Talk:Rolfing/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Good Evidence

I would like to change "There is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" to "There is no evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" removing "good". I don't understand the qualification of good. It seems subjective. If there was "bad" evidence would it matter? Evidence is evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehenke (talk • contribs) 15:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there's good evidence and bad evidence, or if you like, high quality evidence and low quality evidence - an anecdote is an example of low quality or "bad" evidence. --tronvillain (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"High quality evidence" is more accurate than "good evidence", as it implies that there is a process for collecting evidence and that the matter is not just subjective. @Tronvillian I do like that better. Nice suggestion. Thatcher57 (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with saying "no high quality evidence" is it sets the bar too high - as though there is a lot of medium-quality evidence or something, or maybe as if it just lacks that final super-duper bit of research to validate rolfing. "No good evidence" sums up the situation better without leaving such uncertainty. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Alexbrn, although think there is some better wording that could be developed. 75.172.82.250 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Alexbrn, although think there is some better wording that could be developed. Thatcher57 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing as mental vs physical health treatment

It is important to distinguish between rolfing as a physical and mental health treatment. At this time of writing, Rolfing has a small but growing peer-reviewed research base that suggests it may well be indistinguishable from massage in both its safety and physical health benefits, e.g.

Whereas any purported effects on mental health which have always been speculative; as no scientific attempt to prove it has been attempted, "pseudoscience" is an accurate term in this context.

These are two drastically different issues, and treating them in combination is not NPOV, but a biased and hence unethical presentation.Cyintherye (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Like many forms of quackery, rolfing has unreliable support in journals (compare homeopathy). Some of those journals are junk too (EBCAM). Wikipedia's WP:PAGs prohibit the use of such sources. Rolfing is pseudoscience without qualification, since the basic ideas of Rolfing certainly fall into that category. Alexbrn (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The key issue with the refs presented is that they are all primary sources, per WP:MEDDEF. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources about Rolfing vary in how they describe this method. It's worthwhile to take a look at the mental/emotional/energy claims vs. the strictly physical. If we group the sources into roughly three types, the early primary sources do mention energy/emotion but also describe the physical aspects in great detail; this is clearly reflects the History of Rolfing even if there's debate about the current method.

Of the modern sources, many describe Rolfing as a physical process attempting to improve alignment and movement (with little or no focus on psychology or mention of "energy"). Some of the modern sources describe Rolfing as a psychological method and don't mention the physical (why they skip this part, we can only guess).... these sources tend to be the ones that label Rolfing as a pseudoscience. Since there are a number of reputable sources with conflicting information, let's conduct a review of what the sources say and reflect those controversies within the article. Typically a brief mention of each viewpoint is all that is needed, or framing a statement with some context as to whose viewpoint it is reflecting. --Karinpower (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter, since the entire field is abject nonsense on a stick. There is nothing to fix here. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What controversies? Roxy the dog. bark 00:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If Rolfing wants to just define itself as a form of massage (with the same benefits and risks),renounce its various unsupported claims (reorganizing/reshaping fascia, aligning with gravity fields, etc.), and that becomes widely established, fine. Until then, it's a pseudoscience - just a random sampling of Rolfing websites makes that clear. --tronvillain (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Quackery

Why doesn't acupuncture or chiropractic wikipedia pages use the term "Quackery" in their introductions also? Those pages seem more fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.1.7 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• They use pseudoscience. Which is another word for quackery. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The recipe

The footnotes 3 and 4 seem to refer to other statements in the sentence. I searched the first book and "recipe" doesn't show up. https://books.google.com/books?id=sndnAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q=recipe&f=false Let's remove "sometimes called "the recipe" unless someone can validate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehenke (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Update

I found references but am not sure how to add a foot note https://books.google.com/books?id=VScrCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT30&dq=rolfing+%22the+recipe%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnzcHW54jRAhUo44MKHdWtCFQQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=rolfing%20%22the%20recipe%22&f=false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehenke (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Good observation. The source you found is a primary source (meaning it was written by a Rolfer), which shows us that "the recipe" is in an "in-world concept" but doesn't prove that external, secondary sources are saying it. We should try to find a secondary source, or delete it. Thanks for noticing that the cited sources don't mention it.... that makes me wonder if it was from a previously-cited source that got snipped. --Karinpower (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede watering-down

Thatcher57 has removed[1] content from the lede that summarizes the body (from one of our best sources). Apart from the WP:DRNC problem in the edit summary, what's the reason for this removal? Alexbrn (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it.

[2] seems to be the rational for removal, but it's basis in policy is lacking, especially when we focus on content issues.

Overall, the paragraph might be seen as a bit undue.

Proposed by Thatcher57: It is recognized as a pseudoscience. Some sources characterize it as quackery, others identify it as a system that may play a role in posture and efficient movement.

New version by Alexbrn that I restored: It is recognized as a pseudoscience that contradicts established medical knowledge, and has been characterized as quackery.

Previous version: It is recognized as a pseudoscience, and has been characterized as quackery. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Roxy the dog. bark 17:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

MeSH code

Another reason rolfing should be discussed as a physical massage technique rather than purely a psychological one is that it's MeSH ID is D008405. It is a massage therapy technique, according to the US National Library of Medicine. What do editors think is the best way to present and honor this data? Calling rolfing quackery by focusing on its potential as a mental health treatment seems a little like focusing the menstruation Wiki page on female hysteria rather than reproduction. Just because there have been crazy theories about rolfing doesn't mean rolfing itself is crazy.

Also, this seems like a great reason to repost the info box, as an informative and tighter parallel to other well-organized alternative medicine Wiki pages, e.g. acupuncture, aromatherapy, chiropractic, etc. Cyintherye (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, some Rolfers here got upset about calling it massage because they insisted it was "bodywork"; hence we reflect the difference in labels used by the sources. The sources don't call it quackery just because of "its potential as a mental health treatment", but they do characterize it as quackery and we duly say so. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As to quackery, it seems like there are three aspects. 1) The mental health/emotional stuff, 2) the question of "energy," and 3) the claims about changes to posture/alignment and movement. This is a complex subject because the quackery accusation is mostly about the first two aspects, yet those are both quite controversial (as to whether they actually apply to Rolfing as it is currently taught and practiced) and sources vary widely on whether they even mention those aspects. The third - the physical claims - is the most consistently mentioned aspect of this method, and those claims are "biologically plausible but unproven" rather than pseudoscience. True pseudoscience relies on a bending of the laws of nature. And quackery goes a step farther, implying an intent to defraud and complete worthlessness of what is being sold (think snake oil). There's precious little evidence of fraud, just plenty of unproven science and a sprinkling of strange statements about energy.--Karinpower (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

All of which is completely beside the point: we reflect what sources say, not what editors wished they said based on their own questionable arguments. Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said, the sources vary in whether they even mention the emotional/mental and energy aspects; many sources that include a detailed description do not mention it, implying that this is not a significant aspect of current practice. However every source with a significant description (more than one paragraph in length) does discuss the physical aspects that Rolfing is attempting to change. For instance, we don't have any evidence that "energy work" is an aspect of how this method is practiced, only some decades-old quotes by the founder which described her philosophy rather than the actual practice of the method. People don't seem to be doing laying-on-of-hands or any of that nonsense. The current focus of this article on "energy" is out of proportion with the sources, and I suspect is it an attempt by anti-alt-med editors to make this method seem as "woo" as possible. Instead, we should try to accurately reflect the sources.--Karinpower (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We do (remembering we need independent sources and we obliged by WP:PSCI to upfront about pseudoscience). It's not clear if there's any proposal here but we're not going to ignore sources just because editors have constructed their own personal arguments against them. We say Rolfing is "originally based on Rolf's ideas about how the human body's "energy field" [...] ", and per all relevant sources that seems entirely correct. Remember, this is not a brochure for Rolfing and so does not reflect the marketing goals of Rolfing today, but takes a fuller, encyclopedic stance on the topic. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Being upfront about pseudoscience is one thing, and tilting the article to select quotes that sound more "woo" is another. Dr. Rolf was certainly "of her time" in the 60's, in the midst of the human potential movement, and it seems that she sometimes used "energy" metaphors in talking about her work, though there is no evidence that her work even back then included anything like "energy work." Quite the contrary, it sounds like her work was quite physical. To ensure that we are not selectively cherrypicking quotes from her large amount of writings, only quotes that are parroted in secondary sources should be used. The one that is quoted in Skeptic's Dictionary passes that test, but the other does not. They are redundant with each other anyway, so I propose that this one be removed: "Rolfing is based on Ida Rolf's proposition that 'a human is basically an energy field operating in the greater energy of the earth'." The second sentence of that paragraph, "Rolf described the body as organized..." makes a decent introduction to the Conceptual Basis paragraph. --Karinpower (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's fine as-is, and any primary use is rooted in secondaries. The discussion of "energy" is confined to this section where it is apt. Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Anti Rolfing bias?

I have noticed an anti rolfing / anti updating bias to the powers that be controlling the page. The latest example is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolfing&type=revision&diff=753738209&oldid=753735406

Maybe there should be a Controversy topic like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Controversy where the "quackery" paragraph can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.1.7 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, important point. The cadre of editors controlling the page from modern and recent citations and research in the field refuse to distinguish between rolfing as a physical and mental health treatment. At this time of writing, Rolfing has proven efficacy in peer-reviewed research indicating it has safety and physical health benefits indistinguishable from other massage techniques.

Whereas any purported effects on mental health have always been speculative; as no scientific attempt to prove it has been attempted. This is a more accurate way to describe the situation than "pseudoscience" or "quackery."

These are two drastically different issues, and treating them in combination is not NPOV, but a biased and hence unethical presentation. 24.188.179.57 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this page takes itself seriously.

This laying of hands stuff is entirely quackery. I can make up an alternative medicine too: You have to wear a tin foil hat full of cupcakes. The tinfoil aligns with the earth's field, blah blah blah. My twelve second alternative medicine concoction is not much different than this pile of quackery! Sad!104.163.152.80 (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"laying of hands"

No one is talking about "laying of hands". Rolfing is deep massaging with accompanying dialog broke into specific body areas and relating discussion. I've did it and had great results. More body awareness and resolved my back issues. Pretty much the practitioners glossed over the dialog. It really helped me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehenke (talk • contribs) 15:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove "Energy Field"

One citation of "Energy field" references a web page that then references "QuackWatch" http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/dictionary/mdqr.html

QuackWatch then references a 1971 rolfing pamplet. Is this a valid source? Currently there is no mention of "energy field" in modern rolfing site https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22energy+field%22+site:+rolfusa.com

Also no mention of "energy field" in dictionary definition http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rolfing or medical dictionary http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rolfing

freedictionary.com is not a reliable source. The term "energy field" was used by Rolf herself and is quoted by Rosemary Feitis in her introduction to Rolf's Rolfing and Physical Reality. It is also cited by Carroll. This is the second query you've raised which completely mis-states the sourcing used; please be more careful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wording in lede

Can't we make this lede more neutral like a dictionary definition http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rolfing or medical dictionary http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rolfing — Preceding unsigned comment added by mikehenke (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It is recognized as a pseudoscience[9] and has been characterized as quackery

Isn't the second part after the "and" just repeating the first and beating a dead horse? Acupuncture mentions pseudoscience in the lede and doesn't keep mentioning forms of it in the lede . I'm not against the term, just doubling down in the lede. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture

I wonder if I tried to add the "and has been characterized as quackery" to the Acupuncture wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by mikehenke (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, pseudoscience and quackery are different things. The AMA categorized acupuncture as quackery in 1974 and many later sources do too; but some also disavow the term so it's a more complicated case than Rolfing. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Note on several arguments made here

We have dealt with this before, but some rolfing advocates here have been making the argument that 'real" or "contemporary" rolfing doesn't engage in quackery around psychological health or doesn't discuss "energy" and has moved away from the body's energy field interacting with the earth's gravity field. But there are zillions of websites out there, today, advertising exactly this kind of bullshit. The arguments are bullshit and I will start to take people to AE who continue wasting the community's time with these claims.

Here are some search results from just the first page of google searches, searching rolfing psychological and rolfing energy.

• Somatic Works

psychological healing

• • "You may experience considerable psychological growth as the emotional history stored in your body is released. A freer more responsive and more comfortable body will support you in every part of your life." and under "why do people rolf? one reason is "To release physical or emotional trauma that is stuck or being held in the body."

energy generally

• • cites book "Barbara Ann Brennan - Hands of Light; A Guide to Healing Through the Human Energy Field'

energy fields aligning

• • has quotes from Ida: "As in all matter organized into biological units, there is a pattern, an order, in human bodies… 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." and "“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.”

• fromept.com, various pages

psychological healing (from here)

• • "As structural issues are confronted they often surface with emotional content. Chronic tension, traumatic injuries and experiences, distorted self image can all be manifested in posture and movement. As areas of shortened connective tissue are opened up so is the potential for repressed memories and feelings to surface. Structural Integration can be a powerful adjunct to the psycho-therapy process. It can help physical and sexual abuse survivors with post traumatic stress disorder to come to terms with the past and reclaim their lives."

energy generally

• • OK on this actually

energy fields aligning

• • muddle-headed here: "Most people are out of alignment with gravity. When the body is well aligned, gravity supports and nurtures the structure. Then, the body heals itself." but not bad here under "Gravity, Posture and Health" where it deals with the actual ongoing "battle" with gravity.

• "Vital Spark" by RNK Studio

psychological healing

• • "The physical body in its shape, form, and negotiation of gravitational energy, cannot be divorced form the emotional state of a human being. When the physical body is fluid and flexible, the emotions are allowed to be the same. This is where Rolfing got its reputation for being an emotional therapy. Rolfing clients find a new freedom to allow emotions in their bodies and in so doing find that these emotions can enrich their creative capacities."
  • "When the leg is not balanced across this bisecting plane, when the hinges are not working on a single plane, then the feeling of security and balance is lost. It becomes appropriate to speak of "random" or "chaotic" or "disorganized" physical structure. As will be seen in the chapter on psychology, disorganization on the physical plane shows up as insecurity and confusion on the psychological level. It is no abstract matter."

energy generally

• • "The energy of movement becomes reflected in form, which parallels Einstein's formulation: e=mc2." (ffs).
  • Also see below.

energy fields aligning

• • "As a scientist she had the insight that gravity is a force constantly at work in the body either maturing it towards organization, alignment and wholeness; or as an ever disorganizing force compressing and misshaping the body. She worked privately for more than 20 years, asking people how they felt after the last session, watching them walk, and postulating about what she should do next for the person." (oy) ...
  • "In its most simply expressed form, Rolfers work with the body as a system of inter-related segments to restore these segments to proper alignment in the vertical and horizontal grid of gravity. " (oy such pseudoscience woo)
  • "Rolfing will organize the human body's structural relationship with Gravity so that the body's field of energy, mass, and structure is reinforced, uplifted, maintained and even sustained by the larger field of energy, Gravity. " (pure woo)
  • "Man and woman are, from the moment of conception, tied to the earth's gravitational field. We have, as a species, evolved and grown as creatures of Gravity. When we leave the comfort and dependency of our Gravity relationship and dwell in space, our physical bodies begin to molecularly defuse and lose mass. Left in space long enough, we will defuse like smoke." (oy veh)
  • "When the structure is efficiently organized, the flow of gravity can be a source of energy."

• Action Potenial (rolfusa.com)

psychological healing

• • "Healthy connective tissue is characterized by flexibility, elasticity, length, and resilience. The tissue absorbs and responds to the earth's gravitational force, illness, injury, emotional trauma, and everyday stress."
  • "A shift in structure alters the way you relate to the world. Sometimes this is physical experience, as when your head moves up over your torso, changing your line of sight and modifying your “view” of the world. Just as often, changes are less physical but just as profound — after a session, you might feel you’ve “let go of something” and can work with an old fear in a new way. Rolfing helps people access patterns of holding that are emotional as well as physical. As such, Rolfing is an excellent complement to psychotherapy and other personal development work."

energy generally

• • OK on this

energy fields aligning

• • OK on this

• Somatic Bodymapping: Its Usefulness in Rolfing

psychological healing

• • "In an effort to relieve pain, Rolfers review medical histories and discuss their client’s physical symptoms. Next, we “read” our client’s body for insights as to how their pain expresses itself in their connective tissue and movement patterns. In addition to this reading, client reports and feedback are factored in and an appropriate protocol is structured and implemented.1 However, many of us go considerably beyond this reading, employing other modalities to assist in providing meaning for the client’s pain. What many of these other methods share in common are theories replete with connections between specific "organ systems" and emotions (Chinese medicine)or links between specific anatomical geography and emotional issues (Huna Kane).2 All these somatic systems employ a set of descriptors for the body’s regions or systems. The use of such descriptors is normally called bodymapping.....The underlying premise of all bodymapping systems is that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between specific locales and emotional states. ...In the world of Rolfing itself such mappings are everywhere. We evaluate connective tissue patterns and infer structural causes for our client’s site-specific pain and more global compensatory patterns based on our insights. Many of us offer emotional explanations for somatic patterns based on our particular training and supplement these ideas with other referential somatic schemas"

energy generally

• • "Clearly, there exists abundant literature that supports the link between psyche and soma (for example Energy Medicine and other writings of Jim and Nora Oschmann). "

energy fields aligning

• • doesn't discuss this

• Rolfing Children

psychological healing

• • "Toporek saw the positive results of addressing a child's structure firsthand when he collaborated with Ida Rolf on the Children's Project, a three-year pilot study of the effects of Rolfing children conducted in the 1970s. Toporek, Rolf, and a handful of other structural integrationists worked on nine children and five babies over a four-week period (so as to eliminate growth as a factor in the changes). Except for the babies, all the children received the full 10-session protocol. The reported results found increased confidence, better verbal expression, more self-control, and less destructive behavior, as well as improvement in the children's overall physical, psychological, and behavioral patterns, even years later. Researchers also found that Rolfing could address conditions such as cerebral palsy and scoliosis."

energy generally

• • ""If you compare Rolfing to energy work, the focus would be more subtle, where the practitioner helps to energetically settle what has been stirred up, from the impact of the accident."

energy fields aligning

• • ok on this,

• Kathleen McBride - What is Rolfing?

psychological healing

• • "Rolfing® Improves: ...Stress, Emotional and Physcological Health"...."Our bodies are our life experiences. As we move through life we compensate for injuries, physical and emotional traumas, work postures, and habitual activities including athletics. The result of these compensations is that the soft tissues begin to shorten, become stiff and lose elasticity making us uncomfortable in our bodies. "

energy generally

• • not so much on this.

energy fields aligning

• • "The energy of this field can enhance or dissipate the energy of the individual man. You cannot change the energy field, but you can change the man.” (quoting Ida) ""Most people work too hard all day long, just to keep themselves standing up. Rolfing® aligns and organizes your body, so you don't have to fight against gravity." "Rolfing releases the body’s segments (legs, torso, arms, etc.) from many of these lifelong patterns of tension and bracing and permits gravity to realign them."

You get the point. Nobody can claim with any validity that contemporary rolfing isn't marketed all over the place with pseudoscience woo. And most importantly we have reliable secondary sources that describe this. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a spectacular collection of utter bollocks you found there. Guy (Help!) 01:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I appreciate the time you've put into taking a look at what's out there on the internet. Unfortunately, I think you may have missed the point of what I was saying, and the point of all of the recent conversations on this topic. I'm not arguing about whether Rolfing is a pseudoscience; it clearly is (well, some aspect anyway, and the biologically-feasible elements of alignment are simply unproven). The question of whether it's *quackery*, and whether we have enough decent sources saying so (and explaining how and why, not just a drive-by accusation), is really still up for debate. No one is addressing the crappiness of those sources. Seriously? If it's truly quackery, there should be some substance in the sources as to what elevates it to the level of quackery, as opposed to simple pseudoscience. Karinpower (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

one form, probably the most common form, of quackery = marketing treatments that are based on pseudoscience. Every site above is quackery. You are making a distinction without a difference. If rolfers universally or even generally discussed what they did only as a form of massage that helps people with things that massage helps with, we would not be having this discussion. Instead, they want all this woo. They embrace it, propagate it and generate yet more.

I meant what I wrote about AE. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No, those two words have different meanings. Pseudoscience can be defined as "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." In this situation, it also applies to the *unproven but plausible* claims around alignment, fascia, etc, which are frankly quite similar to what physical therapists claim to do. On the other hand, "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 or snake oil salesman'. While Rolfing lacks adequate scientific proof to claim medical benefit, it also has not been proven to be ineffective, nor is there evidence of fraud. It may be that some aspects are bollocks and other aspects are doing people some good. It's not up to us to say, but rather we look to the sources. We have strong sources for the pseudoscience comments, but not for quackery. Particularly those 4 sources. Do you defend them, and their current use in the article? --Karinpower (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My last response here. yes they are different. but they are related. Technology is applied science. Medicine (drugs, devices, other interventions, diagnoses, etc) are applied science in the field of health. Quackery is applied pseudoscience in the field of health. The underlying theories of rolfiing are pseudoscience and the application of those pseudoscientific theories -- rolfing itself -- is quackery. This is what reliable source say. Again if you keep pushing this I will bring you to AE under the CAM DS (to which you have been alerted) and again this is my last response on this. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Karinpower: Jytdog's wonderful collection of nonsense shows that Rolfing is obviously quackery: it fits the definition like a glove. We don't need super-strength sources to source the obvious (in fact it makes me think we're non-neutral saying Rolfing has merely been "characterized as" quackery; it is quackery). Nothing in Rolfing "theory" is plausible and your contention that it needs to be "proven to be ineffective" before it is discounted is a demand completely at odds with evidence-based medicine, and with logic itself. People hawking untested and refuted "treatment" are quacks. I agree if there is further POV-pushing here it will be time to start looking at sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

There should be a consideration to removing the negativity from the introduction text, as now the article is strongly biased towards negative view and the references to make the case are weak anecdotes. There is in fact a strong body of evidence to show that Rolfing can be very effective as a form of treatment, even where other treatments fail. Actually it's one of the few forms of treatment where you really have no doubt after you try it for yourself. For example world famous Lean Fleisher healed his right hand (said to be the most famous right hand in music) with Rolfing.

The broader caveat (beyond just this article) is related with the way people behave when they check new things, is that they go to Wikipedia page and read the overview and often leave it that. This puts a a lot of responsibility to Wikipedia editors and it is very important to avoid bias based on few anecdotes. As I've understood neutrality should be a key concept here. Polemics such as the second paragraph of the introduction should be left to a "controversy" section at the bottom of the page. It's pretty clear that the current article is driven by polemics / emotions, and not facts. If the facts are not clear, then it is very important to maintain neutrality.

Thank you for your consideration. Mikkokotila (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do. No actual edit suggestion present in this edit request. Roxy the dog. bark 12:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In reference to previous Talk section, Discussion Regarding Change in the Lede to Remove Quackery

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.

---

Please reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rolfing/Archive_5#Discussion_regarding_change_in_lede_to_remove_quackery_sentence, which seems to have been auto-archived. There was a thorough discussion about the subject of whether the word "quackery" needs to be in the lede, or if having it in "Effectiveness" is adequate. Editors weighed in on various sides, with two that were strongly opposed (one who is a frequent editor on this page), and two of the frequent editors on this article expressed willingness to stand aside. Those editors were Alexbrn and Ronz, neither of whom are known for being too soft on these topics. As in many cases of controversy, there was not a perfect consensus reached about the lede (though all agree that it needs to remain in Effectiveness). However there the statements of acceptance of its removal from the lede, by those specific editors, seemed to leave the door open for the edit. I didn't make the edit at the time; I was thinking more editors would weigh in on the subject. Seeing that the Talk discussion had not been acted upon, I did it today.

Alexbrn, I'm not clear what your problem with this edit is, nor did you give adequate details in your first edit summary: you reference consensus yet the consensus was, if anything, to allow it. I'm unclear what you meant by "stop setting yourself up as an admin"; I truly have no idea what you mean. Please remember to assume good faith; my edit summary attempted to provide detail to clarify an edit that is perhaps a couple months behind from the discussion of it, not trying to do any admin maneuvering.

Editors, please let's move forward with the proposal from October. Let's keep discussion of pseudoscience and effectiveness in the lede, and leave the less-well-sourced quackery reference for the Effectiveness and Reception section. --Karinpower (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The WP:PAG-based arguments are most persuasive: we need to say this stuff is quackery to be neutral. As someone with an evident POV you shouldn't be attempting to implement your own dodgy take on consensus, as though it had been decided. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

My take from that discussion was that there could be consensus to modify the lede. But although, as you noted Karinpower, there seemed to be initial acceptance for removing the word "quackery," there wasn't enough to make that change. To reflect the article, noting that some sources characterize it is quackery and others do not seems to better follow WP policy. Something like this would be more balanced:

There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition. It is recognized as a pseudoscience. Some sources characterize it as quackery, others identify it as a system that may play a role in posture and efficient movement. It is not known whether Rolfing is either safe or cost-effective.

Thatcher57 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's WP:GEVAL in action. No reliable source is in favour of rolfing. Not neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir, that is my argument. Several reliable sources already referenced in the article credit or "are in favor of" rolfing: Deutsch, Levine, Cassar, Grant/Stillerman, Daniels, Houglum, and Jacobson. In addition, there are additional semi-reliable sources that credit Rolfing: Knaster, Schultz, Salvo, Riggs. There are reliable sources that are neutral about rolfing: Sherman, Russell-Rover, Goldstein, and the New York Times article. And, there are sources that discredit rolfing: Carroll, Cordon, Penguin Dictionary, Agin, Shaprio, Bardan, Thakery, Bear, Clow, and Baggoley (Australian Government review). Giving equal validity to sources requires that this article--and it's lede--reflect the controversy of opinion to have a neutral point of view. Thatcher57 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL in action, as I say. For example to take a strong WP:MEDRS like the Australian DoH review and try and play it off against fringey Rolfing sources written by Rolfers is WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If these were fringey sources written by Rolfers, I would agree. Deutsch and Houglum wrote their texts for physical therapists, Daniels for nurses. These are textbooks used by medical professionals. Cassar and Levine wrote for massage therapists, with a focus toward therapeutic massage. Thatcher57 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Not for Rolfers then? Roxy the dog. bark 19:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Fringe sources. For example Deutsch's book has chapters on Craniosacral therapy (perhaps the most extreme quackery) and shiatsu (like believing in the Force from Star Wars). We don't give this kind of bollocks equal footing with serious WP:MEDRS - again, WP:GEVAL explains why. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Deutsch and Houglum wrote their texts for physical therapists, Daniels for nurses. ... Cassar and Levine wrote for massage therapists, with a focus toward therapeutic massage. Intended audience doesn't mean it's not FRINGE.

These are textbooks used by medical professionals. While that's a better argument, there's a huge amount of FRINGE material being used by medical professionals, especially when it comes to finding new means of revenue. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that the intended audience doesn't automatically mean that something isn't fringe, but these sources are outside the "rolf bubble" as its been called, and they are written, edited, and published by sources outside the "bubble." I appreciate the respectful conversation about the subject and in the future will take a look at other material in the sources such as craniosacral. Thatcher57 (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

To be outside the bubble they need to be non-altmed WP:FRIND sources. And naughtily, some are misrepresented. For example the one you call "Grant/Stillerman" and "reliable" is in fact a book chapter by by "Peter Schwind"[3] (a rolfer and Heilpraktiker /naturopath). Reliable sources for medical effectiveness need to be WP:MEDRS; reliable sources for categorisation need to be ones which have some expertise in their topic. There is no reliable source here that rebuts the quackery/pseudoscience category. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've said this before, I find your use of the word "naughty" to be condescending and it shows a lack of assuming good faith. Please refrain from using it. When you pointed this out a while ago (and it was a good observation), I took some time to shift citations from Stillerman to other sources. Now it is cited only for two minor, non-controversial items: that Rolf had an impact on the massage world, and a list of common positions that are used for sessions. Perhaps it's time to let go of that particular complaint. --Karinpower (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

We say "The massage tradition has drawn significantly from Rolfing" which does seem quite a grand, puffy claim - especially since a lot of "the massage tradition" predates Rolf. Oddly this is cited to THREE separate locations in the source: pages 152, 157, 329–345, all cited as being in the "Myofascial release" chapter (must be a long chapter!). Please provide a quotation from the source that supports the claim, bearing in mind WP:V. Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This claim is supported in detail, over the course of several pages, 151-3 in the 2016 edition of Stillerman (page numbers are different in the 2009 version). It's far too much to quote, but essentially the sub-field of Myofascial Release (sometimes also called Deep Tissue Massage) was influenced heavily by Rolf and her students. Of course the older aspects of the massage field have their own origins, but the field has changed tremendously since the 1950's, and Rolf's work may have prompted the entire field to delve more deeply into anatomy study, according to a quote from a massage field expert on page 153: "As [massage] practitioners began receiving Rolfing(R) Structural Integration... they became curious about fascia alignment and deeper work. Vicki Topp and others studied anatomy and Al Drucker's [student of Rolf] offshoot Esalen Deep Tissue Work, uniting intuitive massage with more physiologic know-how. A massage class kept the meditative atmosphere but began to include muscle description and discussion on the physiology of breath." Again, there's quite a bit more in this 3-page section.

In Knaster, on p188, the author introduces the chapter on structural approaches to bodywork (including MFR) by giving a nod to Rolf as the pioneer behind all structural bodywork that exists today. On p208, in the section on MFR, she says that this sub-field was founded by two people, including a student of Rolf (Robert Ward).

I'm going to update the page numbers on the citations to reflect the current addition and to try to show more specifically where the citation is. I know the rp template can get messy but I think for some of these where the citations are from various sections of the book, it can be useful, and help avoid the broad range of page numbers as you noted above.--Karinpower (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the page number issue for this cited chapter - perhaps it will become clear when you fix the reference. I also don't understand how WP:V is satisfied: claims must be 'directly supported by sources. What text justifies the claim of "significant" influence? Or is this original research? Please provide a quotation using the quotation property where the source supports "significant" influence. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, good call, "significantly" is probably a synthesis and so I've removed it. It's not a big stretch since the sources discuss the influence at length (and therefore it's more than a passing influence) but I think it's fine without the word "significantly." Does this satisfy your concerns? For me, I'm feeling good about it because I like having the refs cleaned up and more specific as to page numbers. --Karinpower (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's always good to smoke out WP:PROMO and I'm stunned how quickly we've gone "This claim is supported in detail, over the course of several pages" to having the claim removed, once scrutiny is brought to bear. Please still provide the supporting quotations, also for the "prominent" teachers Rolfing has apparently influenced. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That's rather rude of you. The exact wording of an article is an iterative process, and ideally the input of multiple editors helps improve it over time. You made a point and I acknowledged it, so why act all smug about it? The claim isn't "removed," it's been modified by one word. The fact remains that the sources do discuss it in great detail, too much to type in here, and I did provide a url for your convenience. Also I believe the details I've provides above is adequate for the claim that the article currently makes. As to names of teachers, see above, plus others in the sources.--Karinpower (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The promotional claim was of the "significant" influence of Rolfing. It was a misrepresentation of source. It is now gone. I'm still having trouble with the "prominent teachers of massage" claim, and request a quotation. Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

And - backing up to where we were - now that it's clear what Thatcher57's so-called "Grant/Stillerman" source actually is it turns out the author, Art Riggs, is another rolfer.[4]. Alexbrn (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not realize those sources' authors were rolfers. I'll make a note of that for future reference. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, a newer version of the Penguin source has been released, which does not support the "quackery" terminology. The use of "quackery," is biased, because the reality is that rolfing has proved peer-reviewed efficacy as a physical massage technique. It is pseudoscience only as a psychological technique, with no attempted research in this field. The citations that call it quackery are examining it as a mental health treatment. This is not too subtle or nuanced to explain on a wiki page.

Even electroconvulsive (shock) therapy has a less biased Wiki page - the rolfing-hating editors tightly controlling this page should be ashamed of themselves. Cyintherye (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

"the reality is that rolfing has proved peer-reviewed efficacy" ⟵ completely wrong, according to our reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And now Karinpower has started removing "quackery" from the lede again. As I noted above, the WP:PAG-based argument has persuaded me this is a key descriptor of Rolfing. What is more, we have already had a RfC on this topic and the softened text "characterized as ..." (Rather than "is quackery") was the result. Continually pushing like this is getting disruptive. Editors should remember this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Also this stuff about Run-on sentences is completely spurious . 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a bit of perspective, I reverted to support a version by another editor, Cyintherye. I did not initiate this round of removal, but I do think it's warranted.

And, no, your comment about the RfC is factually incorrect. The RfC dealt with the question of how the terms "pseudoscience" and "quackery" were dealt with in the article as a whole, not specifically in the lede. That RfC occurred in July 2016, and the Talk page discussion about the lede happened in September. That was when you, in a rare moment of being willing to compromise on wording, stated " I'm ambivalent about its presence in the lede." There has really been no new significant evidence since then. Everyone agreed that it should remain in the body of the article, so this discussion pertains only to its presence in the lede, which is shaky given the lack of detailed explanation in the sources for how and why Rolfing is quackery (as opposed to pseudoscience which has been spelled out in more detail).

For your convenience, here's a link to the Talk discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rolfing/Archive_5#Discussion_regarding_change_in_lede_to_remove_quackery_sentence--Karinpower (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes but in practice the "characterized as" language has stuck following discussion of it during the RfC. And no campaign by a few WP:SPAs is going to shift it. I am persuaded by the argument that it is essential, perhaps even more so than "pseudoscience"; changing your mind is a good thing! As had been mentioned at the recent abortive DR, editors pushing against this need to ask themselves whether they are editing against consensus. This is now settled. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please watch your accusations. Mine is not a WP:SPA, I edit on many pages, only about half of which are health-related. Just because something has stuck around does not mean that it is good. The quackery sources are crap. You've got 4 sources that only mention the word Rolfing once, with absolutely no other details. It makes your case look sloppy.--Karinpower (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The WP:SPAs are obvious. There's been an RfC and this has been to the noticeboards at least once. Continuing to push on it is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Arguments about who initiated a change seem to me to be a waste of time and distraction, at best. Did anyone call out these sources as[[ being questionable earlier, or is this new? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, thanks for asking that question. On Oct 6, 2015 (Talk Archive 4), MBVECO wrote: "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." I too have brought up this problem several times (April 26 2015, May 2016, and July 2016) and have not felt that it has been adequately addressed - except that the self-published Beyerstein was removed. Poor sources do not deserve their own sentence nor a quote, as Clow and Agin currently have. Shapiro and Barden are similarly over-represented. If these sources are to be cited in the article, they should be consolidated into one short sentence which does not mention authors by name, and summarizes the concerns that the authors state. For example, "Skeptics have included Rolfing in lists of alternative health methods that they consider quackery, based on a lack of scientific evidence as well as unproven assessment and treatment methods." Actually this wording (with some minor changes) existed for more than a year, from April 26 2015 until July 13 2016, a remarkably stable piece of text. --Karinpower (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It is absolutely untrue that Agin or Shapiro does not mention Rolfing, and it is preposterous to call the Clow source - a university-press printed book by a medical historian - a "poor source". Also note WP:PARITY applies here too. In general serious people do not bother discussing nonsenses like Rolfing because they have better things to do. As it is we've got some pretty good people who gave an opinion on Rolfing and we need to account for that. Your objections boils down to "I don't like it". We can't just lump these people together as "skeptics" (likely WP:BLP problems). Barden for example is a clinical psychologist and legal expert in health fraud.[5] - exactly the sort of serious person whose view we should be valuing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please make sure to read carefully before objecting. The quote from the other editor said that Rolfing did not even appear in the *index,* a good measure of whether the book "treats" a subject. The word Rolfing is mentioned exactly once in each of these sources, with no embellishing details. They may be good sources in general, they are simply poor sources on this subject.--Karinpower (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You put "One cannot cite sources that do not even discuss the topic at hand" which is misleading. Thanks for acknowledging these are good sources. They all associate Rolfing with quackery (but with different nuance and color for why they do so). We know from the thread below that Rolfing in reality is obvious quackery, and we are obliged by WP:PSCI policy to be upfront about contextualizing this stuff within the mainstream view. So yes: medical historians, scientists, lawyers, health journalists and prominent thinkers in good sources give us precisely that mainstream context. The only problem here - and it is long-running - is that Rolfers don't like it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I was quoting another editor, and his comment is correct, these sources do not *discuss* the topic. They make a glancing blow. That means they deserve only a glancing treatment in this article.--Karinpower (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2017 (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.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL - The recipe

The footnotes 3 and 4 seem to refer to other statements in the sentence. I searched the first book and "recipe" doesn't show up. https://books.google.com/books?id=sndnAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q=recipe&f=false Let's remove "sometimes called "the recipe" unless someone can validate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehenke (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Update

I found references but am not sure how to add a foot note https://books.google.com/books?id=VScrCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT30&dq=rolfing+%22the+recipe%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnzcHW54jRAhUo44MKHdWtCFQQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=rolfing%20%22the%20recipe%22&f=false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehenke (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Good observation. The source you found is a primary source (meaning it was written by a Rolfer), which shows us that "the recipe" is in an "in-world concept" but doesn't prove that external, secondary sources are saying it. We should try to find a secondary source, or delete it. Thanks for noticing that the cited sources don't mention it.... that makes me wonder if it was from a previously-cited source that got snipped. --Karinpower (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Primary does not mean written by a rolfer (though such sources may lack independence). Such sources may be useful for straightforward, non-contentious statements. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good clarification, I wasn't trying to define "primary" as certainly there are other types of primary sources (such as a single scientific study), but trying to explain that this source doesn't have the distance of perspective of a source written by a non-SI-practitioner. Certainly it's good for showing what an SI practitioner says about their method. --Karinpower (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2017 2

Rejected request, no further action.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To continue with some details. 1) The references 10 and 11 that are used to establish the point that Rolfing has been characterized as quackery are both from a paperback of author with just that one title, the other has has 1 star amazon rating 2) The reference 9 that is used to posit that "Rolfing is recognized as Pseudoscience" is an author with no authority On the other hand, it is very easy to find significant evidence to how soft tissue manipulation in general and Rolfing specifically can be very effective as a treatment to a variety of problems. Further, these points seem to focus on the non-physical aspect of Rolfing, where as the key principle of Rolfing really is the manipulation of the soft tissue and the role such manipulation has with structure of the body and its alignment thereof. It seems clear that this article fails in a significant way to achieve any neutrality on the topic. Mikkokotila (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Nothing to do. No edit suggestion made. Roxy the dog. bark 12:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC) I agree with Mikkokotila, and find Roxy the dog. response unnecessarily rude. It's quite clear what Mikkokitla's edit suggestions were. However, I'm man enough to respect both sides of the issue and wish this page would do the same. On the one hand, it's fair to say that Rolfing has been compared to the likes of acupuncture and chiropractic therapy (a comparison I believe should be included in the introduction). On the other hand, there is some evidence in peer-reviewed medical journals that rolfing can be effective for certain things, for instance, lower back pain. A physical therapist I spoke with said that my lower back pain treatment sounds much like what they'd do in PT – a deep tissue massage of the hip flexors, which had tensed up. I realize anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shit, but I also believe it is a mistake for Wikipedia to categorically refer to this practice as quackery. Indeed, the The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines it as "Named after originator I. P. Rolf, a system of soft tissue manipulation presumed to enhance vitality. While there is evidence for its efficacy as a physical therapy, there is no evidence of its psychological effectiveness beyond that explained by a placebo effect." In terms of concrete suggestions, I'd soften the second paragraph slightly, and present context, for the claim that "there is no good evidence" – either rephrase to say that the Australian government was unable to affirm the effectiveness of the treatment, or remove. I'd also add a sentence comparing it to the likes of acupuncture, chiropractic therapy, and PT. Arthritix (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC) There is no reliable evidence Rolfing is effective for anything, according to WP:MEDRS. We don't base articles on editors' views. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Please note the request I had made clearly highlights two questionable sources that are used to make a strong statement to influence most of the readers that come to the page. If you want to make those strong negative statements, you should follow the guidelines and provide strong references. Note that one the citations is a one star rated paperback on Amazon and both are from books of an author with only one book. If Wikipedia users realize this kinds of means are used to convince them about validity of claims, they will lose faith in other articles too. I've worked 22 years as a media researcher, and taught media reading skills in college, and this would be exactly the kind of example I'd use in terms of what to keep an eye out for. Once we have resolved the nonsense citation issue, I will work to find the sources that evidence the other aspect i.e. Rolfing in deed is and has been found an effective method for various issues. If no sources can be found, then we can conclude that we have a neutral article. I agree that articles can't be based on editor's views. Thank you for your kind consideration friends. Mikkokotila (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Spent just 10 minutes going from article to article, and it is very easy to find sources that show Rolfing can be effective for various conditions specifically, and soft tissue manipulation and structural realignqment more generally. Having read through the talk page, I was left confused what would be accepted as a citable source. On one hand the current sources for making the strongest claims on the page are not in anyway even trying to be academic / research, but are mere populist opinions. On the other hand, it seems that "for" statements are not shut down on the grounds of weak sources or like above, the source is simply ignored. I could not find it, but there was a reference previous on this page that eCAM is "second class journal". But it's ranked 5th on among alternative medicine journals globally? In any case, I will work towards to create an objective and comprehensive list of secondary sources that support or refute effectiveness of rolfing and classify each based on the journal ranking, and when available, impact score. I'm sure that we all want the same thing i.e to have unbiased, neutral and truthful wikipedia articles :) Those that do not share this goal, clearly should stay away from editing / discussing. Mikkokotila (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Not happening. Being ranked 1st among alternative medicine journals is still fringe (I'm not sure I'd even go so far as to call it second rate). The other issue is that we prefer secondary sources, and even more so meta-analysis and systemic reviews. These are concepts that are rare outside of medicine, and as such they are quite intricately detailed at WP:MEDRS. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC) EBCAM is the quintessential junk source. Ernst (who should know) is interesting on it.[6] I'm not quite sure why an editor wants to "find sources" that Rolfing is effective, when professionals have carried out that task and published their findings in solid WP:MEDRS (the Australian review). Wikipedia is of course built on such sources, not the WP:OR of editors - which is what anything based on primary sources would of course be. Alexbrn (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC) @Alexbrn It's a mistake to deflect your responsibility for the content of this article with "We don't base articles on editors' views". Your views clearly have an effect on this article, and to pretend you are an unbiased editor is a mistake. As humans, we're inherently flawed, and full of bias. Which is natural, and I have no issue with someone admitting that they have a point of view. It'd be delusional to think otherwise. It's clear you don't believe there's a shred of a reason for anyone to think that rolfing has any value. Perhaps you had a bad experience with one in the past (I had a quack dermatologist too, once). Or perhaps you merely think that any sort of alternative medicine has no scientific basis and should be written off as quackery (as is your prerogative as well). That being said, I certainly have a bias too (as previously disclosed). I've seen personal success with a rolfer, and believe, based on a physical therapist's input its effects are similar to PT. That's my *belief*. I didn't ask for that to be included in the article. I didn't ask for all mentions of pseudoscience to be removed. Now, Roxy asked for specific edit suggestions, and I offered several, which I believe to be fair. I merely requested more contextualization with statements, and a minor altering of words (there is no good evidence -> there is a lack of evidence; The Australian Government was unable to conclude that, etc) to soften what comes across as an opinionated article. I suggested to contextualize the practice, we could compare it to acupuncture and chiropractic therapy, a fair comparison. For those who ask for more neutrality in the article, this "there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" seems to be the main point of concern. When provided with medical studies that could potentially be a refute to that statement, you cite WP:MEDRS. You say that you don't care what primary sources say, you only care what secondary sources that review the research say. The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines it as "Named after originator I. P. Rolf, a system of soft tissue manipulation presumed to enhance vitality. While there is evidence for its efficacy as a physical therapy, there is no evidence of its psychological effectiveness beyond that explained by a placebo effect." Does that not qualify? Even if you disagree, it's a mistake to present a one-sided, seemingly opinionated article on this. I thank you for listening, and hope you can be as respectful of my views as I have been of yours. Arthritix (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Editors' view, including your acknowledged bias, have no bearing on our content. The Penguin dictionary is not a good WP:MEDRS. We don't say it's just the Australian govt that have found Rolfing ineffective because that insinuates it's just their view, and so is not neutral (see WP:ASSERT). The problem with the evidence is not just that it "lacks" but that what there is, is of poor quality. We don't "soften" reality, or base content on unreliable sources, but must base content on the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I'm surprised by your continued insistence that editors' views don't effect what they edit. To be blind to one's own inherent biases is an unhealthy way to approach life. Moving on. You claim the Penguin dictionary is not good; I'd love to know why it doesn't meet your standards of a "secondary source". Is it because it challenges your views? Because when it agreed with you, you had no issue with it, as seen previously on this talk page. Indeed, the Penguin Dictionary was *used* by the page to insist rolfing is quackery. They appear to have changed their views, and I believe that should be taken into account when you claim "there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition". Words are important. Editing is critical. The way you present facts can effect people's lives. I'd very much appreciate it if you could present facts whilst softening the clear editorial's opinion of this article, and I believe the easiest way to do that is to provide *context* for your claims, and to make legitimate comparisons. I'd also appreciate it if you could stop being so consistently condescending to people who have differing opinions. Arthritix (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC) See WP:AGF and WP:FOC regarding editors' views and assumptions about them. Dictionaries don't meet WP:MEDRS standards. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Ronz I guess your statement about dictionaries only applies when they're dictionaries that agree with your views, because two other dictionaries are used in the rolfing page as citations. Look, I'm not saying rolfing isn't a pseudoscience. I'm not quibbling with any of the main facts presented. I'm annoyed by the *way* they're presented, which reads as opinionated and definitive. I'm disappointed in the close-off edit process, but I understand it's to prevent people who want to ignore science entirely. I have not hidden my bias as someone for whom rolfing has been an effective mediator of lower back issues, with a treatment that's highly similar to physical therapy, so I view the matter with a healthy optimism that requires editorial context. All I want to see is context, and a presentation of the facts in a way that doesn't read as though two editors decided there wasn't even a reasonable doubt that rolfing can be helpful to certain grounds (as measured by a handful of primary sources which were dismissed by dismissive editors). Arthritix (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC) This constant focus on editors, rather than content, is disruptive. Editors should bear in mind that WP:Discretionary sanctions apply to this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Alexbrn I'm focusing on the content, the way its presented, and who's trying to hold control of it. It's interesting to me that you've ignored most of my arguments about the actual content in favor of focusing on being condescending. Good science should question everything, and good editors shouldn't shy away from people who disagree. Arthritix (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, I too have this complaint about Alexbrn's conduct. Avoiding the actual content problems and condescending attitude. It's true that some of the editors here have an ax to grind that is quite distinct from a commitment to editorial neutrality. There's a tendency to excuse some poor sources because they fit the anti-alt-med viewpoint, when in fact we should be raising the bar.--Karinpower (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC) You too are being disruptive by using an article Talk page to discuss an editor. If you genuinely have grounds for complaint, take them to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)