Talk:Rolfing

Improving the introduction text

As it stands, the introduction text makes very strong for establishment of a one-sided claim about the topic, mostly using references that can't by any standard be considered meaningful evidence. In an effort to improve the article, I suggest moving the second paragraph, which is particularly opinionated and use questionable references, into the corresponding section and then beefing up the introduction text in a way that reflects the contents of the entire article. Any comments/suggestions? ( Mikkokotila (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC) )

The paragraph you moved already summarizes article content. Per WP:PSCI we need to be upfront about the dodgy nature of this topic. We are using good sources - if there are ones we're missing please identify them. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@User:Alexbrn Can you explain what exactly do you mean by "dodgy nature of this topic"? What is that makes Rolfing dodgy vs. some other less known therapy method that you would not classify as "dodgy"? (Mikkokotila (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC))

Read the article and the sources cited: fake claims, pseudoscience, quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read it many times and I have checked each citation carefully on several occasion. With quackery and pseudoscience, in order to understand the position clearly, shall I use the corresponding Wikipedia articles for definition? Regarding "fake claims", if it is considered a valid contributor to a topic being dodgy, then it follows that one could simply start publishing fake claims about a given topic and thus contributing to its dodgyness, when in fact it would just be a indication of the dodgyness of the person making those claims. (Mikkokotila (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC))

That makes no sense to me. The purpose of this Talk page is to discuss improving the article, which should summarize good sources in accord with our WP:PAGs. Rolfing is, per the sources, a load of old tripe - we accordingly give it no more credence than any other load of old tripe: Bigfoot, holocaust denial, alien abductions, homeopathy etc. Alexbrn (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand what is the purpose of this Talk page. That is exactly why I'm asking questions to understand the background information. If a person 'a' goes out and makes false claims about person 'b', that does not say anything about 'b' does it? It's a very simple proposition in fact. I agree that the article should summarize good sources in accord with WP:PAGs. (Mikkokotila (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC))

I don't understand these abstract propositions about "person A" etc. Is a concrete proposal for improving the article likely to be made? Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing abstract in the point that "fake claims" do not make a given topic fake, fake claims make the claimer fake. Otherwise it would follow that all topics could be made fake by making fake claims. That is not the case, which proves fake claims do say anything about the topic itself. This falls under "fallacy of fallacy". If you disagree, better handle that in List_of_fallacies. Regarding a concrete proposal, you will see it when it's ready WP:TIND. (Mikkokotila (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC))

Thanks a lot for the clarification, that makes sense. I realize that there are many wikipedia protocols I have to understand in order to be able to meaningfully contribute to a matter as contested as this particular article is. I will formulate a proposal and come back here to continue the dialogue. I will start with the sources, as that's something I understand practically being a career researcher. Just need to make sure first I understand the corresponding wikipedia policies. Thanks again for the clarification, and have a nice day ahead as well. (Mikkokotila (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC))

What studies are considered meaningful?

Hi, this may be my first time using the 'talk' page; thank you for your patience!

I research mainstream and alternative health practices, and I normally find Wikipedia's sources to be a great jumping off point for finding more. Even with practices that are considered pseudosciences, I've found Wikipedia's summaries to be admirably unbiased and in line with what I find when I search medical journals. However for this topic I found Wikipedia's summary to be biased; cherry-picking some of the most (very admittedly) woo-woo bs without discussing some of the more reasoned voices on the subject. I have found smaller-scale clinical research that seems to support the use of Rolfing as generally effective (on these small scales) for alleviating pain. I have seen small-scale studies cited on other Wikipedia pages (appropriately qualified as "a few small studies" or similar), so I'm wondering: what constitutes enough to make an assertion like that? I'm not by any means an expert in how medical journal publishing works. But for example, these published articles seem to support some kind of pain benefit to Rolfing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3279437 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524847 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28626311

They're kind of old, and I know that the standard is to use reviews and not overemphasize single articles, but it also feels like the standard is a sentence or two about how there have been a handful of studies that show positive effects, even if the overall conclusion was that there haven't been enough studies. I admittedly can't really remember a specific example, but I'm almost positive I've seen this kind of thing in Wikipedia pages before. Here's an article that collects all of the published literature and frames it as "preliminary evidence suggests" but says more study is needed.

My question isn't so much about whether these things *should* be included (although maybe it's a fair question?) but more what disqualifies them from being enough for a sentence about 'a few studies' or 'preliminary evidence suggests' or other appropriately qualified cite, or from being included at all?

Thank you for your help!

97.115.247.56 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We generally avoid primary sources for health content, per WP:MEDRS (and maybe see WP:WHYMEDRS for background). In addition there is a strong WP:EXCEPTIONAL aspect here too – any claim that this apparently implausible practice has health benefits would need strong sourcing indeed. (Also, are you WP:LOGGEDOUT intentionally?) Alexbrn (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC); struck text 07:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll have to figure out why I thought this was a common practice; will pay more attention. And no, I just don't have an account because I've never edited or commented on Wikipedia before. If there's etiquette I've violated, my apologies, and if I make a habit of it, I'll make an account. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.247.56 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah okay - ignore my comment about IPs as I got the wrong end of the stick. And welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to edit medical content here, WP:MEDRS is key and WP:WHYMEDRS gives some handy background. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agin quote

@Alexbrn: Greetings! You requested that the issue of the Agin quote be discussed here? I see both User:Thatcher57 and User:Karinpower removed it, and you reverted both without much explanation. The quote does not seem wrong in as much as that's literally what the author said, but it does seem a bit weak since the only thing this author did was include it on a list of quack medicine things. Though this appears in what seems to be a reasonable book about junk science, and the author is presumably an expert, it would seem more convincing if there were any supporting details in the book specifically about Rolfing. Given the actions of the other editors, perhaps this quote isn't making the case as well as the other quotes that more or less say the same thing? I can't say I have strong feelings either way. Anyway, I'm curious what your thoughts were. -- Beland (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a dearth of RS on this topic, so to have something independent and reliable making a point is valuable indeed (and we have nothing else contextualizing Rolfing in the general altmed market). Granted, it's just a brief mention but having just a short sentence here is surely not undue. Per WP:PSCI we are supposed to include prominently how mainstream scientists have reacted to pseudosciences - this fits that policy requirement. Other than reasons of WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY, which this article has long been prey to, I cannot see how removal improves the article and gives our readers a better understanding of the topic. Alexbrn (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Well, WP:PSCI is satisfied by the second paragraph in the intro, and there's a reference for the first sentence that defines Rolfing as alternative medicine. It's good and important to have supporting details in the "Effectiveness and reception" section, but it does seem a bit verbose. There are four different quotes applying the "quack" label, which is important to bring up, but after the second or third time it seems to be beating a dead horse. I think it would probably be more helpful to readers to consolidate those and spend more time explaining how Rolfing is dangerous or unscientific. -- Beland (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the multiple mentions of "quackery" makes it sound like someone has an ax to grind. Psuedoscience is a fair label. Quakery implies an intent to defraud, as well as utter worthless of the service - and that's not what the meta-studies say. They say the evidence is insufficient but shows some promise. None of these authors provide evidence of quackery, or of harm.

There are 4 sources cited that have only a single-word mention of Rolfing. Do they deserve to be included at all? They certainly do not deserve the full paragraph that they currently occupy, nor do they warrant being quoted here.

We already negotiated this wording on the Talk page, back in 2015 (edited to add that the conversation involved User:Pengortm). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rolfing/Archive_4#Wording_regarding_sources_that_have_a_long_list_of_pseudoscientific_alt-med_modalities

The agreement was to summarize all of those sources with "Skeptics have included Rolfing in lists of alternative health methods that they consider quackery." There is your single occurance of the word quackery. Can we move forward with this, in place of the current sentences referencing Clow, Agin, Barden, and Shapiro? The current references to Cordon and Carroll that are in that paragraph would remain, as those sources make an effort to actually examine the topic at hand and they offer critiques that are specific to Rolfing. --Karinpower (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The cited sources do not show evidence of quackery beyond the authors’ opinion. The word itself is pejorative rather than informative. Wikipedia should be used to inform, not defame. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable that those citations be used to support the statement, “Skeptics have included Rolfing in lists of alternative health methods that they consider quackery.” Qykslvr (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I like that wording since it's concise and accurate. If other editors feel strongly against removing some, I don't have a problem keeping all four sources as footnotes, just to demonstrate it's not one or two people who think that. The weight of one-line opinions depends on the expertise of the author. Agin, for example, is an expert on the attributes of junk science, and so has some credibility to evaluate Rolfing as quackery or not - unlike say, my Aunt Sally on her blog. Maybe he just Googled "quack medicine" and threw together that list, or maybe it's carefully filtered through vast expertise and fact-checked by the publisher. Based on the rest of the book and interviews I've heard with the author, I see no particular reason to think it was made in error or ignorance, but it's not great compared to a quote that actually demonstrates detailed consideration. It would also be more useful to have footnotes that direct Wikipedia readers to sources with more details rather than one-liners. (Full disclosure: I don't have an Aunt Sally.) -- Beland (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm ok with keeping all 4 as footnotes, they can sing in chorus. Can we agree to pare down the use of the word "quakery" to this one sentence? Since we have no evidence of actual fraud, it deserves a small mention here, while in the lede Psuedoscience sums it up nicely.--Karinpower (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentence as noted above by Qykslvr and Karinpower accurately reflects the sources. I am in favor, especially as we reached that general agreement on this previously. I am also in favor of keeping all the sources as it gives the interested reader further information. Thatcher57 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

So long as we reflect the sources and note that Rolfing has been characterized as quackery in the lede & body, we are being policy-compliant: we need to note how mainstream people outside the Rolfing bubble see this stuff. We shouldn't label the view as coming from "skeptics" as that is editorial downplaying and may have BLP ramifications: we have scientists, experts on health fraud and lawyers making the quackery observation. Any pseudoscience that is sold for money is ipso facto quackery/health fraud, so this is hardly rocket science. Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it deserves a place in the lede. Do we have sources that elaborates on *how* it is quackery? Since quackery implies a fraudulent intent and a worthless product, the burden of evidence is a bit higher than a handful of authors on a rant about alt-med including it on a list of methods that they opine are "quackery." In fact we have the opposite, we have multiple medical sources expressing cautious optimism while acknowledging the lack of RTC's. The term "pseudoscience" carries encyclopedic neutrality. "Quackery" on the other hand is archiac; modern fraudsters know that electronic crimes are more efficient than taking the time to sell fake salves ("quacksalve" is the origin of the word). --Karinpower (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Karinpower: Stealing credit card numbers is more efficient, but there are plenty of topical and other products for sale making unwarranted medical claims. Here are the some the FDA has sent warning letters about: [1] [2] If all that's going to happen when you do this is getting a warning letter, it seems a lot less risky than breaking into online bank accounts, which can actually land you in jail if caught. And if you believe your own propaganda, you might even sleep well at night. -- Beland (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

We have no reliable sources expressing "cautious optimism" and the labelling of all authors mentioning quackery as being "on a rant" is oddly personalized. Quackery is when pseudoscience is monetized, so the claim is kind of obvious. I don't think it's a huge issue whether "quackery" appears in the lede or not, except for the reason we already had an RfC on this exact same question[3] which was closed with the following assessment:

Consensus here is that use of the term pseudoscience is essentially uncontentious, but the term quackery is contentious. However, the source of this contention is conflict between cited and attributed sources, and the deeply-held beliefs of practitioners of what is, by consensus and according to solid sources, pseudoscience, so we are entitled to take that documented contentiousness and ignore it because it is not contentious in Wikipedia, it is contentious only to a community vested in objectively unsupported claims. [my bold]

Maybe JzG, the closing admin, could elaborate on this and how it relates to the current discussion? My concern is that policy requires us to be up-front about how serious, independent people have viewed Rolfing and the push to scrub "quackery" from the lede has been heavily backed by WP:SPAs and odd sleeper accounts which reflect the long history of POV-pushing and advocacy this article has been afflicted by. Wikipedia should not be whitewashed. I think running another RfC would be viewed as disruptive, but if consensus is to be overturned we would need to widen community input probably by returning (yet again) to WP:FT/N, and convincing policy based arguments would need to be presented for the desired change. But personally I think the book on this is closed and we should leave the WP:DEADHORSE be. Alexbrn (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point that it looks like the RfC addressed the matter. Seems like Wikipedia uses a looser definition of "quackery" than what I would have expected. So I disagree but I stand aside on the inclusion of quackery in the lede. So for this edit, any author that only mentions Rolfing on a list of types of alternative medicine will be limited to be cited at the end of a sentence that will read something like this. "Some authors have included Rolfing in lists of alternative health methods that they consider quackery." That avoids the term "skeptics." Any additional tweaks on the wording? --Karinpower (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have bundled all the "quackery" mentions into one citation to avoid the "shopping list" effect. See what you think. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Impressive move with the bundling! I have never seen that done before. I added Clow into that bundle. Thanks for pulling the Barden citation out of the lede, I appreciate it. --Karinpower (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Rolf Institute on Wikipedia

Interestingly, this Wikipedia article is mentioned a couple of times in the July 2018 issue of Structural Integration. First in "Rolfing SI and Recognition: Keeping the Trust Amidst Skepticism", where "Wikipedia has its own notoriety for being a questionable source of information" and then in a sidebar titled "A Note from the Rolf Institute", where we discover "The 'Rolfing' article on Wikipedia has been a source of consternation for many years." Happily, they attempt to explain Wikipedia editing and request that readers not make edits to the article, but instead support Rolfing research and ensure that printed sources have "correct information." --tronvillain (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References

This article is in reasonable shape and averaging approx 325 views/day - so a fair number of readers are getting neutral, accurate knowledge about Rolfing. I don't expect Wikipedia will ever have an effect on "converting" altmed practitioners because of Sinclair's law[4]. I look around for new sources every now and again, but don't find much; my impression is that Rolfing has withdrawn even more into its own closed world. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not proven?

When Ida Rolf was alive I was in an accident. I was treated by someone she trained. It gave me back the ability to move freely. More recently I was in another accident and getting the deep massage again has reduced pain and allowed me stand strait and move normally again. I was told that Ida Rolf developed her method to help a pianist friend after an accident. One should not confuse the "spiritual" aspects of Rolfing with the deep massage. Saltysailor (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Except you can't know that you might have recovered (maybe recovered faster) without the intervention, or that it was just manipulation rather than any Rolfing-specific aspect which helped. This is why evidence-based medicine exists, and it is the basis of what Wikipedia will say about medical interventions. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ideological basis

This article currently makes a misstatement based on citations that do not support the statement. It says: It is based on Rolf's ideas about how the human body's "energy field" can benefit when aligned with the Earth's gravitational field. This is not true and is not claimed/substantiated by the cited sources. The first citation is a quote from Ida Rolf where she never uses the word "energy." The second is from the website skepdic.com, which makes a claim about Rolfing and "personal energy" by quoting Rolf as saying "Rolfers make a life study of relating bodies and their fields to the earth and its gravity field" and then she goes on to say: "and we so organize the body that the gravity field can reinforce the body's energy field." This is no way says that all of Rolfing is based on aligning human energy fields. And this claim is misleading to put in the intro article of the text.

I replaced this misstatement with information that would be useful in the intro text, about the foundations of Rolfing. My new sentence was: "It is based on Rolf's ideas about returning the body to its optimum structure through realignment of fascia." This is a true and helpful statement that is backed up by two citations. The first is from The Guardian (a mainstream media publication) and the second is from the Ida Rolf Institute, which seems like a valid source on what Ida Rolf thought.

My edits were reverted. I and another editor attempted to restore them but were reverted (three times) by one user who gave brief dismissals in response to our well-reasoned explanations. I intend to restore my version again (or invite another to do so); but first will to see if anyone still disagrees, and why. Epastore (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf's actual words are quoted (emphasis mine):

Rolfers make a life study of relating bodies and their fields to the earth and its gravity field, and we so organize the body that the gravity field can reinforce the body's energy field. This is our primary concept.

So it would seem your complaint is unfounded. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I quoted those exact words in my own post, above. My objections are centered around how this quote is misused.

First, she does not claim that Rolfing is based on aligning energy fields. She says that the work they do can "reinforce" the body's energy field. This does not say that Rolfing is all about this process. It is a potential result of Rolfing.

Second, the cited source is a web page made by one person who makes a hobby of criticizing things he thinks are not scientific. This does not make his interpretation of Rolf's words valid. My sources are a mainstream media publication and an institute that has direct knowledge of the subject.

I do not see any justification for keeping the current misstatement in the intro, where it seems part of a concerted campaign to associate Rolfing with derogatory concepts. It would be much more rational and encyclopedic to simply state what Rolfing is, which my proposed edit does. Epastore (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ida said it's the "primary concept". So it's not a "misstatement". Wikipedia must do justice to the full radiance of Ida Rolf's vision as it was articulated, not try to water it down. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see you added those words in. They are not quoted in the article, so however you or I would interpret it would be original research, I suppose, right? In that case, I am stating that the quoted article does not substantiate its claim. Though my own interpretation would be that her word "this" has to do with aligning the body to gravity; not to vitalism (which is stated through implication by including a link to vitalism in this section).

I still do not see how this person's webpage is a good resource for describing what Rolfing is. I provided much more credible links and a much more un-biased explanation of the basis of the school of thought. I do not see a reason why the current text is more acceptable. Epastore (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you blathering on about "not quoted in the article" ? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not blathering; please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Some of the words he cites are in the article. But the article never quotes Ida Rolf as saying "This is our primary concept." Where is it cited? Epastore (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, then read the article again..... I will then accept your apology. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha, it's funny how arguments can come up through misunderstandings of nuance. I am referring to the cited article, not to the Wikipedia article. You are referencing a different part of the Wikipedia article; whereas I am referencing the cited article, which is used to substantiate in incorrect claim in the intro; as per my original post above. What does "This" mean in Dr. Rolf's sentence? There's that nuance thing again.Epastore (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cant see an apology. Carry on blathering. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not immediately recognize that the original replier and you were both referring to another thing with the word "article."

Now can anyone explain why the article should continue to contain the current misstatement; as I questioned above? I see no rationale for making the article associate Rolfing with vitalism; when that clearly is not what it is about and no credible sources say so. -Epastore (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Epastore that these sources don't hold water as proof that her ideas were vitalistic. She was writing and teaching in the 60's and 70's, and she was using the lingo of the day in some cases. But it's clear that what she was referring to was her concept of "alignment with gravity" - based partly on her study of yoga. Her writings and teachings - and the current field of SI - don't put much emphasis on "energy" but they do extensively address the concepts of gravity and alignment. For instance, how the arches of the foot function as shock absorption. These ideas are unproven but not woo-woo. Some editors here have made extreme efforts to try to make this practice sound more esoteric than it is. Or to discredit it by any other means. It's not good encyclopedic writing; the public entrusts us to accurately convey the topic.--Karinpower (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)