Talk:Postural Integration

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. This article has been marked as needing an infobox. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Hi Osioni, First of all, there should be a secondary source for that information, not the industry website. If secondary sources aren't talking about where it is practiced and taught, that information fails the "notability" test. WP:Notability PI is not currently being taught in the US. There is a teacher in the US, and I emailed her to check on US trainings to make sure I wasn't missing something. She confirmed that there have not been trainings in the US recently nor upcoming, and that there simply isn't much demand in terms of students. It appears that South Africa and Mexico each have a teacher as well; the presence of a teacher means that trainings *could* happen there, not that they do. The only locations that have trainings on the calendar are in Europe. So, an appropriate revision could be: "Postural Integration is taught primarily in Europe." I did not find a list of practitioners on the site so I can't begin to say where they do or don't practise, but unless practise is highly concentrated in certain countries, it doesn't warrant mentioning. So, an alternative edit would be "Postural Integration is taught and practised primarily in Europe." These two edit proposals still are a bit weak without an external source, but I think with this more limited scope they could stand with the website as the source for now. Let me know what you think of this, and/or make a counterproposal. If I don't hear back from you, I'll make the change and we can go from there. Other editors' opinions welcome too. Source: http://www.icpit.info/calendar.php

PS. I did add a secondary source to the references for this page. If a few other editors did the same, the article would be much stronger. The heavy reliance on Painter sources makes the subject seem not notable. Let's work together to help this article stand on its own feet - otherwise it risks drawing the attention of the infamous Skeptic editors who would happily rip into it. Browse the other altmed articles to see some examples of this. --Karinpower (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am inserting here Postural Integration section you deleted from your personal Talk page. Please clarify the question raised:

Hi, I followed up with the PI USA trainer representative about the picture you said was given of PI in that country because I have a relative in the States who earlier in the year told me about positive sessions or treatments he had in this method with a therapist there. So I took the liberty to ask the US trainer of PI there if PI had really faded away, quoting what you said the trainer had said who replied "I have no recollection nor record of communicating with a Karin Power or any Wikipedia representative. I don't know who she's referring to when she says "US trainer." If she did contact me under a fictitous name, I never said "that there isn't much demand in term of students". I could have said that I don't have a training planned at this time. If I don't have a training planned, I don't have to lie about it." The trainer asked me to have you contact her again for clarification. Perhaps you can kindly do this, thank you. Osioni (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, you have just deleted above section where a clarification is asked for because you have made a negative assessment of PI in the US on the Postural Integration Talk page. That is what you need to remove or correct in the first instance. The PI trainer in US whom I contacted and informed of what you put on the PI Talk page asks for a clarification from you. I said I would contact you first, because she wishes to contact you herself here on this page. Deleting it does not eliminate it from WP. I will copy it on to my page and the PI talk page. So please clarify whom you were in contact with. Thank you very much. Osioni (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osioni, let's get back to WP facts. My additional investigation into the existence (or not) of trainings would NOT have been sufficient evidence to state anything about it in the article - written sources would still be required. Currently the article is quite vulnerable due to the paucity of sources.... it would be valid to simply remove any material that doesn't have a worthy non-PI written reference. Then the article would be only a paragraph or two in length. I suggest you redirect your energy toward productive investigation of adequate sources. --Karinpower (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid Karin Power you are not aware of what you have done. Not only did you discredit yourself by deleting my query on your Talk page, but you have anonymously openly discredited the US PI trainer representative (who will also have a therapy practice) publicly on Wikipedia. I had no difficulty in tracing her through the primary link on the article page, which any other member of the American public can do, and she is understandably annoyed at the assertions. When I asked you if you would clarify the matter with her, you simply deleted the request uncommented. Fact is you leave that person discredited, which is totally unacceptable and inexcusable. What you alleged about her and PI in US was apparently a misconception, which prompts the question as to what agenda you follow? And you ask we return to "normal business" on that basis. Certainly not. You need to contact her again and clarify how you got the story wrong. Osioni (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osioni, first of all, I do not owe you anything, so please back off. Second, I didn't leave your post "uncommented" - I replied on your own talk page. Third, I did not "discredit" the PI trainer nor was there a misunderstanding, I simply repeated what she conveyed, which is that there hasn't been enough interest to run a training in the US recently. (I now regret mentioning my contact because you're focusing on that rather than the written sources.) Forth, I didn't mention WP when I contacted her; I asked her as a member of the public. Not that that matters - remember, all that matters is written sources. Fifth, my "agenda" is to improve the quality of alternative medicine on WP - currently many articles lack adequate sources and we can increase the footing of all of altmed by improving that, article by article. So let's engage constructively rather than bickering on a point that is moot. I'm done discussing this. --Karinpower (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to go with what you suggest, however my research shows that the trainers in South Africa and Mexico are certainly active trainers. Some trainers such the one you contacted in America, do pause at times as they may also have a general therapy practise with clients to attend to. However what needs to be taken into consideration is that three or four year trainings in Postural Integration or similar methods do not always run concurrently. It may take several foundation or introductory workshops to gather ten or sixteen suitable candidates for a training, which are usually quite intensive. As far as practitioners are concerned, my research estimates that over the past twenty or more years certainly two to three thousand practitioners have been certified in this method in Europe and the Americas. As with most methods in the area of alternative holistic bodywork, practitioners will seldom if ever use the methods they are certified in as the sole title of their practise. They will also have qualified in a number of complimentary methods such as NLP, Gestalt, EMDR, Aromatherapy or Hypnotherapy, so that for their portfolio of different complimentary methods, they might use for example such a title as "Practise or Practitioner for Psychodynamic Bodymind-Therapy, or for Therapeutic Deep-Bodywork", mentioning the methods in their flyer. Therefore you would have difficulty seeking practitioners who only call themselves a practitioner in Postural Integration or for Hakomi, Trager approach, Somatic Experiencing, Rosen Method Bodywork, Bioenergetic analysis or the Gerda Boyesen Method, just to mention a few of a string of methods in the field of alternative medicine, which names may mean little to the general public. But why the focus on Postural Integration? Many other methods have credentials of a similar nature (see Franklin Method, Metamorphic Technique or Vegetotherapy).

As far the question of primary and secondary sources are concerned (I fully understand what you are asking for) the difficulty is that applying the scientific matrix used in the classical medical or pharmaceutical world of trials by independent sources with control groups to prove the effectivity of alternative holistic therapy methods, cannot be come by, simply because independent sources are generally not interested in confirming the effectiveness of these methods. The ultimate secondary source is the public acceptance of these methods for not alone successfully relieving ailments that could not otherwise be treated by conventional medicine but also for the accompanying added benefit of positive self-realisation. Hoping I have contributed to clarifying the issues raised and thank you for taking an interest in improving the page. Osioni (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Let me clarify, there's a big difference between MEDRS quality scientific studies (these are necessary to make health claims on WP) and using quality *secondary* sources for descriptive information about a topic (even an alt med topic). Many alt med topics do not have good enough sources to make health claims, yet the descriptive information about the source comes from sources outside of that field, preferably ones who are double-checking their facts, comparing various primary sources to see if they are consistent, and so forth. For bodywork therapies, a great type of source would be a book that reviews and summarizes a dozen or so modalities. Also a mainstream publisher is preferable. See Knaster, the source I added a few weeks ago. This book reviews many modalities, some with long sections, and PI got less than a page, FYI. I have looked at a number of these books seeking material to add to WP and haven't seen PI in the others. But you seem quite motivated, perhaps you'll be able to find some. I suggest going to amazon and searching for postural integration to see what you come up with. Then you can use "search in book" (if available) to see if it's just a brief mention, or if there is quotable material. Only by adding some secondary sourcing can these problems with the article be remedied.

Speaking of sources needed, I just noticed that you removed the "citation needed" tags that I put in without providing adequate sourcing. For one, you added another Painter reference, and another was just deleted. I hadn't been watching particularly closely but your recent edits prompted me to scroll back through the past month of history. It's worth knowing that making edits, especially with a strong agenda, will attract attention. Time to start stepping a bit more carefully. If you are feeling ambitious, you can learn a lot from reading the talk pages of other alt med topics (including Metamorphosis Technique - you'll see I had already posted there about the lack of secondary sources - thanks for the heads up about the other topics; I will take a look). If you take a look, you'll find that some topics are heavily watched and monitored by the "Skeptic" editors that patrol many of these pages, while others such as PI have mostly avoided their notice thus far. I am not one of those editors, by the way. I'm in favor of encyclopedic quality entries for alt med, to help give them credibility. So if I seem like a stickler, it's for the common good.

Regarding locating practitioners, google doesn't lie. If PI is mentioned on a practitioner's website, it will come up, even if they also practice other methods. There are simply not many PI practitioners to be found in the US. "Your research" estimates 2000+ practitioners have been trained. What source tells you this - the PI organization? How many of these are still practicing? What I suggest you look for is a published source, within the past 10 years, that states something about practice and/or training. I hope this is more clear and provides a possible path forward for your efforts. --Karinpower (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you wish to achieve a fair appraisal of this page, but I cannot agree with the removal of Painter’s manual as a primary reference when it clearly states that certain contents are part of the method he developed. I note however that another secondary source other than myself should verify this, which is rather strange.

It was never indicated Google could lie in the English/American language version. The numbers I traced as having completed a PI training over years included Europe, where the foreign language term “Postural Integration” is seldom used, instead some term adapted to the local language. For example in Italy Integrazione Posturale, in the German language countries Posturale Integration or perhaps in the middle of other methods Posturale Integration , in France as Integration Posturale, in the Benelux areas trained as one of several complimentary methods under the term Bodymind Integration and finally in the UK it is taught and practised under the term Deep Bodywork or Creative Bodywork]. I trust all the links work (or I’ll fix them).

I will not spend much time putting up a case here or elsewhere, my time is short and valuable. I accept where you are coming from. Fact is that apart from training institutes, most practitioners do not have a web site. From what I have found out they use printed flyers put out in their local health stores or community centres, ads in health magazines or local newssheets. Above all they exist on personal recommendations. This whole area of alternative health and medicine methods would have ceased to exist long ago if they were not effective in the market place, the most testing of all secondary sources, for the many cases where classical medical methods failed to relieve a client’s ailment or incapacities. None the less I will continue to keep an eye out for other wiki-acceptable secondary sources. Greetings, Osioni (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding validation, I have come across an article which confirms that Psychotherapeutic Postural Integration (PPI) has been scientifically validated (see p.3) by the European Association for Psychotherapy (EAP) by secondary source author Courtnay Young. This surely could only have happened after the basic module Postural Integration had first been approved and validated by them as a recognised body-therapy method. Osioni (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I believe I see the point of confusion. "Secondary source" has a very specific definition..... it's an objective, printed source that have researched and evaluated other sources and offers statements that have a greater degree of reliability than a "primary source." Painter is a primary source. Encyclopedic writing is based on secondary sources. Painter's manual can be referenced, of course, but all the material in the article should be based on what's printed in secondary sources. If secondary sources don't write about it, it's not "notable" (significant enough to the non-PI world). The number and location of practitioners is just one example, but there are many places that the article needs secondary sources or those statements are subject to removal. I've been working to provide better secondary sources for Rolfing, Myofascial Release, Lomi Lomi and others. I'm still a fairly new WP editor, with only 3 months under my belt, and I've had to learn a lot about what edits are appropriate and how to truly improve pages. See WP:PRIMARY for more info.

(So, to be clear, our little back-and-forth about googling to find practitioners is not very key to this article - I was only trying to make the point that PI has faded away in the US.)

The explanations and links I offered are very comprehensive and valid for Europe. I discovered the EABP and the EAP are here in Europe obsolutely independent authoritive and officially recognised assessment bodies. They represent higher secondary source standards than any book. I understand that by scientifically validating PPI they first evaluated PI as a method. This evaluation I found, took two years of scrutiny by their official representatives in PI/PPI training centres. It appears nobody here in Europe would for a moment question their independent findings and validation. They are unquestionably reliable secondary sources. Good you are trying to provide better secondary sources for the methods you mention, it might indeed also support this page as they have commonalities, but they have no EABP or EAP recognition which is a drawback. Please research on the EABP and EAP as first class secondary source bodies. It would also help work on other pages, quite a few of which have EABP/EAP validation, this I saw in the article I linked above.Osioni (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my comment was unclear; I typed it out before your followup comment about EAP was posted. I haven't looked into the EAP stuff and I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable evaluating whether it's WP-worthy or not; I'll leave that up to more experienced editors. I was simply explaining why Painter sources are weak sources for the article. Hope that clarifies.--Karinpower (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, hello!! Re your unexplained and baffling edits and deletions of perfectly legitimate sourced texts. Seeing you come from an acclaimed medical background, I wonder your involvement with a physio-therapy page not related to the medical world? This is NOT a medicine method. In advance of reinstating some texts you deleted I wish to avoid an edit war. I strive in the Wikipedia towards reaching respectful consensus and compromise. I left your inclusion of an US quackery definition which, in the European world, could never apply. Nor do we call any field of body-oriented therapy “alternative medicine” as in the US. They are “Complimentary Methods” MDs here will recommend for specific ailments not requiring medical interventions. Or they practice them themselves (TCM, Ayurveda, Acupuncture etc.) some of which are covered by EU health systems. The point being, this page may not just one-sidedly reflect the US worldview. Your recently inserted led texts are nonsense, WP is NOT for Nonsense, nowhere does this method purport to “draw on energy” nor be primarily past or mother-earth oriented? All fantasy! Where are the qualified secondary ref/sources? Permissible EU secondary sourced texts may not be deleted on the ground they are “not medical”. This is not a medical method!! Let’s at least agree on that! Osioni (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The product purports to have a biomedical effect so fall under WP:MEDRS. The quotation about energy is sourced to Quackwatch which, being independent, is probably the best source we have in the article. If you want more views, there is currently a thread at WP:FTN#Postural Integration. Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add useful hints for studies on the topic. Why was this deleted immediately? This was the recommendation: 'There have been three published case studies about the work of postural integration in a book from scientific research of EABP.<ref>Schlage, Bernhard (2018), 3 case studys about body psychotherapy; in: Young, Courtenay (editor); The Body Psychotherapy Case Studys; Body Psychotherapy Publications, 60 Earlston Road, Stow, Scottish Borders, Scotland UK, TD1 2QT pp. 89 - 114<ref>' Oolivers (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:NOT Wikipedia's purpose to host "useful hints for studies". Rather articles should provide a summary of accepted knowledge on topics, as (generally) found in respectable, high-quality, independent sources. The basis of articles should be WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]