Talk:Rolfing/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Exact citing for "and there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition.[8]"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can "and there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" be cited on the exact page? I started scanning and see on page 4 "The absence of evidence does not in itself mean that the therapies evaluated do or do not work." It seems this study is being cited as a huge club for the statement --Mikehenke (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC) http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/0E9129B3574FCA53CA257BF0001ACD11/$File/Natural%20Therapies%20Overview%20Report%20Final%20with%20copyright%2011%20March.pdf

quote: "There is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of rolfing and therefore no reliable conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of rolfing for any clinical condition". Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks just found that too. --Mikehenke (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so that gets into the bias I see. Can "ineffective" be added to level out the anti-bias? Proposed change "there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective or ineffective for the treatment of any health condition." Really that quote cited is walking the tight rope. lack of evidence = no conclusion yet we seem to be drawing one. --Mikehenke (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No because in general there is no such thing as "evidence of ineffectiveness". In medicine the assumption is things do not work until there is evidence to the contrary. Perhaps look at our cited lay summary from Science-Based Medicine which summarizes the findings from this review as indicating "no benefit" (for all the therapies). Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this gets frustrating then because the cited article states the exact opposite "absence of evidence does not in itself mean that the therapies evaluated do or do not work." --Mikehenke (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't say it does work or it doesn't work. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

good evidence

"Good evidence" evidence isn't true. It is an quantity of evidence or lack of evidence is what this citation is saying not the state of the evidence. --Mikehenke (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not again.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that was about the quality of evidence before I realized the citation is about the quantity or lack. We add "good" but the citation doesn't talk about the quality. --Mikehenke (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn Ok, where do you see a quality (good, bad, ugly) of the evidence in that citation? --Mikehenke (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually read and digested the source? Quote: "although SRs were identified, none included any in-scope randomised controlled trials". In other words, there is evidence, but it's of too poor a quality to consider meaningful. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question on individual opinions

Hi all, I'm new to wikipedia so thanks for your patience and help getting me up to speed with the way things are done here! I've been reviewing the Talk page now and it seems like a lot of thought has gone into the way the page is written. One question I had is how decisions are being made about which individuals' opinions on Rolfing are included. In particular, Bessel van der Kolk's endorsement of Rolfing on OnBeing seems to be just as noteworthy as Mehmet Oz's endorsement of it. Dr. Andrew Weil also offers an endorsement of Rolfing on his website. Both of these are major public figures and I'm wondering why Mehmet Oz is included, while they are not. Thanks for clarifying!

Welcome to WP. There is a pretty simple answer to this specific question. Oz's discussion of rolfing on the Oprah show was found notable and perhaps influential by a reliable third party source, the New York Times. This is a controversial article and a number of well minded policies and guidelines apply. The guideline WP:Fringe applies so it would be useful to familiarize yourself with that.

Speaking of Fringe, the whole "Conceptual basis" section seems to fail, where is the prominence given to established lines of research? It's buried at the end after the section gives extensive prominence to Fringe concepts.

The NPOV policy has a section on due weight WP:DUE this also applies and is generally enforced as it is policy (as opposed to guideline). Hope this is helpful. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful! What about Barbara Clow, Dan Agin, Rose Shapiro, Rob Carroll? Is there a reliable third party source that finds their views on Rolfing to be notable or influential? Dasjambo (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)dasjambo

→Rather -- I guess my real question is whether there is a basis for excluding the endorsements of Rolfing by Andrew Weill and Bessel van der Kolk. Van der kolk, especially, since it's hard to argue this guy is a quack (former Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry, now professor at Boston University, New York Times best-selling author, etc.). Thanks again! Dasjambo (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)dasjambo

WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS give them each a thorough read and you should get a pretty clear idea. Peer reviewed high quality sources are needed for any support of medical information. Fringe theories don't get celebrity endorsements, they get a summary of scholarly evaluation. Proponents of fringe theories don't have their primary source views given undue weight compared to prominence given established lines of research. It is really quite clearly spelled out in policies and guidelines. MrBill3 (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Modern pain science reference

The following statement is sourced by a well-written website that gets a lot of traffic, but isn't authoritative enough to make such a broad statement.

Rolfing's emphasis on appropriate "alignment" of structures of the body does not reflect modern science about pain.[29]

If modern science as a whole has determined that the link between alignment and pain were minimal, as this statement suggests, then it there would be additional sources than a website. Two articles by Lederman would be better sources: http://www.cpdo.net/Lederman_The_fall_of_the_postural-structural-biomechanical_model.pdf and http://cpdo.net/Lederman_A_Process_model_in_Manual_and_Physical_Therapies.pdf, but even they don't reflect all of modern science. This article about modern pain science by Moseley is a better reference for pain science, although it does not specifically talk about alignment: https://bodyinmind.org/resources/journal-articles/full-text-articles/reconceptualising-pain-according-to-modern-pain-science/. Thatcher57 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't say "all of modern science" - we do somehow need to reflect the scientific mainstream to counteract all the alignment/gravitation woo we're detailing from Rolf. If there's a stronger source for this that would be cool, but currently WP:PARITY permits the pain science piece, which is sensible enough I think. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I see both of these perspectives.... I believe the problem is that the current wording is WP:SYN. The article doesn't address Rolfing directly. As editors we cannot make the jump to say whether the structural aspects discussed in that article are equivalent to ideas of Rolf (or the modern ideas of Rolfing, which some authors say are different now that a number of decades have passed since Rolf's death). In fact most of the items the author discusses do not seem to be addressed with Rolfing (ex. herniated disks, arthritis, spinal stenosis).

We can however, say "Modern science shows that some aspects of biomechanics are unrelated to pain."

The wording needs to be cautious not to over-reach. This article does not state that biomechanical factors are never valid; it encourages critical thinking and looking at the evidence for each structural assessment. I chose the word "biomechanics" over "alignment" because it more broadly covers all of the aspect mentioned in the article. --Karinpower (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The irony--and the problem--is that this website author uses the same faulty logic as pseudoscience: cherry picking scientific studies and drawing a conclusion that isn't necessarily supported by all the facts. From the sources I can find and understand, current science attributes pain to a many interactive processes and cannot be linked solely to alignment or biomechanics, and in some cases pain is unrelated to alignment. In my search, I found several websites that take the same information from pain science and draw different conclusions. I don't think readers want a point-counterpoint on this though. I recommend this source by Moseley (Redacted)https://doi.org/10.1179/108331907X223010. It's a bit heavy, but covers the broad range of pain science better than the current source. To reflect more of the impartial sources that aren't trying to sell a course or drive traffic to its site, the statement should be slightly restated. I propose: "Modern science attributes pain to a variety of factors, with little emphasis on alignment." or something along those lines. Thatcher57 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You make some good points. Moseley seems to be a review study, if I'm reading it correctly, which makes it a strong source. We can continue to fine-tune the wording of this addition.

But we should also consider how to make sure it is relevant to the topic of Rolfing. The definitions that we currently give of Rolfing, in the Lede, Conceptual Basis, and Technique sections, do not state that Rolfing is attempting to mitigate pain. The definition seems to focus more on the ability to have good movement, with some mention of energy (though frankly that is not mentioned in many of the modern sources), and a bit about the psychological aspects that seem to have been popular back in the 60's and 70's. To me it seems that if pain mitigation is not a primary pillar of Rolfing, a comment about what science says about alignment's relationship to pain is a bit of a non-sequitur. --Karinpower (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A bit of trivial googling shows Rolfing is marketed hard for chronic back pain (among myriad other things, as has been discussed here before). We could do with a source pointing this out, to add context. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, great. I have edited the text that you provided to put the author's comment about claims of pain alleviation in context (it does mention pain but puts much more emphasis on movement, which actually helps tie in the "alignment" aspect). We still need to adjust the wording of the pain science sentence. I'll give that some more thought, but first I want to re-read the source that was mentioned above. Thank you to Alexbrn for providing a non-copy-vio link for it: https://doi.org/10.1179/108331907X223010.

I have adjusted it using the word "focus". If we're going to mention these other "claims" made by Rolfers, we should also be pointing out the reality (i.e. that they are false). Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't perceive a meaningful difference between "focus" vs. emphasize; either of those are fine with me.

We use the word "claim"; that word does a good job of communicating that it is a perspective that is subject to bias. We also state very plainly in multiple places that medical benefit has not been scientifically proven. Proprioception seems to be a subjective experience; it is difficult to assess that from the outside but it's reasonable to say that some people make those claims.

The WP:SYN problem still exists; please reference my comment from Jan 15 for more details on that, and a suggestion on how to fix it. --Karinpower (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:VALID - we don't air dubious claims without clear context. As to WP:SYN, I'm not seeing any - what exactly do you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It's WP:SYN because the sentence connects the "ideas of Rolf" to the pain science info, but the article doesn't address Rolfing directly. It's an overreach for editors to say that the topics handled in that article are "the ideas of Rolf"; in fact the article mostly addresses medical problems that are outside the scope of manual therapy. Also the article, and the other, better source that was recently suggested, do not broadly state that biomechanics is unrelated to pain. Rather they caution against assuming that relationship, and disprove it with certain medical conditions (ex. herniated disks). However, it may be that "text neck" causes headaches or that improving ankle range of motion causes better jumping or running.... each of those would need to be proven, but these articles are not categorically saying that all of those ideas are false.

I suggest wording that sticks to the actual conclusions of the science: "Modern science shows that biomechanics and pain are less closely related than previously thought." This needs further fine-tuning, so I look forward to your and others' revisions and comments.

That's not WP:SYN. We are however following WP:PSCI which requires "An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included". Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It took me a while, but I found a better source: p. 150 of Complementary Therapies for Pain Management: An Evidence-based Approach states: "Some of the traditional osteopathic concepts intuitively ring true, yet their scientific rationale is not firmly established. In particular, the theory of the overriding importance of alignment lacks a scientific rationale." Interestingly, this book relates Rolfing to the Alexander Technique (p. 102). I will replace the webpage source with this one. The addition of the prior sentence is a good addition for context. Thatcher57 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good! Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Movement and proprioception claims

Let's break out this discussion into a separate section. I think it will be more clear that way.
Stating what proponents claim is within the scope for a WP article, without proof of medical benefit - of course we are careful to phrase it as a claim, not as a fact. Even for the most out-there topic, it's relevant to know what proponents say it is good for. Claims about movement are mentioned in many of the sources for this article. I believe I could easily put together a list of quality sources that mention this claim. The article already provides "context" for any claims by stating clearly and in multiple places that no medical benefit has been demonstrated.
I'm okay with leaving out the movement/proprioception aspect entirely but it's not okay to cite this source to say that Rolfing makes claims about pain alleviation out of context of the other, more heavily emphasized claims in this source. If you had a quality source that focuses almost solely on claims of pain, that would be one way around this problem. The current wording distorts the source.--Karinpower (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It's fine to use it to say Rolfers make claims about pain; WP:V is satisfied. The other claims may be aired if we have some specific mainstream context for them. WP:VALID guides us not to air dubious claims without mainstream context. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Coincidentally, the source I found to substantiate the statement about lack of scientific evidence to support alignment based therapies (see above section) groups Rolfing in with Alexander Technique as a psychophysical re-education treatment. I think there are other sources as well that speak to the non-bodywork aspects of it and if referenced well could be included. Thatcher57 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a good new source, and while it only offhandedly mentions Rolfing, it does so in the context of movement and proprioception - in other sources these disciplines are sometimes called "somatic education" which includes Alexander, Feldenkrais, Rolfing, and several other methods. Taking a look at the higher quality sources, more of them mention movement-related goals than pain-relief goals, so it's misleading to mention pain relief out of that context. --Karinpower (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've taken some more time with the sources to see what they have to say about Rolfing and pain. To better reflect the sources in the statement about the claims of Rolfing and pain, I suggest tying the material from the current sources together with material from Jones, which states: “The goal of Rolfing is to release the body from learned patterns of movement and tension that cause dysfunction and pain. In addition, the client learns about posture and alignment and becomes conscious about positioning of the body. . . The goal is to create more efficient and functional patterns of movement.”

Thompson and Jones both mention proprioception and pain, so it seems appropriate for the article to also mention both.

Thompson: “Proponents of Rolfing claim it improves performance, increases self-awareness and decreases pain, and improves body image.”

Ernst states that alignment-based treatments like osteopathy lack scientific rationale (p. 150), but puts Rolfing in the psychophysiology category and states that some research suggests such approaches can modulate aspects of the nervous system (p. 102).

I suggest replacing:

Proponents of Rolfing claim it can be used to alleviate pain.[29] However Rolfing's focus on appropriate "alignment" of structures of the body does not reflect modern science about pain.[30][31]

with:

Proponents of Rolfing claim it can be used to change movement patterns, increase proprioception and alleviate pain. [Add Jones][29] Modern pain science focuses more on moderation of the nervous system, with scientific evidence lacking for the concept of appropriate body "alignment" as a primary factor in pain.[30][31]

Thatcher57 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This wording sums up the sources more accurately than the current text. Jones is a much stronger source for the Effectiveness section than Thompson; we could remove Thompson here (or replace it with another strong source). Thompson can be cited elsewhere in the article so that it is conserved as a source. I suggest not using quotes around alignment, as the sentence is perfectly clear without it nor is it jargon, so the quotes aren't needed. --Karinpower (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be fine if we have sources to contextualize these fringe claims about "movement patterns" &c. Otherwise, we'd be violating WP:PSCI. Current wording is fine. 06:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Currently the wording of the second sentence remains WP:SYN as no source actually draws this conclusion - "Synthesis" means that an editor is making a leap that is not represented in the sources. The proposed wording of the second sentence does the job of limiting itself to what the sources say and not making the jump to evaluating "the alignment ideas of Rolfing" - since we have no sources that actually evaluate that. --Karinpower (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

See above. Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

What I don't understand, is how we are being accurate to the sources to simply select the information about pain when there is a larger picture that they describe. If the objection is to adding new claims to the article, why is it that we select one claim and not others when they are all part of the subject of pain? There may be a good reason for that that I don't understand as an inexperienced editor. It seems to me that there is adequate source material to substantiate the claim of claims of proprioception (although I wondered if body awareness might be a better word choice when suggesting the edit), and I wouldn't be opposed to leaving out movement patterns. I included that because it was in the Thompson source. In terms of paraphrasing the sources about pain science, it is important to not oversimplify the subject. It would be helpful if there were a Wikipedia article on Pain Science that we could refer to. The article on Pain does state: Pain is the most common reason for people to use complementary and alternative medicine.[97] At the least, the second sentence would be better written as: Scientific evidence does not support the concept of overall alignment as a primary factor in pain. Better yet: Scientific evidence does not support the concept of overall alignment as a primary factor in pain, as modern pain science focuses more on modulation of the nervous system. Thatcher57 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

they are all part of the subject of pain But "changing movement patterns" is not part of the subject of pain; neither is "body awareness". If we are airing fringe claims we need some mainstream sourcing for context. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Body awareness is paraphrase of proprioception/body image/self awareness, which is part of the subject of pain. Regarding movement patterns, the Ernst source p. 102 under Scientific Rationale states "The notion that learning the Alexander technique allows a conscious change of habitual and detrimental physiological reactions receives some support from psychophysiology research, suggesting that the mind can modulate aspects of the autonomic nervous system. Specific investigations of the Alexander technique have demonstrated that it improved the efficiency of moving from the sitting to standing position." Under Related Techniques it includes Feldenkrais method, Rolfing, Tragerwork, yoga. Or perhaps you are saying that Ernst is not a mainstream source? Please clarify.Thatcher57 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Alexander Technique has to do with it. Building an argument then on a "related to" mention is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ernst (http://edzardernst.com) is definitely a mainstream source without bias toward alternative medicine; he is an academic physician whose writing is often sharply critical of alt-med. I agree that this source addresses the value of changing movement habits using body awareness (aka proprioception), and is rather favorable toward it, saying that there is a some scientific support. It seems that this is the mainstream counterbalance.

I realized we've been overlooking something. The same pain science that says that alignment should not be assumed to be a cause of pain is in fact a mainstream source for the topic of alignment. So that first sentence about claims can include all of the subjects treated by both Moseley and Ernst.

However, we need to carefully rewrite the second sentence to avoid implying that the sources have directly studied Rolfing - it seems that they have not, yet their conclusions do give important context for evaluating the various claims. We can do this by stating what the sources say about their actual subject matter.--Karinpower (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ernst is a person, not a "source". He is but one of several editors (not author) of Complementary Therapies for Pain Management, a 2007 book which would not be WP:MEDRS for any kind of non-trivial claim. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The point is not to establish medical benefit (there's no debate that sufficient studies don't exist). The point is to have a moderately complete list of what claims are made - especially since the claim about pain is rather downplayed compared to the other aspects in sources that discuss claims made. His summary of Alexander Technique evaluates research on the subject and draws some broad conclusions. You asked for "mainstream context" and that's exactly what this is. --Karinpower (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you say "his"? He is one editor. The book as a whole has many contributors and contains a defense of homeopathy, so is not evidently reliable for anything medical. As to "claims" I repeat:, per WP:VALID we do not air claims fringe without a mainstream context, this is policy which you keep blowing right past. We have mainstream context for "pain"; we lack mainstream context for Rolfers' dubious claims about other matters. If we can find them we can proceed; if not, we omit the dubious claims. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Just curious, would you say there is mainstream context for the claims mentioned earlier in the article, such as about gravity? I think there isn't. The interpretation of this policy that you are giving on this matter is quite a bit more strict than what I've seen used on this page or other alt-med pages previously. --Karinpower (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all the gravity stuff is adequately qualified by our being upfront about Rolfing being a pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

All of the claims are covered by this statement: "There is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition." The purpose of this policy is to make sure that articles don't spin away from grounded evidence, not to prevent an accurate description of the method. We should state the claims that they make, since the article is already perfectly clear that such claims are unsubstantiated. --Karinpower (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Only if properly qualified. I'm sure you can see how it's problematic to say "Rolfers claim A,B & C; but B is not in alignment with science" - it implies A & C are a-okay. I'm more than fine with mentioning fringe claims so long as it is clear what the mainstream opinion of those claims is. "Changing movement habits" is not treating a health condition so is not covered by any qualifying text we have in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you can see how it's problematic to say "Rolfers claim A,B & C; but B is not in alignment with science" Yes, I see that, but if the sources say that Rolfers claim A & B; A is not in alignment with science, but B might be, the article needs to reflect that--without making reach claims. If we reflect the sources, it would be more accurate to say: Proponents of Rolfing claim it can be used to increase proprioception and alleviate pain. Scientific evidence does not support the concept of overall alignment as a primary factor in pain, but modern pain science finds that modulation of the nervous system does have an effect on pain. Thatcher57 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Because Rolfing is a fringe area the claims are fringe claims. Per policy we don't air fringe claims (on the brave editorial assumption they "might" align with science) unless we have a solid sensible source to set the context. So the thing to do is to find a mainstream source offering a perspective on Rolfers' claims that they can e.g. change movement habits. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I (finally) see your point about better sourcing. In the meantime, to better paraphrase the sources for pain and what they say and imply (and don't say or imply) about Rolfing, and to tie the concepts of alignment and pain together, I still suggest slightly different wording. How about this: Proponents of Rolfing claim it can improve body alignment and alleviate pain. Scientific evidence does not support the concept of overall alignment as a primary factor in pain; modern pain science focuses on the role of the nervous system. Thatcher57 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a solid compromise. However I think the wording in the second sentence still needs a bit of tweaking.... I need to read the source again to see what is best-supported. My impression is that it's conclusions are limited to a number of specific pathologies, rather than making a statement about alignment in general. We should be cautious about overgeneralizing their conclusions - it's possible that there is science to support alignment as a cause of some types of pain. --Karinpower (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A side note, you made me curious when you mentioned that the book that Ernst contributed to has a defense of homeopathy. I just read that section, pp 124-6, and it is pretty damning (and appropriately so). It mentions some cases where results seemed to favor homeopathy (which can happen by fluke especially if only looking at single studies) but it concludes overall that there is no benefit and there's no scientific rationale behind it. Maybe you were thinking of a different book.--Karinpower (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I was thinking of the material on pain which contains such stuff as a hypothesis "... substantiating the claim that self-healing processes are reinforced by homeopathic intervention". Alexbrn (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I was able to find that passage thanks to the nifty search function in googlebooks. Woah, I'm surprised they made that statement, it seems incongruous with the other matter-of-fact entries that I read--Karinpower (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC).

Improving the introduction text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What studies are considered meaningful?

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your help!

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

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

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

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

Agin quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Karinpower: Stealing credit card numbers is more efficient, but there are plenty of topical and other products for sale making unwarranted medical claims. Here are the some the FDA has sent warning letters about: [2] [3] 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[4] 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[5]. 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[6] 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)

An argument that sources have all got it wrong and we should listen to Wikipedia editors instead, is beginning to take us into WP:DE. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Luckily we don't have to speculate, we can just look at the preponderance of what the quality sources are saying to get the picture.--Karinpower (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, I'm writing to ask Alexbrn if he could please post the text of the new Ernst source which appears on pages 192-193. These pages aren't publicly available. Thank you.--Petrichori (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be a copyright violation. The text is available from Springer, or from a library or ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Quotes have been provided from multiple other sources. Is this one different? --Petrichori (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is publicly available. When properly cited, brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. But extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. This is basic copyright policy which WMF mandate, and is non-negotiable since it is a matter of law. I have a paper copy of the book, so if you have some specific query I can reply. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you're wanting to lead with this source on two sections and claim it is cutting edge, could you paraphrase what the two pages say and what the citations are?Greenriverglass (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase: Rolfing is a load of old bollocks; thumbs down in every respect, expect maybe expense. Ernst cites the Rolfing "Guild", IPR herself, etc. As the world's foremost authority on altmed, his view is certainly valuable, and this is an up-to-date source. It seems modern science had no time for this quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that paraphrase. I'm now reading the Ernst source. Interesting to read the list of claims made.

I'm ambivalent about the energy argument but it does seem that the article currently lacks enough detail about *what this method is actually trying to do* - the definition and the claims made make sense to go in the opening paragraph. When reading the claims-made that Ernst lists, I went hunting for a comment previously made, suggesting a list of claims including sources. I found it in the section below this one. This is the suggestion that was made:

"Rolfing aims to align the human body in relation to gravity[Jones][8]. This is based on a belief that such alignment can result in improved healing[4], movement [Jones], comfort [7], and even emotional changes [Jones][5]. Ida Rolf also discussed her work in terms of energy.[5][13]

(4 and 13 are Ida Rolf sources, 5 is Carroll, 7 is American Cancer Society, 8 is Australian, and Jones doesn't have a current citation.)"

Ernst says "Proponents claim that Rolfing can bring relief from chronic back, neck, shoulder and joint pain, improve breathing, increase energy, improve self-confidence, and relieve physical and mental stress."

Ernst's list is slightly different than the claims in the proposed edit but there is some overlap. Comfort = less pain so this could be cited for that, or the wording could be changed to pain relief (comfort sounds like marketing talk to me). Emotional changes, well self-confidence would be an example of emotional changes while the other sources cited aren't so specific. Do other sources mention a claim of improved breathing? Or stress relief? Also Ernst does include the claim of "realign and balance the body's myofascial structures." That's the definition of it that he gives. If Ernst includes these claims, we should report it as such, with appropriate language to show it's just a claim, not proven.--Petrichori (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The book has 150 different altmed modalities? I guess someone could be an expert in general altmed issues, but surely not an expert in 150 modalities. Does Ernst give any references besides Ida Rolf and the Rolfing Guild? Does he have any reputation in bodywork/myofascia, or does he show any reputable citations? If he summarizes the claims in a neutral way that might be part of a summary, but claims about measurable results should have good sourcing throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenriverglass (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Responding to Petrichori's question about what claims are mentioned in other sources, Physical Therapist Houglum and the Gale Medical Encyclopedia do mention claims of improved breathing. As to stress, the American Cancer Society's paper says that while bodywork doesn't *treat* cancer, "it may be used to enhance quality of life" and that there are individual reports of it being used along with medical care for symptom reduction and stress reduction. So yes, breathing and stress could be included in the list of claims made for this method.--Karinpower (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This has simmered for several weeks with no objections so I have made the edit, resting heavily on Ernest, Carroll, American Cancer Society, and Jones' review study. I also made a minor reorganization of the content in the lede to put the sentences in an order that mirrors the article: Basis/Claims, then Description, then Criticism. This required only moving one sentence, plus adding in a line break, hopefully this is not controversial and it really improves the readability. --Karinpower (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

PS. I concede Petrichori's comment that "comfort" sounds like marketing jargon and actually saying pain relief is more accurate to the sources. So that's the language I used. --Karinpower (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Dreadful change, packing the lede's opening with weirdly expressed uncritical woo. Reverted. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Filling the lead even more with cites and a listing of what rolfing hasn't been shown to do seems rather silly. Better before. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

To get an overview of the evidence for a modality, you do not need detailed knowledge of it. Instead, you need expertise regarding study design and execution. Ernst has that. Alternative medicine practitioners don't. As soon as they learn it, they have to decide whether to stop practicing something that does not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ernst makes a point of describing what the claims are. So does American Cancer Society. These are an important aspect of the description of the method.... otherwise how are readers supposed to guess what it is even claiming to do? Let's discuss wording for how to represent what these highly credible sources are telling us. --Karinpower (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is meant to be a summary. Something like "Practitioners falsely claim that Rolfing has medical benefit for a wide variety of conditions" ? In the lede. The "falsely" is crucial. In the body I'd not object to two or three of the false claims being given as an example, preferably something different from the alignment stuff already mentioned at length, to give readers an idea of the breadth of the fraud. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the language needs to be more carefully phrased to make it clear that the claims are unproven. (The studies haven't shown that the claims are false or fraudulent; the studies are simply inadequate.) There are really two issues here:

1) The article lacks a clear definition, including what the heck this method is supposed to do. Ernst says Rolfers use manipulation of the soft tissue "allegedly to realign and balance the body's myofascial structures." That's his definition and it fits with other sources; shall we quote that?

2) Some sort of summary of the claims made is needed. Let's omit the "improved healing" as that only has one reference and it's from Rolf herself; also it's vague and is covered "pain relief" etc. The other claims are mentioned briefly enough that it's perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedic summary... especially since good sources like Ernst and Carroll bother to include them in their brief 1-2 page summaries. Adding in the word "unproven" makes the wording a bit clunky, any suggestions?

Rolfing makes unproven claims that such alignment can result in improved movement (ref name=Jones/>, breathing(ref name=ee150/>(ref name="Houglum"/>(ref name="Gale Mental"/>, pain reduction(ref name=ee150/>(ref name=acs/>, stress reduction(ref name=ee150/>(ref name=acs/>, and even emotional changes(ref name=ee150/>(ref name=carroll/>(ref name=Jones/).--Petrichori (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Any further suggestions on how to make a summary of the claims, that reflects the sources?--Petrichori (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll make the revised edit with those changes. Since there's been no further discussion in the past 3 weeks I'm going to move ahead. I agree that adding "unproven" to that line makes it perfectly clear (even though we state this over and over elsewhere in the article). Yeah it does make the sentence more clunky but I don't have a better suggestion for the wording.--Petrichori (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)