Talk:Rolfing/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Quality sources that describe Rolfing as a physical method, not dealing with "esoteric energy"

1)Tracey Jones (MD at U of California) is cited for a review study in which she quotes Rolf on gravity but spends several pages elaborating on the alignment aspects of the quote while not writing at all about "energy."

2) The Australia review study states on page 125, Rolfing is "a system of hands-on manipulation and movement education that claims to organise the body in gravity. Rolfing is used in the management of a range of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal health problems." There is no mention of energy.

3) American Cancer Society's guide to alternative health which is cited in this article says that Rolfing is "deep bodywork in which Rolfers... place pressure on connective tissues. Their goal is to promote proper alignment by releasing constriction and making movement easier." (p 168) Again, absolutely no mention of energy.

4) Sherman is a source from the massage industry, offering a taxonomy for bodywork styles differeniating methods into "relaxation," "clinical," "movement re-education," and "energy work" (examples include Polarity, Reiki). In the section titled Principle Goals of Treatment, they specify that Rolfing/Structural Integration is usually a "clinical" approach meaning that the goal is to reduce pain and improve function. In the "Results" section they further state that "Structural Integration can be used to enhance athetic performance (relaxation massage), address a clinic condition such as scoliosis (clinical massage), or improve posture (movement re-education)." So they only category that doesn't apply is "energy work." That's pretty compelling.

5) Houglum, as a Physical Therapist has expertise in these matters yet sufficient distance from Rolfing to be objective: "A manual therapy designed to balance the body's segments... to provide optimal structure and function," etc. She provides a detailed description of the 10-session series and other facets with no mention of energy.

6) Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, p595, "bodywork that uses deep manipulation of the body's soft tissue to realign and balance the body's myofascial structure." They spend two pages on history, methods, etc and also quote The Guild for Structural Integration as saying that SI is "a mathod and a philosophy of personal growth and integrity... The vertical line is our fundamental concept. The physical and psychological embodiment of the vertical line is a way of Being in the physical work [that] forms a basis for personal growth and integrity." So this part points to some of those mind-body aspects yet without such a woo-woo spin. It still leaves us wondering how the vertical line is related to personal growth, but at least they seem to value having their feet on the ground. (That was a little joke.)

7) Fundamentals of Complementary and Alt Medicine surprised me by breaking down the "energy" aspects in terms of physics etc: "The theory of Rolfing is based primarily on physical considerations of the interaction of the human body with the gravitational field of the Earth.... storing potential energy and releasing kinetic energy... the balance between the two is equivalent to the amount of energy available to the body [Karinpower's note, this part doesn't make sense to me - but it's not esoteric]... The worse the posture, the more energy we consume on a baseline level, and thus less we have available for normal activity.... the physical energy of the body is in direct proportion to the "vital energy" of the person." This author is perhaps not familiar with "vitalism" as this use of vital seems to be more of a layman's use, along the lines of whether you still have energy left to go out dancing after a full day of work.

In conconclusion we have plenty of neutral sources including all three of our review studies and respected secondary sources from various arenas of the medical world that are in agreement that Rolfing is a physical practice with physical goals. Not energy medicine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinpower (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Many of those sources seem fringe. We have sources saying there is an Energy component, and Rolf's own words make it clear she saw it as the chief purpose. There's obviously a move among a faction of the Rolfers to whitewash what they see as the whackier aspects of Rolferism, but Wikipedia doesn't play that game. We say it is physical manipulation "based on" Rolf's ideas about energy. That's right. We're not got to remove well-sourced content because it's "off-message". (Incidentally, checkong on rolf.org I notice they have an entire journal issue dedicated to Rolfing and energy[1] - you might find this interesting. It is just wrong to imply that "non-physical energy" (!) is not part and parcel of the Rolf schtick. I was particularly struck by this quotation from Rolf in which she says the massage aspects are just a "bait" for the switch to Rolfing's true purpose: "I hope that among you there are the kind of fish that will go out and bring in another school of fish . . . Not to get their aches and pains taken out, not to have their symptoms removed, but that they might contribute to the understanding of energy in the human universe."). Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How interesting that you would lump our three review studies as Fringe.... these are literally the best three sources we have. As to the others, while they aren't MEDRS for proving health benefits like a review study could be, they are perfectly legitimate for providing us with a detailed description of the method (and probably a dozen more sources would weign on this side of the issue as well, I just stopped at 7). We now have enough sources on each side to say that there is controversy on this point.--Karinpower (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)--Karinpower (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

To say there's controversy we need a source that says there's controversy. I'm not sure what point is meant to be controversial anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We have controversy over whether or not Rolfing is characterized as energy work. On the one side are a couple of deliberately-critical, deliberately-derogatory sources saying it is; and on the other side are journal articles, mainstream media, the Rolf Institute (which, again, owns the trademark for "Rolfing," so should be able to contribute to its definition), and others. In response to this, you present your own original research, trying to interpret the primary source of Ida Rolf. We don't do that here, right? More importantly, what Rolf thought/said does not equate with what Rolfing is today. This article is about Rolfing, not the ideas of Rolf.

I am not seeing a justification for characterizing Rolfing as energy work when the weight of legitimate secondary sources does not support that claim. At best, we could say that "some critics believe" or such. But it is incorrect for Wikipedia to make an affirmative and unqualified statement like this, when clearly the bulk of the evidence does not support that, and we the editors do not seem to agree. -Epastore (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to state that it is controversial but we do need to report what the sources say. We can give more details in the body of the article but in the lede a simple summary is enough. All sources prioritize the goal of alignment; this should be highlighted in the lede and currently it's oddly missing.

The current sentence in the lede about energy is too specific to be appropriate for the lede; as Alexbrn pointed out she seems to mention energy in several ways and the energy of gravity is just one. So we can give a more general summary, and then the body of the article provides more detail (as it should).

How about the following, using the three review studies, as well as Carroll and two Ida Rolf original sources: 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.)

Of course, additional edits to the body of the article need to be hashed out but this is a start.--Karinpower (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)  

That would be original research because Rolf did not "also discuss her work in terms of energy", but is quoted as saying reinforcing the body's energy field was the "primary concept" of Rolfing. Rolf, Rolfers and secondary sources make much of this point so the wish of some on this page to downplay it with WP:OR is puzzling. We also don't want to air the faked medical claims of Rolfing without immediate contextualizing sanity. Wikipedia must not promote woo. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The original research seems to be about what are considered proper references to use. Seems like the typical arguments we get all the time with fringe topics: independent refs vs in-world viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this seems like a recurrent theme even here. I recall this section[2] from a few years ago, where it is apparent that in the "real world" out there Rolfers are up to their eyeballs promoting all this energy bullshit and fake medical claims. This article is not a soft-selling brochure for this stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of this comes down to what's going to be summarized and cited in the Wikipedia article. While private website claims can be referenced here in talk, they wouldn't be cited in the article. If there was an organized study on the topic of claims or opinions of practitioners, then it could be cited in the article. If the sources above meet the criteria for inclusion in the article, then they can play some kind of role. People come to Wikipedia for more information and resources, and it can be a connection hub for many types of resources. If the American Cancer Society is publishing information about Rolfing, that is eligible for inclusion.Greenriverglass (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No one on this thread is in favor of promoting woo. It is appropriate to list the claims that Rolfing makes - particularly the claims that are echoed by quality sources including critical sources. Our lede will certainly continue to contextualize that those claims are unproven. Readers come to Wikipedia to find out what it is, and what it is attempting to do.... so the claims are a key part of the factual information in this article. If sources say it promises to make you grow two feet taller, we would need to include that even though the claim is obviously not realistic. The word "claim" itself does provide context, versus a word like "benefits" which sounds more like a sure thing.

Our three meta-studies are our best sources, and they are our guiding light for how to portray this topic. They don't say that Rolfing is about energy but rather about alignment. So that needs to have center stage. Dr Rolf often used emphatic language and so there are plenty of quotes that say that something or other is primary point.... In this case this quote is talking about alignment, with an additional lens of the energy BS. So we need to represent both of those aspects - with alighnment first and the energy piece as a secondary thing (hence the word "also," it's a conjunction, not original research). The current situation where energy is more predominent than alignment is misleading and it misrepresents the sources.--Karinpower (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The meta-studies are good on the clinical aspects, but NPOV requires us to be explicit about pseudoscience (both the alignment woo and the energy woo) and for that WP:PARITY is often necessary, since academic medical articles rarely deign to deal with that aspect of a topic. The notion of a body's "alignment in gravity" is pretend science just as much as the energy field stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• And in any case, Karinpower, you cannot use the Jones source which explicitly says "The goal of Rolfing is to release the body from learned patterns of movement and tension" to say that Rolfing's goal is "alignment". Jones also includes Rolf's "energy field" quotation in the opening paragraph of her article! You are reminded this is a topic under discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually we can trust an MD who is doing a peer-reviewed paper to describe the basic tenets of this field to us. My point about the Jones paper is that she uses that same quote and then discusses it entirely in the context of alignment, thereby demonstrating that the important part of that quote is the alignment aspect. She doesn't go on to discuss energy - she doesn't say that Rolfing works with energy, she doesn't say that energy is a vague word which can mean a wide variety of concepts, she doesn't address it at all - which is a good sign that in her many hours dealing with this topic, energy is not a major aspect of it.

She also specifically discusses "the alignment of the spine, pelvis, and extremities" in regards to how the weight of the torso presses downward toward the ground. She does reference the earth's gravitional force here - and she is referring to physics rather than esoteric energy.

That said, there are enough sources that do talk about energy that we certainly need to continue to include it, but with adjustments to be more accurate to the full scope of the sources. We have many, many sources that say that Rolfing's goal is alignment (including many of the Skeptic sources).

Jones' first sentence says that it's a "specific way of viewing body alignment, structure, and function." And as you said, she also writes, ""The goal of Rolfing is to release the body from learned patterns of movement and tension *that cause disfunction and pain*" That's why I cited her in the edit that I proposed above, saying that Rolfing has the belief is that improved alignment will prompt changes in healing, movement, comfort (aka pain), and also cause emotional changes. All of these claims are echoed in multiple types of sources; that's why I cited a mix of review studies, Carroll, and IPR writings. It shows that a wide swath of people agree that these are the claims/beliefs.

Under "Principles" Jones talks about dysfunctional movement patterns and disorganized tissue and quotes "The only permanent remedy is to balance the joint; frequently this requires balancing the entire body, for these various fascial links can elicit compensatory strain over wide areas," aka organization of the body.

At the end of the Principles section she says that clients are taught more efficient movement patterns to incorporate the changes into their daily movements. And then she mentions that emotional changes have been reported in many anecdotal cases though it hasn't been examined in trials. This is all included and referenced in the edit that I proposed. I also cited Carroll for saying that Rolfing claims to make emotional changes. As usual we will continue to include in the lede that all of these claims are unproven, as we should.--Karinpower (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that a discussion of Rolfing starts by quoting Rolf on its primary purpose, is a "good sign" of what its primary purpose is. In any case, we should not misrepresent sources. Per WP:PSCI pseudoscience needs to prominently described as such in our article. To be fair, your edit looked reasonable, except for the fact that it failed WP:V with respect to the sources cited, which is a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that. In that case, could you propose a modification of my wording that you feel would stick true to the sources and avoid making conclusions beyond what the sources state? The article currently doesn't represent the fact that every source says it's a physical method that focuses on alignment, and only a fraction of the sources mention energy. So the first part must get mentioned first, and the second part must also be included but with a caveat that puts it into context. --Karinpower (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the new Ernst sources clinches it: the conceptual basis of this stuff is vitalistic. The "alignment" talk is woo so shouldn't really be indulged other than in context of rational sense, which we already do. We are already straining at the boundaries of NPOV by indulging it as much as it is. Alexbrn (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether the alignment claim is "woo" isn't the question here. The question is what the sources say. Ernst is part of the same echo chamber as the other sources that push the energy aspect.... yet we have dozens of sources that don't agree, including quality medical sources and mainstream sources. I'm fine with reducing the length of the detailed info on alignment, but it must be mentioned first in the lede. --Karinpower (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That it is woo is pertinent, because policy directs us only to discuss such woo through the lens of mainstream, rational thought. Independent sources talk about Energy, the Rolfing quacks research it and push it today, and Rolf herself continually harped on it as the central mission of Rolfing. Maybe you think Rolf was part of the "echo chamber" you problematically imagine? The continual efforts of WP:PROFRINGE editors to whitewash and brochure-ize this article is rising to the level where it is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is getting far too disruptive. It seems rather blatant PROFRINGE to dismiss refs by stating Ernst is part of the same echo chamber as the other sources that push the energy aspect.... yet we have dozens of sources that don't agree, including quality medical sources and mainstream sources. --Hipal (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, I've just noticed that PMID 21875349 on Structural Integration: Origins and Development, which we already cite, says "the explicit goal of her method was the integration of the individual's energy field with that of gravity." Okay, so it's a fringe source offering an in-universe view, but it does further clarify the particularly flavour of woo Rolfers are invested in. What seems to be happening (a bit like with osteopathy/chiropractic) is that these days some more marketing-oriented types in the movement are trying to brush the more zany-sounding woo under the carpet to present a more reasonable public face. Wikipedia must not buy into that game. Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly about gravity, and it's so obnoxious to see non-scientists pretend they are defending science by throwing around these kinds of accusations. -Actual Scientist.

Safety information in lede

"Studies have not proven that Rolfing is safe" seems to be an odd sentence. Is this what any study would set out to prove? Wouldn't they instead focus on proving a null hypothesis, such as Rolfing is not safe for cancer patients. If enough cancer patients undergo Rolfing without adverse events, the null hypothesis is rejected. So the sentence should be something like "adverse events due to Rolfing have not been sufficiently studied for any conclusions to be reached" or "the absence of adverse events due to Rolfing cannot be established due to a lack of evidence in published studies." This is actually closer to the conclusion of the cited Australian Report. It doesn't deal with safety, it deals with effectiveness for clinical conditions. The cited Science-Based Medicine blog extrapolates that: "The review concluded that there is a lack of evidence effectiveness of Rolfing for any clinical condition. Consequently, the safety, quality and/or cost-effectiveness of Rolfing could not be determined." That wording just says safety cannot be determined.Greenriverglass (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Solid points. Wording that more closely represents the source is welcome. And interestingly, regarding the case of cancer, The American Cancer Society source is actually rather supportive of the use of bodywork such as Rolfing for quality of life and comfort (provided tumor areas are avoided, logically). The fact that they are saying it can be used that way seems to imply a degree of safety.--Petrichori (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Greenriverglass, "studies" of quack remedies almost always start out to "prove" the claims of the quacks who promote them. They are a marketing exercise, not science. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect people who sell a purported medical intervention to prove it is safe and effective. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That's circular logic; quality studies are the bar by which alt-med approaches can become vetted. Saying that such studies are inherently invalid just shows your bias; not all alt-med methods are quackery. Since there's no federal money for this, we can't expect perfect impartiality but we can expect reasonable scientific integrity. Some of the more recent studies on Rolfing are decent, they are just too small and there are too few. In fact the studies that have been done point toward a relatively good degree of safety, low adverse events, and a high rate of completion/compliance which shows that participants felt comfortable continuing forward - however since we don't have a fresh metastudy looking at these newer studies, they aren't able to be cited here.--Petrichori (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried to find the claims you just refuted in the contribution you responded to but failed utterly - no circular logic, no "inherently invalid". There is no connection between what Guy said and what you seem to respond to. Something must have gone seriously wrong with your edit. Are you even on the right Talk page?

By the way, if a study is "too small", it is by definition not "decent". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A study can be small and still be decent. Small studies can be the basis for larger, more expensive studies with diverse populations. But I don't think a small study would set out to prove anything as safe. There may be studies that try to prove Rolfing is safe, but those probably are not worth looking at or including in this wikipedia article. Is the "Studies have not proven Rolfing is safe" sentence meant to directly address sham studies? It doesn't read like that to me. There's no citation for that. The Australian study simply says there's not evidence for effective treatment of clinical conditions. It's not saying Rolfing is unsafe, and it's not refuting any studies that claim to prove Rolfing is safe. It's just simply saying there hasn't been sufficient study of clinical effectiveness, so there's no basis for using tax dollars to pay for Rolfing appointments.Greenriverglass (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed edit that more closely represents what the Australian source says about safety? The American Cancer Society source is also quite relevant. --Karinpower (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the report simply says there is not evidence for clinical efficacy. The cited website summary says there's not enough evidence to evaluate safety, quality, or cost effectiveness. The simplest summary of the report is something like "There is currently not enough evidence to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Rolfing." The citation in the article is very weird because it conflates the report with the website summary. That needs to be separated out.Greenriverglass (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I was messing around with the editing and I discovered that wikipedia builds in the lay summary option, so I guess it allows a certain amount of association. The question is how closely the lay summary follows the actual report.Greenriverglass (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Improve and remove unsubstantiated and biased statements about Rolfing.

Rolfing is not marketed with various unproven claims of various health benefits. That statement is untrue and has no evidence to back it up.

Ida does not ever talk about the human bodies "energy field" as is falsely stated. She was not woo woo. She had a PHD in Physiology and biochemistry.

The third false statement is that Rolfing claims to be effective in the treatment of any health condition. This statement is slander and has zero evidence to back it up.

The only quack here is the author who has been allowed to post these biased and untrue pseudoscientific statements.

My sources are years of practical experience and common sense.

The sources this quack cites are totally out of context and have no relation to content at all. They just sound fancy and have no foundation in truth.

Tatton Chantry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatton Chantry (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Rolfing is marketing with all kinds of fake claims. Please check the Talk page archive here to see this same point endlessly raised by drive-by Rolfer. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Changed some statements that were untrue and had a biased medical side to them. Rolfing does not make medical claims.

The first sentence of the article is not true. The statement is unsubstantiated and has no sources to back it up. Rolfing is not marketed as "alternative medicine". The author of this statement has given no source that makes such a claim. Therefore it should be stricken from the article.

Rolfing is not marketed with various claims of unproven health benefits. The author of the second sentence has given no source for such a claim. And therefore this statement should also be stricken from the article.

The third sentence in the article is also false and has zero evidence of sources to back it up. Ida never used the term (Body's "energy field". No such quote ever existed by Ida and if the author can not produce this quote from Ida the sentence also needs to be stricken from the article. Ida had a PHD's in both Physiology and Bio-Chemistry.

The next sentence says that "Studies have not proven that Rolfing is safe." Why is this statement allowed to stand when there are no studies that prove Rolfing is dangerous.

The first three paragraphs on Rolfing in WikiPedia are not based on facts and all the interpretations that have been stated in print are completely taken out of context and are therefore not reputable websites or other forms of media.

Unfortunately this will require some actual research by WikiPedia and not just taking my word for it.

Tatton Chantry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatton Chantry (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body. Since Rolfing is discussed in multiple publications focussing on alternative medicine, this is its natural classification. In the MeSH hierarchy it sits under E02.190[3] which is explicitly synonymous with "alternative medicine", in many countries it is bundled in AM insurance policies, and even some Rolfers sell their services calling it AM. So for a change there would need to be a very good source saying Rolfing wasn't AM. You need to read the sources to see you're wrong about the points your raise: for example Rolf said the "energy field" was part of the central concept of Rolfing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Knowledge vs Opinion

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.

---

I have made three different attempts to change one highly problematic sentence, and they have all been reverted with very flimsy reasoning. The latest revert makes no sense. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, so am posting here instead. However, the latest revert seems completely unjustified. I will undo that revert in a few days if an adequate response is not provided here.

The article lede section currently says: "The principles of Rolfing contradict established medical knowledge" while the referenced source says "…homeopathy, reflexology, rolfing (sic), macrobiotics, and spiritual healing, to name a few, embody interpretations of health, illness, and healing that are not only different from, but also at odds with conventional medical opinion."

I proposed that the word "knowledge" in the article lede be changed to "opinion," to better match the content and spirit of the cited source. Most recently I was reverted by user:Hipal with the comment "seems a POV and FRINGE problem." What seems a problem? And how is that justification of the revert? This revert makes no sense and requires a proper defense or I will un-revert it as noted above. Alternately, I invite anyone else, especially user:Hipal, to change the sentence in a similar manner, to remove the blatant misstatement/misinterpretation that currently stands. — Epastore (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body. This rolfing BS about alignment and energy fields etc. contradicts what is known about reality, as it supported throughout the article; and it's a fair summary. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the lede does not in this case summarize the body, as the body also talks about opinion not knowledge. Show me one example where the body says that Rolfing contradicts medical knowledge. You and the article claimn that Rolfing has opinions about energy fields, but not that there are medical facts that are specifically contradicted in the principles of Rolfing (as claimed in the lede). It is opinion that energy field statements are "BS," as you clearly exemplify.

Additionally, if what you are saying is true, then the cited source does not support the text it is cited to; so should be removed... right?

Also, I should note that your characterization of "Rolfing BS' is an example of the fallacy of appeal to ridicule. If your statements are true, you should not have to rely on fallacy to support them. — Epastore (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Rolfing is based on the unproven belief that such alignment results in improved movement"; or from Cordón (2005), "The idea of vital energy ... does not correspond to known facts of how the human body operates". Something based on "unproven beliefs" is, by definition, not based on knowledge. I would not be averse to amending the lede to saying Rolfing is based purely on nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Your example proves my point perfectly. "Unproven belief" is what you are referencing. Belief is opinion, not knowledge. "Unproven" is a statement of lack of knowledge, but is not a contradiction of knowledge.

You cite Cordón: "does not correspond to known facts." That does not say that it contradicts those facts. To contradict means to stand in opposition to. So if the rest of your claims hold, then we should change "contradicts" in the lede to "is not aligned with," correct?

Then you make that the claim that something based on beliefs is not based on knowledge. That could be true (though it would be an inductive fallacy to say that it is definitely true), but it does not mean that it contradicts another form of knowledge, in this case medical knowledge. So I still need an example to prove your point.

Concerning your suggestion of saying "Rolfing is based purely on nonsense?" Well that is the best example yet of the fallacy of appeal to ridicule, though also contains a hasty generalization. And incidentally it is not true. Wikipedia should not contain fallacious statements. — Epastore (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What we have is a fair summary. We could equally well have "has no correspondence with reality" or "... with medical knowledge". If sane sources ridicule Rolfing as quackery, Wikipedia will too. Sorry. Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have strongly refuted any defense of this particular wording and see no counter that stands. So no, we do not have a fair summary. Asserting it does not make it true (that would be the fallacy of proof by assertion.)

And regardless of your personal opinion, no, Wikipedia should not contain fallacies; and that includes the fallacy of appeal to ridicule. It perhaps may quote something using that fallacy; but should not present it outside of a quotation. You still are not defending the current wording. Unless better defense is presented, clearly my reverted edit must be restored. — Epastore (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a FRINGE and POV vio to take it out of the larger context and present it as "opinion" rather than "knowledge", though other wording might be worth discussing. --Hipal (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Take what out of the larger context? Present what? The word "opinion" is used in the cited source. It is POV and incorrect to change that word to "knowledge."

If other wording is worth discussing... please discuss. I have altered this sentence three times, and you (and others) have reverted without presenting alternate wording. — Epastore (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I came here because I saw the notice on Alexbrn's talk page. I agree with Hipal and Alexbrn. There is a phrase, particularly in legal language, about a "medical opinion". ("Dr. Farfangel, is it your medical opinion that the DNA evidence proves that the defendant was at the scene of the crime?") But there is medical knowledge that contradicts the claims of rolfing. There should be no false equivalence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You are expressing your point of view, which is understandable, but not the basis for Wikipedia content. As I just noted, the word "opinion" is what the cited source uses. All I am seeing in all of these replies are POV musings on why a cited source is incorrect. — Epastore (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I looked into what I could find online of the source and the author. I'm not disputing that it's a WP:RS, but it's important to consider what the source is, and what it isn't. The author focuses on writing about ways in which the medical establishment falls short. That's a reasonable and significant subject, but we have to be aware of it when making editorial decisions about whether or not to quote from it in a specific context. MOS:DOUBT applies here: we should not selectively pick a word that implies falsely that there is doubt. It's pretty easy to find one source and then say that we have to use a phrase used by that source, but there may be other sources that use different language.

Here, the source, as quoted in the footnote, is talking about "the meaning of 'alternative medicine' in this context", and goes on to say "Often scholars use the term to denote systems of healing that are... at odds with conventional medical opinion." Our sentence citing that source is about "The principles of Rolfing contradict established medical [knowledge/opinion]". That's a statement in Wikipedia's voice about what the preponderance of reliable sources say is factual, rather than about how a term (alternative medicine) has been employed by various commentators. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful and reasoned response! I can see the gist of your point, but I still see the clause as incorrect and included in an attempt to cast dispersions on the topic. So let's look at it more closely... can principles contradict knowledge? Principles are basically strongly-held opinions, are they not? Principles can be based on things that are known by others to not be true (eg medical knowledge) but I don't see how they can contradict them. So it makes sense they would contradict opinion rather than knowledge.

If this clause needs to exist at all (which I contend), then I would suggest the best formation, using genuinely true and non-derogatory language, would be: "The principles of Rolfing differ from those of medicine." Does anyone object to that sentence; and why? — Epastore (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit coy. There are known facts about the human body; there's Rolf's claims about the human body. The latter are wrong. Open to any wording that makes this plain! Alexbrn (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I can think of sentences such as "one of the core principles of algebra is (fill in the blank)". In such a case, it is not about an opinion, but rather more analogous to a "rule" of science or mathematics. It reminds me of the argument that, because people use the phrase "Darwin's theory of evolution", that evolution is supposedly just an unproven theory. Or "Einstein's theory of relativity". These are both things that the preponderance of reliable sources consider to be established scientific fact – or, if you will, "laws" of science. Certainly not just opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a valid argument, but you are using the word "principles" incorrectly. I believe the word that would fit in your sentence is "axioms" or perhaps "theorems" (sorry, I am not deep on mathematics nomenclature). A principle, as currently defined by Wikipedia, is "a proposition or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation." Much more like opinion than knowledge. I maintain my proposed revision. — Epastore (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Then let me refer you to Principle#As scientific law (as well as to WP:CIRC). I think that we are getting to the point where everyone here has responded to you multiple times, and you have not convinced anyone. We are probably at the point of a WP:CONSENSUS. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(In reply to User:Alexbrn, 3 paragraphs up) "The latter are wrong" is not a scientifically-based statement, and is an example of a modal fallacy (something which has not been proven true cannot be said to be categorically false). And as noted below, the very next sentence characterizes Rolfing as pseudoscience. Surely this is sufficient to alarm the reader, no? I continue to support my proposed encyclopedic language here, since it at least does not contain linguistic and factual errors. — Epastore (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Add me to the growing consensus opposed to changing "knowledge" to "opinion". I oppose any language that would dilute the central point that Rolfing is pseudoscience. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The language of the very next sentence is "It is recognized as a pseudoscience and has been characterized as quackery." Surely this sufficiently meets your standard of denigrating Rolfing and casting it in an unfavorable light, no? Is that truly the objective? To have an article with language that is so slanted as to remove any chance for reasoned consideration of the topic? I contend that it is still the overall spirit of Wikipedia to use neutral language and to present knowledge without interjecting opinion. I continue to maintain that the use of the word "knowledge" here is factually and linguistically incorrect. I have proposed an alternative wording and still do not see a valid objection.

Repeat for ease of reference... my currently-proposed revision is: "The principles of Rolfing differ from those of medicine."

(I find it curious that I must struggle so much to change one sentence. This isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia at all. Must every word be reviewed by committee before being accepted into the article?)— Epastore (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not interested in denigrating Rolfing. I am interested in accurately summarizing what reliable sources independent of Rolfing say about the topic. When you want to make a change to an article, and another editor objects to the change, then you need to gain consensus for your proposed change. That is one of the basic principles that has enabled Wikipedia to become the #7 website in the world, and #1 by far in originally written educational content. At this point, consensus seems to be trending against your change. So it goes. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Medical opinion was obviously bad (even if a source used it, Wikipedia has WP:GEVAL, WP:YESPOV), but something close to "established medical knowledge" would be "science". "Conventional medical opinion" was a bad choice of words in the source, but it seems to refer to scientific consensus in medicine and its terminology may be because it's common to say "consult for medical opinion"... —PaleoNeonate – 07:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

So what are you proposing? —Epastore (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

So do you have an opinion on better wording? Clearly the current wording is incorrect and does not accurately summarize anything, as principles are not about knowledge. Do you object to my above suggested wording (shown in bold), which tries to be accurate, grammatically correct, and encyclopedic in tone? And if you do object, do you have a better alternative to propose? —Epastore (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the point is nobody agrees this is "WP:CLEARLY" "incorrect". Time to drop the WP:STICK? Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "nobody agrees," as much as that there is heavy unreasonable opposition to making the article sensible. I cannot make any edit, no matter how sensible, without it being reverted without reasonable explanation. And it's fascinating how every time I asked "what are you proposing," I got no answer; and how often blatant fallacies were used to defend unreasonable arguments. I still firmly maintain that this article needs fixing, but I give up against the solid wall of unreasonability that is being presented in this discussion. Congratulations on making Wikipedia less than it could be. Peace. — Epastore (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2022 (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.