Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for Text Addition to Opening Section Paragraph 2[edit]

In the sentence “Advocates claim that the technique may be used to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders, and as a simple form of self-administered therapy,” please insert "including PTSD" after "disorders," with a new footnote. The sentence would thus read: “Advocates claim that the technique may be used to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders, including PTSD,[1] and as a simple form of self-administered therapy.”[2] Here is the new footnote: Newhouse, Eric. (2012). “PTSD energy therapies: Energy therapies can defuse bad memories.” Psychology Today, February 13, 2012. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/invisible-wounds/201202/ptsd-energy-therapies. Note that Eric Newhouse is not an EFT practitioner or trainer but rather a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist and author of the book Faces of Combat: PTSD and TBI. --Charlottechloe (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer on this request. --Charlottechloe (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead is already clear that EFT advocates present claims of effectiveness against a wide range of disorders, none of which are supported by scientific evidence. There would be no benefit to the article to begin to list these many unsupported claims by name, as though one such claim were more or less significant than others, even if the reference was acceptable for such a thing. So no, I don't believe we should add this, or anything similar for other specific claims. The existing sentence is perfectly clear. Thanks. Begoontalk 12:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I raised the issue of PTSD because, contrary to your statement, there is a body of research on the use of EFT for this disorder. For the entry not to refer to recent research leaves it out of date. And the reference I’m giving you is a legitimate secondary source, not a primary research source. I repeat my request for its inclusion. --Charlottechloe (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

PTSD is clearly falls into "a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders"; as such, it is not "out of date" to not include a specific mention of it. As there is no MEDRS compliant sources that has found EFT as an effective treatment for anything, I agree with Begoon that singling PTSD out is not an improement. A "blog" by a journalist on psychology today is not a MEDRS compliant source. Yobol (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

By "out of date," I was referring to the EFT page not citing any of the recent research on EFT. I was not referring to PTSD alone. I raised this in response to the incorrect statement by Begoon that there is no scientific evidence. There are dozens of new research studies, published in sources recognized by MEDRS. These include at least 7 double-blind randomized controlled (scientific gold standard) trials. I have given you a reliable secondary source for this evidence. As I said, the author of this secondary source could only be considered a qualified source. When I have raised objections to the sources you allow, such as the newspaper column by Burkeman, which is the equivalent of a blog, you have said those sources are fine. I hold to my request as a way of referring to at least some of the research. What's the big deal? Let's add PTSD. --Charlottechloe (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no good studies showing it is efficacious, per our guidelines. Primary studies do not meet MEDRS, blogs by journalist do not meet MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A blog by a journalist is only an online version of a newspaper opinion column. Newhouse's blog is not a personal blog but rather a blog for Psychology Today. You are applying WP rules selectively. One of my first requests for changes on this page was to eliminate footnote 2 because it cites Oliver Burkeman's column in the Guardian--an opinion piece with little substance. This was refused. If you accept Burkeman (and the Guardian), why not Newhouse (and Psychology Today) who is far better qualified as a source via personal and professional experience? --Charlottechloe (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response to the above. --Charlottechloe (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The ref to Burkeman has already been removed. Blogs do not meed WP:MEDRS in general, no matter the format or platform. Yobol (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Horribly biased[edit]

Claims EFT is KNOWN to be ineffective. This is slander. Lack of scientific proof of efficacy does not mean scientific proof of lack of efficacy! And science doesn't have all the answers --Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Slander" it's not, and the content seems well sourced. Science may not have all the answers but we summarize what it has to say anyway. Zad68 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We should strive for neutrality. Tone of argument and claims made read like "Skeptics' Dictionary", not Wikipedia. --Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We do indeed strive for neutrality - check the archives of this talk page to see the huge amount of discussion there has been here in order to reach the present, neutral, well supported article. The article reflects the current views in reliable sources and scholarship (WP:MEDRS). Neutrality doesn't mean giving equal weight to fringe and unsupported views - see WP:GEVAL. If the mainstream, scientifically supported view of a fringe idea is healthy skepticism, or the idea has no reliable support, then that is what a reader of an encyclopedia article should learn from it. This is especially important in medical related articles, where misleading the reader could be particularly problematical. If you're aware, though, of any reliable sources, not covered here, which could be used to improve the article, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Begoontalk 16:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here is a reliable source that meets the MEDRS criteria. I request that you replace paragraph 2 of Research Quality with this: “In a 2014 review of existing research, psychiatrist Daniel J. Benor, MD, states: ‘Research confirms that many of the EP [energy psychology] methods are helpful for dealing with stress …, anxieties …, phobias …, PTSD …, pains …, food cravings.’; 17 of the 25 studies cited were of EFT." Add footnote: [1] McCaslin is not a qualified source (details in my April 15, 2014 post re Request for Change in Research Section). Benor is, and offers an up-to-date review of the literature. --Charlottechloe (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Benor DJ (2014). "Energy psychology practices and theories of new combinations of psychotherapy". Curr. Res. Psychol. 5 (1): 1–18. doi:10.3844/crpsp.2014.1.18. 
Yet another article, written by someone who makes money from promoting EFT, this time published in a journal by the publisher Science Publications, that publishes predatory journals. No, I do not think we will be adding this, as it is not reliable per WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
let's not get our panties twisted - almost everybody practicing medicine and publishing on medicine makes money doing so (well most people anyways) this stuff usually cuts both ways.-- (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Benor is a psychiatrist. One of the methods he uses in his practice is EFT. I maintain that saying he makes money from EFT is equivalent to saying psychiatrists make money from the pharmaceuticals they dispense. Why then are studies of prescription drugs acceptable and Benor's review of EFT literature is not? --Charlottechloe (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Except that we have independent sources to evaluate pharmaceuticals (independent evaluation by sources like Cochrane review or the WHO/CDC etc), and we have no independent sources that do not stand to make money off a WP:FRINGE therapy. You have, of course, ignored the fact that this study was published by a predatory publisher and therefore fails MEDRS and therefore cannot be used as a source to say EFT works. Yobol (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of 2013 review[edit]

Not sure why this ref was removed [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

the reason why I removed it is stated in the comment = it does not follow WP: Lead section
"summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" summarize is the same thing as elaborate.
@ Doc James : I have one more question - the article has been semi protected by yourself - is that correct ?-- (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Citing WP:LEAD is a particularly puzzling reason to remove the material. The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, including points raised in the article such as the reception, and removal of the material creates, rather than fixes, as a WP:LEAD problem by removing material that needs to be summarized in the lead to give an accurate summary of the article. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi protection[edit]

Do people feel that this article should be un semi protected? Expecially with this [2] being recently published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

that is the wrong question - the question is : was there a reason the reason to protect the article since February 2013 and how does that reflect on wikipedia?-- (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed the editing in the weeks leading up to the article's protection and there's justification for the protection. How does that reflect on Wikipedia? It reflects on Wikipedia by highlighting the fact that Wikipedia editors are volunteers with a finite amount of time and energy to deal with WP:SPAs and spammers... I don't think it reflects badly on Wikipedia. Any IP editor can create an account, get auto-confirmed, and make edits. Any IP editor can suggest good-quality edits that use reliable sourcing and respect Wikipedia's content policies, and see their suggestions implemented. This article is subject to WP:ARBPS arbitration remedies, it's a really bad place for new editors who haven't learned the ropes yet to make lots of mistakes. And as Doc James pointed out there is off-Wiki activity pointing to the editing of this article, protection is intended to prevent disruption and things like that support the continued use of protection for the purpose of preventing disruption. Zad68 20:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No, semi protection is justified due to the persistent and chronic nature of the off-wiki promotional campaign to change this article. A review of the editing history on this page shows numerous new accounts who have disrupted this article before semiprotection was placed. Yobol (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"semi protection is justified due to the persistent and chronic nature of the off-wiki promotional campaign to change this article" no it is not ... the reasons to protect pages are rather concise and a "off-wiki promotional campaign" is not exactly part of it ;) - nice try though. I think most of this is actually homemade. None of Non-English articles seems to have similar "problems". (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
ChristophThomas see the policy here; and if you want to appeal the protection, the place to do it is: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Please let us know if you file there. Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection >> exactly my point - and no thank you - you seem to enjoy playing your little war against the evil oppressors of truth too much ;). If you want the "vandalism" to stop - just remove the provocative name calling (pseudo% ... placebo ... hodgepodge) and replace it with facts ("the therapeutic effect is disputed" - or "there is no study that shows ...") - at least in the Lead section. But I am certainly not going to do that for you. (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If it is widely characterized as pseudoscience, we need to summarize it appropriately as pseudoscience in the lead per WP:LEAD. Yobol (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
EFT is literally the definition of pseudoscience ;) -- (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that, but we seem to be headed off a tangent of the purpose of this section...Yobol (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable sources[edit]

Why are Quackwatch and Skeptical Enquirer used as sources in an article that deals with mental health. A health related article whatever our opinions about what is being described and its perceived usefulness falls under MEDRS. Either our health related articles fall under MEDRS or they don't but consistency is necessary.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

I'd add that unless there is some good reason for using these sources in this article they should be removed. Using such sources does not lend credibility to our articles.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

The more I look the more surprised I am. Why was this article protected by an admin who is clearly involved in editing the article? That seems highly irregular per WP. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

you have been around long enough, littleolive, that you must know the answer you are going to get verbatim by now. Three main answers: 1) Mainstream scientists don't devote much of their energy to investigating FRINGE-y ideas; 2) journals don't readily accept manuscripts with negative results (which is the most likely outcome of most fringe ideas) which is why mainstream scientists don't spend time on them - they are unlikely to be able to publish and they need to; 3) QW and SE are well established publications im which fringe ideas are discussed by mainstream scientists, and we use them all the time. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, WP:PARITY is the relevant guideline here. Both these sources are "notable" (not in the Wiki sense but in the general sense) skeptical sources, and are clearly in-text attributed. Yobol (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Guys you're wrong in my opinion. I've been around long enough to see what's going on, on this article. QW and SI are not compliant per MEDRS, the overriding principle on an health related article. Simple. And Doc James should not be protecting an article he his editing.Simple. We don't get to skew the rules to suit a POV on an article and that's what I see here. I have no opinion of this "technique" But the article is and sounds absurd on an encyclopedia that purports to support good mainstream science. Now I have to think what to do . Maybe nothing. But please do not suggest I should accept what is going on here because it goes on all over Wikipedia. The article is rubbish because it depends on such sources. And frankly any reader with an iota of intelligence will turn away as soon as these sources appear on their screens. If you want to describe a technique that is not useful, well, you're shooting yourselves in the foot.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
Which exact statements in the article are you concerned are Wikipedia making health claims based on sources failing WP:MEDRS? Also you haven't addressed the point raised regarding why it's unreasonable to expect authoritative academic sources to cover this topic seriously, which is often why we use sources like QW and SI, with in-line attribution. Zad68
(edit conflict) As others have noted, WP:PARITY was designed to cover exactly this sort of situation. And really, it's just common sense. It's pointless (or WP:POINTy) to demand WP:MEDRS-top-quality sources in an article about an obscure, arguably pseudoscientific fringe subject. For these sorts of subjects, both Quackwatch and the Skeptical Inquirer are reasonably well-established as reliable-but-opinionated sources, and they are cited here with proper in-text attribution. As for the article protection, it's been semi'd for a long time and I think it would be reasonable to unprotect it, probably through a request at WP:RFPP. Your complaints about James (whom you forgot to notify, incidentally) would have to pursued in other venues. MastCell Talk 18:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Adding: I reviewed the editing history of both the article and the Talk page and I did not see Doc James significantly involved in the content in the time leading up to the article protection. He's made a few edits and comments since then, though. Zad68 18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not suggest unprotecting; I'm saying an involved admin, any involvemnt in a contentious article should not be protecting. Does anyone disagree with that? Are there other admins on WP who could have protected this article? I apologize to James for not notifying him ; I have been discussed in many conversations and never notified so did not realize this was necessary unless in an AN/AN/arbitration environment. Further James has made it clear he does not welcome me on his talk page. I did not mean to slight anyone here. I'm afraid there is a gross inconsistency in the use of MEDRS on Wikipedia dependent on who refers to it and how they feel about the topic. I stand by my comments; the article reads like rubbish and in no way sounds academic/scientific. Since there is an obvious consensus to use QW and SD and I didn't expect anything else, I leave you to it. I was voicing a concern which I still have but frankly Its not worth a fight. Best wishes all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

Apology[edit]

I want to apologize for my comments in calling this article rubbish. I had read an off-line article about the article and came to see what the fuss was about. I am also frustrated by the uneven use of MEDRS on Wikipedia a guide which I very much support. The use of two non MEDRS sources seemed glaring to me and seemed to colour the article. I did not mean to insult those who have worked hard on any part of this article, but realize now the comment I made did. There was no good reason to use the word rubbish, in any event. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

that is very gracious of you. thank you. sorry for your frustration. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Yobol (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)