Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

"Pseudoscience" section

Pseudoscience is a WP:LABEL. It requires very strong sourcing to declare a scientific theory as pseudoscience. EMDR has lots of scientific backing, and so two twenty-year old sources and a professional opinion do not qualify to describe it as that. There are more and better sources linked for just the eye movement portion than were linked in that entire section, so there clearly isn't the appropriate WP:WEIGHT to describe it as such.

Frankly the entire criticism section is problematic. There are already criticisms integrated into the "mechanism" section, like they ordinarily should be. Every subsection of the criticism section relies on only a handful of poor sources (one section is sourced to just one Scientific American article, for instance). It's probably justified to just nuke all of it, frankly.

I'm pinging Bon_courage because they recently reverted me on this. Loki (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing seems fine. Anything that says it ain't PS? Bon courage (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh, the giant list of sources in the article, such as:

• This Cochrane review
• This other systemic review
• This other *other* systemic review
• This meta-analysis specifically about the eye movement part
• This other meta-analysis
• The WHO practice guidelines
• The APA practice guidelines
• And a bunch more, these are just the highest quality ones I could pick out.

Loki (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Do any of those consider the pseudoscience question? Loads of pseudosciences have these kinds of academic accretions. Classically, homeopathy. If in doubt, I suggest raise this at WP:FT/N (again?) Bon courage (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Homeopathy has a (famously gun-shy) Cochrane review supporting it? News to me! Loki (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Cochrane doesn't 'support' it: all the evidence, it says, is of 'very low quality'. And yes, Cochrane still churns out homeopathy reviews. They're uncertain whether homeopathy is effective for IBS, for example.[1] Of course we get homeopathists saying this proves homeopathy isn't pseudoscience. But all it proves is that Cochrane reviews often consider pseudoscientific interventions without discrimination. Bon courage (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly Cochrane did note the evidence was low quality, but it's pretty rare for them to say something like This evidence showed that individual TFCBT and EMDR did better than waitlist/usual care in reducing clinician‐assessed PTSD symptoms. They're famously gun-shy, as your homeopathy link proves.

But if you won't accept Cochrane, what about the WHO and APA? They both say EMDR is effective for PTSD.

Basically I feel like you're ignoring WP:V to try and stand a few weak sources above all the other sources in the article. We already describe the real controversy about EMDR (namely, that the evidence for the eye movement stuff specifically is not strong) elsewhere in the article. We don't need to have a whole section describing it as pseudoscientific as a whole as well, because it's manifestly not. Loki (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Just follow the sources. Are there ones we're missing that address the pseudoscience categorization? Bon courage (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

All the ones that are scientific support for EMDR (which is to say, most of the sources in the article) address it.

I feel like we're talking in circles here, so I'm going to bring this over to WP:DRN. Loki (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems premature. Will decline to participate. Would be happy to see some discussion at WP:FT/N to widen the viewpoints gathered. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I refuse to take this to FTN because I don't believe it's a fringe theory. I'm happy to take it to WP:NPOVN, however. Loki (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

At FTN you'll get told whether or not it's fringe. It's been discussed there multiple times before. At least you now have put your personal POV on the table. Me, I'll follow the sources, wherever they lead. (ADD. Anyway, I've saved you the trouble: see WP:FT/N#EMDR.) Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Is EMDR pseudoscience?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which best describes the state of the research into EMDR:

• A. EMDR is well-supported by evidence and not pseudoscience.
• B. EMDR is not pseudoscience, but parts of it are not supported by evidence.
• C. Parts of EMDR are pseudoscientific, but not all of it.
• D. EMDR is pseudoscience.

Loki (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• A or B: There's lots of evidence for the effectiveness of EMDR in PTSD, including several large meta-analyses, and many recommendations by professional organizations. The evidence for its effectiveness for other conditions is a little weaker, and the evidence that the eye movement part of EMDR is a significant part of its effectiveness is weaker still, to the point that it's still in active dispute. But no part of that means that EMDR is pseudoscientific in any way. That allegation comes from a handful of die-hard critics of EMDR that originally made it in the 90s and 2000s when the evidence base was much less robust, a few of whom still refuse to give it up despite increasing amounts of evidence for it. Loki (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  That would be a total violation of NPOV. You simply cannot say "EMDR is not pseudoscience" when NO source says this any may sources say the opposite. This seems like either trolling or a WP:CIR problem. I would support a block/TBAN for this editor. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Many sources say "EMDR is not pseudoscience" through the mechanism of doing science about it. It's very rare in any situation for a source to explicitly say that something is not pseudoscience, and so that is not and never has been the standard Wikipedia has for these situations. I understand that you disagree with this argument but, frankly, I don't need to WP:SATISFY you on this point and would like you to refrain from WP:BLUDGEONING. You only need to say what you have to say once, not everywhere. Loki (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• None of the above. EMDR has been characterized as pseudoscience in whole and in part. These subtle distinctions need to be apparent. Follow the sources to achieve WP:NPOV rather than trying to shoehorn things into reductive pre-conceived editorial silos. Bon courage (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Other. Taking a well known scientific treatment and adding pseudo-scientific tinsel on top leads to something that is both effective and pseudoscience. This has been explained to the RFC poster at length at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#EMDR. Looking at studies that show that EMDR is better than nothing (or even various other weakly effective treatments) and twisting that to mean it isn't pseudoscience as the OP does is WP:OR, pure and simple. But even so, the current position of the article is not represented in this RFC, which states that it has been characterized as a pseudoscience which is a weaker statement than is contemplated here. - MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have a phrasing for an option you would like me to add? Loki (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also, a quick note: the reason the question is phrased as it is is that the edits being made to this page that I objected to were stuff like adding it to the category "pseudoscience", and asserting that it's considered pseudoscience in Wikivoice. The yes-or-no "is this pseudoscience" framing here is not mine, I've tried to break out as many subcategories as I can. Loki (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Other and None of the above. -Roxy the dog 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain your reasoning please? Loki (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Status quo looks good. It's not syntactically proper to say that EMDR is pseudoscience, but the various 'theories' promoted to explain it certainly are pseudoscientific. Feoffer (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not sure which option best encapsulates this, but I support the status quo, which includes the section §Pseudoscience and the line "EMDR has been characterized as pseudoscience, because the underlying theory is unfalsifiable." I think there are improvements to be made, but they don't align well with either having to declare EMDR (or parts of it) as pseudoscience or having to remove all mention of pseudoscience. By "status quo", I mean the status quo ante, before the recent content dispute (something lik this version. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC) underlined content added 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Question to you and Feoffer: is the option you're looking for something along the lines of Some researchers have characterized EMDR or parts of it as pseudoscientific, but not enough to describe it as pseudoscientific in Wikivoice? Or no? Loki (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone really pitch the case for a wikivoice statement that EMDR is pseudoscientific, so I don't feel ready to weigh in on that question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can say a 'practice' is pseudoscientific, but the theories and claims certainly are. At the same time, there's nothing at all pseudoscientific about the legitimate research that have tried to estimate effects of the practices, if any, or theory that any effect derives from known mechanisms already present in exposure therapy. Feoffer (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, the practice of pseudoscience is usually called quackery, a different thing. So whether EMDR practice is quackery would be a different question. Bon courage (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree! If there are RSes accusing EMDR practice of being 'quackery', I certainly wouldn't object to including such a attributed quote to that effect. It is on QuackWatch, after all... At best, EMDR would be like osteopathic manual therapy or chiropractic adjustments; Something born out of pseudoscientific folk practice that may have accidentally had a very limited utility for reasons entirely coincidental to the false (if not unfalsifiable) theories that initially inspired it. Assuming sources exist to support it, there's no doubt readers should be warned about EMDR's deceptively scientific name, for example. FRINGE and Category:Pseudoscience are very relevant on this article. Feoffer (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Other and None of the above...So each of the choices seem to mention pseudoscience, while none of the current RS I've found seem to mention that term, including these NYT, Journal of Neurology & Neuromedicine, Cambridge.org...DN (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Could you offer a phrasing for your "other"? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That there's no sourcing for the claim that it's pseudoscience? That there's no sourcing either way? Loki (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • NYT is lay press
  • The Journal of Neurology & Neuromedicine is predatory junk
  • For a discussion of pseudoscience from a CUP publication, see [2]. Bon courage (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  JNeurology&Neuromedicine is not a reliable source, and NYT and Cambridge.org are not WP:MEDRS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• None of the above capture the essence of WP:FRINGE/QS that EMDR seems to fit into: hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific. My preferred version would be not to unambiguously state that it is pseudoscientific, rather to describe the notable critique that believe it is pseudoscientific, both in whole and in part. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• non-neutral RFC and Support "characterized as pseudoscience". The choices here are designed in such a way that the most logical option is obscured in favor of the proposer's preferred choices. There also is no "status quo" option provided. Based on the best available sources, EMDR is, at its core, based upon pseudoscientific theories with no clear mechanism of action and no reproducible demonstration of efficacy. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  no reproducible demonstration of efficacy with Rosen saying most everyone agrees that EMDR can be beneficial in the treatment of PTSD demands an explanation, maybe science-based and evidence-based should make an appearance in the content? fiveby(zero) 14:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Explain why Pseudoscience in Therapy citing "Why Evidence-Based Practice Isn't Enough: A Call for Science-Based Practice." and Debates over this central question (e.g., Herbert et al., 2000) have challenged the very foundations for using empirically supported treatments as a guide to sound clinical practice might generate some informative content for the reader. fiveby(zero) 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• None of the above per Bon courage, with a side of non-neutral RfC per Shibbolethink. XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Here's a description of the relevant sourcing about EMDR. First, about its effectiveness in general:

• This 2013 Cochrane review found The evidence for each of the comparisons made in this review was assessed as very low quality. This evidence showed that individual TFCBT and EMDR did better than waitlist/usual care in reducing clinician‐assessed PTSD symptoms. There was evidence that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non‐TFCBT are equally effective immediately post‐treatment in the treatment of PTSD. There was some evidence that TFCBT and EMDR are superior to non‐TFCBT between one to four months following treatment, and also that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non‐TFCBT are more effective than other therapies.
• This 2016 systematic review found Effect sizes for PTSD symptom reduction were large for exposure-based therapy, CPT, cognitive restructuring, CBT-mixed therapies, NET, and EMDR.
• This 2019 systemic review found EMDR may be effective in the treatment of PTSD in the short term, but the quality of studies is too low to draw definite conclusions. There is not enough evidence to advise it for the use in other mental health problems.
• This 2021 meta-analysis specifically about EMDR for non-PTSD disorders found A positive effect was reported in numerous pathological situations, namely in addictions, somatoform disorders, sexual dysfunction, eating disorders, disorders of adult personality, mood disorders, reaction to severe stress, anxiety disorders, performance anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), pain, neurodegenerative disorders, mental disorders of childhood and adolescence, and sleep but Despite a generally positive outlook of EMDR as an alternative treatment option, more methodologically rigorous studies are needed
• The following professional organizations recommend EMDR for PTSD in their guidelines: NICE, the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, the American Psychological Association (but only "conditionally recommends"), the American Psychiatric Association, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the International Society of Trauma Stress Studies, and the World Health Organization.

Second, about the effectiveness of the eye movements specifically:

• This 2001 study finds little effectiveness for the eye movements (and also uses the word "pseudoscience").
• This 2001 meta-analysis also finds little effectiveness for the eye movements.
• Same with this 2002 meta-analysis.
• This 2012 systematic review, in contrast, does find that the eye movements are important.
• This 2013 meta-analysis also finds that the eye movements have a "moderate and significant" additive effect.
• The third meta-analysis I linked in the section above did not find a significant difference between EMDR with and without eye movements; I do feel the need to point out here that they also say the assumption that EMDR only works through the cognitive-behavioral elements seems to be too simple.

And finally, criticism of EMDR:

• This 2007 Scientific American article (which we have mislabled in the article as from 2012 for some reason) asserts that “What is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is not effective.” However, it does not use the word "pseudoscience" directly. (E 01:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC): It seems the researcher who originally said that line appears to have been convinced otherwise since he said it.)
• This article from 2000 explicitly accuses EMDR of being pseudoscientific.
• This 2002 article raises similar concerns about EMDR's effectiveness relative to other therapies as the 2007 article but only mentions the word "pseudoscience" when it discusses the 2000 article above.
• This 2011 opinion article in Science-Based Medicine says that the eye movement part of EMDR "sounds pseudoscientific to this neurologist".
• (E 04:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC): According to Bon_courage, this chapter of a book about pseudoscience in social work practice from 2015 mentions EMDR.)

Loki (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(Adding this up here so it's easily visible) This very recently released book on "Pseudoscience in Therapy" lists EMDR under "Implausible Therapies Based on Quirky Methods" in its section on Trauma. I will say however that on a quick read, it actually seems somewhat equivocal about how scientific exactly EMDR is, and furthermore most of its citations in that regard are pretty old: from the 90s or early 2000s. Loki (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help your case that you've omitted recent sources from previous discussions that are entirely on point, just because it seems thy don't conform to your WP:PROFRINGE POV. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I omitted the book sources you mentioned because I couldn't link them, so they wouldn't be very useful. I presumed you were going to bring them up anyway, and so of course my intention was not to exclude them. That'd just be dumb, wouldn't it, to assume that I could exclude sources that my opponent was obviously going to bring up immediately, right?

Also, to be clear here, I don't believe I have much of a POV at all here. My first encounter with the EMDR controversy or any of the details of EMDR practice was literally reading this article a few weeks ago. Upon reading it, my first reaction was "it seems silly to describe this thing with so much scientific evidence as pseudoscientific, that's just not what that word means at all". Honestly, it's mostly your insistence specifically that EMDR is pseudoscience hard stop that has made me push back so hard on this point. Loki (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You need much better reasoning than that! - Roxy the dog 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean you 'couldn't link them'? Have you read this sources? Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean they're not websites, they're books. I can't access them easily, and I can't exactly cite you on a different noticeboard, right? So I figured, you have access so you cite them. Loki (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You can cite them with a cite template. How can you possibly be arguing for NPOV when you haven't read the relevant sources? NPOV means being aligned to sources. Bon courage (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Feoffer and Firefangledfeathers, when you say you "support the status quo" do you mean the status quo before the edits that inspired this RFC were made or the status quo as in the current state of the article (including the category "pseudoscience" and sections which describe EMDR as pseudoscientific in Wikivoice)? Loki (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Note the current state of the article linked does not have 'sections which describe EMDR as pseudoscientific in Wikivoice'. Bon courage (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  You recently added the line Unusually for interventions that are considered pseudoscientific, EMDR has been subject to a number of randomized controlled trials., which is to say, you're saying that EMDR is pseudoscientific in Wikivoice. You also added it to the category "pseudoscience".

  Furthermore, you also describe it in the lead as It has been characterized as a pseudoscience and is only as effective as its underlying therapeutic methods without EMDR's distinctive add-ons, which doesn't quite describe it as pseudoscientific in Wikivoice but does describe it as the definition of a purple hat therapy in Wikivoice, which I also object to. Loki (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wrong. Saying that things "are considered pseudoscience" is saying that they are "considered" pseudoscience, in Wikivoice. Not that they "are" pseudoscience. Nor do we say it "is" a purple hat therapy in Wikivoice, but that it has been called that. You are objecting to your own misunderstanding. Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I tried to clarify this in my !vote above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Err, you mean you want to remove any mention of pseudoscience from the lede, and any discussion of it using the more recent academic books?!? Because that's how your reply will be interpreted. Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment/Question None of the most recent sources even seem to mention the word "pseudoscience" from what I glanced, and individual opinions should not be compared those of consensus by institutions and authorities on the subject. Older opinions and research needs to take a backseat to current evidence and events. Are we still using sources from 10+ years ago? Are we ignoring what current sources say? See WP:FRINGE. I can concede there has been criticism over lack of, or quality of research, but this is about what the consensus from the best RS is. Words matter. If there isn't a current consensus of RS that calls it pseudoscience that term doesn't have WP:WEIGHT. DN (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC has been framed to exclude more recent sources discussing pseudoscience. See the discussion at WP:FT/N for some. Bon courage (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I did add one source and, again, you're welcome to add others. Please do, in fact. Loki (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC is already a dumpster fire because of its non-neutral framing. Creating a list of "the relevant sourcing about EMDR" and only including old sources about pseudoscience, when you knew full well there were recent ones, of course has the effect of bamboozling editors, as we see in Darknipples's response. Bon courage (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RFCNEUTRAL says the question of the RFC has to be neutral. But past that, supporters or opponents do not have to be neutral in their support or opposition, and can argue however they like so long as it conforms with other Wikipedia policy.

  I could have not included any criticism section, or I could have included all the component studies and not just meta-analyses to give a more impressive but somewhat misleading impression of the state of the research. But instead I made a good faith effort to present those sources I genuinely thought were most relevant, and only excluded sources because I couldn't link them directly. (And not just your sources, by the way, there are supportive sources I excluded for this reason too.) When I found an accessible link to one of your critical sources I even added it up there. So, I've been way, way, way more neutral than I have to be here.

  If you think it's best to add two extra critical sources, then go ahead. I will even graciously add them up above in my summary of the sources if you can find a way to quickly summarize the relevant info from them. But I suspect the reason you're not doing that at this point is that you also realize that mentioning the existence of two sources people can't access easily isn't very useful to them anyway. Loki (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there's a good source that's not instantly accessible, I "expect" people to GET ACCESS. Wikipedia is based on sources, so blowing past ones which require a library (say) to access is just bad editing. Views expressed on this topic which have deliberately avoided the WP:BESTSOURCES are just worthless. Bon courage (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  For one, I don't think I have avoided the WP:BESTSOURCES on this topic. I think I've listed most of them above, in fact. For two, I did read the quotes you gave over at FTN, but given that I can't access the sources, I can't really verify your full characterization of them. You can see above that when I managed to access it I thought the most recent source you linked was noticeably more equivocal on EMDR than I felt you were characterizing it as (and also it seemed to be based only on older research without considering newer research). Loki (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Funny, I could have sworn there was an argument made at Ayurveda that a respected nonprofit organization, Cancer Research UK, was an authoritative source on its effectiveness. . . .

  Here we have another nonprofit organization, the Cleveland Clinic stating that “EMDR therapy is very common around the world. In the United States, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense list EMDR as a “best practice” in treating veterans experiencing PTSD. Research on EMDR includes dozens of clinical trials, research studies and academic papers. It has official approval from the World Health Organization (WHO) and government organizations and agencies in the United Kingdom, Australia and Germany, among others.”

  [[3]] Cedar777 (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Cleveland Clinic is not MEDRS, CRUK is (as a major research organization). The "non-profit" status of either is completely irrelevant, But whatever CC says is completely irrelevant to the pseudoscience question anyway, as they don't consider it. Bon courage (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is the same Cleveland clinic that supports Reiki: [4] MrOllie (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yup, they went full-on woo a while ago.[5] Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Bon Courage is correct, Loki. "They're not online" is not a valid reason to dismiss a source. Feoffer (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not dismissing these sources. As far as I can tell, they are perfectly good sources. All I'm saying is that I do not have a good way of linking them that would be relevant to readers of this RFC. Bon_courage, as they have access, is welcome to post them and despite me saying that over and over has not. I'll even add them above if they do. Loki (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Right. From WP:V (core policy): "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". And from WP:NPOV (core policy): "Try the library for reputable books and journal articles". And these days it's not even that hard: we have WP:WL and WP:RX and there are myriad online ways to access content. I think this admission that this RfC is predicated on not reading the most pertinent sources just confirms the POV issue. (Besides, it's simply wrong these sources can't be linked. The first source is linked[6] in its very reference.) Bon courage (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I did miss that. In my defense, the abstract doesn't mention EMDR at all so I'm still not confident that link is useful, but I will add it. Loki (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I will say, the 2019 quote from Richard McNally was an eye-opener. He famously said 'what's new is not effective", but by 2019 he's saying "I’ve changed my mind... I’m willing to do that based on new evidence. It looks like there’s something going on there; the representation of the trauma seems to be reconsolidated in a way that doesn’t distress people as much when later recalled." Feoffer (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

individual experts don't determine the scientific consensus, of course. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They don't, but as far as I can tell McNally's about-face sure is representative of a general shift in opinion. Loki (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Source? Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Expert recommendations, mostly. The big professional organizations have all increasingly come to recommend it over time. (Side note regarding your recent edit: that does include the WHO. You've just misread their guidelines: just because there are situations where they don't recommend it doesn't mean they don't recommend it for PTSD in adults. This sort of clear ideological misreading of a source is why I think you have a strong POV here.) It's also been increasingly endorsed by government agencies, and when experts are interviewed (say, in the NYT) you hear a lot of doctors who say it probably works.

This shift in opinion, AFAICT, is because of the increasing evidence for its effectiveness. I think but cannot prove that the meta-analysis in 2013 that found the eye movements specifically do help also seems to have overcome some skepticism, because when compiling that list above a lot of the studies afterwards made sure to mention it prominently. Loki (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You'd need sources to show a 'shift in opinion'. Bon courage (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If we wanted to say in the article that opinion has shifted, yes. The only source that seems to specifically address it is the NYT article that quotes McNally. (I swear there was an APA publication that mentioned something similar in the article before but I can't find it.) It's a shame there aren't more and better sources to source that point directly, but it's also not surprising.

However, we can absolutely notice that the most recent sources appear to be a lot more positive on EMDR than older sources, and let that information affect the WP:WEIGHT we give to the older sources. Loki (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Follow the sources to avoid WP:POVSOURCING. The pseudoscience strand has been running for over twently years consistently. Bon courage (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Question: it appears nobody likes the options I provided, and that's clearly my fault. How would people prefer switching to or adding on a more direct question about which version of the page they prefer? Loki (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Attempting to re-write an RFC already in progress is always a bad idea. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The whole thing is ridiculous and, as I have said elsewhere, disruptive. We are at a stage where a high-traffic but somewhat neglected article is being updated; new sources are being searched-for, discovered, sifted and applied. Meanwhile we have ONE editor desperately trying to lock wording in place (no matter what the sources say - those they can be arsed to read anyway). Even if this editor did succeed in settling on a wording, new sources would produce new evidence and the RfC outcome would fall. The whole thing is against the grain of how Wikipedia works and our need to follow sources to achieve NPOV, not the novel notions of an editor. Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a bunch of editors at this point that object to what you're doing. Loki (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

What matters is getting good content in line with the WP:PAGs. All else is gaslight. Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC attempt 2: Which version of the page is best?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which version of the page is best:

• A: The status quo ante.
• B: The current version as of the opening of this RFC, which includes these changes.
• C: Something else (please describe).

Loki (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• A or even C (reduce criticism section): There is solid evidence for EMDR and it's recommended by many large professional organizations. See the evidence list at the previous RFC for more detail, but in short there's several meta-analyses that find it effective and basically every major professional organization recommends it as an option for the treatment of PTSD. Critical sources are mostly decades old: though there are a handful of exceptions, they certainly aren't more reliable than even just the APAs, the WHO, and the NHS combined, much less the tons and tons of professional organizations that recommend EMDR. Loki (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Close, and block/TBAN OP. Wikipedia articles are not decided by multiple choice. The article needs to evolve in the normal way as the process of finding sources continues. Bon courage (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Another Bad RFC. Misrepresents option B / the current text in a nonneutral fashion. I recommend closing this ASAP, and if another RFC is actually warranted, working to develop an opening statement with other editors first. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree the question is not neutral, but in the interest of compromise I've cut down my description of option B. Loki (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Also a bad RFC. These options are basically "What I want option 1", "What I want, but less option 2", and "Everything else". OP has reverted from several changes, stonewalled changes to this page, etc. Instead of allowing only yourself to choose the options, you should have done a proper WP:RFCBEFORE and worked out the choices ahead of time. What I would want out of this is not present in the current choices, and thus defaulting everyone else to "C" splits the vote improperly, preventing people who disagree from achieving any meaningful consensus. Withdraw this RFC and do a proper WP:RFCBEFORE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Bad RfC and recommend author refrain from creating new RfCs until more familiar with the process. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Pinging all participants of the previous RFC: Bon_courage, MrOllie, Roxy_the_dog, Feoffer, Firefangledfeathers, Darknipples, Shibbolethink, Bakkster_Man, fiveby, XOR'easter, Cedar777. Loki (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alright everyone, let's figure out an RFC

At the suggestion of others, let's figure out an actual question for an RFC. Or at least try to come to some sort of consensus here, because I still don't get a sense that BC's changes have consensus. Loki (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't need a RfC. RfC's are heavyweight processes which suck up editor time. Continue normal discussion here or at WP:FT/N. Continue finding and reading the WP:BESTSOURCES and make sure the article follows them. It need not be complicated. Also accept you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK wrt pseudoscience because nobody agrees with you. Bon courage (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly not the case that nobody agrees with me. Or rather, it's at least certainly not the case that nobody disagrees with you; I'm perfectly willing to admit here that my original edit to reduce the prominence of pseudoscience in the article was not justified. Loki (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink specifically I wanna ask: what exactly is your preferred option here? From my perspective, my options above were "the one I prefer", "the one I explicitly and strongly objected to", and "anything else". You described them as if I wanted both 1 and 2, which is emphatically not the case. Loki (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I think you may have misunderstood (and I was not good at communicating my intention). I actually object to this entire framing. The options should have included more such as "characterized as Pseudoscience by experts" and "is considered pseudoscience". etc. and explicitly labeled those choices as such. It should have also had "is pseudoscience" as an option. But overall I do not think an RFC is warranted and the current status quo is fine with me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the third RfC will be the charm, somehow? I suspect that this process is not well suited to capturing the shades of distinction that the topic calls for. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not married to the idea of an RFC. I just want to figure out what the actual consensus is here. So, what sort of shades of distinction are you talking about? Loki (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The question should read ... "Where can I buy a purple hat?" -Roxy the dog 22:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not tracking the debate very well. But I believe EMDR is considered pseudoscience by relevant experts.DolyaIskrina (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be what good sources say. If there's a good source considering the question and coming down against, I'd like to see it! Bon courage (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a split interpretation. One one side, a set of randomized control trials which found it to be effective (aka, it's "evidence based"). On the other side, critics of the RCT designs who typically point to a lack of foundational basis for why EMDR should work compared to other treatments (aka, it's not "science based"). There's major health organizations that recognize it as valid treatment, but also legitimate criticism that it lacks a scientific basis, so we need to balance both of those. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's the purple hat therapy problem. Something that kinds of works (most people agree) has been ginned up with some pseudoscience (most people agree). So it still "works", but it's a bit of a scam. That's what RS is objecting to. It's not really a "split" with different "sides". Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec)But how does the reader understand that without first knowing about EMDR "empirically supported treatment"? fiveby(zero) 15:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, there's at least one expert we know of (McNally) who previously accused it of being a purple hat and now has changed his mind. And if you look at the studies they sometimes do consider this question as well, and often suggest that it's not. So it's definitely not a universal opinion that it's a purple hat (though it's common enough that I agree that should be represented in the article somewhere). Loki (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe more accurately described as the two underlying principles resulting in the difficulty explaining the situation. It's more of a continuum than sides, how much weight is placed in the RCTs (at the extreme, to the exclusion of underlying mechanisms) versus the various critiques. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do both. The RCTs are all shit AND it's considered pseudoscience. Nothing unexpected there! Bon courage (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we have good secondary sources pointing to the RCTs being faulty? I think that would resolve any WP:RGW concerns with saying 'these public health bodies promote a pseudoscientific therapy'. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, see all the sources under "Effectiveness". All the evidence is weak because of small / underpowered / flawed trials. Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, catching up with the article, I think we should be leading with the meta-analyses, or at least elevating their prominence. Though the current wording is definitely better than it was last week. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bakkster_Man. I don't think that it's "considered pseudoscience by relevant experts" unless the APA are somehow not relevant experts. Loki (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Have they offered an opinion on the pseudoscience question? Bon courage (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that the APA would endorse a therapy that they consider pseudoscience? Loki (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Dunno. They have rules about what they endorse. EMDR gamed those rules. They endorse woo, yes. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The question, right here illustrates the policy problem with your argument. Fact A (The APA endorsed it) does not lead to Fact B (It is not pseudoscience) without applying your own OR. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the intermediate step there is that the APA don't want to endorse pseudoscience. I'm reasonably confident it would be easy to source that part.

Look: if you are saying that the APA can fuck up, sure. I admit that. Even reliable sources eff up from time to time. But how do you know that your sources aren't cranks too? I could easily accuse them of that, and I doubt you would be able to come up with counter sources, because almost nobody ever says someone explicitly isn't a quack. Loki (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm reasonably confident Yes, that is the OR. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you want me to give you their evidence-based practice guidelines? Because "the APA cares about evidence-based practice" is absolutely a sourceable statement. Loki (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No, because it would be irrelevant - what you're doing would still be WP:SYNTHESIS. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Between what and what, and to produce what? Loki (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Fact A (The APA endorsed it) does not lead to Fact B (It is not pseudoscience) without applying your own OR. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that "The APA endorsed it" means it is not "considered pseudoscience by relevant experts" because the APA are relevant experts. Loki (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I was at the meeting where the APA endorsed it. The view was: well, this is horseshit but our rules say we've got to endorse it because of those two 'positive' trials, crap as they are. Our hands are tied. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's still your interpretation. We have lots of experts who consider EMDR pseudoscience. We don't need to have every expert consider it pseudoscience for the statement to be verifiable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, only those that consider the question. The "not EVERY sources says it's pseudosciance!" gambit is a well-worn fallacy here on Wikipedia. It should have a name. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, but if you want to say that experts consider it pseudoscience you need to produce evidence that a majority do. Not just individual experts that do. To do otherwise is WP:SYNTH. Loki (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If RS says it's pseudoscience we just assert it's pseudoscience. Basic WP:YESPOV. Sources that don't consider the question are irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH would be if we took critics saying "EMDR sucks!" and used it to support "EMDR has been characterized by experts as pseudoscience." As long as we aren't saying "majority" we don't need to produce any RSes which support "majority." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But saying "Experts think it's pseudoscience" implies a majority of experts do. I'm fine with saying "Some experts think it's pseudoscience" because that's well-sourced, but I don't think we currently have any sources whatsoever that it's the consensus in the field. Loki (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is correct. But we don't say what "experts think" because that's kind of strange. We just reflect RS. Personally I think we should just say it IS pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, all you are doing here is hardening opinion against your views. There could be some really good content here if someone is willing to write it, but who would want to do that while all this is going on? fiveby(zero) 16:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain what I'm doing wrong here? I think that this is a good and reasonable argument. I'm definitely not being more argumentative than anyone else here, right?

Like, I understand that I and BC have fundamentally opposed views on what the sources mean. I don't think that I am likely to persuade them directly. But I don't want to just stop presenting my view while BC is presenting theirs because I don't want their view to come across as uncontested. Loki (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we do have opposed views on what the sources mean. But you want to take source A and source B and apply some kind of thought process to arrive at position C (which neither source directly supports). That's WP:SYNTHESIS and verboten by core policy. As other have said - you're just not WP:LISTENing. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you think that making basic inferences like "experts with a history of evidence based practice try not to endorse pseudoscience" is WP:SYNTH, but it's explicitly not. (Also to be clear, I also understand that this doesn't really resolve the purple hat question or the question of whether EMDR has a good theoretical basis, and I'm not claiming that. I am not claiming that the APA endorsing something means that the criticism doesn't exist. I'm claiming that major medical organizations are medical experts, so that means that if they endorse something it's not accurate to claim "experts think it's pseudoscience" with no qualifier.) Loki (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting claim. Wrong mind. You can still (just) get homeopathy on the NHS. In any case, deploying such reasoning violates WP:NOR so it's a non-starter for you. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, and I agree that's a reason for discarding the opinion of the NHS, because that's a pretty egregious mistake. But we're not just talking about the NHS here. You can't say that newspapers are inaccurate because a newspaper said something false once. Loki (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is you can't use the availability of something (or not) from some health channel, or its endorsement therein, to reason about whether or not it's pseudoscience. Follow RS on the matter, not your own thoughts. Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that an organization composed of medical experts is equivalent to "some health channel"?

The reason I keep asking that is that the APA etc etc are RSes, and the fact that you keep on trying to ignore them means that it's you that is following your own thoughts rather than the RSes. Loki (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you had a citation from the APA that said something like 'EMDR is not pseudoscience' you'd have a point here, but you don't have that. Ignoring sources that are irrelevant to the question is exactly what should be done. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so, now we're getting somewhere. My problem with this logic is that I think there are very few sources that will ever say that something is explicitly not pseudoscientific.

So for example, I think it's going to be hard to find sources that say even something like "the theory of relativity is not pseudoscientific". Would you accept sources that say "EMDR is evidence-based"? Or maybe "science-based"? Loki (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there doubt about the Theory of Relativity? I think not. Acupuncture is more like it. For a while sources DID say it wasn't pseudoscience. But that changed. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you have the timeline backwards. The sources that are most doubtful are also mostly the oldest. Meanwhile I can find significant numbers of more recent sources that call it an evidence-based treatment for PTSD: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=emdr+%22evidence-based%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14

Some notable sources are this one from 2021, this one from 2020, and this one from 2022, among others. Loki (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You're back on the OR again. Bon courage (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

How is citing sources OR? Loki (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh wait, you mean about the timeline thing. My apologies. I agree that's OR, but I think your interpretation of the timeline is also OR. Until we get a source that directly addresses it we don't have anything but OR. Loki (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And we have lots of recent sources which also describe it as having low evidence-quality, methodological problems, etc. That's why we say "controversy". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree! I think that saying "Some experts think EMDR is a purple-hat therapy..." is justified, and even "Many experts..." might be justifiable. But if you just say "Experts think" that implies "Experts agree that", and that's definitely not true. Loki (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar we have an entire policy/guideline about this. WP:FRINGE. It tells us to describe, using WP:RSUW, what experts think about a topic. We have done that. We also describe there is controversy about the practice. Saying "experts consider it pseudoscience" is a reflection of WP:RSUW. There is no part of WP:RSUW that requires there to be a majority of experts who think that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that but I feel that the policy that applies here is WP:FRINGE/QS:

Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists.

This seems to me to be exactly the situation here and therefore we should not describe EMDR as unambiguously pseudoscientific. It's that that I object to, I am perfectly fine with portraying the criticism. Loki (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In what ways do we do so "unambiguously" ? I've edited the statement to say "some experts." Is this sufficient to alleviate your concerns? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep! Loki (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a contest between your view and BC's on the sources. I think the editors who responded with qualified comments and saying the RfC's where premature are experienced and well-aware of issues. Give them some credit in that they do understand your view. I've done quite a bit of reading here and could flood the talk page with sources along the lines you have, but everyone already knows this so give them some space to think about it and respond. fiveby(zero) 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Loki (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think noticeboards do better than RfCs. Have them rank the best sources and look at the consensus from those and the editors and use those to determine how much weight the term has from less involved editors. DN (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FT/N#EMDR. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines

I think someone who knows how should reread the guidelines and summarize (WP:MEDRS is i think misleading in implying i'm qualified to do that). For instance i don't see a recommendation in the WHO guidelines), we cite the glossary, but i can't find the supposed recommendation for stress, only On the basis of available evidence, no specific recommendation can be made about stand-alone problem-solving counselling, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), relaxation or psycho-education for adults with acute traumatic stress symptoms associated with significant impairment in daily functioning in the first month after a potentially traumatic event.. All this "adult", "adolescent", "child", PTSD vs. clinically significant PTSD and recommendation for use beyond PTSD is confusing. Also International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies looks like a professional body and not an standards body. fiveby(zero) 18:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, "no recommendation for "Acute traumatic stress symptoms" but EMDR suggested for "Posttraumatic stress disorder" (Recommendations 14 and 15). fiveby(zero) 18:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

ooooh re: WHO. I didn't look at that. Will add. Will simplify the others. Professional bodies are typically used re: WP:MEDASSESS. Re the WHO, it's actually page 8 where they say:

Recommendation 14
Individual or group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) with a trauma focus, eye movement
desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) or stress management should be considered for adults
with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Strength of recommendation: standard
Quality of evidence: moderate for individual CBT, EMDR; low for group CBT, stress management

and page 9:

Recommendation 15
Individual or group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) with a trauma focus or eye movement
desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) should be considered for children and adolescents with
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Strength of recommendation: standard
Quality of evidence: moderate for individual CBT, low for EMDR, very low for group CBT

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think part of the pseudoscience is extending to treatment beyond the EST, to children, beyond PTSD, etc. so important to get right, but sorry to dump it on you to fix. fiveby(zero) 19:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience entry (now cited) is well worth reading. It discusses in detail the switcheroo tactic of how EMDR kept changing to take training money (for no good reason). But one of the real reasons it's so reviled as pseudoscience is it claim to be a revolutionary treatment that could help bring about world peace and cure AIDS and cancer, all off the back of some flimsy trials. Hence the comparison with animal magnetism. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The source doesn't cite its own sources, tho, so it's hard to tell what the actual evidence is for this claim. No other source, including the ones that criticize it strongly, says that Shapiro believed that it was effective for anything but mental illness. Loki (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Didn't say it was Shapiro herself making these claims. It's a good source for the pseudoscience stuff (sources don't need to "cite their sources" to the satisfaction of Wikipedia editors). Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

Meta-Analyses

Oxford Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Chris Brewin UCL

• Bisson, Jonathan I.; Anke Ehlers; Rosa Matthews; Stephen Pilling; David Richards; Stuart Turner (2007). "Psychological treatments for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis" (PDF). British Journal of Psychiatry (190): 97–104.
• Bryant, Richard (2011). "Psychological interventions for trauma exposure and PTSD". In Dan J. Stein; Matthew J. Friedman; Carlos Blanco (eds.). Post-traumatic stress disorder. pp. 171–215.

Systematic Reviews

Both old. We shouldn't use anything more than 5 years old if newer is available per WP:MEDRS (some exception apply e.g. Cochrane). Bon courage (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Arghh, that's my go to when there are too many sources and need a filter, look for the bibliographies and literature surveys, but can see how maybe not appropriate in a MEDRS context. Oxford Bibliographies does keep updating the online version. fiveby(zero) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent Revert

@Roxy the dog, what is your objection to my edit? Loki (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The huge change to POV, as I have already told you. - Roxy the dog 17:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think edit-warring to alter the lede to say offhandedly "Despite evidence for its effectiveness ..." without qualification as to that "effectiveness" (not really effective), is WP:PROFRINGE/WP:POV. After the recent warnings given at ANI I am surprised to see this. Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  But that line is referring to the sentence literally directly before it where we explicitly note that large professional organizations consider it effective. And we have lots and lots of sourcing, including many of the critical sources that you yourself added, saying the same thing in basically the same terms. Loki (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  See our "Effectiveness" section. The lede should summarize the body, not undermine it. Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think you think that section is a lot more negative than it actually is if you're saying that. We list countless professional organizations that agree that EMDR is effective, and also say that several RCTs have found it to be effective, though those RCTs have been criticized for methodological flaws. Even critics agree that it is an effective therapy. Loki (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  We list countless professional organizations that agree that EMDR is effective That does not match my reading of the article at all. MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  It also does not match my reading. Methinks @LokiTheLiar should consider what amount of bias their perspective may be bringing to their own interpretation of the section. Pot, meet kettle. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, it's just wrong. Think is's time for the WP:STICK to be dropped on this: it's has been to umpteen noticeboards and the general consensus is clear that we've got the framing of this WP:FRINGE topic pretty spot on. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was at a work computer before, but now I'm home I can show you some direct quotes from a source you added (Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology) which support the Despite evidence for its effectiveness language (emphasis mine):

  The scientific literature on EMDR supports several conclusions: (1) EMDR is an efficacious treatment for PTSD, (2) the efficacy of EMDR is comparable with that of trauma-focused CBT approaches such as PE, and (3) eye movements and other bilateral stimulation techniques appear to be unnecessary and do not uniquely contribute to clinical outcomes

  and later

  Despite its status as an evidence-based psychotherapy that is recommended as a first-line treatment for PTSD in clinical guidelines (e.g., Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, 2010), EMDR offers few, if any, demonstrable advantages over competing evidence-based psychological treatments. Moreover, its theoretical model and purported primary active therapeutic ingredient are not scientifically supported.

  And this is one of the more critical sources in the article. Other sources usually describe it similarly. So for example, the APA in its Clinical Practice Guideline for PTSD describes it as one of a core set of evidence-based psychotherapies for adults with PTSD. The DoD's Clinical Practice Guideline for PTSD describes it as one of the trauma-focused psychotherapies with the strongest evidence from clinical trials. Per WP:MEDORG these are very strong WP:MEDRS sources and I'm very frustrated that this article doesn't acknowledge what appears to be a clear consensus even among critics of EMDR. Loki (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Nice WP:CHERRYPICKING. But we need to summarize sources accurately. Anyway, since the WP:STICK waving is now getting disruptive I'll bow out here but keep watching the article itself for any further POV problems. Bon courage (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I could similarly accuse you of WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:STICK-waving. Your ability to find a book that says that EMDR is pseudoscience does not outweigh several other strong sources that say EMDR is evidence-based.

  I think out of any single source, the WHO probably has the best summary of the full picture when they say there's moderate evidence for its effectiveness in treating PTSD in adults but controversy over its theoretical mechanism. But no source, even a very strong source like the WHO, is governing alone. We need to include all the reliable sources: both the critical ones and the positive ones, both of which there are quite a few of. Loki (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, I was specifically trying to be careful to not change the overall POV of the lede in that edit. What change to POV do you think I made, and why? Loki (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, you didn't try very hard to not change POV. - Roxy the dog 18:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you or are you not going to explain your objection? Loki (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence you changed is a major change in POV, for which there is no consensus. Not having it. - Roxy the dog 18:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence I changed was splitting EMDR combines exposure therapy (recalling distressing experiences) with certain eye movements that have been criticized as having no scientific basis into EMDR involves focusing on traumatic images while moving one's eyes back and forth, and also moving the criticism to the bottom paragraph in the sentence The eye movements have been criticized as having no scientific basis.

If you missed the fact that the criticism was still there, I could definitely see why you thought the edit was POV. But I didn't delete it, I just moved it. In fact, I added a bunch of extra criticism that was previously in the body but not the lead, and deleted a long quote that was previously the most positive part of the lead. Loki (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Grouping all of the criticism at the end is also a form of POV, as is removing the criticisms from context in which they originally appeared. - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's style guides pretty heavily recommend against piling criticism into one single section in a place different and out of context from praise/support. It neuters the criticism, makes it less likely to be read, and bolsters FRINGE POV. Do not do this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You... are right, actually. I mean, I don't agree that's that's the reason why the guidelines recommend against it, but I agree that they do, and that it's a good argument against organizing the lead like that.

According to WP:CRIT, the reason criticism sections should be avoided is because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints and the table on them specifically mentions that Great care should be taken that the section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints. Or in other words, the worry is basically the opposite of what you've said it is: it's that criticism sections give criticisms undue WP:WEIGHT and can become a dumping ground for criticisms that are weakly sourced or otherwise not particularly notable. (And in fact, that's the main failure mode I've personally seen: BLPs with a "Criticism" section that amounts to a bunch of unverified rumors.)

But regardless, you're definitely right that they're not best practice. In this case, my reason for doing so is that I thought it was clearer to separate the criticisms from the description of the practice of EMDR. I still think the current lead is very suboptimal, especially because it describes what EMDR actually is in the first place twice: once in Wikivoice and once in the form of a long quote. Loki (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I still think the current lead is very suboptimal, especially because it describes what EMDR actually is in the first place twice: once in Wikivoice and once in the form of a long quote
Yep, so why don't we get rid of the long WP:UNDUE quote? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the quote is WP:UNDUE, though. It's from the WHO, it's probably the weightiest single source in the article. I'd rather just integrate it into our existing description of what EMDR does. Loki (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If it is redundant, what is there to integrate? What does it convey that the other description doesn't? MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It explains what supporters think the theoretical basis is, and also describes that the side to side movements are not necessarily eye movements.

It's also, frankly, a lot more neutral than what we currently have. Loki (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's also, frankly, a lot more neutral than what we currently have

This appears to be your personal opinion. It's not the consensus on this page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Australian Medical Guidelines

I object to MrOllie's suggestion to take this to the talk page or removing of the guideline in the meantime, because it's actually an extremely clear case. This is the guideline in question and it says on page 5 straight out that:

Strong recommendation FOR EMDR
For adults with PTSD, we recommend eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR).

This is not a conditional recommendation for EMDR, as we had said previously. That language comes from the recommendations for children on page 3. And it's a national recommendation so per WP:MEDORG it's highly reliable and therefore has a large amount of WP:WEIGHT. Loki (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It also says Conditional recommendation FOR brief EMDR For adults with PTSD symptoms in the first three months following trauma, we suggest offering brief EMDR in preference to doing nothing. The link is just to an executive summary. Does anyone have access to the full document? MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a document from "Phoenix Australia". What's that? I think this[7] is the actual doc. Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Full document has some interesting stuff! Over time, EMDR has increasingly included more treatment components that are comparable with the cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) interventions described below. These include [...] EMDR now includes most of the core elements of standard trauma-focussed CBT (TF-CBT)and then There are six studies directly comparing CBT to EMDR and the evidence suggests that the two variants of trauma-focussed therapy are not statistically different. MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. It certainly is a very good find. Loki (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Good find. That fuller document says very early on that For adults who develop PTSD, the best approach to treatment is trauma-focussed cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) or eye movement desensitisation reprocessing (EMDR). Their official recommendation on page 91 is grade A and states Adults with PTSD should be offered trauma-focussed cognitive behavioural interventions A or eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing. Loki (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What does "grade A" mean? - Roxy the dog 21:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The definition is on page 2:

Guideline recommendations arising from the systematic review are graded according to the NHMRC grading system (NHMRC, 2005):

• Grade A: Body of evidence can be trusted to guide practice
• Grade B: Body of evidence can be trusted to guide practice in most situations
• Grade C: Body of evidence provides some support for recommendation(s) but care should be taken in its application
• Grade D: Body of evidence is weak and recommendation(s) must be applied with caution

Or the TL;DR is, it's their highest grade of evidence. Loki (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think a fair summary of this would include that it is as an alternative to no treatment since that is not the usual alternative. It also should not omit the fact that the guideline basically offers EMDR as an alternative to CBT, noting that the version of EMDR recommended and CBT are essentially the same except for some eye movements. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the usual alternative would be here or how this is different.

It's reasonable to note that the version of EMDR recommended is very similar to CBT, but "essentially the same" other than the eye movements is a little too strong, IMO. That paragraph does still allow for some differences other than the eye movements (e.g. EMDR only includes "analogous" or "comparable" practices, EMDR only includes "most" of the core features of CBT, EMDR's claimed theoretical basis is still different).

On that note, while I'm not sure the article should include it, the source also does include this very relevant paragraph: In this process one significant difference of opinion arose. A member of the multidisciplinary panel objected to the inclusion of a good practice point (GPP) that indicated that eye movements per se had not been proven to have any active effect in the efficacy of eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR). A vote was taken within the working party in relation to this issue and it was agreed that this GPP should be removed as the question of mechanisms of treatment had not been specifically addressed in the evidence review nor addressed in the recommendations pertaining to any other intervention. One member of the working party dissented from this view given the purported centrality of the eye movements to EMDR as reflected in its title. Loki (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the usual alternative would be here

The usual alternative in any high quality RCT or systematic review is the standard of care (in this case, CBT and graduated exposure therapy.) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

In these medical recommendations, the point is establishing what the standard of care is, so I don't think that's true in this situation. If they assumed that CBT was the standard of care in order to recommend (among other things) CBT, that would be circular reasoning. Loki (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

pejorative article

sadly the article reeks of out-of-date negative views of EMDR.

For heavens sake EMDR is recommended for PTSD by many major national organisations, and many people find EMDR immensely helpful in treating their PTSD; this article currently would prevent such people accessing this help. Why would wiki want to do that?JCJC777 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Currently being discussed at WP:FT/N#EMDR. Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

thanks. I don't understand why the article is being held back in such an unhelpful and embarrassing state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It accurately reflects reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh really? Reliable sources like the NHMRC report you linked above, which says that EMDR has repeatedly been shown to be effective in reducing PTSD symptoms relative to waitlist, and also to nondirective counselling? Or the multiple other sources from big professional medical organizations which say similar things?

Three books on pseudoscience, one of which still calls EMDR effective, are not the only reliable sources out there. The consensus of all the sources is clearly that EMDR is an effective treatment for PTSD. Loki (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm You still don't get it do you. Aspirin wrapped in gold leaf is also effective for headaches, but also a scam. You don't need the gold leaf. Follow the sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the World Health Organization, American Psychological Association, Department of Defense, etc etc, would never recommend aspirin wrapped in gold leaf for that reason.

If sources A, B, C, D, E, F, and G all say a treatment is effective, and sources H, and I say a treatment is a purple hat, the proper weight to give sources H and I is not all of it. It's at least important to be very clear that EMDR is effective before getting into the debate about why it's effective. Loki (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You are still conflating 'effective' and 'not pseudoscience', and that still requires WP:OR reasoning. Repeating this argument over and over will not make it more persuasive. MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Warnings were given at ANI already for this. Bon courage (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

A warning is a specific thing in Wikipedia and I'd like you to stop insinuating any warnings were given at ANI. In fact, several editors told you to stop this exact sort of behavior, so if we're calling that a "warning" you have also been "warned" to stop this. Loki (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not an insinuation. You were advised (not by me) to drop it. But you're doubling down and it's getting (even more) disruptive. Probably will end up at ANI again. I would much prefer to move on and focus on new content: are there any good sources we're missing to round-out the article? Bon courage (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the main source we're missing right now is the Australian medical recommendation, and also we could easily link the full APA medical recommendation instead of the webpage we link now. And the list of meta-analyses that used to be here also appears to have gone missing.

But honestly, my objection to the page is not that we're missing sources but that we've isolated our best sources to a single section, while spreading out a bunch of relatively marginal academic books all over the article. Loki (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie: fair enough, let me rephrase, because my argument turns on a subtle point that I didn't make clear above. Several sources call EMDR "evidence-based" in those words, such as the APA and the Department of Defense report. That is not WP:OR, that is a direct contradiction of "pseudoscience".

Furthermore, several other sources that don't use those words exactly give EMDR a strong or at least moderate evidence rating. A rating that a treatment has a high or even moderate degree of scientific evidence is necessarily a contradiction of a term that means "not based in scientific evidence". Loki (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "direct contradiction". This is your central fallacy and you keep repeating it over and over and over and over again. See Purple hat therapy. Bon courage (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I remind you that it is WP:OR to say a source that criticizes EMDR for being a purple hat therapy supports the idea that EMDR is pseudoscientific. They're not synonyms.

Which is to say, yes, "evidence-based" is a direct contradiction of "pseudoscience" even if it is not a direct contradiction of "purple hat". Loki (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You're still applying WP:OR here. Evidence-based is not an antonym for 'pseudoscience'. Scientific evidence of effectiveness doesn't rule out pseudoscience, because as the Austrialian guidelines note, this is CBT with extra stuff. CBT plus meaningless window dressing is effective because CBT is effective, not because the window dressing isn't pseudoscientific. MrOllie (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, Scientific evidence of effectiveness doesn't rule out pseudoscience? I hope you realize how absurd this sounds.

I understand the "purple hat" criticism here, and I also understand that it's not easy to directly contradict it. That is why the Wikipedia guideline on WP:WEIGHT exists. If we have ten sources that say EMDR is effective and three sources that say it might only be effective because of its similarities to CBT, then we give more WP:WEIGHT to the ten than the three, while also still mentioning the three.

But the pseudoscience criticism is easy to directly contradict, because pseudoscience means not based on scientific evidence, and there's plenty of scientific evidence for EMDR. Even some of the skeptics acknowledge this. Loki (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

... and over, and over and over again. Bon courage (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It only sounds absurd to you because you are reading things into the sources that simply aren't there. We cannot make the leaps of logic that you are making. MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

What leap of logic is it to say that "evidence-based" is the opposite of "pseudoscience"? Loki (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't 10 sources vs 3 sources - if 10 sources are silent on the question on why it works (only saying that it works) and 3 are explaining it works because of the CBT elements, there are only 3 sources to use to assign weight this question. The leap of logic is that the 10 sources are contradicting a point when really they are not addressing it at all. MrOllie (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

So, are you using WP:OR to say that "purple hat therapy" implies "pseudoscience"? Because it doesn't, those terms don't mean the same thing.

I agree there aren't very many sources that explicitly contradict the purple hat claim. So that claim should get a pretty sizable amount of WP:WEIGHT. But there are many sources that contradict the pseudoscience claim by saying things such as "evidence-based", so that claim should not get much weight, even if it's partially based on the purple hat claim.

(Furthermore, I generally object to the strong underrating in this article of EMDR's effectiveness. Our strongest sources agree that it's effective, and yet our Effectiveness section is weirdly equivocal on that point.) Loki (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily pseudoscience. Maybe just scamming, or mistakes, or geegaws. Bon courage (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

are many sources that contradict the pseudoscience claim by saying things such as "evidence-based" Again, this is OR. They are orthogonal claims. My car goes fast, and it has flames painted on the side. That doesn't mean that the flames make the car go faster. MrOllie (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I resent that people are making me cite the definition of pseudoscience, because I know you know you're just playing games with words at this point, but here's the National Science Foundation's definition: "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility".

Naturally, having supporting evidence necessarily means that a claim cannot be pseudoscience under this definition. Loki (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I can bring my car to the track and time it again and again, but what I'm providing evidence of is that the *engine* makes it go fast, not the flames. MrOllie (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

But either way the car goes fast. That's my point. We barely ever say "the car goes fast" in the article. Instead we spend a lot of time criticizing the people who made the car for making some claims about it that may or may not be true and may or may not be evidence-based taken separately, while ignoring that the majority of the sources simply say "the car does go fast". Loki (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the car goes just as fast if you don't bother to paint it. MrOllie (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Per the sources there are two factors which push EMDR into the pseudoscience realm. The first is that the eye-movement/tapping/whatever is probably useless; the second is the "florid marketing". No, it won't cure cancer or bring about world peace, And maybe you don't need to spend quite so may $000s in ever-shifting training regimes. Bon courage (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a source for "aggressive marketing", and a few sources for the training, but only one source in the entire article that says that anyone has ever claimed it cures cancer. On the basis of that source, we're citing an entire paragraph that makes some of the most florid claims in the article about EMDR. Loki (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the silence of sources on an aspect cannot be interpreted into meaning by Wikipedia editors. Bon courage (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Rather than explain your fallacy yet again, because for whatever reason you do not seem to understand, let's make it really simple. Wikipedia reflects the knowledge in sources. If you want Wikipedia to include that view that "EMDR cannot be pseudoscientific at all because it is evidence-based" we need a good source that says that, not Loki The Liar's own musings. Got that source? Bon courage (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you really making me cite the definition of pseudoscience?

Fine, here's the National Science Foundation's definition of pseudoscience, according to our own article (source):"claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility".

Naturally, having supporting evidence directly contradicts this definition. Loki (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Supporting evidence of what? That is the crucial point. MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"There's evidence that gold-leaf-wrapped aspirins are effective for headaches. Therefore it's a great drug, and not a scam!" Bon courage (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Scam" and "pseudoscience" are different things, and you are again engaging in WP:OR.

Furthermore the "gold-leaf-wrapped aspirins" analogy presumes that EMDR is significantly more expensive than CBT, which you have no source for and is therefore also WP:OR. Generic aspirin is the same as brand-name aspirin, but neither are pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

My OR is good here. The point is that super-adding things to a therapy can corrupt it into pseudoscience. This is exactly the point made by out cited sources. Follow the sources. It's basically Your View vs Sources. And the sources will always win. Bon courage (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

My OR is good here? Seriously? You're now openly saying you're violating policy and that's fine? Loki (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Making an analogy on a talk page isn't a violation. (It is good here). You'll note that Bon courage hasn't added any statements about gold-leaf to the article. MrOllie (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the thing that some of the sources are calling "pseudoscientific" is EMDR, so, of EMDR.

Or more precisely, the idea that EMDR therapy is effective for treating mental illness. Which is exactly the thing that other sources are calling evidence-based. Again, "purple hat" is a different criticism: EMDR can be effective, and not pseudoscientific, and also effective only because of components shared with other therapies. Loki (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds garbled. Stick to the sources (like we do) and all will be well. You really need to drop the WP:STICK because absent of new sources this article won't be changing rhe way you want. You're just wasting editors' time (not least your own). Bon courage (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I am sticking to the sources and I would prefer you all stop yelling WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and admit to obvious truths like "a treatment being evidence based means that it is not pseudoscience". Loki (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think at this point the best approach is to disengage and just revert any further non-neutral edits you make. Good luck. Bon courage (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

There are two questions: Is it effective? (A) and Is it pseudoscience? (B). A source that only answers question A cannot be used to make a statement about question B. Evidence of effectiveness just means that at least part of it isn't pseudo-science - to go any further than that requires OR. MrOllie (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but many sources outright say that it is evidence-based.

Can I suggest a compromise? If we rephrase mentions of pseudoscience to be narrowly targeted towards the eye movements, or EMDR's theoretical basis, I would be a lot more comfy with them.

I think there's more contention in the field than you seem to think (after all, we have a source saying that one of EMDR's early critics has come around to the effectiveness of the eye movements, and a meta-analysis saying that the eye movements are in fact effective) but at least this is an area where there seems to be real controversy. Loki (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe a compromise based on a misunderstanding of policy will be successful long term. You're still conflating statements about question A (evidence-based) with question B. MrOllie (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Statements about whether EMDR is evidence-based speak directly to its scientific basis and therefore to whether it is a pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

... and over and over and over again ... Bon courage (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm basically with you JCJC777, but two things:

First of all, "many people find EMDR immensely helpful in treating their PTSD" is not a policy-based argument. Many people claim to find acupuncture helpful in treating their chronic pain, and yet scientific studies on the topic find that acupuncture has no benefits over placebo. The actual argument here is if reliable sources find EMDR effective, and especially if plenty of well-conducted scientific studies find EMDR effective... which they do. Especially in concert with all the big professional organizations that recommend EMDR.

Second, it's pretty clear from the sources that there is still a minority expert position that EMDR is a purple hat therapy, or in other words that it's just exposure therapy with some other bits that don't work. That position has enough support that it deserves some WP:WEIGHT as a alternative scientific position. The problems with this page stem from a bunch of POV-pushers trying to say that such a position is consensus in the field when it's transparently not. Loki (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You're making stuff up again. Follow the sources, not your own POV! Bon courage (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy if the article reflected this. i.e.

1. many national bodies recommend it,

2. but there is also a view held by some that it's active ingredient is not unique (i.e. it's exposure therapy or something).

That would be an improvement on the current situation. JCJC777 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

That is in fact what the currently article says. Removing all the text that points out that the additions are pseudo-scientific is misrepresenting the scientific consensus on this. MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See, "points out that the additions are pseudo-scientific" goes way beyond most of the sources. Most sources do not say anything of the sort. We have many sources from large medical organizations that say that EMDR is empirically supported with no caveats.

This is at best WP:FRINGE/QS territory. Saying it is pseudoscientific in Wikivoice goes directly against policy here. Loki (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

these large medical organizations don't typically address the question of "is it pseudoscience?" so they aren't very useful to evaluate that part of the claim. We have excellent high quality sourcing which shows experts consider it pseudoscientific, and so we say as much. That's not wiki-voice, it's describing what experts think about a topic. We then summarize that in the lead, typically with very little attribution, then attributing it in the body. That's just good summary-style. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been characterized by some experts

I cannot find the consensus for the word "some" that is alleged to be somewhere on this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither can I find the alleged exception in WP:WEASEL. It does say, They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution but that seems to only apply if there is a reliable source that explicitly says "some". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Consensus I'm referring to was the In what ways do we do so "unambiguously" ? I've edited the statement to say "some experts." Is this sufficient to alleviate your concerns? by Shibbolethink, and the discussion above it. (Sorry, there's been a lot of talking on this page.)

Also, you're conflating two sentences. The guideline is The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. This is an example of the lead section summarizing the body, which is a separate exception from weasel-like phrases attributed to a specific reliable source. Loki (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think "some" was just a compromise. But I agree, it is unnecessary. We just say "experts consider it..." Because experts, in our sources, do. "Some" is a bit WEASEL-y, but it's better than having endless disruption. We need to settle on a consensus wording.

Omitting the sentence entirely is a non-starter, because it runs afoul of FRINGE. Over-attributing it dilutes the criticisms and thereby violates NPOV and summary-style of the lead. "some" is perhaps the least of all evils that settles the dispute. But yes, it is truly a WEASEL phrasing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should stop shilly-shallying and just say it is pseudoscience, like the relevant sources. Trying to be "soft" for the sake of editors squeamishness seems to have backfired. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The "relevant sources" pretty explicitly do not say that. Only a handful do. Even on the direct question of whether the eye movements are relevant (and therefore whether it's reasonable to characterize it as a purple hat therapy, which again is different from pseudoscience), sources disagree. We have that 2013 meta-analysis which says they are relevant, the Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences source I added earlier says there's some evidence that they are relevant, and the US Department of Veteran's Affairs also says that Some research shows that the back and forth movement is an important part of treatment, but other research shows the opposite. We also have, on that topic, the NYT interview with McNally where he says he's changed his mind on the eye movements and thinks they are useful.

And furthermore there's all those sources I've already linked which call the therapy as a whole "evidence-based", so regardless of whether you're talking about the eye-movements specifically or the treatment as a whole it's very much not the case that the sources agree on characterizing it as pseudoscientific. They are closer to agreeing on the opposite, if anything.

(Also, while this is a direct reply to BC, I also mean it as a reply to Shibbolethink. The "some" really is necessary because it's only some experts that think it's even a purple-hat therapy.) Loki (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There is also Bessel van der Kolk, the trauma researcher and author of The Body Keeps the Score that supports EMDR per this article, his book, and several other sources.

thanks and well done

Just wanted to say thanks and well done to editors Cedar777‎ Loki User:Shibbolethink User:Bon courage and User:MrOllie for work on this [difficult] article. really feel things are moving forward now.