Talk:Rolfing

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)

Carroll's Skepdic source

Among the sources that criticize Rolfing, I find this author has a sense of humor and also conveys some complexities of the topic, which is a pleasant contrast to some of the other anti-Rolfing sources cited that don't seem to have educated themselves on the topic at all. He does, unfortunately, include a number of factual errors. One of these errors is that he offhandly writes that it's a type of energy medicine. This seems to be a common belief among the anti-alternative-medicine crowd, where they all seem to reference each other in an ongoing echo chamber which claims to be sciency.

In fact, the credible sources that describe Rolfing in detail focus on practical aspects such as alignment in gravity and improvements in muscular balance during movement. Carroll himself spends more time on this than on "energy" and with quite a bit more factual support. He opens with quoting: "Rolfing's foundation is simple: Most humans are significantly out of alignment with gravity, although we function better when we are lined up with the gravitation field." His next two sentences are also okay (except one error: myofascial massage is a spin-off of Rolfing, not vice versa): "Rolfing® seems to be a kind of myofascial massage, but Rolfers prefer to call it "movement education." Whatever you call it, Rolfing involves touching the skin, feeling around for "imbalances" in tissue texture, and separating "fascial layers that adhere and muscles that have been pulled out of position by strain or injury."

Carroll later points to a good question.... we don't have evidence that alignment in gravity is beneficial. But we do have plenty of support for that being Dr. Rolf's "primary concept" (not the energy field thing).

While he doesn't explain how Rolfing is "energy medicine" he does spend some time questioning the emotional changes that some people report. In the past decade, the relationship between mind and body has moved from the sidelines to become a commonly acknowledged concept. Googling "mind-body connection" pulls up websites from major universities ex https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/mente, and other mainstream sources such as Johns Hopkins and Kiaser Permanente - and these are the top search results. These sites say that movement and mindfulness are important for both physical and emotional health. Improving movement and mindfulness are goals of Rolfing. Obviously this doesn't prove whether Rolfing is a helpful tool but it shows that such goals are not fringe or woo-woo. --Karinpower (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, Rolf wrote about energy so it would seem Carroll was right in identifying this aspect (it's an aspect of Rolfing, not the totality of it). It's something we should cover, then, for NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is a big and important part of what Rolf wrote and taught, then yes, it should be somewhere in the article with proper context. However it isn't; and it certainly does not belong in the intro with a link to energy (esotericism). Albert Einstein wrote "Creation may be spiritual in origin," so should the article on him have a link to creationism in the intro text? -2001:470:FD:3:0:0:0:40 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia largely mirrors independent secondary sources. The energy Rolf invokes is esoteric (or do you want to name the type of energy it is and the units it is quantified in?) A bit of trivial googling[5] shows Rolfing is being sold with energy field in the pitch, which confirms Carroll was astute in highlighting this aspect. I wonder what an "electronic auric field" is though ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The link you reference is a university study from the 70s that appears to take a very non-esoteric approach to energy. It says: "There were measurements before and after Rolfing of anxiety states, brain hemisphere activity, energy field photography, DC recordings of energy flow in electrical voltage readings, EMG recordings from sixteen separate muscles, electromyograms of neuromuscular patterning of energy, and electronic auric field study." How does that in any way confirm that Ida Rolf based Rolfing on esoteric concepts of energy?

(And I don't know what an "auric field" is ether; but scientific instruments were used to measure such things in the 70s. Look at page 3 of the actual study, which says: "Electronic frequency data, EMG, EEG, and auric field were intercepted by a four-channel telemetry system produced by Biosentry , IRIG channels 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 using bipolar surface electrodes and recorded on a Nagra IV tape recorder.") You don't need to mock things you don't know about. Have an open mind... like a scientist. -Epastore (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like pseudoscience, reminiscent of E-meters. The point is "energy" is part and parcel of the Rolfing schtick and the energy field that is meant to align with gravity is not something in science, per any reliable source. If decent sources say it's energy medicine, Wikipedia has to follow. (BTW, there appears to be an entire book about Rolf and energy medicine. Fringe as heck so not usable on Wikipedia, but perhaps somebody could read it to see what the claims are? I note in the preface it says the "subtle life force energy" in Rolfing is the same as qi.) Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So in the 70s, some scientists (yes, they are real PhD's at real universities) decided to do a study on Rolfing and energy — and this somehow proves that the Rolfing "schtick" is all about energy? At the very best, this is a conclusion you make based on original research. Look at the facts. When mainstream secondary sources talk about Rolfing, they do not say it is primarily about energy manipulation. Here are the first things I find from credible secondary sources: Healthline, The Guardian, Dictionary.com, Tahoe Daily Tribune. There is no mention of energy work in any of those. It would be very misleading for Wikipedia to continue to show this misinformation in the intro text. -Epastore (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Carroll is an excellent source for altmed/quackery, so most apt for this topic. Reading a bit more of Structural Integration and Energy Medicine: A Handbook I see it describes how gravity alignment is meant to open up channels which let the energy flow, thereby activativing "the body's own healing process". This is textbook vitalism. So Carroll seems to be on-point, as we should expect from someone of his expertise. Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2021

This book actually differentiates between Rolf's ideas vs. the author's own vitalistic ideas. Check out the section called "Rolf's Recipe." The table of contents has a clickable link for it. This section has zero reference to energy, it just describes the Series. Then, in the next section, "The Energetics of the Body," the author explains Rolf's structural ideas vs. the author's energetic ideas about channels (which is not part of the teaching of Rolfing). This source actually supports the point that Epastore was making.

As to that study from the 1970's.... the efforts to make scientific readings of stuff people might call "energy" could be seem as an attempt to find scientific grounding for something that wasn't understood. Electricity, gravity, atomic physics, all of that was once mysterious. Science takes a lot of fruitless paths in the process of eventually making meaningful discoveries. "Energy field photography" (whatever that is) has faded away but various types of measurements using electrodes on the muscles and on the skull to read brain function have turned out to be useful. Regardless, the modern field of Rolfing doesn't use any of this, and neither did Dr. Rolf.

I think Epastor is on the right track with taking a survey of what sources are saying about Rolfing. Let's look at all the sources that offer at least one full page of description (the ones that are just one sentence or one paragraph don't seem to have bothered to educate themselves on the topic). We can stack them up and make a decision based on that. --Karinpower (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's backwards. The more terse a source is, assuming it's reputable, the more it is likely to focus on the core elements. The Cordón source also references the vitalistic/enery aspect of Rolfing. I think what we have is fine. It's always possible to ask at WP:FT/N for more editors with experience handling this kind of topic. We wouldn't want to whitewash away aspects of Rolfing that might appear too whacky, and that would give as a NPOV problem. Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then use terse sources. Apart from the opinion of this one guy who makes a hobby of bashing anything he doesn't have a double-blind study to prove (nb: lack of proof ≠ disproof); every credible, mainstream, terse description of Rolfing does not talk about energy work or vitalism. See my links above. The only mainstream publication that is out of line with this is Wikipedia.

And I completely disagree with the term "whitewashing." I fully understand that many forms of alternative medicine are quackery. And I fully understand that some Rolfers engage in dubious pursuits (as do some MDs). But blindly labeling Rolfing as quackery just because it does not accept the same assumptions as does allopathic medicine is irrational. Rolfing is not about vitalism; and the vast majority of evidence amply demonstrates that fact. What I see here is not whitewashing, but mudslinging. The Wikipedia page on Rolfing is currently heavily biased; fitting in references and links to every easily-lambasted thought-system possible. It's time to get rid of the heavy bias in this article and restore some sense of encyclopedic fact-presentation. -Epastore (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

All we can do is follow sources. It seems IPR said energy was a central concept, independent sources say it is, and (some) Rolfers even do too. We used to have more on this which has gone AWOL for some reason. Anyway in medicine lack of proof kind of does equate to disproof, since the essential basis of evidence-based medicine is disproof of the null hypothesis - i.e. something is assumed not to work until shown otherwise. Selling stuff which isn't evidenced is, by definition, quackery ... which is no doubt why sources invoke that concept. As I say, for wider consensus, post at WP:FT/N (where Rolfing has already been much discussed over the years). Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please cite your sources. I see 311 possible definitions for the acronym IPR; what are you referring to; and what's the citation? These are my sources:

-Healthline

-The Guardian

-Dictionary.com

-Tahoe Daily Tribune

-Dr. Ida Rolf Institute (which, while a primary source, is undeniably an expert source on what Dr. Ida Rolf thought).

None of them talk about Rolfing as energy work. What are your citations; and how are they more valid? -Epastore (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

IPR = Ida P Rolf. Those source you give are all quite weak for health content/pseudoscience, compared to what we already have. The rolfers Institute is obviously not usable per WP:FRIND; Wikipedia isn't here to amplify pseudoscience, but to reflect expert mainstream commentary on it.. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRIND applies to describing a "pseudoscience" correctly, but not to defining it. "Rolfing" is a registered service mark of the Dr. Ida Rolf Institute. That institute certainly has the ability to define what Rolfing is, as per both WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BIASED. And none of my other citations are decidedly bad by any definition: they are mainstream sources with editorial review. I don't see what citations you are saying they should be compared to, specifically about this topic. Except for that one guy's website; which is somehow the best source available? -Epastore (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:VALID: pseudoscience is not described other than through a mainstream lens. Carroll is not "some guy with a website" and you haven't engaged with the Cordón source. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Cordón is a source that does dedicate a full page to the topic. At least it's not just one paragraph, or just one sentence, or even less, as some of the "critical" sources that have been cited in the past. Sources that are critical of alternative medicine in general are much more likely to play up this "energy" notion than sources that are neutral or favorable toward Rolfing... this seems to be a falsehood which has gotten echoed between those sources, without solid evidence. We do have reliable and unbiased sources on the topic. For your convenience I've gone to the effort to type some quotations from the texts and I stick faithfully to the author's intent. I'll start this in a new Section so discussion can continue on in this thread. --Karinpower (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)