Talk:Rosen Method Bodywork

Untitled section
I am working on making a proper article for this fairly well-known type of bodywork.. If anyone has any specific suggestions on what needs to be added, any help is greatly appreciated. Please don't delete this article yet. Thank you. Etolpygo (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal notice
The following message has been left on my Talk page about some recent edits here: I'm wondering what - if anything - enyclopedic can come of this? Alexbrn talk 16:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism must be included
...per WP:PSCI, which encompasses both fringe- and pseudoscience claims. Purported outcomes of the Rosen Method cannot be reported as fact. Hope the warring stops. Cheers, vzaak 23:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

well, it really depends on the kind of criticism
Sure enough, criticism can be included. But Quackwatch? Just an angry opinion of some M.D. who's on a life mission to discredit alternative therapies. Please find better sources. Until then, erasing again. etolpygo 13:22, 28 January 2014 (PDT)
 * Quackwatch is established RS for altmed topics. Maybe check out the WP:RS/N archives ... Alexbrn talk 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

therapies "discredited" by quackwatch are actually promoted by mainstream health organizations
For example, Kaiser permanente offers qigong classes and approves insurance coverage for specific uses of acupuncture. Surely that's information enough to understand that a significant portion of the tripe contained in quackwatch should be taken with about a pound of salt. etolpygo 11:52, 24 February 2014 (PDT)
 * Quackwatch is RS for fringe/altmed topics, and has been found to be so many times at WP:RS/N. You can get homeopathy on the NHS; doesn't mean it's not garbage! Alexbrn talk 20:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what's it to you. I am trying to make this page as encyclopeadic as possible, using available sources. This is obviously not a mainstream therapy, so not that many reputable sources are available, but neither is it quackery, despite what some angry MD somewhere might think. etolpygo 13:00, 24 February 2014 (PDT)
 * The article didn't describe it as quackery. We must use reliable sources and not pro-Rosen publications that give inaccurate non-neutral information. Alexbrn talk 21:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

None of the references (references, not external links) I cited are explicitly pro-Rosen. If you insist on the quackwatch references, others I posted recently must stay as well. etolpygo 13:26, 24 February 2014 (PDT)
 * Sources must be independent of anything Rosen as set out in WP:FRINGE; any biomedical claims (such as you have added) need to be backed by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Alexbrn talk 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also Quackwatch is frequently used as a WP:RS for alternative medicine articles - remember that it isn't the job of Wikipedia to present truth - just reliable information. And Quackwatch is reliable as a source of critique of alternative practice. To exclude it in an article like this invites WP:NPOV issues. Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I made absolutely no biomedical claims. I have cited articles in peer-reviewed journals that document therapeutic benefits. They are independent of anything Rosen. I have left your Quackwatch references in. I don't understand why you reverted my changes YET AGAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etolpygo (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rosen Method Bodywork: Practice and Science is not an independent or reliable source; is a primary source in a fringe journal, so no good either. Alexbrn talk 21:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Somatics journal also does not appear to be a WP:RS - rather it seems like a WP:FRINGE publication. Simonm223 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not make a single scientific claim; all I was doing was describing the method's intent and purposes. I listed peer-reviewed journal articles that have attempted to study whether the method has any effectiveness in any of the looked at criteria. There is no scientific "theory" to call "fringe". Etolpygo (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Etolpygo you've exceeded the three revert bright line, and could be blocked from editing unless you self revert quickly. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, I really don't understand why it is _me_ who could be getting blocked for this. I started this article and have been adding to it by researching reliable sources, as explained on the wikipedia page on what constitutes a reliable source. For the reference, I am neither a practitioner nor a promoter of this method, although I do have some experience with it (and wouldn't you rather articles be written by people who actually know something about the subject?). I did not start the edit war, and I left the additions that others had added (quackwatch stuff, in particular), despite disagreeing with them and despite the fact that IMO they misrepresent the method. I maintain that the sources from which I obtained information are reliable (in particular, articles in peer-reviewed publications) and not explicitly pro-Rosen; neither is the article making any biomedical claims. Edits by Alexbrn & Co look to me like vandalism and deliberate efforts to discredit the method, and definitely are not made in good faith. The way the article is written right now is very much neutral and states quite clearly that each claim is a point of view of the method's practitioners. Etolpygo (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I did warn you - now we'll see. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok I'd suggest you review WP:POTKETTLE and WP:BOOMERANG because your WP:3RR complaint is exactly what those pages describe. Contrary to your assertion I've no vested interest in "discrediting" this practice, nor do I think does anybody else. However you need to learn that when talking about a complementary medical procedure such as this you have to follow sources that comply with WP:MEDRS - and the comments you were inserting don't. Furthermore take a look at WP:OWN there are several editors working on this article. You may think your sources are reliable, you may think Quackwatch is not. However if the general consensus of editors working on the article disagrees with you then you should be willing to work with the rest of the editors rather than against us. How about talking here for a while first - rather than WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT complaints about how you don't understand how you're the one in the wrong perhaps look at the very specific statements that have been made regarding the insertions you tried to make. Perhaps talk about those issues and either use reason to convince other editors to come around to your point of view or alternatively perhaps just drop the issue and remember WP:CHILL. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS two specific items
Ok, now there's no rush on this and I'm not suggesting slipping this into WP:RS/N prior to all parties coming back online but I wanted to get my thoughts down here before I forgot them. So we're looking at two specific items. The first is the magazine called Somatics it doesn't appear to be peer reviewed and the information available about it online suggests to me that it would constitute a WP:FRINGE source. Thus any inclusion of it has to first not be from an in-universe perspective and should be balanced with appropriate critique in order to ensure WP:DUE compliance. The second item is likely the more fraught one. is an article in the international journal of therapeutic massage and bodywork - and this publication claims to be peer reviewed. Now splitting this into two parts:
 * 1) The article: The article in question is primary research which purported to demonstrate "Rosen Method Bodywork may be especially helpful in developing and accepting both sensory and emotional body awareness changes that facilitate overall improvement." However, to be blunt, a five year old could come up with better experimental design. There was a sample size of five participants. No blinding was attempted, every participant was being administered Rosen Method Bodywork by a Rosen administrator. All pain reduction was self-reported and the experimenters disregarded what they described as "a high level of day-to-day variability in the daily assessments" as irrelevant to the success of treatment. Finally the experimenters failed to consider the null hypothesis - that the treatment had no impact - when noting all five respondents felt better over time. The time-frame for this treatment was 16 weeks - quite enough for natural healing to occur. In short the article is pseudoscience at best and notwithstanding the journal of publication should not constitute a WP:MEDRS.
 * 2) The journal: The journal does claim to be peer reviewed - and it does have editorial review teams including research review teams. It's worth noting though that a large number of the people on the review board for research are massage therapists of various types. Although I don't dispute that RMTs can be helpful, there's a lot of quackery within the profession, certification notwithstanding. As such it is, in my eyes a slightly suspect source. I might not disregard anything from it out of hand, however I'd want to look closely at abstracts at the very least before considering something from this publication appropriate under WP:MEDRS Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , being in a "bodywork" journal is not independent of the subject fringe so falls afoul of WP:FRIND. The journal is not MEDLINE indexed which is a huge WP:REDFLAG and anyway the article is a primary so isn't WP:MEDRS. It could hardly be less suitable, I'd have thought! Alexbrn talk 22:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)