Talk:Rolfing/Archive 1

Introduction paragraph
I have made a minor restructure and rewrite of the opening paragraph to better follow the wikipedia standard:

Rolfing  is a registered service mark of The Rolf Institute of Structural Integration (also referred to as "RISI"), founded by Ida Pauline Rolf in 1971, referring to a therapy system created by, and named after, herself. Practitioners certified by RISI are titled Rolfers™, and Rolf Movement® Practitioners.

I have no experience with this practice, and actually only found out it existed about 45 minutes prior to this edit. However, I intend to help clean/rewrite this article further, to make it more neutral toned, and better structured, without sacrificing informative value (or grammar). I'll check this page for objections before proceeding later today.

Autumnox (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. 23:04, 17 November 2011‎ Escape Orbit (talk | contribs)‎ (6,786 bytes) (ce on lead. Concentrate on what article subject is, not what the word is.)  I think you'll find that the introduction only presented the term as a "registered service mark" previously, not as a therapy, which it now does. In that way, my edit made it more related to the article subject than it was.

2. 22:53, 17 November 2011‎ Geni (talk | contribs)‎ (6,840 bytes) (rv POV edits and we don't used "registered" signs) Ah, sorry, didn't realize about the signs. However, your rv re-inserted the POVs, which were also redundant and belong more in criticism, than the introduction paragraph.

Anyhow, I don't feel strongly enough about this subject to have to argue the logic behind every of my edits for neutrality and relevance. Sorry for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnox (talk • contribs) 06:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why has this statement been removed?:"Rolfing  is a registered service mark of The Rolf Institute of Structural Integration (also referred to as "RISI"), founded by Ida Pauline Rolf in 1971, referring to a therapy system created by, and named after, herself."

Trademark acknowledgement needs to remain on this page since Rolfing is a brand of structural integration. They do not all do Rolfing. --Sbwinter2 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Rolfing and Structural Integration for Internet Consumers
I would agree that this article needs a major re-write. The second paragraph begins with "skeptics claim..." and that's all fine and dandy but I would say that it's far too soon in the article. Presumably, the reader wants to know what rolfing is and a bit of background on it before getting the opinions of some activists. Furthermore, the claims attributed to the skeptics are themselves completely lacking in any proof or evidence:

"skeptics claim...there is no additional medical value to the program over conventional exercise and massage after taking into account the placebo effect."

I would posit that "skeptics claim" falls under weasel words, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.170.161 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by "medical value" is unclear. If people are somehow "feeling better" and experiencing greater flexibility, that may not be, in the minds of some, a medical value. Some would suggest that a "medical value" is only something that treats some kind of specific disease. If many people are somehow having a better experience of life after going through rolfing, one would imagine that would be a good thing. But it may not necessarily be regarded by some as a "medical value." Is an improved subjective experience of life a "medical value?" If so, how is it quantified or compared to other methods? And if people are feeling better as a result of rolfing where is the evidence that this can be proven to be a result of the placebo effect? (I must say I'm utterly amazed at the mystical power "skeptics" attribute to the placebo effect, all with no evidence that it is indeed what's responsible for the client's improved condition.)

My understanding of rolfing, from most of the literature that I have read and from the rolfers that I have spoken with, leads me to believe that it is primarily concerned with issues such as movement, posture, and flexibility. The emotional aspects, dealing with the notion of traumatic emotions leading to changes in posture, tend to be downplayed or merely suggested as a hypothesis or speculation. I went through a set of 10 rolfing sessions and the rolfer mentioned the *possibility* of emotional issues, but it was presented purely as just that, a *possibility* and he mostly presented it as an epiphenomenon. In summary, my rolfer was focused on issues of biomechanics and seeking to address the physical signs and symptoms that I was presenting and he mentioned issues of emotional release purely as possible side-effect.
 * Those who claim that the claims of skeptics lack any basis have turned the whole concept of burden of proof on its head. It is the responsibility of "Rolfers" to prove their nonsense works, not the other way around. There has NEVER been a widely accepted, peer reviewed study substantiating the ridiculous claims of Rolfing. The notion that claims of skepticism should somehow be excised because skeptics haven't proved it doesn't work are beyond absurd.  The burden of proof doesn't lie with the skeptic.  And contrary to some of the posts above, anecdotes concerning "improved flexibility" don't count as evidence. Furthermore, the commentator extolling the virtues of rolfing in regards to "greater flexibility" is obviously completely ignorant of how real, peer-reviewed studies determine which results are attributable to the placebo effect and which aren't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Change comments by Reda
Hi,I am particularly attached to the Open Source model (I have a Linux server). I have also contributed many Structural Integration (Rolfing) links to the Open Directory Project(ODP), among other categories. And I have maintained a web site specifically for Internet consumers of Structural Integration (Rolfing) information at Structural Integration Consumer Information and Resource Center, since 2001. I also published in 2001 another web page geared towards the professional and institutional community of Structural integration, which is unfortunately still valid: Biomechanics and Structural Integration.

Reda el Andaloussi my main personal web space (I can be contacted from here) Structural Integration practitioner (the Guild for Structural Integration, Boulder, Colorado, 1997) Certified Massage Therapist (Boulder College of Massage therapy, Boulder, Colorado, 1991) Change comments - by Reda

For those following up this section Rolfing, these are some of the recent changes I proposed: The brief description of the technique of Rolfing is placed on the top, instead of after the statement about the service mark. This resource is for consumers first, not lawyers. (switching of paragraph 1 with 2). A more precise description of the origin of the word Rolfing is developed. This description includes the legal service mark, but also the origin of the word coined by consumers before it was registered as a service mark. This information is of historical significance, potentially a legal one too. I thought people ought to know about the fact that Dr. Rolf was a biochemist. Without going into her full biography here, her influence in the study of Collagen based fascia (connective tissue), was significant enough that she woud be refered to as a biochemist. I also included her full name (including middle) and years of birth and death. I thought these pieces of info where a better minimum than just her name with 'Dr.'. The enthusiasm about the 'extensive' level of education required is toned down. The general idea is that this is not a brochure for the Rolf Institute selling how great a training it provides. Plus, objectively, the 480 hours (or so) of Structural Integration specific training at the Rolf Institute or other Structural Integration schools do not justify such an enthusiasm, compared to 1000 and more hours provided at Massage Therapy schools for example, some of which include Structural Integration and much more in terms of Structural Bodywork. Time has passed since the creation of the Institute in the 1970's by Dr. Rolf, when the Institute's curriculum was then among the top ones, in sheer weight compared to Massage schools throughout the US. About emotional releases, I am pretty sure that classical Rolfing (meaning such as what people mean when they say 'Rolfing', just like they meant it when consumers invented the word) makes it clear that Rolfing is a Structural contract, any emotional discharge is incidental. SUch releases while acknowledged are not actively sought out. Actually, disciples of Dr. Rolf have been categorical about not actively seeking 'cathartic' releases. So I made a precision in that regard. Now if Rolfing (the service mark) no longer meanse the work as taught by Dr;. Rolf, then that would be a big piece of info. So far. the Institute has maintained a format close to the original. My humble personal understanding is that if the Institute tried to distort the meaning of the word, it could face legal challenges over the srvice mark. Therefore if now the legal label implies systematic emotional cathartic releases, people ought to know about it. Same for the format of the series. A basic 10 series is still my understanding of basic Rolfing, with Advanced 5-series. If the Institute no longer teach the 10 series, people should know. Until it is official, I specified the classical number of sessions, which was left at the practitioner's discretion in the previous version of the article. That beiing said, and as a bodyworker myself, I understand that there are situations where the classical number isn't always possible... That is why I left the statements about the fact that the Rolfer prescribes a (undetermined) number of session. I simply specified what the classical format is in terms of number of sessions. I added a link to idaprolf.org a resource dedicated to the Internet Consumers. I try there to provide specific answers to the question of alternatives to Rolfing, as I experienced that crucial question myself as a consumer when I needed the work and I was thousands of miles away from Boulder Colorado, where these 2 schools are. The list of school I have listed there is more important than the list at the ODP (dmoz.org). Please, either provide a more useful list of schools, or link to sites which do, like my site. Admittedly even my site idaprolf.org isn't 'complete' but it is among the most useful list available, of links to schools which teach Structural Integration, allowing consumers to a training info, or simply practitioners in locations where only one school for example has graduates, but where other schools do not have graduates. Some minor turns of sentences were made too, nothing fancy, just tried to simplify some sentences. Hopefully, we will get it right eventually. How about Dr. Rolf's biography page, and generic Structural Integration? Reda my personal web space (I can be reached directly from there)

I dont get any info at idaprolf.org just a closed email service ==SmithBlue 30-10-06==

POV
I presume the title is "Dr." Rolf only because she got a PhD in biochemistry, not because she is a profesionally certified medical doctor, so I added an explanation about that, and changed the proper-noun references to reduce confusion on that point. Otherwise, the article is in danger of creating a false sense of authority. Since there is disagreement about whether or not this kind of therapy is bogus or not, I changed items reported as facts to be claims, to maintain NPOV. There remains some work to be done; the later parts of the article still read a bit like an advertisement. -- Beland 00:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Ask your chemist friend what a person with a PhD is called - I think they'll tell you it's Doctor.


 * Meddling with the proper nouns and nitpicking about whether she was a "real" doctor or not is not maintaining a neutral point of view, but unsubtly advocating a contrary one. Wikipedians generally leave the sincerely held beliefs and practices of others alone, and comment on their likelihood, if at all, in criticism sections. So we don't, for example, litter quibbles about whether Jesus was a "real" messiah throughout every article on Christianity, nor mention incessantly that some traditions consider the conflation of Jesus with God idolatrous. "Rolfing," Structural Integration, was developed in the Fifties, when we were still being told by medical doctors that smoking was good for you. It's not at all surprising that there is active discussion of the role played by the fascia in the overall well-being of any particular individual among Rolfing practitioners, and it's likely that further scientific or empirical discoveries may improve or at least modify their understanding of their art. Lee-Anne 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Phosphatidate/phosphatides
I asked a chemist; he seemed to think these were more or less the same thing. -- Beland 01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

POV and Skepticism
I moved the "skeptics say" paragraph to the end of the article. I don't know anything about Rolfing -- but in my experience of Wikipedia, criticisms tend to come under their own heading. I took off the POV tag because I didn't see the POV. Katsam 10:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Skeptics say" are weasel words, and should be replaced with a citation or removed and the section marked as uncited.71.218.224.66 20:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that many of the words used to describe Rolfing were thinly-veiled attacks on the technique, and probably on osteopathy by indirection. I myself am very sceptical of many of the claims and theoretical bases of osteopathy and its associated disciplines, but may find it somewhat easier to keep editorializing out of portions of an article where they don't belong. I added a citation from a somewhat sceptical Rolfer which is available on the Web, but didn't link it because of the caveat on the page. Added criticism that seemed somewhat less vague and unfocused. Lee-Anne 10:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Balance
This entry would be relatively free of POV criticism and constant modification if it strictly defined Rolfing or was merely part of the Structural Integration page. Manipulation of the fascia can, and does, remedy many pains and debilitating injuries. This was known prior to the birth of Ida Rolf and is given in the form of advice by medical doctors to their patients or referrals to pt/ot. I found this page linked in Wikipedia from Iliotibial_Band_Syndrome. The assertions there are that "Deep-tissue massage or Rolfing may help break up scar tissue that forms." I'm sure many pages defining 'aches, pains, training injuries, massage, chiropractic, etc...' will eventually link to the Structural Integration page and from there to here. Individuals drawn to this page are likely to find it through investigation of scientific matters or through holistic approach. Synthesis articles must contain a level of balance for the purpose of readability, if the idea behind Wikipedia is disinformation then remove POV anywhere.

Where in this entry is the notion that one may wish to seek the service of a Licensed or Board Certified Medical Doctor for the treatment or evaluation of specific injuries and health conditions? Given the mixed reputation of chiropractors, massage therapists, and other individuals promoting controversial treatments it seems the omission of such a disclaimer or statement of fact is a blatant attempt by the author to leave the reader completely ignorant of the difference of opinion regarding Rolfing within the Medical Community. Failure to provide an opposing point of view in an issue as controversial as this is akin to placing blinders on a horse. If you do not want your work trashed, then recognize criticisms.

Merely seeing the trademark symbol, the words 'service mark', and the first word of development being 'Dr.' makes this entry look like a scientific paper and authoritative source. Were I to look through the physician's desk reference I would likely find a page of similar appearance with an illustration of chemical structure under the first heading. Even lists of citations given by many in support of 'Rolfing' and all the benefits of such procedures do not have a genesis in the work of Rolf or agree with the thesis central to 'Rolfing'. What is often seen is either a study regarding manipulation of the fascia over a period of time, that concludes the exercise reduces an injury OR a study equating a healthy body with a healthy mind.

I have no interest in disproving 'Rolfing'. I think the article is unbalanced because it has virtually no contrast and is presented in a visual manner that gives the reader the impression it is a scientific paper; regardless of the validity. Dumb down the appearance, limit the content to history of Rolf, or add the fact that 'yes, Medical Doctors' do exist and there is substantial controversy regarding the theories presented herein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.195.181.245 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

structural Integration - capitals?
Dont know if SI should have upper or lower case for first letters - am certain both should be the same case. Will change (back) to SI if no other ideas offered. ==SmithBlue 30-10-06==

Ida Rolf developed a method - source required
"Ida Rolf developed a method of organizing the human structure in relationship with gravity..." This assertion needs a quoted source, specifically from a independent authority, otherwise the skeptics are going to change it back to "Rolf claimed to have developed..." SmithBlue Wednesday, 23:56, 22 November 2006   UTC

Actually, the asserted quote could imply Ida Rolf had patented the act of standing and had registered trademarks on posture.

(→Development - decades are not possesive) ?
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002436.html Language Log - Grammar cranks" of the right. "The New York Times house style, for instance, keeps the apostrophe in for names of decades; a search on the Times archive finds five examples of "the 80's" in Sunday's paper alone." So not incorrect but unfashionable?

Style
At the end of the article the writer used expressions that may seem appropriate in other social or literary contexts, but certainly not in an encyclopaedia, which after all is a SCHOLARLY project with a centuries-long tradition (though not infrequently one would not recognise this when reading WP. "contributions"...). I have tried to remove that flaw, without altering the thought expressed (to which I do not object in any way) (e.g. that x reaches a deep level "in humans", as a neutral expression, instead of "all of us", which sounds distinctly "touchy-feely sermon-like" etc.).

Regards, Sophophilos147.142.186.54 14:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking Caveat Concern
The caveat "ATTENTION! Please do not add links without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Undiscussed links will be removed." is unreasonable.

One of the strengths of the Wikipedia community is the ability of individuals to contribute to articles without needing to seek prior consensus. Judging from the links currently posted, this caveat could be interpreted as the muzzling of non-canonical or opposing viewpoints.

In the Wikipedia spirit, qualification of contributions is not the provision of a single judgmental source, even if this source is 'consensus on the talk page'. Rather it is the responsibility of individuals both within and outside of any group with an interest in improving the article material.

Discussion and verification by an interested group regarding the fitness of contributions is a valuable asset to any Wikipedia article. However, it is not a group's position to be the self-appointed sole arbiter of material. If there is concern about abuse or excessive degradation of the quality of an article necessitating tighter control, this is a matter that should be flagged for concern, not a self-designated exclusive responsibility. Splendide 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been removed, however, there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially if links are never discussed on the talk page.--Hu12 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Neutrality Dispute Badge
To the best of my knowledge, all stated concerns about neutrality have been addressed. I have removed the Neutrality Dispute badge.

The following concerns have been addressed:

"==Rolfing and Structural Integration for Internet Consumers=="

..."skeptics claim..."... it's far too soon in the article. Presumably, the reader wants to know what rolfing is and a bit of background on it before getting the opinions of some activists.

...What exactly is meant by "medical value" is unclear... how is it quantified or compared to other methods? ...where is the evidence...

"== Change comments by Reda =="

...The brief description of the technique of Rolfing is placed on the top, instead of after the statement about the service mark.

...I thought people ought to know about the fact that Dr. Rolf was a biochemist... her full name (including middle) and years of birth and death.

Because Rolf has a biography page, cv details should go there.

"== POV =="

... she got a PhD in biochemistry, not because she is a profesionally certified medical doctor...

Covered in Rolf's biography page.

"== POV and Skepticism =="

..."Skeptics say"... should be replaced with a citation or removed and the section marked as uncited.

"==Balance=="

...strictly defined Rolfing...

Manipulation of the fascia can, and does, remedy many pains and debilitating injuries...

I was unable to find a suitable medical reference, and it doesn't add clarity about the practice or therapeutic claims of Rolfing, so the claim has been 'toned down' to just reference myofascial release.

Where in this entry is the notion that one may wish to seek the service of a Licensed or Board Certified Medical Doctor... ...there is substantial controversy regarding the theories presented herein.

Rolf not Dr Rolf
After introducing Rolf as Dr Rolf the first time it is redundant to continue the prefix. Albert Schweitzer is refered throughout the article on him as Schweitzer. If its good enough for Albert its good enough for Ida. SmithBlue 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing external link to "Guild for Structural Integration"
The relevance of this link to the article is not clear. The Guild is not mentioned in the article body and seems to have been included as it is in the same field as Rolfing -(the field of Structural Integration). However as Structural Integration has its own article it seems superfluous here and hence I am deleting it. SmithBlue 07:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Better explanation needed
The introduction to this article could use a rewrite - it seems to assume familiarity with the subject matter. At the moment, the first sentence reads, "Rolfing is a system of soft tissue manipulation, with the objective of realigning the body structurally and harmonizing its fundamental movement patterns in relation to gravity" - without explaining what that means! I've read this article and still don't have a clear idea of what 'Rolfing' is - as far as I can tell, it seems to be a kind of massage/exercise-based therapeutic activity, but I don't understand how it works or what it consists of. Could someone please rewrite this article to provide more context/better explanation? Thank you. Terraxos (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Manipulative methods info box
I removed this as it took up a significant amount of space at the top of the article and filled it with material only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Such material might better go in the "See also" section if it was relevant. SmithBlue (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue tags May 2008
Considering that there has been no addition to this talk page since March, I find it odd that the article suddenly deserves these tags. Considering that the person who added all those issue tags has never shown any involvement in the article before, and gave no explanation for the tags, I am inclined to regard it as an unjustified, hostile "drive-by shooting" edit. A person who had good will and sincere interest in improving Wikipedia would make some effort to improve the article, and communicate on the talk page, not just slap stickers on it. If some cogent explanation of why these tags were added is not given within a few days, I will remove the tags.Bertport (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Because, of course, when an article is written using exactly one source, which is promotional and not reliable, it should be treated with the utmost respect by other editors, and anyone tagging it is clearly in the wrong.
 * Sarcasm aside, this article really needs some better sources. Using a single promotional website for writing everything really isn't a good idea. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the inline tags. I've removed some of the issue tags from the header.  I agree that the article needs more citations from different sources, but the overall tone of the article is nothing like advertising.  Statements about benefits of the system are prefaced with "Practitioners claim" type qualifiers, and none of them are pie in the sky, anyway.  Also, the self-published tag doesn't make sense here.  The article is not selling the Rolf Institute.  Take a look at, say, University of Washington.  Some of the citations are from UW websites, but it's not considered a self-publishing problem. Bertport (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs better sourcing, and that'll presumably also fix the problem of limited viewpoint. However, yes, it's been edited a fair bit, and many of the tags that used to apply just don't apply now. I'm... not an expert on massage, so probably can't help much with the sourcing, but at least I can point out what needs sourced, and hope someone does. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience
Borrowed the links below from Homeopathy for reference;


 * NPOV: Pseudoscience
 * NPOV: Undue weight
 * NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
 * NPOV: Giving "equal validity"

While there are aspects of the procedures that act on skeleto-muscular aspects of the body like any deep massage technique could, there are a number of claims made in this article and by practitioners that are not backed up by scientific studies, and this does place them as "pseudoscience." This is not the same as calling it fake, a lie, or anything derogatory out of hand. This is simply a term to define something as science or not (yet?) science. -- Xinit (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Marketing Manager of Rolf International
I meant to include a note on my revision, but I clicked away the dialog.. Anyway, what I wanted to add was too long.

A) It doesn't matter who you claim to be; without citeable links or documentation, your repeated edits (eg. Sixth attempt at clarifications on terms owned by the Rolf Institute. I am the Marketing Manager. Please stop deleting my changes.) are not helping your case. You're adding unverified content that could be seen as independent research and thus, not encyclopedic.

B) You are editing as a guest; feel free to sign up for an account so that we can contact you directly with our comments rather than communicating indirectly through edits. I'd really recommend signing up if you'd like to monitor changes or provide input.

C) When you do add information about trademarks, doing so in a section might be appropriate. Maybe there are other trademarks and terms that could be written about; are there cases of people calling themselves Rolfers when they're not, and how is this checked? This might be outside of the scope of the article, but with proper citation, it might prove interesting or useful.

Please, feel free to include content that can be independently verified (government registries, court documents, scientific journals, etc etc). Even if you ARE the marketing manager of the company that is being discussed here, that doesn't make your case better; it may in fact make your case harder to prove.

Also, what is the problem with "of Boulder CO" vs "in Boulder CO"?

-- Xinit (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Relocating two Official Rolf Official Officials' comments from further up the page:

I'm the archivist for the Rolf Institute and a faculty member with the Guild for Structural Integration in Boulder Colorado. I'm very interested in re-writing this page to more accurately reflect what Rolfing® Structural Integration is and the accurate history of its development by Dr. Rolf. I'm new to Wikipedia and am interested in how to add: Links to other wikipedia articles External Links Citing Sources Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'll be submitting a revised article (a MAJOR edit) shortly. Thanks again, Jeff Linn Advanced Certified Rolfer® jefflinn@mac.com http://homepage.mac.com/jefflinn

I am the Marketing Manager for the Rolf Institute. I have made corrections and clarifications of our service marks five times on the Rolfing page only to find that the page has been reverted to its prior incorrect text each time. Why won't my changes stay on the page? They are correct and important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.217.68 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said above, your edits will likely continue to be reverted so long as they continue to be seen as not adding value to the article. Simply trying to resubmit the same edits again, stating that you're an expert with insider knowledge doesn't hold water here. We want outside corroboration not official party line.


 * It wouldn't hurt if you went and registered an account so that we could provide you direct feedback that we believed that you might see.


 * Can you at least appreciate that Wikipedia is not now, nor has it ever been meant to be a way for any corporation to provide approved information from the Marketing Department? One really shouldn't edit articles about themselves; it's in bad form. There's an article on citing one's self. Also check out what wikipedia is NOT and learn about what bar you need to pass to avoid being labeled as doing original research -- Xinit (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. FYI - the other comment you quoted to me from the marketing manager, was me too. I do know who that archivist is as well.

I am not trying to alter the descriptive content, where I could be writing in an advocacy style that may be inappropriate. I am trying to make sure that the terms we own are recognized as such (and presented correctly as in capitalized). I have legal documentation that supports what I am trying to fix, but how do I put that on wikipedia. How about I link to our webpage that speaks about our service marks. We work really hard so that our terms are not misused. I think if an article speaks about us, we should be allowed to be represented correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.217.68 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Marketing Manager is now sbwinter2. The reason I have been so persistent is because I thought random people were undoing my changes for no reason.

Legal Changes on This Page
I am the Marketing Manager of the Rolf Insitute. We are IN Boulder, but one person seems to think it is better to say OF Boulder, which makes no sense. That is antiquated phrasing (the Johnsons of Boston). I would like it to be IN which is better grammar.

I am also struggling with having my trademarked terms be acknowledged as so. The article needs to be clear that - Only graduates of the Rolf Institute can be referred to as Rolfers, Certified Rolfers and Advanced Certified Rolfers.

I have stopped using the R and TM symbols. But the term Rolfer only refers to RISI graduates - not the Guild, Hellerwork, etc. I suggested this to the person who keeps removing my changes: I could add it to the sentence "The term Rolfing is a registered trademark of the Rolf Institute of Boulder Colorado." to become "The terms Rolfing and Rolfer are a registered trademark of the Rolf Institute of Boulder Colorado."

Would that be better?

This needs to get on here somehow, so give me suggestions on how instead of deleting information that is legally necessitated and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.184.186 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to know if those making the edits are Rolfers/Structural Integration Practitioners and/or have any experience with the subject on which they are making these edits.


 * My first is to note that this is not "your" article, and if you really are the marketing manager of the said company, then you really shouldn't be editing the article at all, due to the conflict of interest issue.


 * As for the grammar, I would hardly say it's "antiquated". Perhaps "... based in ..." would work as a compromise.


 * As for "legally necessitated"; no it's not. Oli Filth(talk 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to the trademark issue, that is worth mentioning in the article, but take a look at Coca-cola as an example, where they actually provide information on the trademark, and when it was established.


 * "Coca-Cola is a registered trademark in most countries around the world and should always be written with the hyphen and not as "Coca Cola". The U.S. trademark was registered in the United States Patent Office on 31 January 1893. In the UK Coca-Cola was registered with the UK Patent Office on 11 July 1922, under registration number 427817."


 * A section on trademark issues and competing schools (Guild, Haldemark, etc as you mention). Has the trademark been infringed on, and how has it been protected? I have not searched very hard for proof of the trademark registration, but so far all I've turned up is a bunch of practitioners who say it's a trademark... give us a filing date and registration number that we can refer. At least show us that it's registered.


 * If you saw the links that I posted, you might understand how it can be considered bad form if the subject of an article edits it themselves, especially when they just revert and reapply changes from an anonymous address with no regard to anyone or anything else. Please try to work WITH us here. -- Xinit (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One other note; I have no experience with Rolfing. This, however, doesn't matter, as the WP community isn't comprised of subject matter experts. We're editors, not researchers. -- Xinit (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I will consider creating an account. I didn't think it was going to be a battle to add corrections to a page, but apparently it is. I am not planning on working on other pages, like you all seem to be doing with your time. Do you work for Wikipedia or just do this for fun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.217.68 (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Marketing Manager is now sbwinter2. The reason I have been so persistent is because I thought random people were undoing my changes for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. One of the benefits to having the account (in my opinion) is that you can see more reliable notifications of changes to the the article. That and people can more easily leave notes on your talk page if they have quibbles or notes for you. As for why we do this? Well, I'm sure there are as many reasons as there are editors. Me, I find that I learn about subjects I've never thought about. That and I get to practice negotiation skills, as I find I frequent a number of pages in in Category:Pseudoscience which has a surprising tendency toward non-critical points of view. I like trying to swing things back towards neutrality. -- Xinit (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Xinit, Thanks for all of your time to explain things to me (and in multiple Talk locations). The only other time I added something to Wikipedia, it was very easy. I just didn't expect there to be so much controversy over something at least I thought was a minor correction. At least I understand the process better and know there are very active editors who constantly monitor pages. I guess that is a good thing.

It is unfortunate that the process is not more transparent, though. It took me five attempts before I actually saw a comment in the history area that began to explain the reason for the undos. I think editors should be required to provide an explanation if they undo so that those of us on the outside can ask questions or make the appropriate modifications before trying again - that explanation could even be to direct the poster to the Talk page for that explanation. The message you sent to my IP was probably the most useful way to get my attention (even though by then, I already had figured out the Talk pages).

I also feel (and am happy to post these opinions in a more appropriate spot) that if the editor comes across a poster that feels he/she has knowledge on the specific topic, they should help them understand what steps they need to make in order to correct their edit, such as "if you feel you know this topic, please provide a citation." It is hard to tell what needs citation and what does not. For example, the mention of the Coca-Cola trademark explanation given above does not have a citation on the page itself.

Thanks again for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.184.186 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't
Doesn't wikipedia prevent single advertisement based articles, no matter the hope of it's being accepted as science or discovery? I mean, this is so blatantly ridiculous and unscientific and based off one persons unbelievable and absolutely disprovable commercially sold and self-named product... what an embarrassment to wiki to still have it up? this is horrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.7.55 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 May 2009
 * The relevant guidelines are at this page. Basically, if a lot has been written about something, even if it's to say that it's total nonsense, then Wikipedia should have an article about the subject.  The article need not present it favorably, if most mainstream sources reject it, but an article should exist.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In a telephone book, it says Rolfing see "Structural Integration" The above comments talk about self named. The name Rolf gave to her work was Structural Integration. Yet a search does not disclose a heading for SI without the service marked name being included.LegalRolfer (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Journal articles
there are some peer reviewed journal articles supporting the use of this technique: Structural integration has been found in randomized trials to decrease anxiety (Weinberg 1977) and improve vagal autonomic tone (Cottingham 1988a, b). Positive results have been reported for persons with cerebral palsy (Perry 1981) and other neurological conditions (Deutsch 1997), neck pain (James 2009),  chronic pain (Deutsch 2000) and Chronic Fatigue (Talty 1998).

Cottingham J. Shifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation. Phys Ther 68:1364-1370, 1988.

Cottingham J, Porges SW, Lyon T. Effects of soft tissue mobilization (Rolfing pelvic lift) on parasympathetic tone in two age groups. Phys Ther 68:352-356, 1988.

Deutsch JE, Judd P, Demassi I. Structural Integration applied to patients with a primary neurologic diagnosis: two case studies. Neurology Report 21(5):161-62. 1997.

Deutsch JE, Derr LL, Judd P, et al. Treatment of chronic pain through the use of Structural Integration (Rolfing). Orthopaedic Phys Ther Clin N America 9(3):411-425, 2000.

James H, Castaneda L, Miller ME, Findley T. Rolfing structural integration treatment of cervical spine dysfunction. J Bodywork  Movement Ther, 13:229-238, 2009

Perry J, Jones MH, Thomas L. Functional evaluation of Rolfing in cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 23(6):717-729, 1981.

Talty CM, DeMasi I, Deutsch JE. Structural integration applied to patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: a retrospective chart review J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 27(1):83, 1998.

Weinberg RS, Hunt VV. Effects of structural integration on state-trait anxiety. J Clin Psychol 35(2), April 1979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.65.142 (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS applies to any medical claims. Just judging by the info above, only a few even begin to meet MEDRS criteria. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jones 2004 review
The abstract contains the sentence, "Rolfing has a physiologic impact on the peripheral nervous system and on myofascial structures." Anyone have access to the review to see what that impact might be and if it's worth reporting? --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Here's the full abstract: --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC) "Rolfing, or structural integration, is one of many types of manipulative therapy. This article describes the principles and history of Rolfing and reviews current research. Only a few clinical trials specifically have looked at Rolfing. Related research on deep tissue massage and myofascial release also is reviewed. Rolfing has a physiologic impact on the peripheral nervous system and on myofascial structures. Important clinical outcome measures, such as pain levels and function, have not been looked at specifically, however,in clinical trials."

Remove issues tag
I removed issues tag since these all seem to have been addressed since it was imposed in 2008. To leave it there by now is a "weasel" look in itself. Manytexts (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to structural integration

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rolfing → Structural integration – At present, structural integration redirects to Rolfing. Structural integration is a broader, older, and more neutral title than Rolfing, which is a hyponym of structural integration and a registered trademark. Cursory Google searches suggest that structural integration enjoys far broader usage (~1.39 million hits as of this writing) than Rolfing (~597,000). Rolfing is also known as the Rolf method, but this term does not appear to be widely used (~35,300). (See Article titles: Common names in the MoS.) "Rolfing" is structural integration as it is taught by the Rolf Institute. A satisfactory treatment of the subject of structural integration can't be limited to one school, even if it is a venerable one. Since Rolfing is not synonymous with structural integration, the relationship should be made clear. This can be achieved either by heavily revising and reducing the scope of the Rolfing article, or by renaming it to structural integration and supplementing and reorganizing its content.

The definitions might delineate the relationships between Ida Pauline Rolf's early work; the development of the Rolf method of structural integration (SI), the foundation of the Rolf Institute; the acceptance and critiques of SI; the emergence of other schools of SI; canine and equine SI; and those features (if any) that fundamentally differentiate modern "Rolfing", as the Institute defines it, from structural integration as it is more broadly understood and practiced. Ringbang (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thoughtful roundup & reasons. As a vox pop sort of person, Rolfing is familiar but SI isn't. Are ghits the result of notability or promotion and time in this case? And which comes first, the prequel or the sequel in the popular as opposed to the professional mind. I'd look for Rolfing irrespective because it's catchy and used in a general way afaik. Does it matter if it's a trademark? Other things have their own article but now are trademarks e.g. Coca-Cola etc vs the older non-trademark Cola. I vote to keep them separate with complementary links in See Also sections and the articles, including Ida Rolf could be developed more. Manytexts (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't move: If "Rolfing is not synonymous with structural integration", why is that a reason to move? To the extent that SI is a broader sujbject deserving more coverage, I'd suggest leaving this article how it is, and expanding SI from what is currently a redirect. bobrayner (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Michael Shermer sentence
I'm moving the last sentence in the lede to the criticism section. The sentence seems inappropriate in the lede for a few reasons: 1. Shermer's "hooey" statement refers to a whole group of previously mentioned "alternative therapies", including mud baths, iridology, and pyramid power. 2. Shermer makes no critique of Rolfing's premise or techniques, he simply states that it was so painful that he "never went back" (presumably after the first session). 3. Characterizing Shermer as a former believer is misleading: while he is a former Christian believer, there is no indication of his ever endorsing or adhering to Structural Integration's claims - he only mentions that he tried Rolfing after a massage therapist suggested "deep tissue massage" to him. SympatheticResonance (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Energy Medicine sentence
Hi. The statement that Rolfing is a "form of energy medicine" seems to be at odds with the rest of the article describing it as physical manipulation of connective tissue or possibly areas of abnormally high muscular tonus. There is no attribution or reference for the statement in the cited article, which seems to be written in an imprecise and somewhat derisive tone ("many people like to have other people rub on them"). Does anyone have a reason to keep this sentence? If so, can it be sourced better?SympatheticResonance (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to structural integration Contuied
I am new to editing and talking on Wikipedia so I hope I am following proper procedure.

I am a Structural Integrator and practitioner of KMI brand of Structural Integration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesis_Myofascial_Integration

I wanted to clarify a few things regarding the difference between Structural Integration and Rolfing (R)

Structural Integration generic term with no legal trade mark attached to it. There are many schools that teach Structural Integration the most well know being The Rolf Institute (students called Rolfers), the guild of Structural Integrators (students claim to use the Rolf Methoid but do not call themselves rolfers), Hellerwork, Kinesis Myofascial Integration, Soma, and a few lesser know brands. That said There is an organization IASI (International Association of Structural Intergrators)(check out www.theiasi.org)that is working on creating an industry name for structural Integration regardless of practioners school of origin.

'''I think there should be one page called structural integration that talks about IASI and the general history of SI, with links to the Rolfing page, the Kinesis Myofascial Integration page, and new pages should be made to represent the other major schools of SI, most importantly The guild of Strucutural Integrators then, Hellerwork. It might be good to have a timeline that included the founding of each school and a brief history of how it defines itself in relation to Structural Integration at large.'''

I also wanted to clarify in response to a statement made:

''Rolfing is also known as the Rolf method, but this term does not appear to be widely used (~35,300). (See Article titles: Common names in the MoS.) "Rolfing" is structural integration as it is taught by the Rolf Institute. A satisfactory treatment of the subject of structural integration can't be limited to one school, even if it is a venerable one."''

The clarification I wanted to have made here is that Rolf Method is not a trademarked term like Rolfing(R) and is used by other schools of Structural Integrators mainly the Guild of Strucutral Integrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvin BCSI (talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Precious little criticism under "Criticism"
Is there really no scientific criticism about the validity of Rolf's theories and the benefits of these practices? I find it hard to believe. The criticism section contains almost no actual criticism. Kronocide (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And now, there's no criticism at all - no "Criticism" section. Amazing. I don't believe there's no criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benreaves (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge Structural Integration material into this Article?
Since it appears to be very closely related, maybe synonymous (according to Slate magazine they're the same thing)... Alexbrn talk 06:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Effectiveness"
This section is hopelessly out of date. There are other peer-reviewed articles out there that attest to the effectiveness of Rolfing™. And that's not to mention the many, many articles the reinforce this claim, most lately those regarding some of the recent Super Bowl-winning Seattle Seahawks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amkaplan (talk • contribs) 03:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great - where are these sources? (Remember they need to be WP:MEDRS). Alexbrn talk 07:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * i am sure those superbowl™ winners owe their rings™ to the rolfing™ they got before the big™ game.™ --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)™

Primary, unreliable sources
This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, many of which are unreliable. Any biomedical information requires WP:MEDRS support. The subject of the article falls under WP:FRINGE and most of these primary sources have little or no WP:DUE weight. Much of the content of the article is subject to removal per the mentioned policies and guidelines. Some MEDRS sources to describe what the therapy/treatment and the theoretical basis is are needed (or they need to be explicitly described as fringe), also some secondary sources to demonstrate that the various organizations have adequate notability to warrant mention. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points. I agree. bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Trying to get the false information to stop
I am taking this to Talk again. Please stop stating that Rolfing is massage. It is not and never has been. It is a form of structural integration (the original form) which is its own modality (like Chiropractic or Acupuncture). People come to this page to get truthful information, and putting in false info about it being massage is just confusing.

It is also not forceful. In fact, it is the opposite in many cases. Please stop making up information.

There is also research that absolutely shows that it can be helpful for certain health condition. For example, http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/To-help-kids-move-docs-try-Rolfing-4145478.php.

Do not use the Skeptic's bibles as sources since much of that info is actually not accurate (and is old). Isn't the goal to have Wikipedia be accurate and truthful? That is what I am trying to do. What are you all trying to do? Sbwinter2 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The goal of Wikipedia is to represent the mainstream academic views of the subject the particular particular aspects that need to be take into consideration for medically related topics and and those that are outside of the mainstream academic view to begin with.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The goal is to provide the mainstream view? It isn't to provide the most accurate view? Is Wikipedia an online Encyclopedia or just representing whatever people think regardless of if they are accurate or not? I thought Wikipedia is where people came to get an accurate view in order to help them correct their inaccurate one. I thought the purpose was to represent truth and not whatever a bunch of people think on any given day (and it is now easy to find published sources that represent lots of false info). I really rely on Wikipedia personally, so what you are saying it really disturbing to me. Sbwinter2 (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If, after reading our policies, you are "disturbed", then you probably will need to not edit Wikipedia. If you are determined to edit outside of the policies, the decision will be made for you, probably in relatively short order -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to get blocked. That is why I am asking what you all need from me or anyone in order to make sure what is presented is accurate. It looks like I need to find published books that describe the work correctly. Do they have to be online or just published? What else? It can't be this hard to get an article corrected? Thanks for your help?Sbwinter2 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * a single book that calls it "not massage" would not be enough, you would either need a lot of books from the mainstream academic world that state that it is "not massage" or  a reliably published book that says "it is widely considered in the mainstream to be 'not massage'" --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ernst & Singh write that Rolfing is a massage therapy that is forceful. That's a good source - does anything say different? Alexbrn talk 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do books by the person who actually developed Rolfing count? I just want to know what will and will not work. Sbwinter2 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not for neutral descriptive statements - we need independent sources. Alexbrn talk 22:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They are reliable sources for his opinion, but that is of little value in determining what the mainstream academic and medical views are and how it will be presented in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because you find one incorrect source, that doesn't make it truth. There are many more that show that it is not massage. Start with the real source, www.rolf.org. There are also books too. What do you need me to provide you to get this to stop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * self promotional claims from rolf.org about its therapies are not reliable sources. You will need third party medically published reliable sources making the claim that it is not massage. citing www.rolf.org don't cut it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So are you telling me that if you publish lies about another brand, like Ford or Apple, they will not have their lawyers coming down on Wikipedia? The best expert on describing what Apple does is Apple. The best experts on describing what Rolfing is, is The Rolf Institute and the Rolfers who were trained there. If it isn't advertisement, but is just fact, don't you want the best sources available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What about this ? Alexbrn talk 22:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You will find lots of books and articles that call Rolfing massage mainly because no one knew what structural integration was/is. It doesn't make them correct, but they are there. What I want to know is if a painter paints something blue, and others call it green, is it really blue or green to Wikipedia? Sbwinter2 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * green. Alexbrn talk 22:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In an attempt to summarize WP policy; if the others call in green in multiple reliable sources, or the others are published experts in the field then it is green. The painters view could be presented, as his/her view, and only as a fringe opinion. I hope that provides some clarity. For sources on rolfing per WP:MEDRS I suggest reviews or meta analyses first then books from reliable publishing houses by independent authors followed by recent studies published in peer reviewed journals. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd go with green too. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 02:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A more apt analogy is someone hands you a bird and says "See my Zombolista?" A wildlife artist looks at the bird and says "That's a mighty fine duck." A duck hunter looks at the bird and says "You've got yourself a good looking duck there" and the ornithologist examines the bird and proclaims it "an exquisite specimen of Anas platyrhynchos". We would call it a duck and not a Zombolista. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will see what I can do. One question based on a comment above, "The painters view could be presented, as his/her view, and only as a fringe opinion.": If that is the case, could the view of Dr. Rolf and Rolfers be presented as one view of the work as skeptics' views are already presented as another? Sbwinter2 (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We already quote the institute (e.g. in the second sentence); we need to be careful not to give undue weight to things which have not been discussed in secondary sources - that lack of discussion is a strong indication they're unlikely to be of interest/worth to the general reader. Alexbrn talk 16:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, but have been really busy. One thing I have discovered looking at definitions is that there is a difference between using the word "massage" to mean manual therapy (as in uses hands/arms) and "massage" as in was trained at a massage school. I can understand how people would classify Rolfing as the former since it is a manual therapy, but I am concerned that the public might get that confused and think it means the second definition. You cannot go to a massage school and become a Rolfer (or even a structural integration practitioner) since it isn't taught to certification level at massage schools. You have to go to an actual structural integration school or Rolf Institute, for Rolfing specifically. Is there a way to make that clear on this page, that when Rolfing is defined as massage (like when it is called a type of deep massage), it does not mean or imply that the practitioner was trained at a massage school for this type of work? Sbwinter2 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Rolfing structural integration treatment of cervical spine dysfunction.
Can the conclusion from this study be summarized added to the page under "Effectiveness and reception"? --Mikehenke (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524847
 * No. See WP:MEDRS: "For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable, and any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies." --tronvillain (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice! Thank you --Mikehenke (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going to add to the "good evidence" page 126 for Rolfing says "Quality of evidence: Not applicable" but then we state the quality as "good" --Mikehenke (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, it wastes time if you don't read the source properly. This means there was nothing in scope for them to consider. Later in the source there is a discussion of the evidence being too poor for them to use (e.g. because it is compromised by mixing rolfing and massge). Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this by any chance from the discussion below? It doesn't appear to apply here. --tronvillain (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)