Talk:Rolfing

Please mind WP:AVOID

"Claimed" (like "purported", "alleged", and the like) is a word to avoid.

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

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

I disagree. Our use of "claim" in your example agrees with the meaning noted in WP:CLAIM ... "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." which is exactly what we should be doing here when writing about this subject. 'a disregard for evidence' is the meaty bit. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence says "claimed to provide a systematic approach". To say something "provides a systematic approach" is a rather generic opinion and/or value judgement that cannot be factually disproved, so "disregard for evidence" does not apply here. GregorB (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the sentence goes on, "to address goals for the theorized alignment and movement of various body areas" it is this that involves claims made with a disregard for evidence and is potentially contradicted. So there is a claimed approach to address, thus the use of claim is appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, theorized alignment. I wonder about squeezing in one more adjective, say "alleged" or "purported".

Seriously now: the prose does not really have to be littered with scare words, especially since the phrasing is extremely vague to begin with. Everything related to critical analysis probably is already said in the article, it's not going to go away or get disregarded by the reader. GregorB (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Memories stored in the body - Rolf's idea?

I'm attempting to investigate the sources regarding the recent edit. This line of the article has always seemed strange to me; it's not congruent with what I've read in many of the sources, which generally focus on physical alignment and movement. The editor's assertion that this concept is Reich's rather than Rolf's idea makes some sense and I'd like to check out any evidence that ties it to Rolf. There are two sources presently cited, the Skeptic Dictionary and Penguin's Dictionary of Psychology. The Penguin source isn't available for free viewing on GoogleBooks or Amazon. MrBill3, it appears that you added the Penguin reference, does that mean that you have access to it and could provide the text? Much appreciated. --Karinpower (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Rolfing is essentially identical to Structural Integration

This is in reply to Boser,A discussion on my talk page. I don't have any strong objection to stating that Rolfing is service-marked by the Rolfing institute, although it does seem unnecessarily technical and 'marketed' seems to get the idea across more succinctly and accurately. I misread the sourcing of Myers and see how it could be a good source for saying that Rolfing is the more publically known name and think this could be a good thing to add. However, I don't think we should take out that Rolfing is essentially identical to SI. Your source doesn't seem to clearly contradict this. --Pengortm (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding trademarks, WP:trademark gives rules like don’t use ® and ™ marks but it doesn’t specific how a brand name should be discussed in the article. So, I consulted some random examples to see how it’s being done. Generally in the opening sentence, it is just simply stated that “Lipton is a brand of tea….” “Green Giant is a brand of frozen and canned vegetables owned by General Mills.” “Captain Morgan is a brand of rum produced by alcohol conglomerate Diageo.” In this three examples and many others, the fact that the subject is a brand name is stated in the first sentence, sometimes with a mention of what company owns it.

In this case, to say that "Rolfing is a brand of Structural Integration" still leaves the reader wondering what Structural Integration is, so we have to solve that problem as well. Not sure what wording would be optimal.

Regarding "essentially identical," how about a compromise: "Rolfing is a brand of Structural Integration, and they are essentially identical in practice." Or, if they aren't identical in practice, a sentence explaining what differences exist. The cited source for that, Sherman, seems to be an authoritative source on massage but not on Rolfing, so I wouldn't assume it is exactly correct.--Karinpower (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion on this topic and agree that keeping the Sherman reference and statement that Rolfing is essentially identical to SI is the right thing to do, in addition to a clarification cause. I will make a new edit keeping the Sherman language and adding the Myers' language. Although Rolfing is a brand and other pages typically include that information early in the article, it does seem to sidetrack the reader since this isn't a well known subject/brand. Ideally, in my opinion, a separate page for Structural Integration would one day exist to make this subject more consistent with the way other topics are organized. Boser,A (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Structural Integration, frequently marketed under the brand name Rolfing, is a form of alternative medicine that focuses on body manipulation and movement.
• Rolfing, a trademarked type of Structural Integration, is a form of alternative medicine that focuses on body manipulation and movement.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent wording, that seems accurate.--Karinpower (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wording regarding sources that have a long list of pseudoscientific alt-med modalities

{u:Pengortm}, can we discuss the wording on this? You wrote "the article is clear that there is no evidence for Rolfing being effec and this just echos that from more general sources" - sure, that's true. But two things - 1) Is it helpful to have more sources echoing "no evidence"? The fact of no evidence in WP is usually pretty declarative. No additional sources needed. 2) While I agree with your statement, the current wording doesn't match that. Current wording says that the sources criticize Rolfing for its lack of scientific support, for diagnosis and treatment. But these three sources do not have any specific criticisms of Rolfing. I think my most recent edit is accurate and fair - to say that "Skeptics have included Rolfing in lists of alternative health methods that they consider quackery" is a precise summary of those sources. The second part of my edit, " based on a lack of scientific evidence as well as questionable assessment and treatment methods" describes their broad criticism of that list (not a specific criticism of any one method) so it's positioned in the correct part of the sentence. Given that, can you suggest a wording for this edit that is both accurate to the sources and seems right to you? Thanks in advance.--Karinpower (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Makes sense. Thanks for bringing it up for discussion.--Pengortm (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed wording about evidence of effectiveness of Rolfing

I have edited two statements regarding evidence for the efficacy of Rolfing as they were too strongly worded. In the Introduction it stated that there is no evidence that Rolfing is effective, and under "Effectiveness and reception" it actually stated that Rolfing is not effective for any disorder. The citation is an 11 year old review which notes "Only a few clinical trials specifically have looked at Rolfing" and "Important clinical outcome measures, such as pain levels and function, have not been looked at specifically … in clinical trials". This is certainly not enough basis to conclude that Rolfing is not effective. It is also too strong to state "there is no evidence" for efficacy; see for example Functional Evaluation of Rolfing in Cerebral Palsy (DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1981.tb02060.x), which is more recent than the cited review. The evidence quality is admittedly poor, but that is different from stating there is no evidence for the benefit of Rolfing, which is an overly strong statement contradicted by the current scientific literature. 137.110.37.28 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The edits are being reverted. Is it the policy of Wikipedia to flatly mischaracterize the sources being cited? 137.110.37.28 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done but the cited primary research is not usable here. Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. 137.110.37.28 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is far too harsh. A lack of clinical trials does not make something "pseudoscience." The citation for that term demonstrates that the author doesn't understand the technique. The characterization given is not one of the "basic ideas of Rolfing," and such language is nowhere to be found on official Rolf Institute documents. It's a massage technique. Here is what Rolf Institute says: "Rolfing Structural Integration is a form of hands-on manipulation and movement education developed by Dr. Ida P. Rolf over 50 years ago. It works on the web-like network of connective tissues, called fascia, to release, realign and balance the whole body, potentially resolving discomfort, reducing compensations and alleviating pain. Rolfing SI aims to restore flexibility, revitalize your energy and leave you feeling more comfortable in your body." MBVECO (talk)MBVECO —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I should add - "Rolf" is a registered trademark, and so that term does not appear in PubMed. But there are studies and small clinical trials of rolfing techniques, for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23588488 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22619101 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575360 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524848

Therefore it is inaccurate to cite skeptics claiming that it has not been studied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBVECO (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop reverting appropriate and accurate edits

Policy on reversion: "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary The edits were not vandalism and they corrected factually incorrect statements.

It is factually incorrect to claim that there is no clinical evidence. The articles from skeptics are all more than 7 years old, one of them is over 20 years old. The clinical evidence has been published since then. It is bad practice and POV to cite opinion articles making claims that are no longer accurate. If you disagree, make your case.

I am not a rolfer, but I am a PhD researcher at a medical school. MBVECO (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say there is "no evidence". You shouldn't use primary research for medical content per WP:MEDRS and ideally we want mainstream sources (i.e. WP:FRIND) to maintain neutrality. As regards reverting, WP:BRD is one way to go ... but it's just an essay, like what you quoted, not "policy". Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't get much more mainstream than PubMed indexed journals. There is no way that this: http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/revsalud/beyerstein_cience_vs_pseudoscience.pdf is a mainstream, non-POV, current and relevant source? It's a personal essay, unreviewed and published on the internet and nowhere else. That source used the word "rolfing" exactly once, in a long list of unrelated things, and provides zero evidence that it is "pseudoscience." Similarly, the Dan Agin book written a decade ago does not actually make any case whatsoever about Rolfing but simply lists it along with other techniques the authors broadly claims to be "junk science" including techniques that are now widely accepted as efficacious for certain conditions such as mindfulness meditation, massage therapy, and yoga. The words "rolf" or "rolfing" do not even appear in the index. Nor do they appear in the index of the other cited book by Rose Shapiro. One cannot cite sources that do not even discuss the topic at hand.

There is no way that decades-old opinion pieces by pop-science skeptic writers that don't bother making scientific arguments should garner more credibility than current primary research. If you're troubled by the primary research, edit the text to make it clear that it is primary research instead of simply reverting. One cannot hold fast to recommendations about primary vs secondary sources, but ignore recommendations about how and when to revert edits made in good faith. Books and articles that don't even make an argument are neither primary nor secondary research. A major point reiterated by the "skeptic" sources is that there is not sufficient clinical research about rolfing. The sources cited for those claims - which do not actually articulate the claims they are cited for - were written years ago and there has been subsequent research. I have provided examples of primary research which counter the claim - again, not actually discussed by the cited "sources" - that there is not primary research.

I say again - please stop reverting my edits, and if you want to write something that is fact-based and on topic - based on sources *you have actually read* - then made additional edits.