery topic; essentially the controversy should be stated more succinctly in the lede (simply to say that some critics consider it pseudoscience) yet more specifically in Reception (that is, which specific aspects of Rolfing are pseudo scientific vs which are biologically plausible and therefore "unproven" rather than pseudo).

The "safe or cost-effective" statements here (and in Reception) are unnecessary; lack of good evidence covers it, and frankly consumers always need to take responsibility for evaluating whether anything is safe and cost-effective, including plenty of common allopathic procedures. Those statements should be deleted. --Karinpower (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"are unnecessary" Why? it's what the source says. Cost-effectiveness is an important consideration for something people pay for, ain't it? We should follow the good quality sources in this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Since pretty much every source outside of the rolfing universe seems dismissive/derisive [of] Rolfing . . ." This statement is inaccurate and the root of the POV problems in this article. There are quite a few sources that see merit in rolfing and they are more comprehensive than many of the sources that categorize it as pseudoscience. We should seek to find balance and dismissing or ignoring the sources that don't support our personal POV is not going to be constructive. Thatcher57 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please show us these new independent sources which reveal the "merit" of rolfing. Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Will do. I am gathering additional research, but wanting to do a good job and read all the sources, not just the ones that reflect a certain perspective. And that takes time. In the meantime, there are sources already used in the article that are not "dismissive or derisive" of rolfing that are not given enough weight. Therefore, the template message regarding the unencyclopedic/opinion tone seems reasonable until we can reach better consensus. Thatcher57 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC) .

Based on my own humble attempts to find sources via Google scholar, I have to say I am not at all impressed at the quality of the pro-Rolfing sources. Many of these are walled-garden fringe sources. Excluding those, there are a few primary sources published in more mainstream places, but nothing that would pass WP:MEDRS unfortunately. I think the subject is somewhat tricky to achieve a neutral point of view, though, because although it's "only massage" (and thus I would think held to a somewhat lower standard of sources than medical) Rolfing in particular seems to make extraordinary claims about what it can achieve and the mechanism. Even discounting the "energy field" nonsense, aligning the body's fascia in relation to the Earth's gravitational field (which seems to be what Rolfers claim nowadays to do) still seems worryingly divorced from any actual medical knowledge about fascia or gravity. If this article were about just one-among-many massage therapies, then I think the heavy-handed approach taken is not very neutral. But the fact that Rolfing seems rife with pseudoscience seems to mean that per our guidelines, we should err on the side of caution. I think that looking for quality sources that support positive claims would improve the article, but the sources should probably be of a high WP:MEDRS quality. I realize this is somewhat of a double standard, but that is what WP:PARITY demands. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I am also trying to find new sources and will include them when I do. In the meantime, I am reading all the current cited sources. Many are not dismissive and, from what I have read so far, they paint a different picture of the claims made. Obviously, I am not alone in my opinion that this article does not reflect the subject fairly. The template added by Nycdi should be restored until we make corrections. Thatcher57 (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"The template added by Nycdi should be restored until we make corrections." Thank you. I have added a better, more comprehensive Message Template, which includes reference to this article's RFC. IMO, what pushes this article into non-neutrality and opinion are the blanket statements like "it is recognized as a pseudoscience" rather than stating "opponents, including _____ consider it a pseudoscience" and cite the source in the text, not just in the list of references at bottom. Otherwise it just sounds like someone standing on a soapbox. Another example of essay-like opinion is the second sentence: ". . . a series of sometimes painful hands-on physical manipulation . . ." Sometimes painful to whom? That sentence sounds like a first-hand account of the editor's. I am certain there are people who do not find it painful or "sometimes painful." The editor who added that sentence appears to speak for everyone who has ever had Rolfing. It should have been worded something like "it has a reputation for sometimes being painful" or similar, AND cite the source!

@Alexbrn:, if you revert the new Template I added, I can only assume you are engaging in an "edit war" with me and will have no choice but to report you for that. Please do not remove the new Template until all issues have been resolved. Thank you! nycdi (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We assert it's a pseudoscience (just as we do for other pseudosciences on WP) because that is what policy requires of us. Saying this is just the view of "opponents" would be unsourced, untrue and non-neutral for the reasons set out in WP:ASSERT. As to pain, we have multiple sources saying some people find Rolfing painful and that has never been an issue here, even among the rolf-enthusiasts. Per WP:LEDE it is not necessary to cite sources in the lede for information that is cited in the body. You don't get to stick a badge on the article because of misconceptions and misunderstandings about our WP:PAGs and unfamiliarity with the sources being used: that is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not accurate. American Cancer Society is not derisive of Rolfing nor does it label it as pseudoscience. It focuses on describing the method (focusing on alignment), why people seek it, and the simple fact that those benefits are unproven (yet it does not imply that those benefits are *unlikely*).

Others are similar - Gale Medical Encyclopedias, Stillerman, Claire, Levine, Salvo, Deutsch, Cassar, Sherman, etc are all neutral-to-positive and the implication is that the (unproven) alignment claims of this method are *plausible.* You may note these sources put very little attention on "energy" claims because it's not a focus in modern Rolfing. None of these sources even give a nod to the pseudoscience question.

Regarding pain, again you are incorrect. Sources vary on this, and we have discussed it previously in Talk. Your recent re-writing of the page undid a sourced statement (Claire, p51) on this point. It's on my radar to address.

There are no sources (that I have seen) that consider the type-of-science categorisation and come up with anything other than pseudoscience. Which is obvious, given Rolf's notions. As noted above the ACS reports that some people find rolfing painful, however you declined to include this because you said the article dealt with it already. So shall we include this? It seems to be true, in the marketplace, that "modern" rolfing is trying to play down the nuttier notions of Rolf, and the pain potential - but we are writing an encyclopedia article about Rolfing as it is described in good RS, not promoting a vision of Rolfing that its supporters would prefer without good, independent sources. The Claire source is obviously a compendium of quackery (Reiki!) and so not usable for anything other that what proponents claim. We need WP:FRIND sources otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

About the science question - plenty of good sources describe a biologically plausible mechanism, which puts that aspect of this method in the "unproven science" category rather than pseudo. I'm fine with saying that vitalistic energy ideas are pseudoscience - I agree with that. But the idea that aligning the body can improve health is not radical (for instance it's known within physical therapy that anterior head position causes all manner of trouble including headaches and an increased risk of carpal tunnel syndrome).

Regarding pain, yes, the topic needs to be addressed once in the article, and multiple sources can be cited there - the ACS can be added to that line, no big deal. Sources do not say that Rolfing "downplays" the pain aspect but rather that the method has evolved. Since it was the first method to attempt to change the fascia, and back then they thought it took immense pressure, it's not surprising that it hurt. (The current belief is that mechanoreceptors in the tissue are responsible for changes in the fascia - though I don't recall where I read that.) We cannot really believe that any field would remain utterly unchanged over 6 decades. It is encyclopedic to report differences between the history/origins vs. modern practice, and also to report the range of information in the sources. --Karinpower (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

We follow the sources, many of which say Rolfing is (at least) sometimes painful. For plausibility one of our stronger sources, Clow, tells us Rolfing's view of health contradicts mainstream medicine. Remember this article is on "Rolfing" (not "Rolfing Today") and conveys what reliable sources have published on the topic. It does seem that it is at odds with how some Rolfers would prefer to present themselves but unless we have strong RS describing this apparent new soft & friendly variant of Rolfing, we need to remain silent on that. That is the difference between an encyclopedia article and a sales brochure. As far as I can see, the best source for tensions in how Rolfing is marketed, is the reader response section to Carroll's online entry in the Skeptic's Dictionary[14]. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming to be slightly off track, allow me to introduce this particular news item.

Lumosity to Pay $2 Million to Settle FTC Deceptive Advertising Charges for Its “Brain Training” Program

I found myself noticing that Lumosity announcements on my favorite podcasts had gone from making claims about actual benefits in terms of cognitive functioning and brain activity against the effects of aging to much, much more subtle announcements like "designed by neuroscientists", "used by millions" that may seem to imply to many people the same benefits against cognitive decline that had formerly been touted, but now were harmlessly "true" statements that allowed the listener to follow the desired garden path without getting the company into trouble with the FTC.

For a skeptical person, these are hallmarks of pseudoscience. And, impressive as Thatcher57's research has been, it smells to me of cherry picking in much the same way. Making a distinction between "unproven science" and pseudoscience. Taking the claim that Rolfing "aligns the body with gravity" as if a) it was demonstrated that it did this and b) as if the claim amounted to proof (or at least a strong suggestion) that it was connected with other research involving posture. That someone can discern the "optimal alignment" of fascia and tissues. It just rings hollow, much like "improving the immune system".

So I ask you to check your preconceptions carefully, examine the claims critically, and be conscious of the paths you want the readers to follow.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no point having the discussion here (interesting as it is) because the pseudoscientific nature of Rolfing is apparent from (and decided in) the sources, from energy fields, to the "fascial web" that penetrates nerves, to emotion in collagen. As Carroll puts it:

In short, there are and can be no scientific studies proving anything about "balancing" and "integrating" or "aligning" bodily parts so that "gravity" can enhance personal "energy" to restore physical and emotional health.

Because Wikipedia is a reality-based project, that is also the line Wikipedia shall take until and unless the science changes (don't hold your breath!) Alexbrn (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the reason I compiled information from the sources was for the express purpose of diminishing the tendency for editors to cherry pick. Having pseudoscience in the lede is completely in line with WP policy and appropriate. But thanks for being in conversation about this. Thatcher57 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

nycdi - I'd agree the article weak on journalistic integrity by flaws in NPOV and some soapboxing where delivering distortion rather than just follow the cites and conveying what they say with WP:DUE weight of prominence. It seems part of a general WP difficulty not running amok into just bashing and headlining when any critics use the vague pejorative 'pseudoscience', and the article choices start to run astray into that 'has' to be driving. Consider a couple of editing choices done

• Australian study 'sought studies, insufficient found' for 2008-2013, paraphrase it to "There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" is misleading. Though it's a minor niche there were studies, even a few within that 5-year time window.
• The article could be neutral and convey that some medical sources provide or support the practice and others do not, or to phrase as an external description of 'pseudoscience' in context of where stated or about what. But instead it uses Wikipedia-voice to state an absolute and uninformative 'It is recognized as pseudoscience,' on a couple of minor sources cites. Way above WP:DUEWEIGHT prominence in the topic and simply reads as a bit of opinionating or cherryhunting.

Think the article could also do some encyclopedic basics of stating what the providers define it as (from the providers, not the skeptics) and a bit more into what it involves Technique section (it looks un-encyclopedic to have just a line there and many about opinionating). What do others feel ? Markbassett (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There may have been studies, but they were discounted by the Australian review as being of insufficient quality to use: hence "no good evidence" is exactly accurate in this case. For pseudoscience, WP:PSCI policy requires us to be up-front about this. As to your proposal to say "some medical sources provide or support the practice and others do not" that is your original research: no secondary source says that; it also falls into the WP:GEVAL trap. The WP:MEDRS we have says there is no good evidence for rolfing. As for the "Technique" section": yes, this could usefully be improved. It's best to avoid stuff "from the providers" however as this tends to lack WP:FRINDependence, and risks being WP:UNDUE. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - it's not a "may have been", the report clearly stated they *did* find studies in professional peer-reviewed journals within the period 08-13, and a 'lack of sufficient studies' tone. That's not just a problem of failing to clearly convey the source content, the phrasing also makes it appear as a gap and credibility issue -- if there's 'no good evidence', what evidence is there and what was 'good' set at? A second problem is this is just giving the one viewpoint or publication review, and in an article having cites looking WP:BIASED like skeptics.com quoting from quackwatch and a couple flame-books, that looks like a WP:CHERRYPICK that rings false against seeing it recommended by Dr. Oz and googling that US medical schools participate and UK has an academy and so on. The article as written is presenting a poor impression as I think nycdi correctly tagged. I think more views from other sources (whose business isn't just crying quack) would help, plus just follow the cites and just report accurately what the viewpoints are, not stating them as Wikipedia absolutes. Markbassett (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

For questions of efficacy we must use WP:MEDRS - i.e. the Australian DoH review. It says "There was no submitted literature that provided evidence for the effectiveness of rolfing for any clinical condition". If you want to know what their definition of "good evidence" is, read their document. As for Dr Oz! his endorsement is hardly a good thing for a treatment's credibility. As always more good sources are welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn -- piddle, you've missed conveying that's (p127) only re massage therapists gave them 16 items (unspecified). But back to the article wording -- The 'no good' line is where the article has failed WP:MEDRS] in misstating the Aussies and failed to give full MEDRS and non-MEDRS (as MEDRS says should be done), plus it's just phrased as a prejudiced rant. That a survey 2008-2013 found little is simply not the same as nothing at all exists or is bad of "no good evidence" and was not stated in those words by them. Even if Aussies had, there is the lack of any of the usual suspects (NIH, WHO, AMA, medical journals and so forth) and other RS for non-medical points is MIA. And again the sheer phrasing of a simplistic 'no good evidence' only begs the questions of 'so what evidence is there and exactly what does good mean here?' which is not being shown in WP. Just one source and just snippets being judgmentally stated/interpreted smells like WP:CHERRYPICK badly done. Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't say "nothing at all" so that is a red herring. We summarize good sources using plain English. We don't belabour unreliable evidence in non-WP:MEDRS. Anyway since you seem to be reprising your section above4#Australians_-_closer_to_cite.27s_.22clear_evidence_they_are_clinically_effective.22_.22has_not_been_found.22. I suggest either drop the stick or continue there. Alexbrn (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - The fish that's the (tagged) problem is what the ARTICLE says. I think I offered 3 potential ways/points for improvement -- but if you don't want to discuss this one further, fine. And if you've got some other improvements to offer, or other way to move to better the article, please do go ahead and add un-indented. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we are at an impasse. Per WP:SEEKHELP I have opened a section at WP:FT/N where a wider view may be sought. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - FT/N ? Hmm, I would have thought addressing the neutrality tag would be more the WP:NPOVFAQ and the WP:NPOVN in [[WP:PNB Noticeboards]. Will see what may result. Markbassett (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:FT/N is for WP:FRINGE topics such as this one. WP:FRINGE is guidance on the application of WP:PSCI, which is an integral part of WP:NPOV. Thus this is the on-point noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The tone tag was ridiculous. Nothing in the existing article resembles what is described in WP:TONE. --tronvillain (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Good call.

Changes in Description Section

I gathered as many of the sources used in the article currently(hurrah for my public library! and Google books), because I do not believe the current description accurately describes Rolfing; it makes it sound mostly like an energetic and psychological encounter. Here is a summary of how each source I could find characterizes it:

• Australian report: “Definition Rolfing (also referred to as structural integration) is a system of hands-on manipulation and movement education that claims to organise the body in gravity. Rolfing is used in the management of a range of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal health problems.” P.125

• Deutsch: “The intervention consists of soft tissue mobilization by application of the amount of pressure required to free restrictions. The goal is to remove any fascial adherences that prevent structures from being in their optimal alignment.” P. 266 “Each session has a specific intent; therefore the examination and intervention are adjusted further to focus on a set of soft tissue structures and appropriate movement cues.” P. 266

• Hanegraaff: “Another visible component of the HPM scene was Rolfing, a technique named after founder Ida Rolf (1896-1979). Rolfing involves a forceful and at times painful manipulation of deep-lying muscles. The theory behind the method states that memories of physical as well as emotional traumas can be activated in the process.” P. 576

• Popular Psychology: “According to Rolfing theory, memories of traumatic experiences are stored in various parts of the body (as “muscle memory”), blocking the free flow “vital energy,” and the proper sort of massage can release them, thus restoring the proper flow and integrating mind and body. Rolf also proposed that traditional ideas of good posture (shoulders back, back straight, head held high) are actually very unhealthy, as the misalign the spine and deform the body. Furthermore, past traumatic experiences can make posture even worse, and most people would be psychologically healthier if they realigned their bodies so that earth’s gravitational field could reinforce the body’s energy field.” P. 218

• Salvo: “Through her various studies, Rolf came to believe that bodies in their ideal state are balanced by gravity, but that postural dysfunction caused by trauma, poor posture, or imbalanced work cause the body, and particularly the fascia, to work against gravity, expending needless energy and causing ever-increasing structural problems in the various body tissues as the body compensates. ¶ In response to this understanding, Rolf developed a system for manually realigning the connective tissue of the body, gradually going from one section of the body to another and from superficial to deep over a series of sessions. She called this process structural integration.”

• Stillerman: “The main goals of structural integration are alignment of the human body within the field of gravity, harmonious tone of the body’s tissues, and well-coordinated movement.”

• Jacobson: “Structural integration (SI) is a system of manual therapy and sensorimotor education that purports to improve human biomechanical functioning as a whole rather than the treat particular symptoms.”

• NY Times Excrutiatingly Helpful: “Dr. Rolf developed a theory that the body’s aches and pains arose from basic imbalances in posture and alignment, which were created and reinforced over time by gravity and learned responses among muscles and fascia – the sheath-like connective tissue that surrounds and binds muscles together.”

To accurately reflect the range of sources, I am editing the description section to reflect more of the postural aspects. If you disagree, I would appreciate it if you would describe why here. Thatcher57 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I also changed the quote, but am unable to insert the supporting documentation for it. It is quoted in Claire on page 40, but the original source is Reestablishing the Natural Alignment and Structural Integration of the Human Body for Vitality and Well-Being|year=1989|publisher=Inner Traditions / Bear & Co|isbn=978-0892813353|page=16|quote="All function is an expression of structure and form correlates directly with material structure."}} Thatcher57 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And the final paragraph about the relationship between emotions and posture has a few problems, but I'm not sure how to resolve them. First of all the quote seems to be taken a bit out of context: The preceding sentences suggest that the pscychological aspects are a byproduct, but the WP article implies this a main feature. "Rolfing is not primarily a psychotherapeutic approach to the problems of humans, but the effect it has had on the human psyche has been so noteworthy that many people insist on so regarding it. Rolfing is an approach to the personality through the myofascial collagen components of the physical body."

Secondarily, the article states that Rolfers claim they bring about changes in personality, but the source doesn't support this: "The theory behind the method states that memories of physical as well as emotional traumas can be activated in the process."

Finally, the last sentence about how the connection between physical structure and psychology is not proven is correct, but it also doesn't correlate well with the information on WP Posture (psychology).

Thatcher57 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher57, good work! The changes you propose are good ones and the sources you list are much more accurate descriptions. Somehow this article had come to be more focused on misperceptions about it. Rolfing has always been primarily a method of deep-tissue bodywork that seeks to realign the body to work with gravity. Any emotional or psychological issues that came up for a client undergoing Rolfing were acknowledged but never the main focus. nycdi (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nycdi. If other editors also agree that the changes are acceptable, then can the template be removed? Thatcher57 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting summary of the sources. Impressive that you took the time to do this; I think this summary could potentially be used to improve the article in a variety of ways. I think the template continues to serve an essential role, though you have certainly made some helpful improvements toward that end. --Karinpower (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Painless, WP:V query

Text has been added to the article saying rolfing can be "painless" and "the technique can be done gently enough for children and the elderly". This is cited to Grant & Riggs (formerly erroneously called "Stillerman" - who is the book editor, not the work author). I'm having difficulty finding this in the source: page number please? Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC) (add) pinging Karinpower Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that spot in the text may not be the precise place to insert the Grant citation. Thanks for catching that. I am reading back through Grant, pp374-5, and it describes in depth that there is a wide range of contact used, and discusses how to avoid unneeded painfulness. On pp375-6 it discusses working on small children, but does not mention the elderly (as far I see). It's already cited after "painless" so I'll remove it from the children and elderly sentence.

On a related topic, do you have a suggestion for how to do citations where one work is cited with various page numbers in different places? In some articles (ex Feldenkrais) the same source has tons of separate citations which seems cumbersome especially if the article has more than a half dozen references. Usually when I create a citation, I include the full block of relevant pages (and in some cases that is 10-20 pages). For a couple of edits recently, I've been noting page numbers in my edit summary (for your convenience as well as mine) but I recognize that those edit summaries are not easily located months or years in the future.--Karinpower (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with a range of page numbers (for an entire chapter say) in general, so long as the text is actually in there. There is the {{rp}} template for page numbers but I think it makes the article a bit of a mess. Another solution is a different referencing style altogether (not recommended here). For "painless" I think an even bigger problem is that the Grant source seem to be mainly about Myofascial release, not rolfing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

There is a chapter on MFR, pp150-177 - it's cited in "history" only to show the influence that Rolf had on the field of massage. There is a separate chapter on SI that is the reference for any other citations from this book including the pain question - the relevant sub-section is titled "Modes of Touch within Structural Integration," pp374-5. Now that we've clarified that, I'd like to add "or painless" back into the lede, to reflect the full range of what sources say.--Karinpower (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah right, so that's another chapter - by Peter Schwind (a rolfer and Heilpraktiker/naturopath) giving his take on it. I don't think this is a reliable source. The book generally has some very dodgy stuff (Reiki! again!) and Schwind's chapter has pseudoscience in it: not just SI but references to the "the momentum of the craniosacral system". I'm also not seeing any "painless" mentioned anyway. We'd need a much stronger source, preferably WP:MEDRS (like the ACS) for such statements. Meanwhile, this source should probably be removed from this article for anything other than mundane statements. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

FT/N

FYI, I have opened a section concerning this article at WP:FT/N#Rolfing again. Alexbrn (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The word "rolfed"

What's wrong with the word "rolfed"? It makes sense, is used in sources. It is not our business to maintain the purity of trademarks on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing = Structural Integration

We have long had in the lede a scholarly source dedicated to the taxonomy of massage terms which tells us that rolfing is "essentially the same" as Structural Integration. Yet Karinpower keeps removing it to replace it with text that says rolfing is a "trademarked type of Structural Integration". I'm not sure these sources even support that but in any case we should be using our strongest source here, not entirely removing it from the article.

References

Alexbrn (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you wrote: "I'm not sure these sources even support that." Are you admitting that you reverted my edit without consulting the sources that I referenced?

A variety of sources describe differences between various types of SI. Myers for a start. It seems that some types have additional sessions added (I think that was true for KMI and Hellerwork, though it might take some digging to put my fingers on where I read that), while some have different emphasis. The differences do not appear to be huge - and may not warrant be spelled out in the article - but they are enough to indicate that Sherman was oversimplifying when they stated they are "essentially the same." That's fine for the author's purposes but it doesn't mean it belongs in this article when a more specific statement can be made.

Commonly, a trademarked item is a part of a larger category, and they may be quite similar. Kleenex brand facial tissue is perhaps a classic example of trademarks. It's not untrue to say that Kleenex is essentially the same as facial tissue, but it's not technically correct. If we were to diagram it, facial tissue would be a larger circle and Kleenex is a smaller circle within it. According to our own article, there are over a dozen other schools/types of SI, and that fact would warrant stating that "Rolfing is a type of Structural Integration."

WP:trademark gives some rules (don’t use ® and ™ marks) but it doesn’t specific how a brand name should be discussed in the article. So, I consulted some examples to see how it’s being done. Generally in the opening sentence, it is just simply stated that “Lipton is a brand of tea….” “Green Giant is a brand of frozen and canned vegetables owned by General Mills.” “Captain Morgan is a brand of rum produced by alcohol conglomerate Diageo.” In this three examples and many others, the fact that the subject is a brand name is stated in the first sentence, sometimes with a mention of what company owns it.

The edit that I made includes all of these facts quite succinctly.--Karinpower (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What I'm saying is I'm puzzled how the sources support the text. Looking at the Claire book I cannot see how it supports it. What page and what text support your edit please? (please remember this page is under discretionary sanctions) It's also odd this habit of giving two sources - it smacks of WP:SYNTH. Either a source supports the text (if so, yeah - and use the best one) or it doesn't. Why use two? In any case you should not just remove strong academic sources from an article and replace them with fluff like Discovering the Body's Wisdom. Also bear in mind that the trademarking of "Rolfing" is comparatively recent, and nobody much cares about it. We take an all-in-all view of the topic and in its hey-day the terms were not trademarked. "Captain Morgan" was always a trademark, and so it's kind of essential to the topic. Alexbrn (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

How odd that you are criticizing me for providing multiple sources. It's a logical thing to do when a point is being contested.

Thanks for clarifying about the source. Claire supports the fact that Rolfing is a type of SI. The section title is "The Rolfing Method of Structural Integration." And on page 55, some of the differences between schools are detailed. Meyers has similar. The Sherman source is not focused on describing Rolfing or SI in depth; its purpose was to characterize different techniques used in various methods, and for that sake of that article, those aspects are essentially the same - that article stated that it was ignoring the "series" framework (because it would have disrupted their methodology). In fact, variations in the series are the main thing that seems to separate the various schools. So, Sherman's comment must be taken in context.

Can you provide WP policy to support your opinion about how the trademark should be handled? I did a couple hours of research on this matter and have shared what I found. I think we have justification for including it - though if you prefer to mention what year it was trademarked, I suppose that can be included. Were you able to locate such a date? I only found original trademark dates on the logo (from the 70's). I am not sure when the word Rolfing was trademarked.--Karinpower (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources are generally a bad sign: they signal 'my sources are weak, so I'll try and pile on as many as I can with fingers crossed'. If something's worth having, find a single decent source and use it for direct support. See WP:OVERCITE for tips. I still do not see how the Claire source supports your text, unless you think it can somehow be divined from the chapter title? Claire does not consider classification and seems not to mention trademarks. In contrast, Sherman et al. specifically worked on terminology, and is a strong scholarly, peer-reviewed source - so we should use that. As to policy on how we cover trademarks, the normal WP:PAGs apply: if good sources discuss the trademarking, then we can reflect that. Otherwise I'd say this was just an obscurity (certainly in comparison to Captain Morgan, which is an international brand with high-street recognition!) Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(Add) And for another strong (at least for terminology) source on this see:

• C. David Tollison; John R. Satterthwaite; Joseph W. Tollison (January 2002). Practical Pain Management. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-7817-3160-7.

Which refers to

Rolfing, the popular name for structural integration ...

The point is, that outside the rolfing/massage bubble, independent sources see these things as pretty much the same, and so shall Wikipedia (which is why Structural Integration redirects here). Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - Perhaps the article language 'essentially identical' can be improved. It does convey they are not the same -- but no more information so why start that way at all ? I recommend just saying "commonly referred to" instead and touch up the wording in History section. In general though, alternatives I can think of (in order of increasing amount) are : (a) just delete the phrase; or (b) reword the phrase, e.g. reflect the 'commonly referred to' by *that* wording instead of 'essentially identical'; or (c) mention the difference with an added line in History section about trademark for one specific training vs SI generic term; or (d) clarify the History section that these are similar/offshoot schools if not exactly Rolfing; or (e) explain the difference a bit with a bit of detail or examples. May be some alternatives I've missed here. If within the massage field 'what is Rolfing' has a distinction noted, then I think the article should just follow the cites and convey what the field says. A quick Bing offers some that may help ...

• What is the Difference Between Structural Integration and Rolfing?
• The Difference Between Structural Integration and Rolfing
• FAQ - What is the difference between Rolfing and Structural Integration?
• Is Rolfing Structural Integration the Same as Deep Tissue Massage and Myofascial Release?
• The Difference Between Hellerwork and Rolfing

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Why list poor sources (primary/web sites/WP:SPS) when we have good ones (an academic text book and a journal article)? Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - listed the so that all can better see the range of statements out there about 'difference between R and SI', where the single source apparently did not serve the question. Markbassett (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not our job to survey primary sources and come to our own conclusions, that is WP:OR. We are meant to be conveying "accepted knowledge" - and this is done by basing our article on secondary sources (the best WP:RS we can find). Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - re this thread over "trademarked type of Structural Integration" and "essentially identical", the quick check of external info easily gave those as something easy for editors to access and digest, shows multiple sources, and gives more than a single line about the relationship and difference TALKED as a topic within the field. If you prefer sources like NIH for background reading, I see NIH Structural Integration: Origins and Development. If you want WP guides to make it ok to consider these links, then you might observe the start of WP:SECONDARY "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. ". Markbassett (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on secondary sources, yes. As to what you call "NIH" you are not pointing to anything from NIH, but a journal article in an altmed journal which happens to be indexed by PUBMED, an NIH search engine. Any synthesis of material from primary sources is just not allowed on Wikipedia, and WP:SPS are very poor sources indeed. Alexbrn (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - Third party asked for, third party delivered and ... more objections ? I suggest try to be positive and making use of the inputs another editor is providing, or at least give some actual acceptance that another editor said he was easily finding enough to validate another editor's concerns: It's clear Rolfing is a Trademark, that this is mentioned with deep detail and multiple sources factually exist; It's not so clear that 'identical' is the best wording choice to convey the meaning of the cite or even that the cite to a casual single-line in a single-source suits WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Perhaps more can be found, fine if you can. As for me, I've given some alternatives, I suggest you work with Karinpower on which one(s) or maybe both put bits in. I think you've read and understood my input so ... over & out. Markbassett (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That third link literally says there is no difference: "'Rolfing' is the trademarked term used by members of the Rolf Institute for Structural Integration to describe Dr. Rolf’s 10 session protocol. Non-members of the Rolf Institute that practice Dr. Rolf’s 10 session protocol call their work simply Structural Integration. Some practitioners also describe Dr. Rolf’s protocol as 'The Rolf Method of Structural Integration' or as Dr. Ida P. Rolfs Method of Structural Integration." In fact they all seem to be saying that "Rolfing" became the popular name for "Stuctural Integration", and it was subsequently trademarked.--tronvillain (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Although I'm not convinced that non-members don't just call what they do rolfing anyway and only refrain from doing it in print, but that's probably impossible to establish either way. --tronvillain (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - That's expressing a difference of Structural Integration as the field, where Rolfing is one of the brands or a trademarked term. It's not too clear to me what is meant by "essentially identical" phrasing, but it doesn't convey that nor does it convey 'one subset of' or 'synonymous to' Generic trademark or 'best known form of'. Main idea here is that the discussion on wording "essentially identical" should look outside and seek what is being said, then represent fairly and proportionately all of the significant views. Markbassett (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. The source says "essentially the same" and we follow the source. Its meaning is plain. If sources don't dwell on whatever trivial differences (if any) there may be, then we having nothing to go on. If you want to do an analysis of this put it in a blog or write a paper of something - but this is an encyclopedia article where we summarise accepted knowledge; we don't create new knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn - Within working the wording (alternative b), seems 'better follow source' and 'meaning clearer' if the source "Some massage styles with different names may be essentially the same (e.g., Structural Integration and Rolfing®)" is phrased as "Rolfing is essentially the same massage style as Structural Integration." vice "Rolfing is essentially identical to Structural Integration." Leaves other aspects here untouched, but would be demonstrating trying a step towards 'better'. Markbassett (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I see the points made about what the various sources say. I propose a compromise. For quite a long time, the article stated "Rolfing is the most publicly known brand[1] of Structural Integration." I suggest we return to that wording, making the opening line, "Rolfing, the best-known brand of Structural Integration, is a type of alternative medicine that...." While some sources use the terms interchangably (and not surprising since it is the main brand), we do have sourced evidence that there are other brands (see the second paragraph of history, where the more noteworthy schools are listed, especially Hellerwork which is mentioned in a number of sources). There used to be a WP article for Structural Integration, and these two were merged; we do well to accurately describe the relationship between these two terms here in this article.

I also hear that removing the language from the Sherman source doesn't work. How about if we say they are essentially identical, with the main differences being various in the series (exact wording for this might take some crafting). I would locate the source for that. Is this agreeable to all?--Karinpower (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose because it's not what our good sources say. WP:STICKTOSOURCE is simple. Alexbrn (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

How about Rolfing is a form of alternative medicine originally devised by Ida P. Rolf (1896–1979) under the label "Structural Integration."? Or something to that effect. The history section can be used to explain the trademark issue. --tronvillain (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tronvillain: yes, neat. Alexbrn (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, it sounds like this would be acceptable given a source for the variations in the series between different styles of SI?

I don't think that you can argue that Rolfing = SI when we have evidence that there are a number of other types of SI (and the number of practitioners from those other schools is not insignificant... might be interesting to have details but I get the impression that maybe half of the SI field are non-Rolfers?). It's essential to interpret Sherman in regards to what they were evaluating.... they were looking at specific tissue techniques, and in that way, Rolfing = SI. But not in every way. Sherman states they disregarded the series for their purposes; since that is a primary difference between Rolfing vs. SI (not the only difference but it's the thing that's easiest to point to), it's logical that their statement would not consider that aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinpower (talk • contribs)

The Sherman article listed at the top of this topic is a good source for the rolfing trademark. If it is not relevant enough to be included in the lede, it makes sense to include it in the history section. Perhaps: In 1971 she founded the Rolf Institute of Structural Integration and in X the term Rolfing was trademarked. Thatcher57 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Great point, that hadn't occurred to me, but it's true. Sherman specifically mentions the trademark of Rolfing.--Karinpower (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and made that change, plus a few other tweaks to the lede. See what you think. --tronvillain (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an improvement over the previous statement, and it is true - Rolfing was originally titled Structural Integration. However it leaves confusion about the current existence of work that is called SI but is *not* Rolfing. If it was an insignificant portion of the field, we could just leave it out, however we have enough sources mentioning the other schools of SI that our wording should reflect that. Tronvillian, do you have a suggestion for how to handle it?--Karinpower (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've linked "Structural Integration" to the history section, where it mentions the schools of structural integration that aren't officially Rolfing. It looks like the trademark was registered in 1979, though it was filed in 1975 - I assume that if we mention it we'll use the registration date. --tronvillain (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And that was a US-only registration. Alexbrn (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, looks like 2007 internationally. --tronvillain (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

cI appreciate the thoughtful consideration from multiple editors on this topic. I've made an edit that I think will solve the trademark issue; I think it's best to mention it without making a big deal of it, so I just added a few words to the paragraph where all the other schools are mentioned. A source could be added to that line if others think it's necessary; Sherman is a good secondary source for the existence of the trademark; Knaster also mentions the trademark. Also for this sort of thing I still think linking directly to the Trademark Office is a helpful additional source, even though it is primary.

I still maintain that the opening line would be best to say that Rolfing is a *type* of SI but I can live with it this way. Hope we are now at a place that is workable for everyone. --Karinpower (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)