14 June 2014 UTC The question still remains are these sources practitioners proponents advocates attempting to create a distinction for what they seek to promote An independent source providing a summary carries more weight than a primary source giving details of something it seeks to promote I think the underlying question is although Rolfing SI falls within the broad definition of massage therapy is there a more narrow definition that is appropriate under which Rolfing SI would not be considered massage therapy Is there a high quality source that speaks to this Or only Rolfing advocates seeking to set themselves apart 05 57