Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qazwsxedcplokmijnuhb (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 27 February 2014 (→therapies "discredited" by quackwatch are actually promoted by mainstream health organizations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled section

I am working on making a proper article for this fairly well-known type of bodywork.. If anyone has any specific suggestions on what needs to be added, any help is greatly appreciated. Please don't delete this article yet. Thank you. Etolpygo (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal notice

The following message has been left on my Talk page about some recent edits here:

we are the attorneys who handle the intellectual property for the Rosen Institute. We would like to get across the message that not just anyone can call themselves Rosen Method practitioners. One must meet the certification criteria and be certified by the Rosen Institute before calling themselves a Rosen Method bodyworker. If we leave out the IP information, is it ok to state what is required to call oneself a Rosen Method bodyworker? Ebaypi (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering what - if anything - enyclopedic can come of this? Alexbrn 16:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism must be included

...per WP:PSCI, which encompasses both fringe- and pseudoscience claims. Purported outcomes of the Rosen Method cannot be reported as fact. Hope the warring stops. Cheers, vzaak 23:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

well, it really depends on the kind of criticism

Sure enough, criticism can be included. But Quackwatch? Just an angry opinion of some M.D. who's on a life mission to discredit alternative therapies. Please find better sources. Until then, erasing again. etolpygo 13:22, 28 January 2014 (PDT)

Quackwatch is established RS for altmed topics. Maybe check out the WP:RS/N archives ... Alexbrn 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

therapies "discredited" by quackwatch are actually promoted by mainstream health organizations

For example, Kaiser permanente offers qigong classes and approves insurance coverage for specific uses of acupuncture. Surely that's information enough to understand that a significant portion of the tripe contained in quackwatch should be taken with about a pound of salt. etolpygo 11:52, 24 February 2014 (PDT)

Quackwatch is RS for fringe/altmed topics, and has been found to be so many times at WP:RS/N. You can get homeopathy on the NHS; doesn't mean it's not garbage! Alexbrn 20:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what's it to you. I am trying to make this page as encyclopeadic as possible, using available sources. This is obviously not a mainstream therapy, so not that many reputable sources are available, but neither is it quackery, despite what some angry MD somewhere might think. etolpygo 13:00, 24 February 2014 (PDT)

The article didn't describe it as quackery. We must use reliable sources and not pro-Rosen publications that give inaccurate non-neutral information. Alexbrn 21:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

None of the references (references, not external links) I cited are explicitly pro-Rosen. If you insist on the quackwatch references, others I posted recently must stay as well. etolpygo 13:26, 24 February 2014 (PDT)

Sources must be independent of anything Rosen as set out in WP:FRINGE; any biomedical claims (such as you have added) need to be backed by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Alexbrn 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also Quackwatch is frequently used as a WP:RS for alternative medicine articles - remember that it isn't the job of Misplaced Pages to present truth - just reliable information. And Quackwatch is reliable as a source of critique of alternative practice. To exclude it in an article like this invites WP:NPOV issues. Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I made absolutely no biomedical claims. I have cited articles in peer-reviewed journals that document therapeutic benefits. They are independent of anything Rosen. I have left your Quackwatch references in. I don't understand why you reverted my changes YET AGAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etolpygo (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rosen Method Bodywork: Practice and Science is not an independent or reliable source; PMID 24000305 is a primary source in a fringe journal, so no good either. Alexbrn 21:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Somatics journal also does not appear to be a WP:RS - rather it seems like a WP:FRINGE publication. Simonm223 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not make a single scientific claim; all I was doing was describing the method's intent and purposes. I listed peer-reviewed journal articles that have attempted to study whether the method has any effectiveness in any of the looked at criteria. There is no scientific "theory" to call "fringe". Etolpygo (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Stub-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Unassessed Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles