, 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