Talk:Rolfing/Archive 3

Additional possible sources - please give any input
I'll post additional sources that I locate here, inviting feedback before I take the time to mine them for facts. I've read WP:MEDRS carefully and since there are no current studies published in suitable journals, these sources are secondary sources from mainstream publishers. For instance, several are books that summarize and review a variety of types of bodywork or health disciplines. Sorry for inconsistent formatting here; I'll clean up the ones that get used for the article.

This one was already checked by MrBill3 and met his approval: http://www.amazon.com/Modalities-Massage-Bodywork-Elaine-Stillerman/dp/032305255X (Google book snippets for this are very limited; amazon search-in-book is better but still only partial. I have requested this book from my local library.)

Integrative Therapies for Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Myofascial Pain pp. 215-6. Healing Arts Press; 2010 1594773238 by Celeste Cooper R.N., Jeffrey Miller Ph.D. Description of sessions, purpose. Should this book be completely omitted because it was published by an alternative-health publisher? It seems fairly credible otherwise, in that it was written by a nurse whose purpose is to broadly help and advise patients with fibromyalgia.

Educational Opportunities in Integrative Medicine: The A to Z Healing Arts Guide and Professional Directory. Douglas Wengell. Hunter Press. 2008. Goals, method, history, and the professional organization IASI (which was missing a strong source). http://books.google.com/books?id=BNR1KGJXX9cC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Looking forward to feedback from other editors on these potential sources. --Karinpower (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * These are all altmed sources, I think. Maybe okay for some general statements (e.g. about technique), but not for any exceptional claims (e.g. those concerning health outcomes). Alexbrn talk 05:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, if they are all considered altmed sources, does the publisher even matter? I ask regarding the Healing Arts Press book I mentioned above (on Fibromyalgia, with a detailed description of Rolfing). I have found several books by this publisher that could be helpful but have so far dismissed them based on that. Thanks. --Karinpower (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The tricky part may be that alt med sources tend to phrase treatments as based on concepts not supported by medical science. For instance what is "organization of the body in relation to gravity"? I'm pretty that it's a fringe theory with no MEDRS quality evidence or acceptance in the mainstream academic or medical communities. The theories and ideas of the fringe view (Rolfers on Rolfing, alt med proponents etc.) can be represented, but the issue of WP:DUE arises, bringing with it the need to have the most accurate representation of current medical knowledge presented in proportion to the prominence of these two views. I look forward to seeing how this can be done with a civil and cool headed group of editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a good point. It sounds like it would be helpful to 1) get more specific about what "organization in relation to gravity" means and 2) address whether there is scientific support for any of those concepts (coming from outside of Rolfing, likely from the physical therapy or chiropractic research, using only WP:MEDRS quality of course). At least one secondary source I have found does detail the alignment goals, so can we discuss whether/how/where to include this information? I believe that spelling that out is the first step, then we can look at what evidence may be available. --Karinpower (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Could I have some guidance from the editors as to why this journal article is not an acceptable reference? Shifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation, from the Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association. SIboston (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source, so not a good WP:MEDRS ... Alexbrn talk 19:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As Alxbrn has said it is a primary study, making it poor WP:MEDRS from the start. It is from 1988, 26 years old. If this treatment modality showed promise further studies would have been done in the intervening 26 years. These further studies would then be reviewed or subjected to a meta-analysis. It is a review/meta-analysis of multiple studies that meets MEDRS standards. Looking at the study there is the issue of its small size n=32, 16 treatment and 16 control. The next issue is it consists of a single treatment with pre, immediate-post and a 24 hour follow up assessment. A single treatment of 16 individuals assessed twice in 24 hours is not quality medical research, especially since the subjects were preselected for having a deviation from norm. See Regression toward the mean. Looking at the study the first thing is the proposed "balanced" pelvis angle does not match that of a group of (20) healthy individuals. So what gives Rolf's 6 degree "balanced" pelvis idea any validity? Nothing. There isn't any basis for a change in the pelvic angle being of any benefit. Look at the references given to support, "Thus, pelvic mobilization has been recommended as a treatment modality for certain low back functions." Let's just say this "recommendation" didn't come from recognized medical authorities (but kudos to the authors for working "The function of orgasm" into their refs). So we have a baseline normal established by looking at 20 subjects then we are assessing 32 subjects three times each within a 24 hour period.


 * Then we get to parasympathetic nerve system (PNS) tone. What evidence is given to indicate that a change in the cardiac PNS tone is indicative of any benefit. What evidence is given that variations in PNS tone mean anything? What evidence that the change observed in the study is of benefit or has any significance. Is it sustained? Does it occur with a second treatment? As before a total of 3 measurements on 32 subjects doesn't really generate useful data. What is the baseline for the population established by other studies and the validation of the tool?


 * Short version: So we are left with a very small study that has not been followed up in 26 years that measured two variables with no evidence that changes in those variables is significant much less beneficial.


 * Sorry for the length (at least I skipped the statistics failings) but I am hopeful that this example will assist editors in understanding evaluation of sources/studies. WP editors don't analyze the sources but do evaluate their quality. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * we can and do analyse the sources and content, but that analysis cannot end up in the article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

NPR story on Rolfing
Here is an example of a non MEDRS story that discusses rolfing, unfortunately I don't see a lot in this story that could be added to the article but this kind of piece could be used to say Rolfing was popular in the 1970s and has seen increased interest recently. Perhaps some article of this type would provide some concrete info on its current level of popularity (like there are X rolfers in the US, rolfing is offered in X US cities or such). Although this kind of source can't be used for any biomedical information, claims of effectiveness etc. This kind of source can be used for more general information about rolfing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I did see this article in my research and passed it over because of the lack of info and it is almost completely a first-person account. There are better newspaper articles. For now, I'm focusing on the books. There are still another 6 or so that I haven't introduced into the article yet. --Karinpower (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jolly ho! then. I think books are a better source in general. I agree there wasn't much meat to extract from the NPR story. I think the newspaper articles can provide "was originally popular in...and has seen an increase in popularity again since..." perhaps even with some numbers etc. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, what if I told you that I was the source for the NPR piece? - perhaps not their only source, but they interviewed me. Does that make the source more or less credible? Sbwinter2 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * MrBill3, I have a question about that regarding a different article. There's a style of bodywork that has faded out of popularity over the past few decades (confirmed with google search, not many practitioners left offering it) but WP still thinks it's current, because nobody writes about what's *not* current. I want to contribute something to give it perspective but can't figure out how. Postural Integration Thanks for any insight.--Karinpower (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources are split on whether Rolfing is a type of massage
Is Rolfing a separate modality from massage?
 * There is significant disparity among sources discussing Rolfing as to whether it is to be including under the category of "massage" or is more appropriately described as "bodywork," "manual therapy," "manipulative therapy," "somatic education," etc - essentially any term except massage. A point of confusion is that sometimes the term "massage" is used loosely to include all tissue work, yet there are a number of modalities that object to that term yet do not mind the broader term "bodywork." Cognoscenti of alternative medicine are more likely to understand this than the general public, however. One reason for this snobbery is that the origin of the word massage is "to knead" (like masa, the Spanish word for dough), and kneading muscles is perceived as a service job, rather than a health profession. Professions that prefer the term "bodywork" are generally striving for a higher level of lasting intervention.


 * The Rolfing profession argues that Rolfing (aka Structural Integration or SI) has always been a separate modality, with its own legacy/culture, schools, etc. One cannot attend massage school to learn SI, or attend an SI school to learn massage. (According to IASI {http://www.theiasi.net}, there are over a dozen schools for SI, and it seems that none of them offer any non-SI training.)
 * On the other hand, the massage profession tends to group all touch-based bodywork under their umbrella, so sources coming from the massage world sometimes categorize Rolfing as a type of massage . Sources with the broader perspective of Alternative and Complementary Medicine are more likely to group Rolfing with other modalities focused on retraining movement (such as Feldenkrais), including NIH's program, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
 * Having read a variety of secondary sources (mostly books) while researching this article, I have come to the conclusion that there is enough disagreement on this point that the article should address this discrepancy (briefly).

What do the sources say?
 * Of the secondary sources I've consulted, several use the term "massage," including Daniels and Carroll, though Carroll does make a point of mentioning that Rolfers call it "movement education" rather than "massage". Sherman grouped modalities into four types: relaxation massage, clinical massage, movement re-education and energy work. It placed Rolfing in the "clinical massage" category though arguments could be made for the "movement re-education" category. In this case, the term "massage" is being used in a general sense to include all tissue work modalities, yet some would say that "clinical bodywork" would be a better choice of terminology if it is to include all such modalities. Daniels is not a highly credible source, at it provides only 1 paragraph of detail and cites no sources. Similarly, Singh , normally a highly credible author, provides a flippant one-sentence definition of Rolfing and no sources, so his use of the term "massage" cannot be taken very seriously.
 * Several sources make an effort to explain that Rolfing is not massage. Cassar spends half a page explaining the difference between massage and bodywork (specifically mentioning Rolfing as an example of the latter). Gale says. "Bodywork should not be equated with massage simply speaking," and includes Rolfing as a type of bodywork. Levine has a paragraph on why Rolfing's lofty goals of whole-body organization make it quite distinct from Myofascial Release (though MFR has cherry-picked from Rolfing over the decades). Stillerman explains that Rolfing is often mistaken for massage but that's because massage has borrowed so significantly from Rolfing, citing two early massage teachers (Al Drucker and Robert Ward DO) who studied with Dr. Rolf before launching out to teach "deep tissue massage" and "myofascial release," respectively. Deutsch explains that Rolfing is exempt from some state massage laws, and mentions NCCAM's categorization.
 * Many other sources choose their wording to avoid the term "massage" in describing Rolfing. They say it's a "technique," "approach," or "therapy," or they simply dive into describing what it's meant to do. They also use neutral terms like "bodywork." These include Salvo, Knaster , van der Kolk , Dr. Rosenfeld , and Baer . One author, Claire , scrupulously avoids the term "massage" during most of his 16 page description but offhandedly uses the term once. (Note that Myers and Schultz are Rolfers, therefore biased, but would be included in the list of authors that avoid the term "massage".)
 * A pattern here is that sources that have researched the topic in-depth, providing several pages or a full chapter on it, and citing a variety of sources for their material, are more likely to operate from a perspective that Rolfing is not a type of massage. However, it does remain a common public conception that Rolfing is a type of massage (or that massage and bodywork are synonymous), and therefore less well-researched sources often do use the term "massage."

How shall the article be revised?
 * Rather than casually using the word "massage" several places in the article, these would be removed (and rewritten with neutral wording). Instead, a short paragraph will explain the difference in perspective. Whether this would be a new section or included in an existing section, and the exact wording, is to be discussed. I propose that it be included in "Theory and practice" and be worded: "Rolfers and some experts in alternative medicine describe Rolfing as "somatic education" and use terms such as "bodywork" to describe the hands-on portion of the process.   Some factions of the massage industry claim that Rolfing is a type of massage. The massage tradition has drawn significantly from Rolfing, with some of Ida Rolf's students leaving to become prominent teachers of massage  ."

References already cited in current Rolfing article:

Sources not yet cited in Rolfing article:

See also:
 * bodywork
 * Alt med terms and concepts (Find Rolfing under "M" for manipulative therapies, not under "massage")

What do editors say about this? I have asked opinions of three editors with varying levels of involvement with this article, and their comments (largely supportive) can be read at these three links: MrBill3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrBill3#Your_perspective_is_requested_for_Sandbox_material GregorB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karinpower#Re:_Sandbox Yunshui: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yunshui#Your_perspective_is_requested_for_a_sandbox_draft Looking forward to hearing any other comments on this proposal. --Karinpower (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of above section
Since my previous post is so long and already has paragraph indents to make it more readable, it might be confusing for following others' comments. Let's discuss it here in a separate section. Thanks. --Karinpower (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

New article section proposed: Other Disciplines of Structural Integration
Currently the final sentence of the article is: The Guild for Structural Integration certifies graduates under the title "Practitioners of the Rolf Method of Structural Integration." I propose a new (small) section entitled "Other Disciplines of Structural Integration." All of these schools may use the term "Practitioners of the Rolf Method of Structural Integration." A few schools use their own terminology, such as Hellerworkers, but I think that can be left out of the article.

Proposed text: "In addition to the Rolf Institute, where Certified Rolfers are trained, a number of other schools of Structural Integration certify "Practitioners of the Rolf Method of Structural Integration." Standards are maintained by a professional membership organization, the International Association of Structural Integration. These schools include The Guild for Structural Integration, Hellerwork Structural Integration   , Aston Patterning  , SOMA , KMI , and others." (Please note that the above sources refer up to a previous section.)--Karinpower (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Strengthening references
This article used to rely on many weak sources, because strong sources hadn't yet been identified. We still know the article lacks MEDRS sources to back up health claims, and that's likely to be the state of things until future studies are published. But for general information, we now have a good source list and can begin to weed out weaker ones. I started by eliminating one of the two inline references to rolf.org; there is also an inline reference to rolfing.org (this seems to be the European equiv of rolf.org, and perhaps it needs to be included as an External Link to avoid being US-centric).

There are two primary print sources (authored by Rolfers), Meyers and Rolf. I'm not proposing that we eliminate these but rather rely on them less (that seems to be an appropriate use of primary sources, as primary sources can be used to back-up secondary and show that members of the field agree with what outsiders claim). Particularly Meyers, who is cited inline 6 times, many of which could be attributed to other sources because they are very basic points of fact.

There is one magazine article cited; I propose we keep this because it references fairly current media response (Oprah) to the subject; that is a good use of a magazine source.

I propose that Trick or Treat be removed as a source. While this book is excellent at addressing the four topics of the book (chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, and herbs), it is a very poor reference for Rolfing. In a list of alternative health terms, it takes a stab at a two-line definition of Rolfing, while failing to mention the purpose of it. It doesn't cite any references regarding Rolfing, therefore this source is not secondary for this topic. The archives of this talk page include a conversation with MrBill3 where he wrote that he would support the removal of TT when enough quality secondary sources were provided. MrBill3, are you ready to support this now? I will add that Carroll does a much better job of representing the Skeptic point of view, with a full page description (though his comments are not strictly secondary either as the references he cites do not mention Rolfing). Thanks for your consideration. --Karinpower (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Singh & Ernst (Trick or Treat) provides a common language summary that is of value to the article. A proposal that includes essentially the same but uses another source would be acceptable to me. A short two line definition by recognized experts on alternative medicine published in a notable book is the type of material that provides quality encyclopedic content.
 * As a note secondary sources are not required to cite the sources they base their summary, analysis, commentary etc. on. Many reliable sources do not use citations. It is useful and a valid argument in discussing the quality/reliability of sources but not by any means a requirement. Carroll while not giving citations on rolfing, does discuss the sources of his information in his text. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification on sources giving their references. In this case however, I suspect that the authors jotted that "definition" off the top of their heads, from their impressions of what they had heard. As I mentioned in the now-archived thread, I contacted Simon Singh, one of the authors of Trick or Treatment to ask him if he had a source for his one sentence comment about Rolfing. He replied, "I think our summary is not particularly helpful - too brief and does not deal with Rolfing's unique features.... I am surprised that a Wikipedia page is using our book as a reference.... I would have thought there are better references for defining Rolfing. I don't think our description was based on a particular authority." (Simon Singh, by email)
 * A good definition would include "what" and "why." As to the "what," TT is missing the rather crucial structure of the 10-session-series. Also, it terms of how Rolfing is done, it seems that the approach can vary quite a bit (fingertips vs. elbows, gentle to firm, and also what exact structures are addressed), yet TT only mentions one extreme end of that spectrum. As to "why," many of the sources I have consulted put an extreme emphasis on the purpose/goals of Rolfing (over the mechanics of how it is done), yet the purpose is not at all addressed in TT. That's why I think TT should be removed.--Karinpower (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with that ToT is useful for sourcing a brief summary in lay language – unless there is something better that does this job. Is there? Alexbrn talk 04:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Baer offers an accurate tidy 2-sentence summary: http://books.google.com/books?id=XGA3rfJt2iMC&q=structural+integration#v=snippet&q=Rolfing&f=false; the author is a medical anthropologist with a PhD and a university teaching position: http://pgh.unimelb.edu.au/about/contact/allstaff/baer.
 * As to a medical perspective offering a very short summary, nurse Daniels does that, in 6 sentences: http://books.google.com/books?id=-tmHtnxutW4C&pg=PA306.
 * Slightly longer but still somewhat conventional in perspective would be Thackery, with Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Health.
 * I'm not familiar enough with Dr. Isadore Rosenbaum to know if he represents conventional medicine (he is a cardiologist), but you can read his bio here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0742536/bio. His section on Rolfing isn't very tightly written, though.... however I think any of the first three are strong enough to serve in the place of ToT.--Karinpower (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been almost a week with no objections.... do either of you have any reservations about the above as serving the role you mentioned? If not I will go ahead and make the change. Thanks. --Karinpower (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Daniels source restates that Rolfing is a kind of massage - perhaps use that in addition to ToT? Alexbrn talk 06:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, thanks for your reply. Could you clarify your response? It seems a bit disjointed from the conversation at hand. We are discussing MrBill3's request for a short common language summary by a noted alt-med expert to replace ToT.... I'm not convinced that it's essential to have exactly that type of source, and I think ToT should be removed on its own lack of merit, but I'm humoring the request. I think Baer is the best quality description, shortest, and has the advantage of being written by an alt-med expert who is not himself a practitioner of any type, which gives a bit of distance and perspective. Daniels would be a second-best option; it is already cited in the article. (The other two that I mentioned are from the medical world but not as pithy.)--Karinpower (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With the sources above, I don't think we should remove ToT, but I don't mind using Daniel to reinforce what it says. Baer misses the "massage" aspect mentioned by these two other sources, and embeds some dubious concepts about "efficiency" in the "field of gravity". Rather not dip into a fringey definition. Alexbrn talk 05:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that those concepts are "fringey" by nature. The idea that being aligned in gravity could be more efficient than poor alignment doesn't seem that radical, even if we have yet to see studies that prove the various elements of that premise (and I do think that the physical therapy world may have already investigated some of those questions). Also, it is appropriate for any decent source to attempt to articulate the stated purpose of a modality, which is what Baer does, and what ToT fails to do.
 * If by "massage" you mean the hands-on aspect of the modality, Baer definitely covers that by calling it a "manipulative therapy." As previously discussed at length, the use of the term "massage" is often sloppily applied to non-massage modalities such as Rolfing, which is a limitation that shows in Daniels text. The only advantage of Daniels over Baer is that she mentions the 10-session series, a key element. Daniels is already cited in the article, FYI. Baer covers every aspect of ToT yet fills in the shortcomings. ToT doesn't have a place in this article.
 * Here's the link to Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Health, another source that has dramatic advantages over ToT (though it's not as short as Baer - for some reason MrBill3 seemed to want a pithy source included): http://librarum.org/book/22665/154. --Karinpower (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Karin has mentioned this issue to me, and I've looked at the source, p. 316 in ToT. That little comment is not worth using, the section is more positive than negative, and generally it's simply not enough to justify using ToT as a source for comment on Rolfing. It's the ONLY mention of Rolfing in the whole book. It would make us look desperate, dumb, or incompetent to use it. Just drop this. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Given no further objections in the past month, I'll make the edits to remove ToT as a source. I'm confident that the other sources cited are significantly superior and leave no gap in coverage that ToT fills. --Karinpower (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Brangifer for actually finding and reading the source and providing a clear explanation. Apologies to Karinpower for not appropriately assuming good faith and respecting their editorial discretion. I now support the removal of ToT. A note on what the Tracey source says, "There is no evidence-based literature to support Rolfing in any specific disease group." - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying that. Very gracious of you. On the Tracey Jones source, actually I tried to look at the source to investigate the question that was raised about it, and I couldn't find a way to access the article without paying. I understand you have access to some WP resources for viewing such articles? Is there a way that I can read it? Thanks.--Karinpower (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't found a good way to share pay-wall restricted articles over wikipedia. Probably because wikipedia doesn't want to run into IP lawsuits. To try to get sources yourself without having to pay for the article I would suggest emailing the original author of the article to ask for a PDF copy. If that doesn't work, many local libraries can interlibrary loan articles for the general public in the U.S.--Pengortm (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a copy at rolf.org. A google search of "rolfing Tracey A Jones" should bring up a link. As above I can't post the link due to WP copyright concerns. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Jones article about scientific evidence
We started to discuss this in the section above, but it deserves its own section. Thanks to Pengortm and MrBill3 for the replies on how to access the Jones article. MrBill3 was correct, a google for "rolfing Tracey A Jones" (but without quotes) pulls up a link to the article on Rolf.org. The current wording about effectiveness has elicited a number of objections over the past months, including recently from Rhowme and Sonicsuns. I have only just now read the Jones article, and I agree that the current text is too boldly negative compared to the source. I think MrBill3's above quote (p 807, the final paragraph of the article) is more accurate: "There is no evidence-based literature to support Rolfing in any specific disease group." Since we are facing some controversy here, this might be an appropriate place to simply quote the source. For the present wording to stand, I'd like to see more studies that literally show "no benefit". Studies have been weak and few, but show potential for future positive results.

As an aside, in many of the references, it seems that Rolfing doesn't position itself as attempting to treat diseases.... (They *are* claiming health benefits that need to be proven - certainly improved posture, ease of motion, etc are health benefits.) The fact that one of the studies was on Rolfing for cerebral palsy seems bizarrely incongruent with this. Not sure what to make of that. --Karinpower (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the existing text is a fair paraphrase. In an encyclopedia when discussing health benefits, "no evidence based literature to support" such a benefit is expressed fairly with the paraphrases "no evidence effective" and "no benefit". Studies that show potential for future positive results carry no due weight. If studies of adequate quality show a benefit and are reviewed and commented on in reliable sources then a discussion of changing the phrasing or adding content is appropriate. As an encyclopedia WP is not at the vanguard of such information but presents content as due from reliable high quality secondary sources.
 * In response to your aside, in general WP doesn't place subjects in the context their proponents position them in rather in the context they are considered from by independent reliable sources. This also speaks to the above regarding encyclopedic paraphrase rather than quoting an involved author. It also applies to mentioning a list of studies published on the web by a promotional organization, if an independent reliable source considers these studies of significance they would review or comment on them in a publication. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is Jones an "involved author"? I was under the impression that this individual was quite impartial. An online search to get a bio resulted in this: http://psychphilly.com/about.htm (Interesting to realize I had been incorrectly thinking Jones was a man.)
 * To clarify, I was stating that many sources describe Rolfing as having holistic goals rather than disease-oriented goals - so it's not just how the proponents describe it but rather the printed sources. This was a theme that struck me as I was doing that research a number of months ago. I would have to look again to see which sources emphasized this, but it was quite common. Not that it would affect this issue, just noting it. --Karinpower (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction between a therapy that has been tested and disproven, and a therapy that simply hasn't been tested. The Jones article states "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.". It says that Rolfing does have some kind of impact on the body, and it also states that "important clinical outcome measures" have not been studied. When the reader finds a sentence like "There is no evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition.", they can easily get the impression that Rolfing has been extensively tested and found to be ineffective. That conclusion is not made in the Jones article. So either that sentence needs a different source, or the sentence itself needs to chance. Quoting directly from Jones may be the best way to cite it. Sonicsuns (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A treatment modality that makes health claims and has no evidence to support these health claims is fairly described in an encyclopedia has having no evidence for effectiveness. See WP:MEDRS and a great number of PAG that point clearly how anything that deals with claims of health benefits or presents biomedical theories is addressed on WP. Dropping a bowling ball on your foot has a physiological impact, if claims are made about health benefits of doing so WP does not state they have not been demonstrated yet or fully studied. PAG make clear how the encyclopedia addresses biomedical information and claims of health benefit. A WP:REDFLAG is raised whenever health claims are made without evidence. The source clearly says there is no evidence based literature to support the health claims, thus the encyclopedia makes clear there is no demonstrated benefit. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your article has been nominated for speedy deletion
I am sorry to have to tell you this but I found two copyright violations in the article. Please refer to the article itself because it contains a method that you can use to contest the speedy deletion process but you have to move quickly. The speedy deletion process as it relates to copyright violations can happen within minutes.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional copyright violation found
 * http://ilovechevrolet.tk/Rolfing

 Bfpage &#124;leave a message 14:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a space where you can submit your comments to contest this speedy deletion
I believe that this article should not be deleted for the following reasons:

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I'm going to fix it. I'll re-word everything so it's no longer infringing on copyright.Sonicsuns (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, the source of the infringement is here, right? But that blog post is from September 10 2014. Now check our article's history and you'll see that the content was here before Sept 10: . So it seems to me that the blog post is using our content, not the other way around. Are we really infringing? Sonicsuns (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case of WP:CIR. Take a quick look at the last section of my talk page, I'm gobsmacked. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm vaguely amused that this editor made such a hullabaloo over nothing. There are old versions of this article (and many other WP articles) plastered all over the internet. There's already a comment to that effect on Bfpage's user talk page. --Karinpower (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As those websites do not provide attribution to Wikipedia, they are actually in violation of copyright. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to reception
As I am sure the recent edits to reception will draw some controversy, I am opening a discussion here. To me they seem attributed to reliable sources and adequately referenced. This expansion may open some room for other positions. I am hopeful useful dialog can occur. In my experience the editor who made these changes is a good faith editor whose contributions are well referenced and who is generally willing and able to discuss on talk. I also think some of the main contributors to discussion here are likewise good faith, competent editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to know that this editor generally works in good faith. Having just looked at these two sources, they appear very weak as sources on this topic. In both cases, Rolfing is mentioned only once, and only in a long list of random therapies or practices. In Beyerstein, it's a list of eighteen "unproven psychological theories and treatments" which includes a very scattered list, none of which have anything to do with Rolfing. In Junk Science, the list is more than twenty alt-med approaches, from relatively credible (yoga) to off-the-wall (homeopathy); the author didn't even bother to separate modalities that are based on anatomy from those that aren't.
 * These sources do not offer information about how Rolfing is received. They don't belong in an encyclopedia. The Skeptic's Dictionary provides a much better neutral/Skeptic source with actual information and actual criticism. --Karinpower (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If, in rolfing, we're dealing with a fringe offering it's important that the mainstream stance towards it is clear, and WP:PARITY would give license for lessening the source quality in these circumstances. If it's so that rolfing is "unproven" and it's being sold as being worthy of something, we're deep into territory where WP:FRINGE applies. Alexbrn talk 08:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Several points here. First, "Mainstream stance" is not represented by Skeptic rants, which is what that section of Junk Science is. (Beyerstein on the other hand just seems to be confused about what Rolfing even is, since it appears in the psych section.)
 * Second, what do you mean by lessening source quality? Perhaps that means looking to popular media such as magazines (which tend to be rather primary in nature); I prefer not to use those, and most of those sources are fairly positive anyway. Lessening source quality doesn't correct the fact that these two sources don't actually say *anything* about how Rolfing in particular is received.
 * Third, there is a difference between random faith-based healing (crystals, homeopathy, etc) and anatomically-based modalities that have yet to produce the science to support them but have a fairly plausible platform. There's fringe and then there's fringe.
 * I see that another similar source has been added (Suckers). I'm looking on googlebooks and can't see the whole paragraph where Rolfing is mentioned (again, it's just once) but clearly it is yet again in a random list of crap that include kombucha tea, magnet therapy, and urine therapy. That's actually kind of funny; I could not have devised a more crazy list if I was trying to write a parody of these sources. Again, it appears that there is no specific criticism of Rolfing or information on the "reception" of Rolfing. --Karinpower (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What was it Edzard Ernst said about his latest skeptical book? All the altmed practitioners thought it was excellent, except for the chapter on their specialism! The point is that if Rolfing is an unproven therapy (which may have a network of "in universe" people talking to each other) then we need to break outside that to relay how the world-at-large sees it. If it's an unproven thing being sold as beneficial then that is quackery, and we are obliged to include sources that mention that. I worry now we have too much of an "in universe" report of Rolfing here. Alexbrn talk 09:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, I had totally forgotten that I edited the article earlier today, but just wanted to add my support for Bill and Alex's observations regarding the WP:FRINGE territory we are in, and the quite correct use of the sources concerned. Overall it does appear that we are tipping away from mainstream scientific reporting, towards giving merit to Rolfing that it does not deserve, based on sources and frankly sparse evidence. Goblin Face has helped re-address that balance. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I would post clear policy based argument in support of the recent edits. Rolfing is a biomedical treatment modality that makes health claims that lack evidence based support. This brings it clearly under MEDRS and FRINGE. The recent edits reflect those aspects of PAG in particular PARITY. The sources used have credibility as reliable sources. When dealing with unsupported health claims and questionable biomedical information it is not necessary that sources provide detailed analysis, characterization by inclusion in a list of unsupported, questionable etc. treatments is information that meets requirements for content inclusion. When dealing with a treatment modality that does not have evidence based support in literature the latitude for including content based on more brief mentions is quite wide. If the scientific, academic and medical communities have not published evidence based reports the assessment, even brief or passing, by credible sources is due. Much of the current content and many of the proposed sources are involved in that they are from within the proponent community, those who promote various massage and bodywork therapies.
 * The differentiation of "holistic" is a smoke and mirrors technique often employed in alt med. If a treatment seeks to improve some aspect of health there is an implication that aspect of health is in need of improvement, thus the treatment is alleging to improve something that is wrong, in other words treating a condition. This holistic concept is based on a false implication that standard western medicine does not address health across a broad spectrum of human health. A patient being treated for diabetes even when a specialist (endocrinologist) is consulted is not having only their pancreas treated, counseling and treatment for diet, exercise, obesity, skin care, renal concerns etc. are part of the standard of care. Likewise a nutritionist does not only recommend consumption of calories but addresses a broad spectrum of dietary concerns and cardiac surgeons make certain a host of health aspects are addressed and do not simply cut and sew vessels. This straw man argument has been addressed by many more eloquent and erudite than myself. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The added sources do document how Rolfing is received by mainstream, skeptical, sources. They are dismissive and don't give it the time of day, and that's about how it is. They need not go in depth. I do think that section should be formatted as one paragraph, possibly one sentence, with the authors' names relegated to the references, and not in the body. Make it brief. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This approach works for me. I have made the edit; let me know if this is acceptable. The Junk Science source in particular did have some fairly specific criticisms of alt-med in general. I think the Beyerstein source is still pretty off-the-mark in mistaking Rolfing for a psychology modality and for that reason would rather see that source removed - but I don't feel particularly strongly about that. --Karinpower (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your summary rather played down the nature of the criticism, which is quite spicy. I agree though a summary would be best. Alexbrn talk 05:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification, here is what those references say:

Agin, Dan. (2006). Junk Science: An Overdue Indictment of Government, Industry, and Faith Groups That Twist Science for Their Own Gain. St. Martin's Press. p. 114.

Shapiro, Rose. (2008). Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All. Vintage Books. p. 2.

Rolfing is quackery according to the sources and Karinpower's statement "there is no specific criticism of Rolfing or information on the "reception" of Rolfing" is obviously not the true. I will list further references here. Goblin Face (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cogan, Robert. (1998). Critical Thinking: Step by Step. University Press of America. p. 218

The Stalker and Glymour reference is Stalker, Douglas; Glymour, Clark. (1985, reprinted 1989). Examining Holistic Medicine. Prometheus Books. I do not have this book but it is a very in depth look at pseudoscientific holistic medicine from various professionals in the medical or psychological field.

Some further information on rolfing:

Raso, Jack. (1997). "Dictionary of Metaphysical Healthcare: Unnaturalistic Methods". Quackwatch.

The idea of body memory is a definite pseudoscience.

Cordón, Luis. (2005). Popular Psychology: An Encyclopedia. Greenwood Press. p. 218. Goblin Face (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice change for the summarized sentence; I think that reflects the sources without overstating it.
 * Regarding criticism specific to Rolfing.... sources that lump iridology and Rolfing in the same breath are not specifically criticizing Rolfing; they are criticizing alt-med in general which varies hugely. Many of these sources come across as a rant, rather than as a well-considered critique. Plausible criticisms of Rolfing seem to be:
 * - Lack of scientific evidence
 * - Pain (especially in the early days)
 * - Expense (it costs about twice as much as massage, though it is about half as much as physical therapy if paying out-of-pocket)
 * We've covered the lack of evidence. The issue of pain, and the idea that perhaps that's changed over the years, is currently included in the article. Expense hasn't been mentioned; I guess that's a minor issue since it's not exorbitant.
 * Regarding "their lives are sometimes shortened by using pseudoscientific therapies" (Cogan) - I don't think this applies to Rolfing; it doesn't seem to be a risky modality (beyond the risk of wasting time and money if it doesn't work) and this isn't a modality where people would use and delay seeking proper medical care for, say, cancer. This is an example where accusations are being applied too broadly and it undermines the source's credibility. Also I think it's potentially liable (if there isn't anything to back up the claim).
 * Re Raso quote, it's odd to read talk of energy work with Rolfing in some of these sources; I've surveyed primary sources written by Rolfers (not citable in the article) and it seems that Rolfers do not describe their work in that way, nor does the Rolf Institute. I suspect it's a misunderstanding that has been perpetuated among the less-well-researched sources. A related misunderstanding in that source is that Rolfing is a form of myofascial release. Actually MF is an offshoot of Rolfing (this is cited in Rolfing).
 * I think the muscle/emotion bit deserves some consideration and I don't want to muddy up this section by getting into it here; looks like there is already a subsection about that in progress so that's a good place for it. --Karinpower (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the current content is pretty good. If there are sources that devote some ink to specifically analyzing/critiquing/evaluating rolfing I'd welcome inclusion from them. Not so sure rolfing isn't used by some instead of seeking actual medical attention for conditions that the lack of treatment can lead to worse outcomes. I don't know that any of the sources support that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Unmentioned studies
The Rolf Institute has a list of studies which it believes support Rolfing: (Scroll down to "Research on Rolfing SI"). Why are none of these studies mentioned in the article? Are they all untrustworthy? Here's one from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: Here's a quote: "Conclusions: Structural integration for persons with below normal balance is accompanied by demonstrable improvement in standing balance". Sounds pretty important to me, especially considering that our current article makes the sweeping claim that "Rolfing is of no benefit in treating disease." Shouldn't we mention some of these studies in the article? Sonicsuns (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS they are primary, involved and generally poor quality studies. If a reliable source discusses them, say in a review article that would drive content. See policies, WP:PRIMARY, WP:DUE and WP:PSCI as well as WP:V. The guidelines WP:RS and WP:FRINGE provide additional guidance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Training at your local gym will also improve standing balance. That's not a significant claim. It does mean that Rolfing can have some benefit, but not better than so many other forms of exercise and physical therapy. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But the article does not say "Rolfing has some benefit, but not better than so many other forms of exercise and physical therapy". It says "Rolfing is of no benefit in treating disease." Those are two different stances, and the former may be more appropriate. Sonicsuns (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How "more appropriate"? Rolfing is of no benefit in treating diseases. If it's useful in some other way (e.g. improving balance), there'll be some good WP:MEDRS sources saying so. Are there? Alexbrn talk 05:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Emotions and muscles
From page:
 * She claimed to have found an association between pent-up emotions and tension in muscles.
 * This claim of a muscular/emotional connection is not supported by scientific studies

The 2nd line uses a Skeptic's Dictionary page as a reference. I'm not so sure we should simply believe a claim that NO scientific studies support this. We shouldn't say science backs up the theory unless we can support that with a reference, but proving a negative is pretty hard, it is entirely possible that some study we have not been made aware of does support a connection between emotion and muscle, and that SkepDic just assumed it did not exist.

I mean... let's use some common sense here, there is obviously some connection between emotion and muscular tension in different areas at least on a simple basic level. The attitudes Rolfing has about it could be wrong (I'm not sure how extensive their belief system is) but in basic terms, things like sucking in your gut or tensing up your lats are clear stress-reactions. Rounding shoulders forward is something people do based on shame, whereas drawing them back is something people do with confidence. Basically emotional state influences postures peple adopt and at least in that way would influence muscle tension through direct action, and also indirectly through passive tensions that result of prolonged habits of regular actions.

Some study out there probably has covered that, a single one would defy a blatent SkepDic shut-down.

Since that theory is obviously true, the next step is to look at any specific claims by Rolfing and see if those hold any weight. Emotion-muscle link being true would not necessarily mean that Rolfing has accurate ideas about how it works, so testing which of those are proven would be a more thorough analysis. Ranze (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to come up with reliable sources for all your speculation before it can be considered for our article. Cheers. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging on talk. That is a very good way to approach a concern with an article. A single study would indeed not lower the WP:REDFLAG that is WP policy, this is an encyclopedia. If the ideas you present are considered significant they will be published in reliable sources, find them and propose content. See the core policy No original research and take some time to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works. The other two core policies are WP:V and WP:NPOV. Applicable guidelines are WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bill, for showing how it should be done. I just don't have your good grace. Sorry. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Needs better phrasing
"many contemporary visionaries" doesn't sound encyclopedic. What is in the source? Anyone got an idea for a more encyclopedic paraphrase? - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed this. Let me know whether it's ok. --Karinpower (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had two goes, and I think it may do the trick.-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching my redundant wording. That's what happens when I get too cocky and think my edit is simple enough that I don't need to check the Preview. Current version seems good to me. --Karinpower (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please mind WP:AVOID
"Claimed" (like "purported", "alleged", and the like) is a word to avoid.

Now, among these two versions of the text, neither is ideal. The first states an opinion as fact, while the second is contrary to WP:AVOID (see WP:CLAIM in particular).

I'm sure there is a way to rephrase problematic sentences so that "claim" is removed, while still clearly separating opinion from fact. GregorB (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Our use of "claim" in your example agrees with the meaning noted in WP:CLAIM ... "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." which is exactly what we should be doing here when writing about this subject. 'a disregard for evidence' is the meaty bit. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence says "claimed to provide a systematic approach". To say something "provides a systematic approach" is a rather generic opinion and/or value judgement that cannot be factually disproved, so "disregard for evidence" does not apply here. GregorB (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The rest of the sentence goes on, "to address goals for the theorized alignment and movement of various body areas" it is this that involves claims made with a disregard for evidence and is potentially contradicted. So there is a claimed approach to address, thus the use of claim is appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, theorized alignment. I wonder about squeezing in one more adjective, say "alleged" or "purported".
 * Seriously now: the prose does not really have to be littered with scare words, especially since the phrasing is extremely vague to begin with. Everything related to critical analysis probably is already said in the article, it's not going to go away or get disregarded by the reader. GregorB (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NPOV, "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." Per WP:FRINGE, "Pseudoscience... relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence..., or indulges a suspect theoretical premise" The use of "claimed" makes clear that the "theorized alignment" relies on weak evidence and indulges a suspect theoretical premise. The statement should make that clear in and of itself so as not to give undue weight or present this "theorized alignment" "alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." (WP:FRINGE). I think PAG are pretty clear. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)