User talk:Karinpower

Rolfing

 * Suggestion for improving the article further: Have a good read of WP:MEDRS. Try and find some current, high quality sources to provide a description and evaluation of Rolfing. Peer reviewed review articles or meta analyses are best. Next would be scholarly books published by respected publishers written by authors that have been published in peer reviewed journals and are considered by others respected authorities. Realize the article will be edited to reflect the mainstream scientific consensus so things like, having a goal of educating the body, a vague and supported concept of body organized in relationship to gravity, that the manipulation leads to such an organization or is effective in allowing "effective" movement or "bound up fasciae" are going be qualified at the least and probably (and properly per policy) be presented as WP:FRINGE. The mainstream scientific/academic consensus or current medical knowledge must be presented prominently with other ideas given only WP:DUE weight. Just thought I'd give you some pointers as the article has attracted some attention. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello MrBill3, yes, we are in agreement about some of the deficiencies of the current article. The studies that have been done have been mostly published in unacceptable journals, therefore the best source seems to be books from mainstream publishers that review and explain a number of therapeutic modalities. Deutsch and Daniels are my initial offerings, and I'm looking into several others. Modalities for Massage and Bodywork by Stillerman, Mosby (2009) is another that I plan to use. There is one study that shows up in the Cochrane Library (I understand from WP:MEDRS that this is a good sign that you'll find it acceptable) - it's old, but it might be worth including. "Shifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation." Cottingham JT, Porges SW and Richmond K. Physical therapy, 1988, 68(9). There's a page that would benefit from your particular brand of attention: Postural_Integration. Sources are all primary, with 11 of the 12 being from the founder's writings. This is a very fringe form of bodywork and I haven't been able to find any reference to it in the secondary source books I'm consulting. It is in the list of types of massage at the bottom of the Rolfing page, but I think it should be removed from that list due to be quite obscure. Google didn't produce much useful information, either, nor did it produce local practitioners. I'm hesitant to rip into this page myself, being a newbie and not being sure how to handle an utter lack of sources. Thought you might be interested. --Karinpower (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest in improving WP. See my comments on the talk page of the article. As several editors are now involved there should be good feedback and consensus building. Please be aware some editors take a pretty firm stance on medically related articles on fringe topics. Don't get discouraged. I think Deutsch is probably a good source at least for some explanation of what Rolfing/SI is and how it is practiced, perhaps also for the hypothetical/theoretical basis. Stillerman sounds decent too, Mosby has at least an acceptable reputation and it's recent. Sources wind up getting some individual scrutiny so I don't know how it will hold up but what content is proposed will make a big difference. You are definitely on the right track looking for studies Cochrane is willing to look at. 1988 is too far out of date but I believe it may have been included in Jacobson's review. When there are very few recent studies older ones can be considered but that opens parity wide up so things like Kirkwood 2001 saying, "rolfing is some sort of deep tissue massage therapy purporting to be life changing and/or affirming in 100 ways." would wind up going in also.
 * Regarding Postural Integration you may want to stop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and post there. It's good place to get some medically knowledgeable editors to take a look at an article. You can certainly start working on that article by posting to the talk page. If the subject lacks notability to the extent you claim, the article could be tagged for speedy deletion or a discussion started at WP:Articles for deletion (that page explains a variety of options).
 * Might I suggest you wander out into the wide world of WP and try doing some editing on other articles. WP:TEAHOUSE is a friendly place for new editors with help on getting your feet wet. I hope you enjoy editing and continue to contribute. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the collaborative tone that you use in general; I really appreciate it. I've checked out the teahouse and intend to use it as I formulate some of my ideas.... in particular I think there is good basis in quality book sources for questioning the categorization of massage (vs. manipulative therapy, manual therapy, or bodywork, all more inclusive terms than massage), but it's not strong enough to reverse the current statement, so I will need help on how to convey that split evidence appropriately in the article (yet keeping it succinct enough to keep it in perspective to the rest of the information). I've found some other pages that I'm interested in working on.... as I've done some of this research I'm coming across sources that would be beneficial for clarifying related topics. I've long had the urge to fix small errors that I find but until recently wasn't ready to invest the time to learn the system. Pretty cool to be able to contribute now. Thanks again for your advice. --Karinpower (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning
Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologize. My intention was not to be contentious though I see how it could be perceived that way. With my second revert, and my comment that a big change like section order should be discussed (and the fact that no reason for the order change had been given by either editor), I believe that request was quite fair. As I put in that second comment, that order seems redundant to be placed directly after that line of the lede. I accepted your re-do of the order change and understood that that particular question is dead for the moment based on 3 reverts, but since no one objected to the redundancy point that's why I thought I was in the clear to toss in the lede edit. I figured it was likely to get reverted; that's the culture on this page with this group of editors, but I certainly didn't mean to violate the spirit of the 3RR - I'm definitely interested in playing by the rules because otherwise it's just not productive.
 * It does seem to me that this page is very split with polarized perspectives, with many of the editors participating being users who state on their userpage that they are anti-charlatan, skeptic, etc (which can easily turn into anti-altmed), and a few users on the other hand who see at least some altmed in a favorable light (though I admit to be quite skeptical about some of it myself). I was drawn to work on this page because 1) it seemed quite deficient in terms of source quality and information offered and 2) in all my WP reading I have never seen a page where the tone is so negative toward the subject. :In fact, there are several altmed articles I've come across that could use some critical oversight to become more neutral and source-based. (I have chimed in on one or two of those, and in the case of one that overused one primary source, have started keeping an eye out for potential sources.) Since I've started editing, it seems that very few other editors here are using the sources to contribute anything, but rather are patrolling the page for opportunities to prune the article wherever justifiable to make it as far on the negative side of neutral as they can get away with. I believe that this article, like all on WP, should read like an actual encyclopedia, and therefore should not leave the reader thinking, "someone has an ax to grind" just as it shouldn't leave the impression that it was written by someone who had a positive attachment to the subject. It should be truly neutral, and should give useful information (sourced appropriately).
 * That said, I will be more cautious in my boldness. In return, can you please help contain the tone of the page toward neutral? My impression of you is that you are on the side of caution around altmed topics but also deeply value neutrality and quality in WP articles, so I hope that you can see my perspective and be an ally in this. Thank you.--Karinpower (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words and patience in learning and working with WP PAG (policies and guidelines). I am indeed and advocate for quality and neutral point of view (NPOV). I think NPOV is often misunderstood, on WP it means reflecting what is published in reliable sources as due not neutral in the common sense. To me there is a fine balance between providing adequate explanation of altmed or fringe topics and following MEDRS and WP:FRINGE and adhering to WP:NPOV (particularly WP:DUE). I find it interesting to explore a variety of altmed and fringe topics and am interested to see how WP will respond when (and if) some of these topics are demonstrated to have medical, scientific and/or academic validity. It wasn't really that long ago that Lister and Semmelweis's ideas were "altmed" because the germ theory of disease was not "current medical science" but miasma theory was. The advance of medical science and science in general may validate some things WP considers fringe etc. Unfortunately WP will lag quite a bit behind as it relies on the mainstream consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments about the history of science, indeed. Also of note to me is that much of current western medicine practice is based on tradition and has not been backed up by studies. Podiatry is perhaps the worst offender; the orthotics prescribed vary so widely, even for the same foot type, and aren't supported by science (there's some evidence they cause harm, even). Yet because they are given by MD's, people don't tend to question the validity. Critical thinking should be applied more broadly, and I think it's one of the most important skills that should be taught in schools (but often isn't). With altmed, I see a difference between approaches that start with anatomy and an understanding of movement, vs. ones that don't. Modalities that don't have any grounding in biology are at a special level of "fringe" IMHO. Some ideas may seem ungrounded at first (like the bit in the Rolfing article about emotions getting released) but it turns out there's clear scientific reasoning (neurotransmitters; the nature of the nervous system and trauma as discussed in [somatic psychology] and [somatic experiencing]). I think WP seems to be lagging behind more than it has to because there is some legwork needed to pull information from these secondary sources to beef up the informational aspects of the articles. There's nothing that you or I can do about a lack of studies but at least a quality description can be provided. I've found almost a dozen different altmed articles that I can help in this way; it's rather fun because so much of WP is already pretty complete, and yet here is a place to make some big improvements. Have a great evening.--Karinpower (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: I liked your comments on the Shiatsu article
Thanks for your kind words... The article is on my watchlist now. Hopefully I'll pitch in within the next couple of days or so.

I have unretired - so to speak - by simply taking it a bit easier these days. I'm in a review/mediation-kind-of-mood right now so this is just fine. GregorB (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's awesome :) --Karinpower (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I scanned the article and I do have some remarks (for one thing I don't like the Effectiveness section as it currently stands), but I was a bit busy and I'd like to have another look at the talk page (the discussion is rather extensive), so I'll probably comment tomorrow. GregorB (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: a template of sorts for alternative medicine
You wrote elsewhere, "I think there is a need for WP as an organization to decide on a template of sorts for alternative medicine, to say what basic sections should be present and in what order."

First WP is not so much an organization as a community albeit one with a well developed set of policies and guidelines (PAG). So as an equal member you are welcome to develop a "best practice" or model. This could then be discussed and later pointed to if the discussion leads to some level of consensus. You could wind up being the author of an essay or guideline! Best of luck, but it seems plenty of people have managed it ;)

More practical (IMO) and probably easier is to find an article that you think does a good job of presenting an alt med topic. And is stable, having survived at least a modicum of scrutiny (read as: ruthless attack by anti alt med zealots). Then create an outline in a subpage of your sandbox (like User:Karinpower/sandbox/AltMedStucture or such) to use as a reference. Then go to an alt med article you think needs improvement (read as: unbalanced ax grinding buttress of negativity) and try working the article into shape using your idea of a well structured fair presentation (undoubtably to be seen as shameless promotion of woo by the cabal [which doesn't exist]). Having done this a number of times (which undeniably would require the patience of a saint, the feisty persistence of a mongoose etc.) you would be able to point to several articles and your sandbox "structure" when working on articles or assisting/guiding others in doing so. You could post a link to said articles and "structure" in a boilerplate post on talk pages of articles you felt needed work.

For doing all this, in addition to the immense satisfaction from improving WP, you would probably receive a shiny (or otherwise textured/surfaced) Barnstar from that other cabal (which we all know does exist) and perhaps an acknowledgement of your competence.

Thank you for your contributions to WP, especially your patience and willingness to work with and learn (read as: puzzle over, become baffled by and beat your head on) the infamous/notorious/endless (read as: wantonly abused) WP PAG. I hope this is at least moderately amusing (some links are to humor) and a trifle useful. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links and the comments. For now I think I'll stick to improving pages and leave the templates to those who are more experienced. --Karinpower (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Muscle Energy
Hi there Karin, I noticed there seems to be a bit of confusion on your part about osteopaths vs. osteopathic physicians. They are not the same thing, but it is not appropriate to simply change osteopaths to osteopathic physicians because these are two separate professions and both of them do muscle energy techniques. Therefore, an inclusive list would have both osteopaths and osteopathic physicians as practitioners of muscle energy (I undid your revert so that this is reflected). Please let me know if you have any questions here, on my talk page, or on the muscle energy technique talk page. Thanks Karin. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, TylerDurden8823. Well, I learn something new every day. I am quite aware of the difference in education, attitude, scope, etc of American vs. European trained osteopaths (I personally know someone who did the Canadian Osteopathic training, similar to European) but I was not aware of the difference in title between the two - that took a google search to clarify. For future reference, here's a brief and helpful page:[]
 * I don't think that my confusion is unusual, and actually it highlights an opportunity for clarity on WP. I'll outline it here, since it affects at least two pages and that way we can keep the discussion in one place for now.
 * 1) The page titles Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and Osteopathy aren't parallel in phrasing; the first is a degree type (though it sounds like a profession name - the profession name as you stated would be osteopathic physician), while the second is a field name. Parallel would be "osteopath" and "osteopathic physician" or some other construction for field name or degree name (not actually sure what those would be for osteopaths, offhand). Because of non-parallel structure, on quick read and especially for someone not familiar with the US/Europe difference, it might seem that "osteopathy" is the field that "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" pertains to. I realize page title changes are a big deal and should be discussed on their talk pages first; even if this problem doesn't get fixed it's good to be aware of it.
 * 2) Disambiguation needed on Osteopathy page. I suggest mentioning Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and/or osteopathic medicine and/or osteopathic physician.
 * 3) For the MET article, those professions should be reordered to prevent the same confusion I had. As it is, it looks like a mistake (to the ignorant :P). Most logical would be order of clout (or in order of which professions use it a lot vs. not much), though I suppose alphabetical would be an option if there's a risk of stepping on toes.
 * Since it seems that you are knowledgeable on the subject, would you be willing to make some of these changes? I'm happy to take a look and give input as well. Looking forward to collaborating with you. --Karinpower (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. I just noticed there is also a specific page for Osteopathic manipulative medicine, the approach practiced within osteopathy. That doesn't much affect my comments above; just another page where it would be good to make sure things are clear.--Karinpower (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm happy to clarify. Osteopathy should be contrasted with the page Osteopathic medicine in the United States. You're right that Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine is a degree, but it is often used to refer to the holder of that degree as well AKA osteopathic physicians-but not osteopaths-they are different and practice osteopathy as mentioned before. It's incorrect to say that osteopathy is the field that the degree Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine pertains to (the field is osteopathic medicine). So, basically, there are two professions: osteopathy practiced by non-physician osteopaths (often trained in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, etc.) and osteopathic medicine practiced by Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine/osteopathic physicians trained in the U.S. I hope this clears things up. If it doesn't, let me know and I'll try again. For osteopathic manipulative medicine, that is the commonality shared between the professions of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine (it is a set of techniques students of each profession are taught). As it stands now, I think that is made clear in the article's lead section. Do you disagree?
 * Regarding your question about what degrees non-physician osteopaths obtain, they often obtain bachelor's or master's degrees in osteopathy or may have a degree such as Diplomate in Osteopathy (there are other variations including Doctor of Osteopathy and this often causes confusion with the rather different American Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree. A disambiguation page on osteopathy for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine is inappropriate since it is a separate profession. Osteopathic medicine leads to the Osteopathic medicine in the United States page and this is fine. For the MET article, I am not opposed to reordering the list of professions as long the wording used remains correct. I can rearrange them, but not in the order of descending use of MET technique since I do not know how often each profession uses this particular treatment modality. I will attempt some other organizations scheme (perhaps alphabetical as you suggested since it's difficult to objectively gauge the "clout" of each profession without coming across as POV toward any profession(s)). I look forward to working with you as well and thank you for continuing to discuss this topic with me here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, TylerDurden8823. Yes, I do think the OMM lede is clear enough. Good to know there is also a Osteopathic medicine in the United States page. As I said, I think I'm pretty clear on the difference - I've just heard "American osteopath" vs. "European osteopath" so simply wasn't familiar with the osteopathic physician term but I'm totally caught up now and just seeing an opportunity to save a lot of other people the confusion! People who are even less familiar with it than I. Regarding the disambig, it seems that when something is *different* that's exactly when a disambig is needed - to steer someone back in the right direction from the start. --Karinpower (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear you're clear. I understand you may hear the terms "American osteopath" and "European osteopath", but only one of those terms is correct (the latter). There is simply no such thing as an osteopath trained in the United States (at least not one who is a physician). There are only Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine/osteopathic physicians trained in the U.S. A disambiguation page for osteopathy leading to the Osteopathic medicine in the United States page seems like it would be misleading readers IMO since it will perpetuate the notion that osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are the same thing and the last thing we want to do is reinforce that idea within confused readers (as you said-many people are confused on this issue and understandably so). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I quite disagree about how to handle confusion.... avoiding mentioning it does not at all reduce confusion. The Doc of Osteo Med page does a nice job of having a link at the top to redirect people who are barking up the wrong tree: "For the restricted-scope form of alternative medicine practice, mostly outside of North America, see Osteopathy." The equivalent is what's needed on the Osteopathy page. And similarly on any other related page. More clear now?--Karinpower (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is already a link and a brief discussion of this in the lead of the osteopathy article. I don't really think anything is needed beyond that, but if you're saying you feel that the osteopathy article is in dire need of a disambig link at the top of the page that says something to the effect of "for the American medical profession of osteopathic medicine, see Osteopathic medicine in the United States", I do not see any real harm in that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfect. Would you be willing to put that up, since you seem to know the ropes on these topics? Thanks again for collaborating.--Karinpower (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sandbox
Will take a look, hopefully by the end of the day... GregorB (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yesterday I forgot there was World Cup final in the evening... :-)
 * I like the direction your post is headed. As I already noted, the article is deficient in basic descriptions: what rolfing is, and what it does, or purports to do. Here, as is often the case, the POV problem is secondary to the content problem: if one manages to provide good content starting with the basics, the POV will tend to go away.
 * I believe you give very solid arguments for providing a more nuanced basic description of rolfing. The "magic formula" ("X is Y" becomes "X is described as Y [by Z]") should work here too.
 * On a side note: is WP:MEDRS pertinent to this article, if there is no basis to conclude anyone considers rolfing a "therapy" or "treatment"? GregorB (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * World Cup, yes, that's important!
 * I like your comment about how to address the article change. Do you suggest that bit goes in the lede, or further down in the article? I think it would go something like this: "Rolfers and other Structural Integration practitioners 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."
 * Does this give enough weight to the opposing opinion?
 * I see where you are going with the MEDRS question. It's complicated. Dr. Rolf is quoted in numerous places as saying that her work was not meant to treat any specific problems, but rather to be used holistically to optimize movement and alignment (and that the complaints would often disappear along the way). She claimed that when people are aligned in gravity, they often experience personal/spiritual growth as well. From that strict perspective, one could argue that it's not a therapy or treatment, though to claim any "health benefits" including better alignment, studies would have to show that 1) it changes alignment and 2) the new alignment is better. Same for improved breathing, balance, etc. Plus, the fact is that plenty of practitioners do claim that it can help with specific problems (headaches, etc, not necessarily full-on diseases) so I think the horse has left the barn in terms of that argument. So, I would say that MEDRS does apply. But, I do think the article needs to express the bit about Dr. Rolf's orginal plan being holistic - currently the article incorrectly states that her work was to help the "chronically disabled who could not find help elsewhere." Certainly some of her early dramatic cases were of this type, in the 1930's-50's. By the time she was teaching in the 60's, her tune had changed to the holistic approach.
 * On a sidenote, I asked advice of another neutral editor (one that I met at the WP Teahouse), and here are the comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yunshui#Your_perspective_is_requested_for_a_sandbox_draft
 * In particular I'm curious about the comments about certain sources being weaker for MEDRS than the others. I'm hoping for a reply on that point.
 * Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment!--Karinpower (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

External Linking
Hello Karinpower! You took it upon yourself to revert an edit I made to the article Massage because I failed to leave an "explanation" as to why I made the change. For clarification, I added a link to an article that sourced recognized scholarly and trade journals regarding the benefits of massage. There was also an external link to a publication created by the American Massage Therapy Association and another to a document authored by the oversight board for Massage Therapists in Quebec. These links were removed by Yobol, who said they were not authoritative enough.

After I reverted the removal and explained why on his talk page, he stated "In the light of day, the AQTN source in particular does not look as bad as when I first looked at it. I find myself unable to get worked up enough about these particular ELs (given the ambiguity of the guideline on ELs especially) to pursue this further. Happy editing! Yobol (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)"

I find it hard to believe that even the staunchest critics and sticklers for protocol can justify the removal of links in an article on Massage to publications authored by agencies overseeing portions of the industry. Yet you have taken it upon yourself to do just that.

I will not revert the article again, it's not that important to me. But I will say that if you cannot take an objective stance when you edit content here, perhaps you should not be an editor... Ormr2014 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Ormr2014. Please don't be so quick to assume that I'm one of the many anti-alternative-medicine editors on WP. I'm not. Everyone does have some personal bias, but good editors are careful not to let that circumvent WP rules and policies when editing. Even if something seems biased, I find it more effective to stay cool-headed and state my arguments objectively rather than making what could be interpreted as a personal criticism.
 * Back to the massage article. The External Link section has a very limited purpose - one or perhaps two links to definitive organizations representing that topic. For instance, Shiatsu has two links to umbrella organizations, one for the US and one for Europe. The EL section is not an appropriate place for any other type of link. See WP:EL.
 * The links that I removed were not right for EL. The encyclopedia definition generally should just be left out, as encyclopedias are not typically the type of source we are seeking for WP. The lcws.net link wouldn't qualify as a source - it's from a blog post, and doesn't even have much content to it. The Quebec article could be considered as a source.... inline citations are the preferred method for integrating a source into an article. You could use this source to back up existing text, or add new text based on this source. The umm.edu link is also a potential source - the nature of web content makes it weaker than printed sources, though this one is better than average because it lists a number of sources. Rather than using this article as a source, I would suggest picking through its list of sources to locate even better sources to add to the article. Of course this would take some effort. Would you be willing to spend some time working on this? If so, I will assist with helping to integrate your findings into the massage article in a WP-appropriate manner. Also, you are likely to find sources that would really help with other WP topics - just offhand I see acupressure, reflexology, and aromatherapy mentioned in the titles of the references.--Karinpower (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Karinpower! Thanks for the well-rounded and respectful response. I admit that patience is not one of my strong points and I'm often quite stubborn in my views. I've found that many individuals here take an extreme view on things like external linking when convenient, yet are quite lax when they're the ones adding them. It irritates me when I see this because it almost seems like they are lording over others with this "I'm more qualified than you" attitude. Believe me when I say I've been temporarily banned more than once for such reversions.

In any event, I'll be sure to be more discerning in what I decide to revert in the future. Thanks for your time. Ormr2014 (talk)
 * Ormr2014, thanks for the refreshing friendly tone. I agree that it's important that policies be implemented fairly; it helps that there are many eyes watching so hopefully that means that people don't get away with being unfair. Ironically, while I was looking for an article to give as an example of EL, I found Hilot, one of the modalities listed on the massage page, which has a number of inappropriate EL's. I'm gonna deal with that next. Regarding reversions, there are two things that help. One is giving well-thought reason(s) in the edit summary. The other is that if it's likely to be controversial, to talk first and then edit. At least people will know why. Every edit can be discussed on its merits. Do stand up for the edits that you think are best, and support your points with WP rules and policies so that others can see your reasoning. PS. I'm stubborn by nature too, but I've decided that as a WP editor, my "persona" will be cool-headed. It's an active choice. If that helps.
 * So, would you be willing to dig in to that list of references in the umm.edu link? I think it would really benefit the massage article among others. --Karinpower (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. The article Massage is desperately in need of citations and I'm sure that some of the referenced sources do not really qualify as such. I'll go through it as I am able. I've added "" in many places and will add more. I will also spend some time finding sources of verification where I am able. Hopefully, we can improve the article! Ormr2014 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda
Article is hardly related with Hinduism, article is like India page, just mention of few Hindus wouldn't make it. That's why the template was removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on the Ayurveda page so others who are interested can chime in. --Karinpower (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Rolfing, take two
The article is on my watchlist now, hopefully I'll be able to take a look within a couple of days or so. GregorB (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate it! --Karinpower (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I'm a bit too slow, apparently - the problematic stuff in the Reception section has largely been removed - does that solve the problem?
 * The article is better than it was, but some ham-fistedness in "debunking" is still present.
 * For once, Primary source-inline is used correctly in the "more gentle practice than in its early days" claim: indeed, claims that could be reasonably described as "self-serving" should not rely on primary sources. However:
 * Some clients find Rolfing painful but, according to the Rolf Institute, it has become a more gentle practice than in its early days.
 * ...might be an acceptable phrasing. GregorB (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point and I agree. What many editors miss is that POV is - more often than not - not a result of claims that aren't true, or unreliable sources. It is a result of what I call "grudge editing". Say, an editor picks his or her least favorite politician, starts an article with barely a couple of general facts on the subject, and then unloads a mountain of "controversies". The usual defense is that "everything is properly sourced". That is fine, but it's not enough.


 * The editor you mention might have a problem with tendentious editing. It is characterized by an interest in furthering a point, coupled with a lack of interest in the topic itself. So, people might go around and make articles "skeptic-proof" in a crude way instead of actually improving them. (It is also a matter of "editing economy": to litter the article with contrary claims is easy - to make it truly more informative for the reader is hard.)


 * A good example: "diagnostic methods of rolfing do not have any proven basis" (from the original wording). Yet, we don't learn an iota about what rolfing is supposed to diagnose and how. That's not the way.


 * Online sources are not necessarily worse. They can be easily cross-checked, which tends to help when dealing with controversial issues. Multiple sourcing is the best. GregorB (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that tendentious editing is very hard to counter. It is different from POV editing in that it is spread across dozens of articles or more. I've seen such examples before: one of them (on an unrelated topic) was comparably mild in effect, but quite big in scope (probably on the order of hundred or so articles, all done by a single editor). What to do, then? If it's merely a question of undue weight, to counter it one would have to systematically revise and expand one hundred articles, which is probably 10x or 20x harder to do. So, whatever that editor does, one would have to invest 10x the effort just to keep it neutral on the whole.
 * Okay then, what about removing the problematic insertions? There comes the rub: to an uninvolved editor, this will invariably look like censorship.
 * My advice to you would be this: if you don't like playing whack-a-mole, :-) raise the issue with the appropriate project. Do not focus on an individual article, but rather submit evidence for large-scale single-issue editing. Acknowledge straight ahead (to avoid easy rebuttals) that this is not a matter of factual correctness or reliable sources. (As I noted already, having factually correct and reliably sourced claims is nice, but it's not necessarily enough.) Offer alternatives: it's not that the other editor should refrain from such edits completely, he should proceed while respecting WP:POV and WP:UNDUE, as applicable to the state of each individual article.
 * Whether such approach helps or not, it is hard to say, but to me it looks more promising and less time-consuming than addressing each article separately.
 * You're quite right, word choice and phrasing ("X is Y" vs "Z says X is Y", as in the above example) go a long way. Then there are scare quotes, WP:AVOID arsenal and what not. This is both good and bad: wording might make a claim "stick out", so to say, but a simple change of wording might make it reasonably neutral, so everyone wins in the end. GregorB (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have to tell you I was a bit surprised to find you're here for only 6 months. Your degree of understanding the issues seems higher than that. Still, working can be still hard with years and years of experience.
 * You say these people are skeptics. And you phrase it correctly: "skeptic-biased" - because it's not the skepticism itself that is the problem here. I'd describe myself as a skeptic, no doubt about that. However, when you see editors whose first priority in an article is to "assess" or "judge" - or, in this case, to "debunk" - rather than to describe or explain, which is #1 thing an encyclopedia does (to paraphrase a well-known saying: it is not the most important thing, it is the only thing), problems are bound to arise. Try to reach an agreement about the facts early, so that there is no misunderstanding about that. Say what's your objective about the article out front. Then one can more easily argue about proper exposition and wording. GregorB (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here I am, back to wiki much sooner than I expected, and that is a good thing... :-)
 * Yes, you got it right, "knowing the culture". It's also "knowing the technical bells and whistles" and generally "knowing your way around". (Just recently I saw an article of a prominent politician getting vandalized, and, to my embarrassment, I was not sure how and where to report it. And that's after nine years here!) I really wish Wikipedia was less confusing to newcomers, it is a big threat to its future - and also the the reason why I'm here, talking to you instead of fixing some typos and what not.
 * You have also probably realized by now that Wikipedia is a "do-ocracy": those who invest more effort - prevail.
 * Yes, tendentious editing is easy to spot because contrarian statements are usually crudely inserted and "stick out" in the text, which even inexperienced readers have no trouble noticing. So, damage from such edits is twofold: the quality of prose suffers just as neutrality does. GregorB (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Else Klink
3world Kid (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I refer to your edit of the article on Else Klink. I translated the article from the German Wikipedia here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Else_Klink and added some facts from the available biographies. Thank you for pointing out the lack of citations. I shall fix that.

3world Kid (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your note. I have only found one citation in English from the Los Angeles Times. It did all happen long ago before the days of the Internet. She did, after all, receive the "Verdienstkreuz der BRD" which is the equivalent of what the OBE used to be.

3world Kid (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks very much for the tip. I was indeed able to find some books and another citation. I had no idea they existed in English. I really appreciate the support.

Peter A. Levine
Hi Karin, I assume this is the relevant Peter Levene (it was moved a couple of time which makes it harder to track)
 * you mention the talk page; there was nothing related to the deletion there, just a discussion about what his first name was! You can have the text if you wish, but it's probably not what you are after
 * The main article was tagged by another author for speedy deletion as spam. I concurred (it even had proposed for deletion as an unsourced. biography of a living person. Because it was speedied, there is no discussion to find
 * He probably is notable enough, but as you know that doesn't exempt him from our requirements for a neutral, encyclopaedic and sourced article

If you have any interest in rewriting and referencing this, I can userfy it for you, or let me know if you have any other suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Text is here. I've killed the speedy tag, but left the other causes for concern so they are eaier to read. Feel free to kill them too when you are ready Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I can revamp this article (spelled Peter A. Levine), but am busy with other stuff for a month or so; let me know if my help is needed in perhaps April 2015 with a note on my talk page, if interested, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! I will take a look and do my best, and yes, I accept all offers of help. It does look like a lack of citations is the primary problem; claims seem promotional when unsourced. Also some copyediting is required.--Karinpower (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you both take a look? I made a variety of changes, added 3 sources, etc. I think these sources help establish notability, though it would be nice to have a couple more. In particular the source that shows that he got a lifetime achievement award shows notability. What do you think? --Karinpower (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Takes a while to learn how Wikipedia works; my sense is that your changes here are insufficient, that if the article was re-floated, it would be put up for deletion again, and deleted. If you wish, ask me in a few months to revamp it and I will try to get around to it; right now I'm busy with other stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I definitely want it to be in even better shape when it gets presented. I appreciate your offer of help in the future. In the meantime, can you say more about what I should focus on? Is it mostly a matter of locating more/better sources, or are their specific content problems that you see as well? Thanks.--Karinpower (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the current article is unsourced, so it really looks like a CV or advertisement. Generally don't write anything in Wikipedia without a source, like every sentence should be backed by a source. One way to approach a rewrite is this: find sources first, not primary but secondary sources, impartial third-party reviewers who are peer-reviewed or subject to scrutiny somehow who are in an excellent position to explain Levine's contributions and notability. Sources in hand, then summarize what the source says in a sentence or two, then have the reference. Lather, rinse, repeat.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

HPM
Hi, and thanks for your thanks re my edit at the Human Potential Movement article. It seems not everyone agrees as it was reverted a few hours later! I've reinserted it and made the attribution explicit. There's a comment on the talk page. DaveApter (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I'm not going to get in the middle of that conversation, but I'll make a couple comments. I didn't read the thread with enough attention to "pick sides" but at first glance it does seem like your sparring partner was more confrontational than necessary. I really, really try to assume good faith in editing, and make a concerted effort to be peaceful in my dealings with others. Better for everyone's blood pressure. So yeah, I find that often other editors are 1) correct and 2) rude. And it's true that your addition wasn't kosher - funny because it occurred to me that the writing was quite smooth and wondered if it was a copyvio but I didn't have time to check it. Lesson learned for you, it sounds like. I hope you continue to edit and don't take it personally. We all learn the hard way sometimes in the WP world. Just remember, people are interacting with your online persona, not the real you, so it truly isn't personal. :) Happy editing - --Karinpower (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) DaveApter (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

May 2016
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Rolfing. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have specifically asked two editors who have weighed in on previous discussions on this article. Both identify as skeptical, science-oriented thinkers and are not pro-alt-med in any way. Asking for neutral external opinions is a recommended step prior to arbitration. As you saw with GregorB's comment, he did not line up completely with either of us, but gave his own opinion. I'm perfectly willing to take this to a more formal arbitration process if needed. --Karinpower (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You selected editors (good ones, IMO) who you perceive helped you in the past; you did not notify any other editors. Your message falsely said you were up against an editor (me) who "is so bent on his POV that he doesn't thoughtfully read and consider the edits I make". That is not a neutral notification. That is canvassing. There is an open thread at at a noticeboard: WP:FT/N. That would be an appropriate place to post seeking wider consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to accurately describe the reason why an outside party was needed.... if Talking with you and others and seeking consensus was working, it wouldn't be needed. When you reverted all five of my edits on May 3, you did not do me the courtesy of considering whether any of them might have merit. In fact those edits included a number of copyedits that simplified the text in useful ways. And, among my various edits even though you may not have *liked* any of them, some may have been tolerable enough to allow to stand. And then again, in the Talk page, I repeatedly had to point out that you weren't reading my comments carefully enough to catch the real point that I was trying to make. This single-mindedness seems even more intense than what I experienced from you in the past.
 * At any rate, I'm still a fairly new editor, though I've worked hard to school myself, so I wasn't aware that this sort of communication was against the rules. I will take care in the future. --Karinpower (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Your assistance is humbly requested, again...
Just to let you know I'm not done with Rolfing yet - time permitting, I'll take a closer look at the article vs. the talk page remarks and give my input regarding the article's neutrality. GregorB (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I suspect we are approaching the point where some sort of official arbitration may be necessary; do you know the procedure for initiating that?--Karinpower (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, sorry about the long delay - I'm having a really long fallow period on Wikipedia to the point when I could almost say I'm semi-retired. (But hey, it's still semi!)
 * I've just read the article once again. The "quackery" qualification is a bit jarring to me, but other than that, I don't see major POV issues - which doesn't mean it's perfect. What do you think is the main problem with the article now: the sources or the way they're presented?
 * Arbitration? Well, yes, maybe it's time for a request for comments. It is important to prepare it well; I can help with that if you're interested. GregorB (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to give your perspective! Yes, the pseudoscience and quackery stuff has a few different facets. First, those terms are pejorative, especially quackery, which implies an intent to defraud, and there is no evidence of that. The term pseudoscience means that the premise is fundamentally in opposition to science and logic (ex. homeopathy, psychic surgery); for an alt-med method like Rolfing it's more appropriate to simply say that there are inadequate studies to support it. That's what the article used to say, and it was a fair truce between the various editors on the page. Recently a few editors have pushed to emphasize that perspective including weighting it very heavily in the introduction. The non-pseudoscience editors on the page don't have enough counterweight to argue against it effectively, mostly because I'm the only one with any WP editing experience. Here's an example of a time when the intro mentions pseudoscience but it is presented as one opinion, not as conclusive fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolfing&diff=next&oldid=710540348. This is prior to a series of controversial edits (some by me, which were all reverted without discussion or consideration, and some by opposing editors, which remain despite my attempts to discuss).
 * The claim for pseudoscience is weak. Six of the sources cited only mention the term Rolfing once, with no definition or specific comments about it, only including it in lists of pseudoscience methods, ranging from iridology to colonics. All of these should be removed. Cordon is one of the few that provides some detail on why it considers Rolfing to be pseudoscience, but the author makes some bizarre claims about Rolfing regarding "vital energy" and psychological aspects such as "traumatic memories being repressed in the form of muscle memory". Rolfing is a physical/structural approach, not a psychotherapy or energy work. Cordon doesn't cite a source for his information, but I would speculate that he is confusing Rolfing with Reichian ideas from that same era. Vital energy is a Reichian concept. For your convenience, here's a link, it's page 218: https://books.google.com/books?id=Uy1gmwcAgg4C&q=Rolfing#v=snippet&q=Rolfing&f=false.
 * The reason I think it's time for a Request for Comments or similar approach is that in the past few months the tone has grown contentious and discussion has been unproductive. For several years previously, we had editors with strongly differing opinions but we were able to negotiate compromises on the Talk page. Now I feel that several editors are using strong-arm tactics without even giving consideration to objections about the sources or the weight of their opinion in the article. Thanks in advance for your perspective on how to handle this.--Karinpower (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like AaronMFeld beat us to it: the RfC has been opened. The wording seems OK.
 * I agree with much of what you have written. To me, the "quackery" qualification is also potentially problematic WP:BLP-wise and requires a more conservative approach. Some things seem off: "it is a pseudoscience" is supposed to have read "it is pseudoscientific" - Rolfing is a treatment method, and does not purport to be science, so it can't be a "pseudoscience" either. I'll be back with more comments later. GregorB (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just noticed AaronMFeld's RfC last night after writing to you. I've been following his edits; he seems to be an inexperienced editor and so he comes across as too cavalier and not thoughtful enough about how to strike a reasonable compromise. I fear that those efforts might actually undermine what I'm trying to do. I am really trying to navigate a path toward a more balanced, encyclopedic article, not one that oscillates between two extremes.
 * True about Rolfing not purporting to be a science. The field of Rolfing itself says that it's a type of "somatic education" (teaching how to move and how to perceive) rather than a form of health care - though of course they also make plenty of claims of health benefits that are not adequately backed by studies. --Karinpower (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Watsu Article
What is your opinion about restoring the following excerpt (currently deleted from article)? It is well supported by the references.

The effects of warm water, gentle touch, and numerous flowing movement techniques produce a deep state of relaxation. Watsu is used as a form of passive aquatic therapy for physical rehabilitation of illness, injury, and disability.

Thanks, TheProfessor (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi TheProfessor, thanks for asking my opinion. I may have removed or edited this text myself at some point in the past; it looks familiar. The problem here is that it claims medical benefit (relaxation), which can't happen without a metastudy (a review of studies which overall show benefit). It is ok to say that the warmth, touch, and movement are *intended* to produce relaxation. The second part of the sentence implies medical benefit for illness, injury, and disability, so the same problem applies there. I think we can just say "Watsu is used as a form of passive aquatic therapy." Hope that helps.--Karinpower (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Karinpower, Thanks for your response, and the perspective that relaxation is a medical effect requiring a metastudy.  I'll investigate further and consider what reasonably can be said in the Wikipedia article.  Almost all articles written about the subject mention deep relation as an effect, and specifically state that this results from the combination of warm water, touch, and gentle movement.  And several of the articles mentioned specifically review literature. For Wikipedia "ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." A couple of the book chapters clearly fall in the category of academic and professional books, and the articles themselves are largely review. Also, there is a metastudy underway through York University (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016029347).  -- TheProfessor (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The metastudy *could* potentially be used to demonstrate some preliminary medical benefit, depending on a lot of factors. All those other sources that you mentioned work well for general info about the method, but even if they mention health benefits, we have to be cautious on our wording.
 * Any effect on the body is a medical benefit, for WP purposes. Ex., improvements to posture or movement. Cheers.--Karinpower (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Modality vs Procedure - Term for Massage and Other Manual Therapy
Do you think it would be worthwhile to expunge misuse of the term modality from the Massage article? I suggest using the terms "manual therapy" or simply "technique" or "form".

Here are typical definitions of modality as used in physical therapy and rehabilition:

"A modality is a type of electrical, thermal or mechanical energy that causes physiological changes. It is used to relieve pain, improve circulation, decrease swelling, reduce muscle spasm, and deliver medication in conjunction with other procedures. Typical types of modalities include electrical muscle stimulation, ultrasound, heat, ice, and traction." (http://www.yorkvillept.com/about/what-is-a-pt-modality)

"Physical therapists are trained in the therapeutic application of various basic physical agents that we call modalities. These agents are thermal [heat and cold], electrical, sound, light and mechanical... [Modalities] are used to reduce pain and joint swelling, reduce muscle spasm, restore functional joint mobility, increase local blood flow to injured tissues and deliver medications subcutaneously in conjunction with other procedures." (http://www.orthobalancept.com/treatment-modalities-procedures)

By contrast, massage techniques or forms would are considered a procedure or manual therapy:

"[Procedure] usually refers to skilled or manual (hands-on) techniques such as different types of therapeutic massage, mobilization, traction, exercise…" (http://www.yorkvillept.com/about/what-is-a-pt-procedure)

"In addition to the physical agents and treatment modalities used in PT, there are other types of procedures such as therapeutic exercise prescription, neuromuscular re training, visual and electrical biofeedback, manual therapeutic techniques, soft tissue release and biomechanical analysis and correction of various physical impairments and dysfunctions." (http://www.orthobalancept.com/treatment-modalities-procedures)

Thanks - TheProfessor (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'm not a fan of the word "modality" and prefer "method" (or "technique"). But, I just did a "find in this page" search and didn't find "modality" in the Massage article, nor the Bodywork article. Anyway, if you see a use of it, please do make the edit and I will back you up if needed.--Karinpower (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

rolfing mediation
Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keep fighting the good fight. Cyintherye (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Gokhale Method fringe?
Perhaps you would find this discussion about the Gokhale Method interesting. Feel free to share your opinion. See also the article's talk page.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

DMOZ/Curlie
There is consensus to generally include this. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. I also posted a comment on the Talk page about a source that could be helpful, just curious if you have taken a look at that. I'm not sure where to include it and I haven't been tracking this particular article, so I thought it perhaps best to offer it up and see if someone wants to sort it out. --Karinpower (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hi there! Given your major interest in the Rolfing article, I'm amazed this hasn't come up before (correct me if I'm wrong!), but do you have any conflict of interest wrt Rolfing? You are aware I assume of WP:MEDCOI? Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. And actually I have much broader interest in health in general, having edited on probably 100 health-related topics. Many of those are within alternative medicine, some pertain to western medicine diagnoses, and some pertain to anatomy.
 * I have a mild conflict of interest with acupuncture. I've received it over the years ever since having a near-miraculous result with it in my early adulthood; it fixed the circulation to my extremities. I have edited very little with the Chinese Medicine pages and if I do contribute, it's usually for the sake of clarity rather than controversy. :I'll admit to be daunted by Chinese Medicine - being a patient is very different from trying to understand it enough to edit those pages. Since you seem curious, I'll give you a bit of background. Ironically I found my way to editing Wikipedia because of a Skeptic publication my uncle gave me. He knew I found acupuncture beneficial and wanted to show me how little it is currently understood. I enjoyed reading about how they figured out how to do "sham" acupuncture. I was working in a lab that dealt with microbiology (that's how I first heard of Ida Rolf, from her prior career as a biochemist) so it was very interesting to read about how a trial might be conducted to test a therapeutic method.
 * In my journey into the Skeptic literature, I found a call for volunteer editors to come help out with Wikipedia, specifically with alternative medicine. Many articles lacked enough sources to know whether they even warranted inclusion, others were incorrect, and some read like they were written by a marketing team. Rolfing was one of the bad ones; it had unsourced info and a lack of good description in the sources.
 * The other articles that I've spent the most time on are also very underdeveloped, but many of those simply don't have many sources that reference them, so the work to be done is limited. You and I have crossed paths on at least a dozen different articles, and I'm sure we will again. --Karinpower (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I don't think receiving a treatment of itself confers a conflict of interest, and community consensus has been even that altmed practitioners do not necessarily have a conflict of interest for their field! And yes, I'm sure we'll be working on some of the same articles over time ... Alexbrn (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting! In that case I gave incorrect information to some practitioners who have asked me about it as a local Wikipedia editing meetup group. I can't recall who exactly it was but I could try to post a correction in the group. Could you say more about how they can be involved appropriately? I thought they were limited to chiming on on the Talk page and perhaps minor edits. --Karinpower (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a subtle area - the best thing I can do is point you at the most recent RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Your edit to Ida Rolf has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Diannaa, you've got the situation backwards. This is text that was previously included in this page, and it got "lifted" by other websites which is a common practice with wikipedia articles. So this article is the original. I disagreed with the removal of this well-sourced info so I added it back in (but with some edits for brevity). I'll be restoring this info to the article again. --Karinpower (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have undone the revision deletion. Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, thanks, I appreciate it! I'm impressed by the wizardry that you used to make the entries disappear from the history, and I'm pleased that when you undid it, "the timeline was restored" (to use a sci fi reference) including the edits made by other editors after mine. Cheers. --Karinpower (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)