Talk:Rolfing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

NPSN

The sentence Today, the Rolf Institute of Structural Integration describes Rolfing as "a form of bodywork that reorganizes the connective tissues, called fascia, that permeate the entire body" does not need a non-primary source. As per WP:PRIMARY, it is not an analysis, or an interpretive/synthetic claim about a primary source - it is simply a statement of how the Rolf Institute currently defines Rolfing. I've removed the "non-primary source needed" tag. --tronvillain (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

My thought was it needs a secondary source to establish weight. Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

In what sense? That the current definition of the institute founded by Rolf, which has the trademark on the word itself has and trains everyone allowed to call themselves a Rolfer merits inclusion? It's hard to see how that would be undue weight. It's not as if Rolf wasn't talking about fascia all the time... though now that I think about it, there's oddly little mention of it in the article. --tronvillain (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus to remove references to inadequate source

Hello and thank you to Jim1138 and Karinpower for your explanations regarding editing the Rolfing page.

I revised the sentence "The connection between physical structure and psychology has not been proven by scientific studies," because it is not supported by the literature, and the citation provided is inadequate. The citation is from "The Skeptic's Dictionary", which is a private website with the tagline "A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions". Although the website's author, Robert T. Carroll, holds a PhD in philosophy and published a textbook entitled "Becoming a Critical Thinker", his website is not peer-reviewed, does not cite substantial sources, and cannot be considered a reliable or scientific source. I will address the content of the claim about physical structure and psychology at another time; for now I will focus on the appropriateness of using "The Skeptic's Dictionary" as a source.

Regarding the particular sentence in dispute, "The connection between physical structure and psychology has not been proven by scientific studies.[14]", the closest evidence in the given citation (http://www.skepdic.com/rolfing) is a passage that says: "It is assumed, of course, that having a sense of integration is intelligible and good, as is having emotional flexibility, whatever that might be. Has this claim of the muscular/emotional connection been demonstrated by any scientific studies? No, but Rolfers are very proud of the "proof" that it works!" The passage is not accompanied by a single citation supporting the author's claim. There is a list of "further reading" at the bottom of the page, but since Carroll provides no direct evidence to support his specific claims this cannot be considered a reliable source.

Furthermore, "The Skeptic's Dictionary" is a self-published source, and the Wikipedia guidelines on self-published sources apply. The guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources) state: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7]" (emphasis mine). Robert T. Carroll, according to the autobiographical description on his website (http://skepdic.com/refuge/bio.html), studied and taught in the field of philosophy - not medicine, nor any other scientific discipline. Therefore, he cannot be considered an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Since Robert T. Carroll cannot be considered a reliable source in medicine or science (nor quackery or pseudoscience) according to Wikipedia's guidelines, I am seeking consensus to remove all references to "The Skeptic's Dictionary" as an acceptable citation in this article, and to delete claims that rely solely or primarily on "The Skeptic's Dictionary" as a source. As of this writing, the other clause that would be deleted is "and skeptic Robert Todd Carroll has said that the vague health claims made by rolfers are characteristic of those made by "quacks".[14]".

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyacinth house (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:PARITY, which strongly suggests that the source is acceptable under our WP:FRINGE content guideline. A review of Carroll's book (which is in actual fact published by John Wiley and Sons, a respectable scholarly publishing house) is here. Sławomir Biały (talk)

Hyacinth house, good observations, this website was an ok source back when the article had less than a dozen sources. Now we have many better sources and our standards should be higher. Sławomir Biały, you also have a good point, if there is a printed book, why are we using his website? Googlebooks only has a partial preview, but here it is: https://books.google.com/books?id=6FPqDFx40vYC&q=Rolfing#v=snippet&q=Rolfing&f=false. It should be noted that like the website, the book plays fast-and-loose with sources.... it actually quotes an individual Rolfer's website for the idea that Rolfing includes "movement education." This is such a basic fact that it's bizarre that he cites that website as a source for it. However overall his facts are more correct than some of the rabid anti-alt-med sources. He actually mentions body alignment, perhaps the key aspect of this method, which is conspicuously missing from Cordon's Pop Pyschology as well as some others that are cited in this article. --Karinpower (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Carroll's site is one of the best sources we have. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

A book exists by the same author, on the same topics, and you are seriously saying we should continue to use the website? On what basis?--Karinpower (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It's sometimes updated, it's easier for our readers to access. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

When was it last updated? He used to respond to reader's letters (and would sometimes make corrections based on those) but at least for this topic, that ended in 2004. He still states on the website that Rolf was a physical therapist, which is false.--Karinpower (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

From memory, there are some topics added online that weren't in print. It's a bit disingenuous to accuse him of calling Rolf a physical therapist when in his comments he explicitly amends this, on the grounds that this makes Rolf look too professional! Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that now, in his response to one of the reader's letters. Why doesn't he update the article to show the correct information? Surely he must realize that others are using him as a source. --Karinpower (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Energy (esotericism) removed

Re [1]: Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see a reference that actually verifies this, though from her writings it seems to be what Rolf meant. Do we have a source that verifies it well enough to avoid WP:OR?

The original wording was summarizing what Rolf actually wrote and Carroll quotes it - so yep, it should stay (other stuff might be added, but there's no reason to remove this). Not sure about the wikilink - we shouldn't link quoted terms. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ronz - it seems an insufficiently supported stretch to wikilink there since there's only the single line about "energy field" shown later in the conceptual section, with no further discussion or related cites about 'energy' at the cites. Maybe not 'spiritual' of that article, and certainly the cite skepdic.com linked it instead to Energy (vitalism). Though maybe it was energy (psychology) or speaking some other way there -- the article just lacks WP:RSCONTEXT or any other material from her to support a specific linkage. Wouldn't be anything modern though, since the quote is over 40 or 50 years old. Gotta wonder if it's not a prominent or extensive covered line though why is it in the header ? Just adds to CHERRYPICK and BIAS concerns.

The source to provide the quote seems slightly misattributed as it is from quackwatch.org via skepdic.com. But ultimately that also seems a poor source though for WP:V, since the root source is biased against and all they say is they got it from a 1971 brochure (unnamed). Think it would be a stronger support to fact-of she said it if cited from RolfResearchFoundation.org "Rolf Quotations" here. But still gotta ask why is this in the header.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I found this material by Rolf which discusses her views on "energy" in a bit more depth. To be blunt, from the perspective of physical and biological sciences it's word salad. It's not exactly vitalism, but it does fit with the general esoteric / New Age usage of "energy." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not exactly vitalism - it seems more confused than that. With Rolf we have energy fields in people and then the view that (as rolf.org still has on their front page) "Gravity is the therapist". I'm nervous about wikilinking her words, since Rolf's particular species of nonsense seems unique to her. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris - OK, so ... now what? Do you have a suggestion for article edits ? Again, the article current cite links it to Vitalism (their view or criticism), so the link to Energy (esotericism) (spirituality) that isn't supported seems like a mistaken WP:OR maybe from just a quick guess which missed what the cite associated to. The this material by Rolf which discusses her views on "energy" in a bit more depth does seem like word salad, (maybe blame it's ghost written by Rosemary Fetis?) that doesn't go to either one (or anywhere) in what I read of it. Did you see something particular at the book that I missed ? What would you suggest the article edit(s) be in this area ? I'm inclined to say it should at least undo the unsupported wikilink, also improve the style on skepdic cite and add in a better WP:V source for the line. I'm further thinking maybe better to just simplify the phrase out of the lede as not particularly relevant or reason to give the prominence, and make the lede line a simpler 'It is typically delivered as a series of ten hands-on physical manipulation sessions sometimes called "the recipe".' The energy phrase doesn't seem deeply covered in the article or externally common and prominent -- even at the cited page. Seems demonstrable that Rolf said what's quoted sometime before 1971, but without WP:RSCONTEXT where/when/what else was said, it seems all we could support is just that she said this sentence and nothing more. And so, what's your view on the action for line in lede and line lower down ? Markbassett (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Markbassett's edit suggestions. Sources are very mixed on whether they even mention energy, and what we do know about early Rolfing was that it was quite direct (maybe too much if anything), not energy work. Seems that those quotes are Rolf waxing about her philosophies, which as Shock Brigade Harvester Boris noted where strongly influenced by the Human Potential Movement, not vitalism. We don't have evidence that how the method itself is taught or practiced (then or now) is "energy work" - in fact it doesn't seem to include any energy work based on sources I've read. --Karinpower (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

But there's no doubt that Rolf's ideas form the conceptual basis for Rolfing. We need to be clear about that, just like the sources. I'd be content to unlink the wikilink however. Alexbrn (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Rolf expressed her ideas in various ways. While there are some quotes that mention energy, much more often she spoke of structure in gravity, more akin to engineering than energy work. The line "based on Rolf's ideas about how the human body's "energy field" can benefit when aligned with the Earth's gravitation field" would be better expressed as "based on Rolf's ideas about how the human body can benefit when aligned with gravity." This is better because 1) claims are made that benefit the whole body, not just the "energy", 2) "gravitational field" is cumbersome and potentially confusing vs. the simplicity of the stacking up of items within gravity (as shown in the Rolf logo, as seen on the www.rolf.org website) and 3) including Earth in that definition is unnecessary; clearly we are on planet Earth, and if we were on some other planet, the Rolfers would want to organize the body in relation to the gravity that exists on that planet. --Karinpower (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Rolf identified what was the "primary concept" and secondary sources also relay that. What you are proposing would whitewash the nature of this concept. As has been said before, this is an encyclopedia article not a brochure. Alexbrn (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

She seemed to use phrases like "primary concept" a lot, it's a rhetorical device to give weight but it doesn't mean that it is the mission statement. She used many different phrasings, and the references to energy are not consistently present. Also many secondary sources don't even mention energy in regards to Rolfing. Would you mind going point-by-point on my three points above? I addressed three separate aspects of the phrasing and would appreciate hearing your perspective on each. Thanks.--Karinpower (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

All your points take us away from the sources. We shouldn't be doing that. Alexbrn (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We can't just casually re-word what Rolf said into what we wish she had said. That comes uncomfortably close to what Wikipedia calls original research. A quick web search shows that Rolf's remarks on "energy" that I linked are indeed quoted by some current practitioners -- apparently a minority if my survey is representative, but still enough to show that it's relevant. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and even if no practitioner mentioned it, it would still be the conceptual basis of Rolfing and we must say so. My impression is some rolfers are in denial about how whack this stuff really is (as is the case with many of these lone-genius-revealed-truth pseudomedicines). Alexbrn (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The issues I have with the first couple paragraphs of the Conceptual Basis section are more in line with clarity and flow of ideas. The first sentence relates to Rolf's ideas (the past). The second sentence talks about what rolfers currently do. The third sentence also quotes Rolf, again related to the past. Then the next sentence starts with "Today . . ." This order from past to present to past to present is confusing to me. It would make more sense to give the past conceptual basis first and then move to the current conceptual basis. From what I've read of the sources, the idea of energy fields doesn't seem to be in the more current sources. Also, the first and third sentences are redundant and seem unnecessary to include both, especially as the emphasis of repeating quotes about energetic fields gives the incorrect impression that rolfing is some type of energy work. If we are going to quote Rolf twice, why choose two statements that are nearly identical? I realize that they are both sourced, but there are other sourced statements as well. Thatcher57 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not how I see it. The four para are I think (1) Conceptual basis, (2) what rolf.org says (possibly undue), (3) classification, (4) secondary concepts about emotion. The title of this section might better be "Concepts and classification", maybe with the last two paras swapped. We emphasise the importance of "energy" in the rolfing concept, because that is what our good sources do. Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the order of the sentences in the first and second paragraphs rather than the content of the section as a whole. To me, the repetition comes across as redundancy rather than emphasis. To my editing style, that is the type of writing the would be corrected. I do realize that editing style is subjective though. The suggestion for the new section title would be an improvement. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

All - I will undo the unsupported wikilink. I'm not sure about much more work on that though, as I said I lack WP:RSCONTEXT of where it was said or what it means if much or is important to the topic, it seems just an odd blurb from somewhere in the 1960s that skepdic about halfway down mentions quackwatch spotted. Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• I just read this which is the contemporary description. zoiks. Dealing with "energy" we have down near the bottom: "Interestingly enough, as the body transforms physically, it often transforms on other planes as well, so that, while Rolfing SI's primary focus is the connective tissue system, it frequently has an even more dramatic effect in seemingly unrelated areas such as the cognitive, emotional or spiritual. " Y Energy (esotericism)
  • The more interesting (and bizarre) part is the topmost section, which is just gobbledegook.
    • First this bit: "These wonderful transformations are possible because Rolfing SI addresses the body’s internal system of flexible support, otherwise known as fascia. These connective tissues surround ever muscle fiber, encase all joints and even have a role in the nervous system. Think of the fascial system as an intricate internal guide-wire network for the body. If one set of support wires becomes tight or out of place, the excess tension may appear as nagging joint pain, muscle soreness, or a postural shift." OK, so we have kind of dumb "wires" that are too "tight" and we have to loosen them up. Okaaaay. (quick note, that in physics tension means that force is being applied. It continues, "To correct internal misalignments, a Rolfer uses mild, direct pressure to melt or release facial holdings and allow the body to find health through the re-establishment of balance. " So OK, a balance of mechanical forces, I guess?
    • Then this bit: "Put another way, Rolfing SI allows the brain and nervous system to “re-boot” areas of the body that are receiving too much electrical stimulation (chronically tight or sore muscles). Once a healthy level of muscle contraction is established, the person’s entire structure is free to express a pain-free form.". Kind of lost it there. We are now back in the realm of woo "energy" via a magical electrical "reboot". It is pretty clear that some concept of Energy (esotericism) is plenty present even in the current formulation. Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think from what I read she thought gravity was something that "flowed" and which has therapeutic force; so by "aligning" the body (as with de-kinking a garden hose), this healing force would "flow" through it all the more freely thus lending therapeutic benefit. As you say, zoiks. Whether that's conventional esoteric energy or not I don't know ... gravity seems to be the thing with Rolf ... as rolf.org says on its front page "gravity is the therapist". I think that is meant literally. (It also says: "Every energy in which we live is nourishment to us" ... this stuff is just so weird I suspect it is not susceptible to rational treatment on WP). Alexbrn (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I had not read that "every energy" statement before. That is esoteric. (zoiks is a new word for me, but it fits.) I don't think fascia is esoteric though. My physical therapist and Pilates instructor say similar things about fascia. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Fascia isn't esoteric, but a lot of the talk about it appears to be pseudoscience. --tronvillain (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think Rolf's conception of fascia (like Andrew Still's) is different from the modern concept which uses the same word. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the order of sentences and redundancy, I agree that those two quotes are very similar, and that one should be selected. --Karinpower (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning in fact to suspect we needed a fuller exposition of the energy stuff. It's not as if the article is over-long, so expansion is good. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I Just want to say that the move that contemporary Rolfing has made, about "aligning the body's structure with gravity" (as opposed to original stuff about aligning the body's energy field with gravity) is complete gobbledegook. What does that even mean? If I am laying down is my "structure" "aligned" with gravity? What if I lay on my side? What if I sit, or ride my bike? Kooky. Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Of if you're a wheelchair user? And does the moon's gravity come into it? I don't think we can understand and all we can do is reflect the sane sources on this. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, those are good questions and it got me poking around on the internet. It seems that Rolfing has ideas about sitting posture: https://fromept.com/blog/sitting-posture-rolfing. Presumably gravity still pertains since it talks about the weight of the head being a burden if it is held too far forward instead of stacking up on top of the spinal curves. This site seems fairly in line with "ergonomics", not off-the-wall ideas. I have no idea about how gravity affects things if you are laying flat or on your side.... maybe it doesn't matter as much in those positions? This link says that best sleeping position varies based on personal discomforts and health concerns: https://uprighthealth.com/what-is-the-right-way-to-sleep/. I don't recall our printed sources discussing these other positions so best to leave it out of the article for now.

Oh, and moon gravity? Can't imagine that would play much of a factor, unless you are sitting in a wheelchair on the moon. The moon has enough pull on Earth to affect the tides, but not to affect how heavy your head is when you have poor posture. That is the whole point of the gravity topic, right? For alignment?--Karinpower (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This is part of "not swallowing the koolaid" - it seems to me that the notion that there is a right way to be "aligned with gravity" is just gobbledegook left over from when the idea was to somehow "align" the "body's energy field" with the "planet's gravity field". We don't need "rolfing theory" to talk meaningfully about things like posture or ergonomics, which are based on plain old physics and anatomy. Jytdog (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, interesting. We are making some of the same points but interpreting them differently. The fact that these Rolfing ideas are in accord with physics and anatomy is why I have made the point that the alignment aspect of Rolfing theory is biologically plausible. Recall that ergonomics was not a common topic until the '90's; it seems that Rolf was a couple decades ahead of her time in that way. If in fact she could sculpt the fascia to make correct alignment easier - and the non-MEDRS anecdotes tend to be very positive about this, though of course the studies are inadequate - then it's not so outlandish that they claim that that improved alignment and movement would be beneficial. (Here I'm trying to stick to analyzing the science behind alignment claims, not addressing the other aspects of the Rolfing theory.)--Karinpower (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Except they're not. As our sources tell us, Rolfing is at odds with medical science and in practice useless (except for enriching the Rolfers). Claims otherwise is like acclaiming homeopathic remedies for their ability to treat dehydration. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If you could take the time to discuss specific points on their merits, instead of just saying "NO," this conversation would be more constructive. Your argument is weak because many of your sources do not make specific critiques of Rolfing, and the ones that do focus on the problems with "energy" or "emotional" claims, not the alignment aspects that seems to the core of this method. Let's demonstrate good critical thinking skills and evaluate each aspect on its merits and faults - presently we are discussing alignment. This aspect does not seem to be "at odds with medical science."--Karinpower (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The Clow source tells us Rolfing is at odds with medical science. We should really be mentioning this in the lede, come to think of it. It's your OR that Rolf was "ahead of her time". So far as I can see, serious studies of (say) ergonomics do not draw on Rolf's ideas at all: this is fringe stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Clow takes a drive-by pot-shot without detailing any points; that weakens her case dramatically. The word Rolfing is mentioned *once.*

Studies of ergonomics don't have to draw on Rolf's ideas for those ideas to have merit; the question is whether those ideas of alignment are congruent with credible facts, or not. It seems that they are, in which case the pseudoscience label needs to be specifically pinned to the places where it belongs (the energy stuff, which I completely agree is woo). --Karinpower (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a recipe for original research. Getting a picture of a body, drawing a line through it and trademarking that picture is not medicine, it's charlatanism. "Aligned in gravity" is mumbo-jumbo. You keep saying sources need to have in-depth de-bunking of rolfing to count. That's not so. Rolfing, in common with other kinds of pseudoscience and quackery doesn't merit deep discussion: the good sources simply include it in their lists and we must make sure we too make such categorizations clear on WP. Alexbrn (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I wish WP:FRINGE were a bit stronger. WP:PARITY gives use direction here, but WP:V is clearer in WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It's up to the backers of Rolfing to provide evidence. Until they do, we should expect that criticisms will be brief and dismissive. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not all good sources share the view that Rolfing is quackery. We have draw from all available sources to create a good article, and not give preference to the sources that reflect our personal views. I've recently added a couple sources that do not share the fringe view.Thatcher57 (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-independent sources are not "good sources" for countering criticisms of fringe viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ronz I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify, please? The source I added was a PT text written by a PT, not a Rolfer. Isn't that independent? Thatcher57 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I doesn't seem bad. I was concerned with ...not give preference to the sources that reflect our personal views --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out -- I'm not seeing anything that relates to the article text "energy field" in that last few ... seems a lot of maybes but not anything solid or particularly odd.

• No recurrances or expansion on energy as a "field"
• The "I just read this which is the contemporary description." just seems to use it without "field", a generic health language "Rolfing sessions may restore flexibility, increase balance, revitalize energy and leave you feeling more comfortable in your body." Meh ... just a general metaphor in common usage.
• The followed bit of ""Interestingly enough, as the body transforms physically, it often transforms on other planes as well, so that, while Rolfing SI's primary focus is the connective tissue system, it frequently has an even more dramatic effect in seemingly unrelated areas such as the cognitive, emotional or spiritual. " is at least in the area of 'spiritual' Energy (esotericism ... except the para of it starts "Rolfing SI could also be helpful for more than just the physical, including those who find that their physical limitations prevent them from attaining a higher level of spiritual or emotional well-being." So seems saying Rolf fixes the physical distraction allowing you to get on with other pursuits, not that Rolfing is the spiritual pursuit. Meh...
• The "Rolfing SI allows the brain and nervous system to “re-boot” areas of the body that are receiving too much electrical stimulation (chronically tight or sore muscles)." Meh, an odd analogy perhaps, but not a literal belief or all that odd -- I see similar kinds of wording in TV ads.
• The " "aligning the body's structure with gravity" is contemporary but also matches to the 1950s trademark image and other language, but those all seem physical structure not "energy" ... the Alexbrn mention of sounds like dekinking a garden hose may relate since gravity was regarded as an imponderable liquid at some time during her life, but we'd need to see something from Rolf saying that's what she meant ...

So ... I'm thinking this is just all just reinforcing the impression of rolfing texts just have lots of word salad, not that it is particularly esotericism. And no further info about the quote itself ... Markbassett (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing advocates certainly talk about woo-energy, and energy (esotericism) is our article on woo energy, so a link seems appropriate. Guy (Help!) 06:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy - lack support for such an association to the line quote "energy field" is where this thread started. Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not where we ended up. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Conceptual issue - "align with gravity"

Especially based on Houglum ref. Rolf saw the body itself as "centered" around a vertical axis that is aligned with gravity (pure physical thing; force of gravity is vertical with respect to the earth, so too is the superior/inferior axis in human anatomy; this is not complicated) and saw the body itself as having a form that allows it to function optimally; that form is organized ("centered and balanced") around the superior/inferior axis. OK. She sees the body and gravity as constantly at battle. Gravity pulls people all out of whack - bent and tensed or stuck ("compression") - and then the body doesn't work right (e.g chest can't expand right to allow free breathing, etc). Rolfing "unsticks" you, allowing the body to take its "natural" form again and function optimally, centered around its vertical axis. The goal is not to be "aligned with gravity" but rather properly ordered in relation to itself in opposition to gravity. The whole "aligned with gravity" thing is really misleading to me from the standpoint of just plain old physics and anatomy. I am still unclear how horizontal axes e.g. how you carry your shoulders) plays into the central axis thing; slumped shoulders can be as centered around the axis as unslumped. I don't know how keeping them straight has anything to do with being "aligned with gravity"

All the above more or less makes sense from just plain old matter but leaves this question of what the heck "aligned with gravity" means in Rolfing. I think the "alignment with" business kicks in with the Energy (esotericism) stuff in the quote provided in the article: '"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." I have no idea what the "field" of the body is, but this is apparently what is being "aligned" with the field of gravity, so that the gravity field can "reinforce" (again, whatever that means) the body's field. In the primary concept. That is the most sense I can make out of this... Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Also interesting is the quote from Rolfing and Physical Reality, where she is quoted as having said "I don't know why it works, I only know that it works. I invent all these explanatory rationalizations later on." I think that potentially deserves a place in the conceptual section. --tronvillain (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"Decompress" fascia

The sentence "Rolfers attempt to decompress fascia in order to restore the body's arrangement around its axis and facilitate improved movement" appears to be completely unsupported by its citation. The Australian review defines it as "a system of hands-on manipulation and movement education that claims to organise the body in gravity., while the lay summary says it's "another form of manual therapy (sometimes referred to as structural integration) that is used to treat different health conditions, both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal in nature. It seems to have elements of massage, yet focuses on the fascia and seems to veer more into beliefs about 'energy medicine'." There does not appear to be any credible evidence that "decompressing" fascia is a thing that can be done, and the sentence implies that doing so would in fact "restore the body's arrangement around its axis and facilitate improved movement. --tronvillain (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It is directly supported by Houglom. "Dr. Rolf thought that since gravity tends to shorten fascia, Rolfing techniques should lengthen fascia...." I restored it. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So, not by the citation that was actually associated with the sentences.--tronvillain (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've switched to the Houglom reference, which doesn't actually contain the quote you mention. Perhaps change the associated quote, since the existing one doesn't appear to be used support anything in the article? Also, there's no apparent justification for replacing "lengthen" and "shorten" with "decompress" and "compress", and it still doesn't justify the implication that lengthening the fascia would in fact "restore the body's arrangement around its axis and facilitate improved movement."--tronvillain (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The citation is pp 174-175, and the bit I quoted above is on page 175; the content is indeed supported by the source provided. The fact that this bit is not included in the quote that was added to the citation, means nothing. If you want to add this to the quote in the citation, that is fine by me. As to the rest of what you write, I don't understand. What is wrong with "compress" instead of "shorten"? And I have no idea why Rolfers believe what they believe... I am just trying to describe it. (As I noted above, if I try to make sense out if it, I can kind of get there) Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with "compress" instead of "shorten"? It's unnecessary, and potentially misleading. Lengthening or shortening of muscles and associated structures like fascia clearly implies the long axis, while compression or decompression has no such implication and could as easily be interpreted as flattening of a layer of fascia. And I'm not saying you should know why Rolfers believe what they believe, I'm saying that the way you're saying it implies that it is a fact rather than an unsupported belief. --tronvillain (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Also apparently unsupported by its citation (or at least the associated quote) is "She also saw the body as continually under attack from gravity; in her view, gravity tends to compress fascia..." The supporting quote is ""Dr. Rolf based her techniques on the realization that fascia surrounded all tissue and body structures, so it also influenced those tissues and structures when it was modified. She observed that the body centered around a vertical line of pull created by gravity. It was her theory that the body was most efficient and healthy when it was able to function in an aligned and balanced arrangement. With gravity's continuing pull, stresses and injuries occur to pull the body out of its normal alignment; imbalance occurs and causes the body to become painful, malaligned, and inefficient. Dr. Rolf's intent in her philosophy and techniques was to improve the body's posture so all functions including breathing, flexibility, strength, and coordination were optimally efficient." Nothing in that quote appears to justify hyperbolic language like "continually under attack from gravity" or compression of fascia. --tronvillain (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty clear you are not looking at the source. The content is supported at the bottom of p174. See above for the compression thing. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The text says "Gravity and the body have a constant relationship. The body is in a constant battle with gravity, and unless the body is optimally conditioned, gravity wins.", but that appears to be entirely Houglum's statement, and here you're attributing it to Rolf.--tronvillain (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Houglum is a scholar describing Rolf's ideas. This is exactly the kind of source we rely on; an expert analyzing X. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In making the edit with the addition of this source, I may have put the reference in the wrong spot. If so, I apologize for the resulting confusion.

The quote is from a section of Houglum entitled "Theory," and it obviously is the author's view of Rolf's philosophy. It supports the statement that the body is responding to gravity and that this negatively affects fascia. Since we have to paraphrase the source, it is inevitable that there will be disagreement about how to best do that. Personally, I wouldn't use the word "attack," since gravity is a passive force. However, the source does use strong words (battle and war) and that should be reflected. Maybe: She also saw the body in a continual struggle with gravity . . . or in constant combat with gravity . . . Compress is a reasonable synonym for shorten in my view. If for some reason it is wrong--i.e., if fascia doesn't compress--then contract could be used instead, I think. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Having a statement about the body responding to gravity and it negatively affecting fascia in the "Conceptual basis" section is great (mention of fascia was clearly missing from the article before), I just think it's a mistake to attribute something so close to a statement by Houglum directly to Rolf when it's not something like Houglum's other statements about Rolf, such as "Dr. Rolf's philosophy and techniques focused on..." or "Dr. Rolf was a strong believer in..." or "Dr. Rolf believed that integrating these segments..." or "Dr. Rolf based her treatments on the notion..." and so on. --tronvillain (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a solid source, kudos to Thatcher57 for locating it. There's actually a newer 4th edition (2016), so I've updated the citation. Sorry, that does change the page numbers, in the new edition the section about shortening fascia is p434 and gravity is p432.

I agree with tronvillain that "under attack" is hyperbolic - and it implies too much agency on the part of gravity, which is a very constant force of nature. How about She saw the body as continually fighting gravity"? I think this captures the sense of ongoing struggle against an undeniable force.

Regarding "shorten/lengthen," "elongate" is a good synonym for lengthen, but there is no good replacement for "shorten" that I can come up with. Perhaps that sentence can be restructured to avoid WP:CLOP while still using some version of short or shorten? The way I read p432, "stress and injuries occur to pull the body out of alignment" and then the continual pull of gravity causes fascia to shorten in that bad pattern. That's a bit different that our current article wording, which implies that the pull of gravity causes the injuries: "gravity tends to compress fascia, leading to disorder of the body's arrangement around its axis and creating imbalance, inefficiency in movement, and pain." I'm not entirely certain which the author meant (or which Rolf meant!), it's a dense paragraph. Curious to hear what others think.--Karinpower (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The sentence in Houglun is Dr. Rolf though that since gravity tends to shorten fascia, Rolfing techniques should lengthen it." Split up as they are across two sentences and integrated with other concepts, I think retaining the simplicity of the original "shorten" and "lengthen" would still avoid WP:CLOP by a wide margin. If not, there's always the option of using "release" instead of lengthen, as in "Treatments include not only manual therapy to release fascia..." and possibly "contract" in place of "shorten" (though that may not be much better than "compress.") --tronvillain (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

We should avoid "contract" because that is typically used for muscle contraction. "Shorten" really seems to be the best term regarding fascia. --Karinpower (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we can use "shorten" and "elongate". Fight doesn't have quite the same umph as battle, so I will use "struggle against." Thatcher57 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

please do not use in the "in-bubble" language of "alignment". The content I added that Karinpower mentioned is an effort to unpack the in-bubble word salad. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think your most recent edit helped. Presently the sentences are a bit long, but the concepts are more clear.--Karinpower (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Also: "Rolf described the body as organized around an axis perpendicular to the earth, parallel to the pull of gravity, and believed that the function of the body was optimal when it was organized in that way" is pretty funny, given that standing on our hind limbs is a very recent adaptation, in evolutionary terms. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding change in lede to remove quackery sentence

Previous discussions in Talk that have been archived have touched on whether it is appropriate to refer to Rolfing as quackery in the lede. I suggest that we modify this paragraph:

There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition.[7] It is recognized as a pseudoscience,[8][9] and has been characterized as quackery.[10][11] It is not known whether Rolfing is either safe or cost-effective.[7][12]

to read:

There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition.[7] It is recognized as a pseudoscience.[8][9] It is not known whether Rolfing is either safe or cost-effective.[7][12]

My rationale is that although there are several sources that cite Rolfing as quackery, the sources that credit Rolfing as a useful modality -- albeit an alternative medicine modality that is not supported by adequate studies -- are numerous. In addition to those already cited in the article, I have also found sources in:

• Myofascial Manipulation: Theory and Clinical Application by Cantu and Grodin "Rolfing is a standardized, non-symptomatic approach to soft tissue manipulation, administered independent of specific pathologies."
• Manual Therapy of the Extremities by Shamus and van Gujin "More contemporary forms of soft tissue treatment include Swedish massage, connective tissue massage (bindegewebsmassage) developed by the German physical therapist Elisabeth Dicke, Hoffa massage, Myofascial Release (MFR), Rolfing, Alexander, Feldenkrais, and many others."
• Fascial Dysfunction by Chaitow "Structural integration (SI) is a system of manual therapy and sensoirmotor education that aims to enhance economy of function, and promote ease of coordinated movement."
• Integrated Pain Management by Thompson and Brooks "In many ways, contemporary methods of structural bodywork can be traced to Ida P. Rolf, Ph.D. (1896-1979). Her work, which she called Structural Integration (SI): others dubbed it "Rolfing), centered on two innovative ideas: that gravity is the organizing principle for our structure, and that fascia as the "organ of support," is an appropriate primary target for manipulation."

I am not suggesting that the Effectiveness and Reception section be changed, which details the sources that state that Rolfing is quackery. Thatcher57 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We reflect what the sources say, and Rolfing has been characterized as quackery (kind of obviously, since quackery is selling medical treatments with claims not matched by evidence). Failing to point this out would strike at the foundational pillar of neutrality, and that cannot be done. Now: whether mentioning this fact is WP:DUE in the lede is another matter. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not recommending that we remove sources. My suggested edit is only in the lede and, as I mentioned above, not changing the Effectiveness and Reception section, which gives details about the sources that discredit Rolfing as quack medicine. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objections to changing the lede as noted above, I will make the edit. Thatcher57 (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarize the body; and removing "quackery" doesn't reflect the body. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing it from the lede without linking quackery in the article body is inappropriate.

With three sources, including Carroll, it probably deserves mention in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the body, not a 1:1 reflection of it, so some information may be omitted. Since the quackery stuff hasn't super-strong sources I'm ambivalent about its presence in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It being pseudoscience and not shown in be effective in the lede seems substantially more important than it being "characterized as quackery", though quackery does effectively convey those points. --tronvillain (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing before looking to see how many sources mention it. Still, it's a good point: Of the three (pseudoscience, effectiveness, and quackery), I'd say quackery is the least important to retain in the lede and a bit redundant. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the input from everyone. Although some sources refer to Rolfing as quackery, they are relatively few compared to the complement of sources. Therefore including quackery in the lede seems to give it undue weight.Thatcher57 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Calling it anything else gives undue weight to quackery, though. It is, after all, abject nonsense. Guy (Help!) 06:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We need to go with what the sources say. Do enough sources consider it quackery to merit mention of such in the lede? The vast majority of sources consider it alternative medicine and therefore by Wikipedia standards it is pseudoscience regardless of whether sources say so or not. However, Wikipedia guidelines do not consider all alternative medicine as quackery (although I realize that some Wikipedia editors do). A number of sources do consider Rolfing quackery as noted in the Effectiveness and Reception section. An equal number seem to take no position. But a larger number refer to Rolfing in a way that puts it in the category of alternative medicine that is not quackery. That is why it does not merit inclusion in the lede. Thatcher57 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

One is enough if it a noted authority on quackery. I am pretty confident you don't accept Rolf's assertion that human body's "energy field" can benefit when aligned with the Earth's gravitation field, since the human body has no "energy field", the Earth's magnetic field is weak, and there's no remotely plausible objective test by which this benefit has ever been demonstrated. It's pseudoscience and quackery. The Shapiro book is a robust source for the latter. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

JzG, you may have missed that this discussion is about whether it is due in the *lede*, and no one is contesting that it is due in the Effectiveness section. Your line of thinking pertains to Effectiveness, yes, one good source is enough for inclusion there. But the lede does not include every piece of information from the article itself, only the most salient defining characteristics. I agree with the point that was made that only 3 sources mention quackery, of the 36 cited (plus probably a dozen others which are neutral/positive toward Rolfing but aren't cited because other citations cover those points). Pseudoscience is due in the lede, and quackery should continue to be included in Effectiveness. Also I agree with Ronz that when quackery is removed from the lede, it needs to be wikilinked at the next occurrence (in Effectiveness). --Karinpower (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the lede is to summarise the article. Any summary that does not include the fact that Rolfing is bollocks, is not actually a summary, but a whitewash. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems to be well covered by pseudoscience, which has much stronger evidence in the sources than quackery. Also, there are many sources which contradict the idea that Rolfing is "bollocks" and instead state that the alignment and fascia concepts are plausible (though of course unproven). Our obligation is to summarize the full scope of the sources, not to either whitewash nor debunk. --Karinpower (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

If anything we should keep quackery and lose pseuodoscience - quackery is pseudoscience in the field of health and is more specific (pseudoscience includes all kinds of things like perpetual motion). But i see no reason to use just one or the other. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In terms of a summary then, it makes sense to also include the viewpoints of sources that don't consider Rolfing bullocks rather than the blanket statement of the second paragraph as it now exists. Here are a couple ideas for possible language:

There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition. It is recognized as a pseudoscience. Some sources identify it as a system that may improve posture and efficient movement, others characterize it as quackery. It is not known whether Rolfing is either safe or cost-effective.

or, possibly:

There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition. It is recognized as a pseudoscience. Some sources characterize it as quackery, others identify it as a system that may play a role in posture and efficient movement. It is not known whether Rolfing is either safe or cost-effective.

Sources for the statement about role in posture and movement:

Mayo Clinic: “It’s based on the theory that the tissues surrounding your muscles become thickened and stiff as you get older. This affects your posture and how well you’re able to move.” “Some people find Rolfing to be very helpful, improving their posture or helping them to feel more limber. But the therapy can also be painful.”

Houglum: “The goals of the treatment are to balance and realign the body in all planes. If these goals are accomplished, pain is resolved, imbalance is no longer an issue, and the body performs most efficiently.”

Fascial Dysfunction by Chaitow "Structural integration (SI) is a system of manual therapy and sensorimotor education that aims to enhance economy of function, and promote ease of coordinated movement."

Thatcher57 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The two are roughly synonymous, but only roughly. Rolfing is quackery supported based on pseudoscience. One category of reader will see pseudoscience and recognise the problem from that, another category will not really get what pseudoscience is, but will readily grok quackery. We should retain both, for clarity. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Technology is applied science. Medicine is applied anatomy, biology, chemistry, etc; quackery is applied pseuodscience in the health space.  :) Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is reality-based. Please read WP:PSCI (which is policy) and the links from there. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It is actually the NPOV policy that prompted my suggested edit, particularly "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The point I was trying to make is that this article is skewed to emphasize the viewpoint of quackery despite the fact that this viewpoint is not shared by the majority of sources. After re-reading the NPOV section, I also looked at the policy on the lead, which states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." With this is in mind, I realize that my first suggested edit of removing the reference to quackery is not appropriate, but the second suggestion is a better alternative:

There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition. It is recognized as a pseudoscience. Some sources characterize it as quackery, others identify it as a system that may play a role in posture and efficient movement. It is not known whether Rolfing is either safe or cost-effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher57 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Thatcher57 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV is not about all sources - sure there are tons of in-bubble sources that give credence to rolfing but as has been said many times here, independent sources are what Wikipedia values. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to independent sources, those used in the article, plus the few that I mentioned above, none of which are in-bubble sources (except the Rolf Institute, of course). That's what I based my analysis on. (You probably don't want to see the spreadsheet I made that puts the sources in columns.) Thatcher57 (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Technique

Does it not seem out of place to have "Rolfers posit that they manipulate the body's fascial layers until they are more aligned and balanced" in the technique section? That's not the technique used, it's their theory about how the technique works, which is already covered in the "Conceptual basis" section. Something more like the "Practitioners combine superficial to deep manual therapy..." from the lede would seem more appropriate here, perhaps in more detail. --tronvillain (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

needs to be fixed - more in-bubble "aligned" and "balanced" language. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by in-bubble language. My ARNP, physical therapist, yoga teacher, and Pilates teacher all use this terminology. And, it seems to be the primary or perhaps even sole goal of Rolfing. (Although some sources claim psychological goals, they do not appear to be what is being purported currently.) Thatcher57 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

see sections above. yes, people in the bubble use in-bubble language that has little/no meaning outside of it. "align" is related to the pseudoscience of "aligning" the body's "energy field" with the earth's gravity field (what does that mean in the RW?), and "balance" doesn't mean, in this context, what it means in the real world - what forces are being equally opposed here? nothing that i can see... Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

your trovillian's proposal for better language is grounded in the RW and is better. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC) (fix incorrect attribution Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC))

Houglum in Therapeutic Exercise for Musculoskeletal Injuries, which is one of the better sources (i.e., RW) in this article, states: “The goals of the treatment are to balance and realign the body in all planes. If these goals are accomplished, pain is resolved, imbalance is no longer an issue, and the body performs most efficiently.” Thatcher57 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Again we need to write in actual english, that people outside the bubble can understand. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That those are the words they use doesn't make it an appropriate description of the technique - as I said, it's their theory about how the technique works. A description of the technique would be something like this: Rolfing techniques involve using heavy pressure applied carefully to the client's body with the fingers, a knuckle, a fist, or sometimes the elbow.", and this "The Rolfing practitioner applies slow pressure with fingertips, hands or forearm to address different layers and sections of the fascial sheaths, tendons, ligaments, and muscle. While the pressure is applied, the client may be asked to perform movements to aid in releasing the muscle. Movements include relaxed breathing, small ligament movements, gross muscle movements and stretching." That is, what is actually done, not what is asserted to be happening because of what is done. Actions, not "goals." --tronvillain (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

yes - however it is best if we source things to independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, though Rolfing is niche enough that actually finding independent descriptions of technique seems to be somewhat difficult - the Theory & Practice of Therapeutic Massage is clearly better than the Rolfworld one. From the NY Times link already in the article there's "Rolfers gouge with knuckles and knead with fists, contort limbs and lean into elbows to loosen tendons and ligaments." --tronvillain (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have the American Cancer Society's guide to alt med; you can also find the Gale Encyclopedia of Alt Med online; both have sections on rolfing. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at The Gale Encylopedia of Alternative Medicine before, but after I tracked down the actual studies they reference in the "Research & general acceptance" section for Rolfing (it's somewhere back in the archived discussions), I was a little disappointed. Anyway, it says In each session, the Rolfer uses his or her fingers, hands, knuckles, and elbows to rework the connective tissue over the entire body." What does the ACS guide say? --tronvillain (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Image

User:CFCF added an image in this dif, with a caption that contradicts it. Images are powerful - an image showing an improvement in posture after Rolfing, with a caption saying there is no evidence that Rolfing improves posture, makes no sense and is as bad as many dietary supplement ads. And no, we should not change the caption to remove what the evidence says. the picture is just not useful. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that showing fraudulent advertising/claims necessarily promotes them, but whether or not we keep the image doesn't matter much to me. However the infobox should remain because it is Always possible to fill it with more relevant information such as MESHID/a better image. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It gives undue weight to the claims, if not outright advertising of them. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Images are helpful to readers, and I think it's great that CFCF went to the trouble of finding and adding one that is associated with the industry. A caption that informs readers that this image portrays the aims or claims of rolfing doesn't seem out of line to me. The info box is also a great add, except that the information included is too limited. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This would apply to a valid treatment, or to a product or service that makes substantiated claims, but not to a fraudulent treatment whose claims are nonsensical. The image is blatantly promoting frank quackery. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"That"

This edit changed the text of quotes. While one may not like the usage of "that" in sentences like "Named after its founder, Dr. Ida P. Rolf, Rolfing Structural Integration is a form of bodywork that reorganizes the connective tissues, called fascia, that permeate the entire body", that is literally what the original text being quoted says. --tronvillain (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, the blanket removal of "that" does not seem to be established as "better" grammar: "When in doubt, include that," AP says. "Omission can hurt. Inclusion never does." --tronvillain (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate, and two excellent points made above. The removal of so many "thats" seems to reflect a personal grammar pet peeve rather than an objective improvement. Scanning briefly I would say that some of those circumstances are improved by the removal of "that" but many are better with it. If someone wanted to take a closer look and propose which ones really benefit from changing, I'm open to considering it but don't care enough myself to invest the effort when the current version is okay. --Karinpower (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Just don't start thinking about whether any of them should become "which". That way madness lies. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed a few clearly unnecessary instances, but there's no debate whatsoever about the quotations, and I think most of the rest either aid flow or understanding. --tronvillain (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Meh! -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Great. FYI - I didn't do a "blanket" removal. I accidentally did a quote. I don't like how tronvillain didn't fix the editing issue and did a rollback plus called it "possible vandalism". That is lame. -User:Mikehenke 18:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It was multiple quotes, and I didn't call it "possible vandalism." You, on the other hand, did: "08:45, 9 November 2016‎... Reverting possible vandalism by Tronvillain to version by Tronvillain". And that was after responding to Alexbrn with "Did not change meaning, removed unneeded 'THAT' words. Go ahead idiot and revert better grammar." Classy stuff. --tronvillain (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And in your most recent edit you still altered a quote. I restored a couple of the instances for flow - it's essentially a subjective disagreement at this point. --tronvillain (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds Great. Thank you. (User:Jytdog) - Can the edit war be removed? That seems excessive. (User:Mikehenke) 11:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

pls see your talk page Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Vandalism

@Alexbrn @Jytdog Your immediate deletion of substantial peer-reviewed citations and additions is clear vandalism. You could have adjusted a citation or removed a trademark error, if that was really the problem. Follow the spirit of wiki and edit based on my contributions, keeping the page balanced and neutral. This may be easier if you actually read some of the journal articles I cited. @Jim1138 There is no ethical or scientific basis for removing the credentials of an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyintherye (talk • contribs) 08:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. We don't "balance" articles but present fringe views within a proper rational context. If you insist on editing against the WP:PAGs your account's active life will be brief. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for using the article Talk page, Cyintherye. You have just arrived here, and there is a bit of a learning curve with regard to content, and behavior, which are handled under separate policies. You have already received a note on your Talk page about use of TM and "Dr" (content issues) and a note from me about edit warring (behavior). I also left you a general welcome message that has lots of information in the links. I will leave you another note about sourcing content about health. Content that is added needs to comply with the content policies or it will be reverted. That is how things work here. Jytdog (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)