Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pseudoscience?

This article is not up to Wikipedia standards. The person who dismisses the lack of scientific research into this technique has not done a thorough job. For example, this citation was easy to find: Journal of Clinical Psychology http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.10189/abstract Wiley is a credible publisher and the journal is a credible source.

It's no big surprise to me that this type of therapy is difficult to repeat in laboratory settings. While it appears to be a physical therapy, it relies heavily on talk therapy, as is noted in the skeptical review. Is that such a bad thing that the whole technique deserves to be dismissed as pseudoscience? If so, then why do you not dismiss all talk therapies as pseudoscience? Consider your entry on Gestalt therapy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_therapy

I am not a practitioner, nor do I sell anything EFT related. I just know that it helped a friend. Perhaps the tapping has nothing to do with acupuncture meridians. Perhaps you can tap equally well on a doll. But the idea that tapping is a distraction is pure speculation and has no place in this discussion. Look at this as science in the making. Someone tried something and it worked. Now, the community is experimenting with the technique, developing it further and refining it. It is inductive reasoning, not deductive, but it deserves the respect of Wikipedia editors because of the number of people it has helped. 67.226.171.123 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The 2003 study is so seriously flawed that I don't think you can even claim it's testing EFT. Probably the most important flaw is that the phrase used is backwards. The subjects affirmed 'solution' then 'problem', something any half-decent therapist would raise an eyebrow at. I recall from Craig's site that the researchers insisted that the breathing intervention wasn't made up, but Craig claimed it had never been part of the EFT protocol.

In my opinion, the study has zero credibility and should be removed entirely from the Intro, with only a passing note in the Research section. Does any published criticism still exist? Mindjuicer (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Made major NPOV changes to introduction

Former introduction made ad-hominem attacks on Craig and was inaccurate (NLP is a widely-accepted form of psychology). Does the intro on general relativity point out that Einstein was a patent clerk? Describing Craig as a realtor in the intro is appalling editing. Craig's income method should appear later in the article as part of an explanation of EFT's growth in popularity, largely due to a description of the method being freely available.

The intro also implied that 'science' had "concluded" that EFT worked only in terms of explainable mechanisms. The irony of implying a single study can prove a mechanism was not lost on me.

The intro is still strongly on the negative side and thus breaches the NPOV rule. It needs further work. Mindjuicer (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC) i>Keithbob

Correction: neurolinguistic programming is not a "widely-accepted form of psychology", and is in fact often identified as "discredited" by mainstream psychological researchers and expert bodies (e.g. [1]). I'm fine with leaving out the "realtor" part, since Craig is presumably not notable as a realtor. As far as proving a negative, I think you need to understand that's not exactly how the scientific method works. One starts with a null hypothesis - that EFT has no effect beyond placebo. One needs to prove that EFT has a effect. You don't assume it works and then demand conclusive disproof. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your last paragraph shows your agenda. Wikipedia rules are not concerned with whether or not EFT works. They are only concerned with the article having a NPOV position. Mindjuicer (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If Craig was a realtor, why would it be "appalling" to say so? It's pretty normal for alt-med to be invented and practiced by people with no credible medical training. However, in the interests of compromise, I've replaced that with Craig's own wording. Apparently he's shifted from real estate to being an "ordained minister", offering EFT in this capacity. No doubt some people will continue to take him seriously. I've seen no evidence that Craig's church offers anything other than EFT/NLP but perhaps more evidence will come to light. bobrayner (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

At least you're open about your agenda. I already stated why it's appalling editing. You simply replaced one form of ad-hominem attack with another and brought back an inaccuracy to maintain a highly negative introduction to EFT in line with your agenda. If you do not rectify these two issues within 24 hours, I will revert again. I suggest you read the Wikipedia principles on NPOV and due weight. Mindjuicer (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Craig's background is key to EFT, and a similar brief description is mentioned by very many sources (although nobody seems to know how Craig made the step from engineering student to creator of a new medical paradigm). I'm happy to omit the realtor thing, since it's much less widely discussed than the "ordained minister" notion. We won't achieve neutrality in alt-med articles by removing any sourced content which even tangentially casts doubt on the subject; I've added a few extra sources on this point. To avoid focussing too much on Craig I have also provided some more detail on the process; to soothe concerns about neutrality or bias, I got the latter from a source which takes EFT seriously, rather than from an EBM source. If you have any more detail on how EFT is actually supposed to work, feel free to add it. bobrayner (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In what way is Craig's background key to EFT? Do any of the multitudes of people who've benefited from EFT (whether it works significantly better than placebo or not) need to know about Craig's background? Does the EMDR intro even mention Shapiro? Does the NLP intro go on about Bandler's ever-so-juicy background?

You've dug yourself a hole here.

You also broke WP:REVEXP twice. I'm reverting yours for reasons explained clearly. 82.26.133.16 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresenting others doesn't help your case; the edits were explained here and in edit summaries, which is wholly compatible with WP:REVEXP, and describing the inventor's background is certainly not an ad-hominem. Possibly absurd fictions and shrill logic-chopping are useful in the EFT community, but they're no way to build an encyclopædia.

Article should not be determined by who can hammer the revert button fastest; if you don't agree with the content, then find a source that supports your beliefs instead. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for removing sourced, accurate content. If a hole has been dug, all you have to do is step away from the shovel: Take your finger off the revert button and try providing better content or sources. Alternatively, if you have a valid reason for removing accurate, sourced, relevant content, now would be the time to reveal it. bobrayner (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you also removed sourced content on the technique itself (not just the inventor). I can't fathom why you would do that too. Why was the detail on the technique removed? bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to make a case for WP:REVEXP (you've broken it 3x now) or WP:NPOV. Although you will simply revert this again because of your agenda, I have kept your so-called content. Your ad-hominem attack is now in the Critical Reception section where it looks equally stupid. And since you apparently can't use a dictionary, any irrelevant description of the inventor which, by proxy, puts the process in a bad light is an ad-hominem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindjuicer (talk • contribs) 03:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood what an ad hominem attack is. A passing mention of the inventor of the EFT notion is not an ad hominem attack; it's quite relevant. On the other hand, your last comment was crammed full of ad hominems and assumptions of bad faith. I'll ask you again to try a couple of things:

1. Please stop your disruptive editing;
2. Please stop lying about my editing, and try to assume good faith.

bobrayner (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted these edits, which have been repeatedly reinserted by Mindjuicer (talk · contribs) with his account and via IP. The edits remove appropriately sourced information. They also misrepresent sources and insert original research and commentary, by highlighting what one editor perceives as flaws in the cited study. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why have you created a new section? I stated the changes on this page 24 hours before making them. No-one replied and still no-one has.

Are you refusing to discuss the changes or are you too stupid to notice the discussion (try scrolling up)?

How is any source misrepresented? What is your definition of appropriately sourced?

You cannot bully your way through this. I will escalate it until you and bobrayner stop reverting every worthwhile change to this, one of the worst pages on Wikipedia. Mindjuicer (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I did scroll up a bit, but all I saw was you attacking bobrayner (talk · contribs). It didn't appear to be a particularly productive discussion, so I started a new thread, hoping we could focus on content this time.

You removed the appropriate description of this study, and replaced it with your own editorial attempt to "rebut" the study. That's completely inappropriate and against site policy. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty polite to bobrayner (talk · contribs) considering. Moving on as I would love to focus on content.

I do not need to rebut the study as it is not a study of EFT, the latter being a necessary part of any "appropriate description". It's only relevance to this article is a perhaps common mistaken assumption that it is a study of EFT.

Talk pages don't seem to have named anchors. Try searching for the phrase "The 2003 study is so seriously flawed" - that is the discussion I started/continued and would be a more suitable place for discussing how this irrelevant study should have a much less significant place in the article. Mindjuicer (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been trying to kneecap the 2003 study for at least 3 years now. In fact, your major contribution to Wikipedia thus far appears to be your effort to remove, downplay, or editorially disparage this particular study. Your personal criticisms of the study are not sufficient grounds to belittle it in our article; that's the gist of WP:NOR. So it doesn't actually help to keep repeating that you don't like the study. I get that. Do you have objections beyond your personal dislike of the study's findings? MastCell ^Talk 04:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You are blathering. I see you showed your anti-EFT bias in 2008 as well. Do you not realise that alone makes you unqualified to edit this article?

Since you've repeatedly failed to justify the study's inclusion, I'm restoring the change. --Mindjuicer (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Accusing anybody who disagrees with you of being biased is not going to help your point. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Stepping in Mindjuicer, your comments that NLP is a widely accepted form of psychology suggest that you don't know the first thing about psychology. The 2003 study is currently the best attempt to investigate the validity of EFT - it failed. Deal with it. The consensus on this page appears to be to keep this study in the article - deal with it. Calling other editors "stupid" is unhelpful. You appear to be a single-purpose account, which suggests that you don't really care about the accuracy of Wikipedia, just object to this particular study. This doesn't help your case. If you can find a reliable source that backs up your opinion of this study then do so, otherwise go away. Famousdog (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My expertise in psychology is not actually relevant.

The 2003 study is a joke. The fact that you stand up for it shows you don't even care whether it investigated EFT or not -- it didn't.

Last I checked I had 60+ edits to my account. It is my sole account. Your ad-hominem attacks on me are as irrelevant to me as they are to this discussion page. Mindjuicer (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Any editor's expertise in any field is irrelevant. True enough.

There is no indication the 2003 study "is a joke". It was published in a peer reviewed journal, passing WP:MEDRS. It clearly did investigate EFT, as clearly outlined in the "Design" section of the study.

Yes, you have roughly 60 edits. While not quite a single purpose account, it is true that close to 2/3 of your edits (and all of your edits in the past 4 months) are related to this topic. Famousdog's interpretation of your motives based on this, however, is weak (and a moot point). - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You also have to face the fact that your interpretation of the study is not shared by a WP:CONSENSUS here and one person does not get to force his POV into an article against consensus, that's just not how WP works. I concur with the other editors here as well, so unless you have some sources to present these conversations will go no where and the article will retain its current content. N^oformation ^Talk 08:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd respond to these.

SummerPhD is wrong in stating that "It clearly did investigate EFT, as clearly outlined in the "Design" section of the study." Unsupported claims contradicted by easily verifiable evidence are false claims.

"close to 2/3 of your edits (and all of your edits in the past 4 months) are related to this topic" probably is factual. WP seems to have cookies that expire quickly. Therefore nearly all edits I make are minor ones whilst not logged in. Sorry, I have a rotating IP too. I understand that experienced editors will come across bad editors all the time and that people have strong (irrational) feelings about what we can scientifically say about a subject like this. Repeated unexplained instant reversions and the disgraceful & biased state of this article were the main causes of my editing behaviour on this article.

WP:V as it stands can be interpreted to promote inclusion of false claims if published by a 'reliable' source. There is consensus on the discussion page that WP:V is flawed and the current draft replacement supports my edit. Until that draft or similar is implemented, the article must still be moved towards NPOV. I await suggestions. --Mindjuicer (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Design ... The treatment group (Group EFT) received EFT therapy. The placebo group (Group P) received the same procedure as Group EFT, but the tapping points were located along each participant's arm, away from the areas identified as meridian points. As a further control for possible unforeseen benefits of tapping regardless of the location, a third group (Group M) modeled the EFT treatment by tapping a doll instead of themselves. ... Group EFT followed the treatment procedures outlined in the EFT manual (Craig, 2001a)." Your claim that they did not do what they said they did is based on either the creator of EFT (clearly biased against the study) or your own personal evaluation. Unless/until you have a reliable source appropriate to this area, the study stands. Additionally, the consensus established here and at Editor_assistance/Requests is that the study stays.

As for WP:V promoting the inclusion of false information when published in reliable sources, this is certainly true. There is no reasonable alternative. If you would like to gather experimental data to prove this study is flawed, go for it. Then get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Then bring it here. There is no truth, only provisional "facts". This applies to EVERYTHING published here and everywhere else. Had Wikipedia existed over the ages, we would have misreported billions of "truths", from the origin of man to the boiling point of water. We cannot determine whether or not something is "true", only whether the facts are verifiable. If you'd like to do otherwise, there are other wiki projects (i.e., edited like Wikipedia but with entirely different policies). Feel free to seek one out that allows your style of arguments. You'll find that one of two outcomes: the project is small enough that anyone can say anything or the arguments never end because anyone can use anything as a basis. Here at Wikipedia, though, we stick to what we can verify. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

24+ hours before this particular edit, I posted the following on this very page. It remains unanswered:

"The 2003 study is so seriously flawed that I don't think you can even claim it's testing EFT. Probably the most important flaw is that the phrase used is backwards. The subjects affirmed 'solution' then 'problem', something any half-decent therapist would raise an eyebrow at. I recall from Craig's site that the researchers insisted that the breathing intervention wasn't made up, but Craig claimed it had never been part of the EFT protocol.

In my opinion, the study has zero credibility and should be removed entirely from the Intro, with only a passing note in the Research section. Does any published criticism still exist?"

I wonder if anyone will address it now.

This is the wrong place to discuss WP:V. Suffice it to say, given the amount of Discussion on that page, the consensus is that there probably IS a reasonable alternative and one has already been drafted. --Mindjuicer (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The consensus, as discussed, is to include the verifiable results of the study. Your opinion to the contrary is noted. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Here's a sampling from the journals referenced. All of these are peer-reviewed with an editorial board composed of MD's, Ph.D's and MD Ph.D's in the field. The editorial boards work at prestigious universities like Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, and Yale.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training is published by the American Psychological Association.

Psychology Journal has a normal editorial board: http://psychologicalpublishing.com/editorialboard.aspx

Energy Psychology has a normal editorial board: http://energypsychologyjournal.org/?page_id=5

The journal Psychological Medicine is published by Cambridge with an impact factor of 5.2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Medicine

NeuroImage is a leading journal with an impact factor of 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeuroImage

International Journal of Traumatology editorial board: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?ct_p=boards&prodId=Journal201842

I'm not sure what further qualification is reasonable. Simply having a journal on a subcategory of psychology research (ie, energy psychology or epigenetics) that is debated or an editor disagrees with is not an objective criteria under WP:MEDRS. Urbanfunky (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Journal of Counseling & Clinical Psychology no longer exists and the link to the Rowe article are broken. The publisher appears to simply be a website called "Psychology Journal" (hmmmm). This is not in my opinion a reliable source and should not be included until the paper itself is made available in some form. Energy Psychology is a fringe journal the editorial board of which is full of people desperate to prove that energy medicine works. It is published by the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) whose stated mission is "Championing EP techniques such as Emotional Freedom Techniques - EFT, Thought Field Therapy - TFT, Tapas Acupressure Technique - TAT and more." It is not therefore a reliable source. The International Journal of Healing & Caring is published by "Wholistic Healing Research" which, despite claiming to be an "open access journal" appears to just be a blog. Its editorial board contains people who describe themselves as "QiGong Master" and "business advisor and ... journalist". This is not a reliable source. Suffice to say none of these three journals is listed on PubMed. Famousdog (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, NeuroImage is a highly respected journal - but your defense of EFT by appealing to the Hui et al research on acupuncture is an inappropriate sysnthesis of material. How is that paper relevant to EFT? All it says is that research has been carried out on acupuncture (and a single acupuncture point at that) using fMRI. So what? Why is it here? Famousdog (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Expanded Article

The expanded article has been edited to carefully reflect WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:MEDRS components of the alternative medicine rules. The edits are presented in good faith and significantly expand Wikipedia's treatment of the topic and controversy. The previous article is a flimsy caricature (sorry, it's true) of the published evidence, and it cannot be considered a serious or neutral treatment. Please AGF and read the article before making major edits, as the article addresses with reliable citations many questions editors may have.

Please tag or edit if you take issue with a particular section or specific reference (reflecting WP:ROWN and WP:PRESERVE). Urbanfunky (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are highly POV, several of your sources are not reliable in the slightest and the sources that are reliable are only here because you are making an inappropriate synthesis (sorry, it's true). Famousdog (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the edits in question adhere to sourcing guidelines, even remotely. First of all, the lead states categorically that EFT meets "American Psychological Association standards" of efficacy, thus explicitly giving the APA's imprimatur to the treatment. This is a rather exceptional claim, requiring exceptional sourcing, per policy - yet it's sourced to eftuniverse.com.

The edits also misrepresent the degree of mainstream support for EFT rather egregiously, with an appeal to authority ("replicated in more than 15 peer-reviewed journals"). Those journals are hardly representative of the medical or scientific mainstream, and in some cases are explicitly outside it - yet that essential context is hidden from the reader. This is a failure to provide due weight and context.

Finally, while several reputable journal articles are cited, these often say absolutely nothing about EFT, and are used to editorially create links between EFT and more established forms of alternative medicine such as acupuncture. Thus, the content in question violates all three of this site's fundamental content policies, those on verifiability, neutrality, and original research and synthesis. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Mastcell's observations here and would add that removing the criticism section is definitely an WP:NPOV problem as the article would then be giving WP:UNDUE weight to fringe science while ignoring the mainstream opinion on the matter. I especially agree with Mastcell's take on the conflation of EFT and acupuncture. Unless sources specifically state that they are equivalent terms, it is a WP:SYNTH violation for us to make that connection. As far as an APA endorsement, I think this would need to be sourced to the APA directly. N^oformation ^Talk 19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope it's apparent to editors that their personal view is not the mainstream view. Rather, I think the relevant mainstream view is that of psychotherapists. Due to a split in the field, there are two groups: traditionally trained psychotherapists and psychotherapists who've trained outside of a state-based education system.

As one of the latter, I'd say that views on EFT are split 50/50. As for traditionally trained, I suspect it's closer to 25/75.

As such, I'd suggest that the due weight of positive vs critical description be 1/3rd vs 2/3rds and this should be reflected in the introduction especially. The second paragraph of the intro is highly misrepresentative and needs rewriting entirely.

Urbanfunky's paragraph on downloads is certainly as relevant as a Guardian journalist trying to be entertaining and Skeptical Enquirer who make money out of being skeptical.

It is not original research to suggest that acupuncture and EFT share one similar mechanism - it is obvious. I do agree that efficacy of acupuncture has only slight relevance to EFT but that is still worth a small mention because of the paucity of verifiable scientific research on EFT itself (regardless of WP:V undergoing changes). Mindjuicer (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is synthesis for us to draw a conclusion not specifically stated by the source, it may be obvious to you but it's not obvious to me, and since editors have disparity of knowledge (among other reasons) we have WP:SYNTH. Re everything else, well, our article will reflect the sources in proportion to their prominence as per WP:DUE, we can't simply take your word on the matter so sources will have to do the talking. What do you mean when you say "trained outside of a state-based eductation system?" Do you mean unaccredited schools or private universities or something else? N^oformation ^Talk 03:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Under what policy do due weight of mainstream views have to derive from sources under the broken WP:V?

According to a survey in 2004, 38% of US adults used alternative medicine presumably because they think it helps where traditional medicine is unable. While some doctors practice alternative medice, the vast majority of practitioners got their training outside of a university medical degree. Mindjuicer (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mindjuicer, if you cannot back up your edits with reliable sources, then arguing over your opinion of the exact split between believers and skeptics is not going to sway the other editors. I work in psychology - of the few people I have talked to in my field that have even heard of this (about 12.375%, I reckon) most (about 87.672%) think that its total hogwash. See what I did there? Why should we take you opinion as reflective of reality when you are clearly pushing a POV? How about you GET SOME RELIABLE SOURCES and then GET BACK TO US. Famousdog (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the POV I'm pushing? That this article should be NPOV? It's pretty obvious what yours is.

In the absence of any reliable sources on what mainstream views of EFT are I put forward an unbiased, informed explanation of what I think the ratio of favourable to unfavourable should be. Feel free to come up with a better explanation. Or if you have any other ideas to improve this pisspoor article, feel free to suggest them. Mindjuicer (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not our job nor in our capacity as editors to come up with any explanation, our job is to report what the reliable sources say. Fringe topics are difficult because many reliable sources don't bother, but ultimately we have to go with what we have. I think the POV Famousdog is referring to is when you said that views on EFT are split 50/50 - you have no way to sourcing this (that I know of) and so it's your POV. Also, can you clarify what you meant by "trained outside of a state based education system?" Exactly to what type of schools does this refer? Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, to clarify what seems like a misconception that you hold: the opinions of the population have no bearing on DUE, DUE weight is given to relevant sources in any given field. That means that for history we go to historians, for medicine we go to doctors/scientists, etc, and we don't publish alternative medicine sources as though they have WP:PARITY with mainstream scientific sources. Mainstream, however, does not refer to popular opinion, it refers to the scientific mainstream. N^oformation ^Talk 22:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If we followed your example, we would then go to alternative medicine practitioners as sources on alternative medicine.

I answered your question about "state based education systems" above.

I asked for the policy which effectively states "Mainstream, however, does not refer to popular opinion, it refers to the scientific mainstream" as yours is currently POV.

I agree that "we don't publish alternative medicine sources as though they have WP:PARITY with mainstream scientific sources." That's not to say we can't mention them at all - just that they are portrayed with the lower credibility they have. Mindjuicer (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(i) Alternative medicine makes claims about medicine and thus we go to doctors and scientists. Of course people who practice and/or believe in alternative medicine would like it if we used their sources but that would make for an encyclopedia biased against the mainstream. (ii) The policy you're looking for regarding popular opinion is WP:NPOV which states "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Reliable sources in the context of this article are defined in WP:MEDRS. If we didn't follow that, then the Evolution article would have a section on creationism as a large chunk of the American population believe in it and reject evolution, which is accepted by 99% of relevant scientists in the field. (iii) Alternative medicine sources can be used to make non-scientific claims about their beliefs or their movement, but they cannot be portrayed as making reliable scientific claims, this is per WP:FRINGE. N^oformation ^Talk 04:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Doctors would only be qualified to comment on alternative medicine if they'd actually studied it, were free of influence from Big Pharma etc. Thanks for (ii). What counts as a reliable source is relevant here. It is not limited to peer-reviewed studies and so one would have to weigh up other published commentary on EFT, notably some of the studies in less credible journals and the weight that unbiased scientists themselves might give each. Agree with (iii). Mindjuicer (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not how WP works, we use mainstream sources for alternative medicine, and we use WP:MEDRS as a supplement to WP:V when dealing with medical articles, let me quote "this guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine", emphasis mine. It defines what sources are permissible in medical articles, if you haven't read this policy in depth then please do so as I think it will explain better than I why we do not give weight to such sources. N^oformation ^Talk 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your patience. You are coming across as an unbiased editor unlike the others.

However WP:MEDASSESS would seem to contradict you. "Knowing the quality of the evidence helps editors distinguish between minority and majority viewpoints, determine due weight, and identify information that will be accepted as evidence-based medicine. In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom."

It does not say solely upon high-quality evidence, nor does Waite 2003 come under that description.

Nor do What counts as a reliable source or WP:RS support your contention that 1 or 2 sources in established journals must determine due weight.

I can also refer you to Keithbob's earlier POV ruling which clearly states that more than half the article devoted to criticism means the article isn't NPOV.

Therefore, it seems that due weight for this EFT article comes down to an assessment of the credibility of the 2 primary sources (Waite and Karatzias) _and_ other sources. Mindjuicer (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(i) You're very welcome, I try my best not to be a dick :) (though sometimes it can be tough haha). In that MEDASSESS section there is no contradiction as it is dealing not with "minority viewpoints" in regards to alternative medicine, but in the context of minority viewpoints within the scientific community and specifically evidence based medicine. For instance, there are points of contention within evolutionary theory that not all scientists agree on, and so these points are covered. On the other hand, Intelligent design, creation science and their ilk are not covered because they are not within the scientific mainstream. So when we say that sources have to be evaluated in this regard, it's not a license to use alternative sources in the same way that mainstream sources are used. This section could probably be worded a little more specifically, but the policy in general is clear in regards to the types of sourcing we can use. (ii) WP:MEDRS was written to supplement WP:RS with specific regard to medical articles. Nothing in MEDRS should contradict regular RS, rather it's much more specific regarding what we can do in these types of articles. (iii) The earlier POV warning may well be correct (I don't know the background of it so won't comment too much), but that doesn't mean we can violate MEDRS to balance the article. There may be other avenues, such as removing some critique if it's excessive, but we can't supplement the article with improper sources N^oformation ^Talk 05:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I'm dropping way too much bureaucracy on you right now and this is getting really hypothetical. Let me give you one guideline called WP:BOLD which talks about the bold, revert, discussion cycle. Feel free to be bold and make edits to the page, leave a good edit summary and see if it gets reverted. If it does, bring it up here and we can take things edit by edit. I don't want you to get the impression that your contributions are not welcome here because they certainly are, and I know that all this policy can make one wonder how the hell WP got built in the first place. N^oformation ^Talk 08:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Open letter

Firstly, that open letter from Gary Craig does conform to WP:SPS and is therefore not a reliable source. Despite that, it is a brilliant example of pseudoscience in action. The talk of the fingertips also containing powerful meridians "disproving" the doll-placebo demonstrates that EFT is infalsifiabile, which renders it a pseudoscience. Also, if Gary Craig is willing to accept that the efficacy (implying that it is effective, which it probably isn't) of EFT can be explained by another theory then is EFT even a "theory" or "technique" in itself? The fact that he won't accept any theory that makes EFT look like a load of sh*t (like the placebo efect, distraction or desensitization) is irrelevant. That is not his decision to make! If other, already well-known effects can explain these results then there really is nothing to see here. Move along, people... Famousdog (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The open letter does probably conform to WP:SPS as Gary Craig is criticising published peer-reviewed research and he is doing that on his own website (promotional source). But I wanted to only take one piece of information from there, that stated that he is open to other theories, as we as humans don't know everything. Now I don't want to get off-topic, but if we did know everything about our human body, then Biology & Biochemistry research would have stopped, but it hasn't. Over the years we might discover the real theory behind EFT. There is a study being conducted at the moment named 'Exploratory Dismantling Study Aimed at Clarifying Why EFT is Efficacious: An Attempt to Begin to Identify EFT’s Specific Mechanism(s) of Action' that will be attempting to discover why EFT is effective. OpinionPerson (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I think David Feinstein has only analysed the anecdotal evidence about EFT to encourage research on EFT, not to attempt to scientifically prove that EFT is effective. OpinionPerson (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All that is based on the assumption that EFT is effective. That is one big assumption. It also sounds (from the implicit assumptions made in the title of that research project) that the research is being conducted by researchers who are already clearly "sold" on the idea that it works and, finally, until its published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, all the "research" in the world is just lip-service. Saying you're going to provide evidence is not the same as providing evidence. Famousdog (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well previous research (e.g. Church study) showed positive outcomes from the use of these techniques, now the researchers want to find out why these positive outcomes occur. Is it distraction? Placebo effect? CBT? Systematic desentezation??? The coming studies will be published in a variety of journals, but I don't know which ones yet. OpinionPerson (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS has been pointed out before - for strong medical claims, we rely on strongly reliable sources. These include review articles published in high-quality medical journals, textbooks, statements by reliable medical bodies and other authoritative, evidence-based medicine entities, etc. We don't rely on single studies with various flawed methodologies on a topic with no reliable relation to existing knowledge about psychology, neurology, physiology, biology or physics. I doubt there are other articles where the majority of the page consists of lengthy reports on the methods, results, summaries and discussions of individual studies; it is considerable undue weight on single sets of results, and inappropriate. Bring it up at MEDRS or WP:NPOVN if you don't think this is correct. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The doll study is interesting in that all three treatment groups -- random tapping, doll tapping, and standard recipe tapping -- achieved solid results. The control group had no results. This study actually still proves that EFT works, however the way it works is a bit mysterious. Some things are.

Please remember that many forms of talk therapy perform really terribly when you study them, and that CBT is the gold standard for scientific study at the moment. Any form of therapy that consistently does as well or even better than CBT, no matter how confusing or even wrong the theory behind it might be, is a really important discovery that deserves some ink. User:Urbanfunky 01:55, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS is to protect against self-promotion - you are misusing it for your clearly established anti-EFT POV. It states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Craig is clearly an established expert in his own field and his work has been repeatedly published by reliable third-party publications. The only exception to this are exceptional claims, none of which are made. The open letter can be included, as a less authoritative source than the various studies and in an NPOV way that presents the possibility of pro-EFT bias. Secondly, lack of falsifiability does not make something a pseudoscience - that is your POV, which would make evolution a pseudoscience. You might want to look at Wikipedia's own article on pseudoscience. Mindjuicer (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(i) SPS is partly to protect against self-promotion and also to protect against unreliable sourcing. "Expert" in this context means something like someone who has a PhD in a given field; you cannot have an "expert" in pseudoscience except in the context of being an expert of science and knowing pseudoscience when you see it. (ii) Lack of falsifiability is part of being a pseudoscience, but not the only qualification. Evolution is absolutely falsifiable; if we were to find a modern rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era that would be rather hard to explain and would certainly falsify our current understanding of natural selection (since modern rabbits could not have existed in the form they do now million of years ago). (iii) In the future, please don't post your responses above other peoples out of chronological order like that. This topic is from 2009 and had many responses, so your responses should go below them N^oformation ^Talk 04:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please justify from WP policy anything you wrote in (i) else it's POV.

Re (ii), to match your counterargument, it might well be found that EFT doesn't depend on using one's own fingers any more than acupuncture depends on sticking needles into oneself. This is at least testable - feel free to propose an experiment to disprove existence of modern rabbits in the Cambrian period.

WP:PSCI states that pseudoscientific theories must be "presented by proponents as science", something I doubt you can demonstrate.

Given the large amount of research going on, EFT is actually a fringe science although that article states the term is perjorative and hence POV. Mindjuicer (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a "reliable third-party publication" in which Craig has published details of EFT then I will eat my hat. As far as I can tell, his theories and technique have only ever been published in book form or in very unreliable publications. Famousdog (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS does not say that Craig's theories have to be published under his own name in "reliable third-party publications". They have, of course, been published in multiple such sources deemed reliable by editors including yourself in this very article. Mindjuicer (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To reproduce the quote from WP:SPS that you yourself refer to above: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." ... That would seem to suggest that Craig's own work needs to have been published by reliable third-party publications for him to be considered an "expert". This may sound silly, since EFT is his idea, but there are good reasons for it. Other people who have published work investigating Craig's theories in reliable third-party publications may be considered "experts" since their work has passed peer-review. But Craig circumvented the whole peer-review process at the very beginning by self-publishing his manual on the internet. Coming up with a goofy idea and then publishing it on the internet does not make you an expert - even on your own theory - since you may not be in possession of relevant counter-evidence. That's why peer review is so important. There is also another serious objection to including material like this: If we allow his open letter to be included - how will we bring up valid objections to his response (such as those that I outline in the very first post in this thread from 2009) without breaching guidelines on original research? There are no responses to this letter in reliable sources that we could cite precisely because it is self-published. WP:SPS defends against promotion and lobbying, but also against giving undue weight to who can push out the most material on their website. That is why it cannot (and should not) be included. Famousdog (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:SPS is a subset of WP:COI as stated by Wifione 07:46, 1 December 2011. What is the conflict of interest here?

What the source can be used for is covered by other policies including WP:UNDUE.

Your concern about WP:OR exactly mirrors my concern about putting the joke science that is Waite 2003 as one of two main sources. But we are not talking about making the letter an equivalently weighted source. We are talking about giving it its due weight and in particular, explaining a weird assertion from another unreliable source ie Skeptical Inquirer. Mindjuicer (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@Mindjuicer It's finals week for me and I don't have any time to clarify my comments above. I posted about this topic to the fringe theories notice board so I'm sure someone will come along and further elaborate for me. If not I'll do so next week. N^oformation ^Talk 20:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Article title

As there seems to be some dispute whether the article should be titled "Emotional Freedom Technique" or "Emotional Freedom Techniques", I think EFT is more commonly known as Emotional Freedom Technique (singular). Google returns more than double the results for "Emotional Freedom Technique" than "Emotional Freedom Techniques". I don't understand which results Google is including here so feel free to dispute that. Nor do I particularly mind which we use but it would seem to imply that we value Craig's expertise on the matter rather than the web-&-EFT-using public. And yes this has probably has bearing on WP:SPS re the Open Letter to Waite & Holder. Mindjuicer (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Craig, the originator of the idea, uses the plural. In an ambiguous case like this, with a term that's in Title Case and all, that seems to me to trump other uses on the web. (The ads I'm seeing on campus universally use the plural form, for what that's worth.) The non-plural form is here, as a re-direct. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Research section

So it looks like EFT has nothing to do with sources being used in the research section.

1. Source #8 - The words "EFT," "freedom" or "emotional freedom technique" do not appear in the source. Secondly, the source is not a peer reviewed source and so fails MEDRS
2. Source #9 The words "EFT, "freedom" or "emotional freedom technique" do not appear in this source either. Source looks fine otherwise, but it's not about EFT so doesn't belong here.
3. http://www.eatingdisordertreatment.com/treatment-solutions/treatment-modalities/eye-movement-desensitization-and-reprocessing-emdr Again, those terms do not appear in the source and it's not MEDRS as it's not peer reviewed.
4. Regarding http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11098395, I cannot access the full text but based on the abstract it says nothing at all about EFT. All of those sources are used to cite a single sentence regarding EMDR, which I'm not sure should be in the article.
5. Sources 12-17 all fail MEDRS and are also not being used to cite anything in the text except to say that they exist.
6. Regarding source #7 (the primary study), I'm not sure that this should be in here per WP:PRIMARY. I will post about this at the RS noticeboard when I have a moment. Anyway, unless there are any objections I will remove the last sentence of the second paragraph as well as the last paragraph regarding alternative publications as those definitely do not belong here. Mindjuicer, I will relpy to your comments under "open letter" in the next couple days. N^oformation ^Talk 01:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources 8-11 are used to justify the statement that "the effectiveness and scientific basis of EMDR is also an issue of ongoing debate". I haven't checked those 4 articles but at least one would be necessary to justify the statement. I personally do not know whether the statement is accurate. The WP article on EMDR holds a very different position. As they are both subject to the same policy, one of them is presumably very wrong.

It is not possible to fail WP:MEDRS, the latter only determining what statements are allowed, not what sources are allowed. I took advice on this (also note the WP:Consensus advice re WP:SPS).

I suspect that any statements that 12-17 were supporting.. were removed by anti-EFT editors who, in a token attempt at POV & reasonableness, didn't remove the sources themselves.

I will be going over them in the next week. I will also be using 3 peer-reviewed papers which criticise Waite to provide an NPOV view of their study. Feel free to remove them in the meantime - that they support no statements is even worse Wikiquette than the POV state of the article that comes from removing them. Mindjuicer (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Page significantly rewritten. This is a speculative technique based on speculative assumptions and we shouldn't promote it. No secondary sources exist discussing it that I'm aware of, so we shouldn't go into the specifics of individual studies; I would argue an exception be made for the two higher quality ones. I would argue that per WP:UCS a single source stating that EMDR is bunk is relevant and permittable, and similarly have added Trick or Treatment to verify the fact that TCM is also nonsense. EFT shouldn't be discussed in detial, nor should there be a lengthy description of how to do it. The page should be short and vague given it's extraordinary speculative and improbable nature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you've made some good changes but a lot of bad ones. EFT is not pseudoscience. It fits fringe science. Skeptical Inquirer is not a reliable source - it is a popular skeptical magazine with no peer-review. All(?) the peer-reviewed sources you deleted are more reliable than it.

Far from a speculative technique, it is used by hundreds of thousands of people with that number growing rapidly. Whether we want to provide an informative article is up for debate.

Both primary sources have indicated that it works as well as any other medical intervention. You introduced WP:OR on the Waite study.

Good changes including getting rid of the Critical Reception section.

It will take me a while to sort out the good from the bad. Mindjuicer (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't really have any consensus for the edits you appear to want to make, which appear to unduly promote a hypothesis based on a stack of hypothetical and unproven - if not disproven - hypotheses that bear no link biology, anatomy, histology or physics as we know it. SI is a suitable parity source for a fringe claim that's got no serious attention, particularly based as it is on speculative, essentially magical theories about TCM. There's already an explanation for how EFT could work - placebo, distraction and extinction. This is due weight to the majority opinion - TCM and related derived theories isn't medicine. Claims of efficacy and significant discussion is inappropriate given it's lack of real scholarly support, attention or uptake in the research community.

I wasn't aware that the number of people who think something is true was an arbiter of actual truth. That makes the actual spherical nature of the earth rather surprising given how many people thought it was flat. I wonder when the change occurred? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to disprove the hypothesis.

Regardless of how EFT works, it works (as well as anything else out there). 2 primary sources say so.

This repudiates your claim of parity.

"Claims of efficacy and significant discussion is inappropriate given it's lack of real scholarly support, attention or uptake in the research community." This is how slow the research community is. Hypnotherapy is a prime example. Both primary sources say that more research is needed.

I'm not saying the hundreds of thousands of people practising EFT proves anything. I'm saying a lot of people will come to Wikipedia to look it up. Do we want to give them an informative article or not?

Lastly, the article was ruled NPOV, which is one of the primary rules of Wikipedia. We were getting close to POV and you're trying to move it back towards NPOV. Mindjuicer (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Secondary sources are needed to make medical claims, while medical criticisms can be supported through judicious use of primary sources - if consensus exists. Claiming it works as well as anything else out there is an active claim not supported by any evidence I am aware of. There appears to be a minimal number of studies and they weren't very well done.

Parity means that, when lacking high-quality sources, we can use "lower level" sources to indicate that the topic has little mainstream interest or inquiry. SI is adequate to indicate that EFT's claims are pseudoscientific.

Saying something needs more research is meaningless. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we wait until the research community accepts a hypothesis or intervention, then report it. We follow the research community, we do not lead it.

When people come to look up EFT, they should see that it is based on unfalsifiable claims, there is minimal research and numerous criticisms. This is appropriate since we are not here to promote EFT.

"Neutral" means "given the appropriate weight as found in mainstream, reliable sources". Since there's almost nothing on EFT in the real research literature, no secondary sources, and criticism from those sources recognized for pointing out nonsense, that's the weight we give it. WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY exist so we do not give undue weight to surprising or unsupported claims that happen to push out some primary sources in shoddy publications. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. The extraordinary claims made by EFT (notably the basis in TCM, which is itself an extraordinary claim) means you need some good sources to support it. To date I haven't seen any. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is making any medical claims hence no secondary sources are needed.

"Medical criticisms can be supported through judicious use of primary sources - if consensus exists." This sounds like WP:OR too.

"Claiming it works as well as anything else out there is an active claim not supported by any evidence I am aware of." Point out something that is proven to work better - and you started this debate.

"There appears to be a minimal number of studies and they weren't very well done." This is definitely true of Waite and I've been saying it for a long time. The only problem with Karatzias that I see is lack of comparison with more established treatments - a control would be meaningless.

WP:PARITY doesn't mean you take one source which relies on a bias of being skeptical to survive and put it ahead of peer-reviewed scientific research. I'm surprised I have to repeat this.

So what you've done is removed any references by the two primary sources saying it works, removed multiple peer-reviewed research papers entirely and distorted the weak SI source (who never call EFT the perjorative term "pseudoscience") to justify rewriting the article to 100% suit your POV.

EFT clearly matches fringe science not pseudoscience. Asserting the latter is WP:OR. Just because SI hacks are too busy being skeptical to point out that you don't have to use your own fingers for EFT, doesn't mean that the intro should claim that EFT is unfalsifiable. And even if it was, that doesn't make it pseudoscience.

People coming to the EFT page should see the current state of research. Since we agree that it's at an early stage, I believe that more info should be provided in an NPOV fashion such that they can assess it for themselves. You needn't worry, the description matches your POV for almost everyone anyway. Mindjuicer (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Claiming EFT is effective in treating anxiety is a medical claim. Claiming meridians exist is a biological/scientific/medical claim. Secondary sources are necessary and preferred, in all cases. See WP:PSTS. Primary sources can be used judiciously, see WP:MEDRS. If you're repeating yourself a lot to multiple people, you may find that you aren't generating consensus. Another editor, and in particular multiple editors reverting you, is another indication. Pseudoscience is used extensively through the SI article, which explicitly discusses EFT along with why it's pseudoscience - lack of falsifiability. OR applies to articles, not to pages, which requires sources to verify text, which the SI article does. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Claiming EFT is effective in treating anxiety is a medical claim. Claiming meridians exist is a biological/scientific/medical claim." Yes and the article didn't claim either.

"Pseudoscience is used extensively through the SI article, which explicitly discusses EFT along with why it's pseudoscience - lack of falsifiability." But it never actually says EFT is pseudoscience, so your statement is OR. Plus it's a weak source to begin with.

So, do you have any reasons I've yet to deal with that mean I shouldn't revert a second time? Mindjuicer (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No consensus for your edits and 3RR? N^oformation ^Talk 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No consensus and several reverts. You can keep reverting, but chances are you'll be blocked for edit warring. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that all you have? You and another anti-EFT editor can make the article say whatever you want because you outvote me regardless neither of you are able to justify it?

I have made one reversion so far as I kept 2 of WLU's changes. I'm justified in reverting a second time on WP:ROWN alone. I just wanted to see if you could back these destructive edits up. It seems not so far. Mindjuicer (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mindjuicer, I will remind you to assume good faith regarding the motivations of other editors. Branding anybody who demands more/better evidence than you as "anti-EFT" (as you have done repeatedly on this talk page) is simply going to get you blocked. I also am in agreement with Noformation and WLU, but Wikipedia is not a democracy and you can always overturn consensus if you can produce reliable sources. The pro-EFT studies that were on this page are (for the reasons that were outlined in the original version of the article) not reliable. In your discussion of the EDMR study, saying "the study "produced significant therapeutic gains"" conflates statistical significance with importance and is likely to mislead readers. Especially when you factor in the highly likely scenario that the "gains" from both techniques are simply a placebo effect or the result of distraction, or empowerment, or cognitive dissonance, or a hundred other psychological processes rather than any magical property of the technique. The additional details of the technique are not necessary for a general reader - this is an encyclopedia, not a self-help book. Famousdog (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I assumed good faith but you're all intent on producing the most anti-EFT article possible. You are all pseudoscientists in the true sense of the word. You pretend to be coming from a scientific perspective but you're using broken logic to make EFT look as bad as possible.

Yes. You are pseudoscientists.

I would also like to rub it in your faces that EFT will thrive no matter how often you revert improvements to this article. Mindjuicer (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't we try to concentrate on building an accurate and neutral article? bobrayner (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mindjuicer, if we were "intent on producing the most anti-EFT article possible" (at which point I should note your continuing assumption of bad faith and your application of the perjorative "pseudoscientists" to your fellow editors), it would read something like this:

"EFT is a load of bollocks. It is no good for anything, was made up by an unqualified loon and doesn't work. It rests entirely upon the already shaky foundations of traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. Reports of success are probably the result of placebo, psychological manipulation, publishing bias, experimenter bias and generally shit methodology. The end."

Currently the article is as neutral and accurate as the shoddy and scant literature allows. I know you think the Waite & Holder study is hogwash, but I - as a scientist - disagree. You have said above that it is "joke science", not "high-quality evidence" and wasn't "very well done". I see a lot of opinion and no argument. What exactly is wrong with Waite & Holder? I can tell you exactly what is wrong with Karatzias, but other editors have already beaten me to it. Science basically comes down to this: Put up or shut up. Famousdog (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mindjuicer has proclaimed wikipedia controlled by an elite army of skeptics bound and determined to keep us locked into a Western mindset [2]. He jumped right over the appeal to Jimbo and straight into proclaiming us broken. So I guess there's no need to continue this conversation. Praise be to Randi, fhtagn! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Pram. Toys. Out. I think Wikipedia's working just fine. Famousdog (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with dismissal of article

I take issue with the statement that "There is no evidence that acupuncture points, meridians or the other concepts of traditional Chinese medicine exist." A meta-analysis of 7 acupuncture studies conducted by the National Cancer Institute showed significant benefits from the treatment. The summary of the meta-analysis states that "Four randomized controlled trials,[1,2,4,5] a nonrandomized clinical study,[3] and two case series [6,7] found that acupuncture enhanced or regulated immune function.": http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/acupuncture/healthprofessional/Page5

See also the following BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/545019.stm

Surely if it was quackery as is argued here, then it wouldn't have produced such positive results.

Here are some resources on the benefits of EFT. Some are from sources that would be acceptable on wikipedia: http://energypsych.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=296

I have not drawn new information from this list, but will do so in the near future.

I propose that the following previous version of the article be used instead of this one: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=prev&oldid=454990253

There reasons for reverting it were, in my opinion, unjustified. So I have reverted the article back to the version I have cited and added the NCI and BBC citations in the "Related research into acupuncture points" section. The evidence does show that energy medicine works. Editors who find this uncomfortable might want to read Energy Medicine in Therapeutics and Human Performance by James Oschman. Also, the following may be of interest to skeptics: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-frog-time-lapse-video-reveals-never-before-seen.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.105.82 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 January 2012‎

You made changes, they were reverted, you must now reach concensus before you try and add your large chunk of text. Many of the sources you have used are not reliable; "International Journal of Healing and Caring" would pass WP:MEDRS, eftuniverse.com, "Energy Psychology: Theory, Research, & Treatment". A large section on acupuncture is also undue as the article is about EFT (it's also in-universe sourced it seems). The mention of Tufts University which is sourced to physorg seems unconnected to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a few falacious arguments being made here. The IP argues that "There is no evidence that acupuncture points, meridians or the other concepts of traditional Chinese medicine exist." is contradicted by significant benefits from the treatment. Not so. Theory: white pills posess magical powers that treat pain. Is this true because aspirin works? Maybe (just maybe...) green aspirins would work as well. Maybe (just maybe...) needles jabbed in at random locations would be just as effective as needles jabbed in at the purported points of supposed significance to an unproven form of "energy".

The "evidence" that so-called "energy medicine" works is weak. In one study, med students were directed to manufacture blue placebo pills. There was no question in their minds whatsoever that the pills had no active ingredients. Students taking two of the pills reported significant drowsiness half an hour later (compared to students who did not take the pills). Again, the color of the pill is obviously magical.

That the IP cannot think of any other explanation for the weakly positive results in some tests of acupuncture does not demonstrate the existence of various poorly defined "points" and an otherwise unknown form of "energy". It demonstrates a poverty of imagination on the part of the IP.

Until such time as independent reliable sources say, point blank, "Qi exists. It travels along lines in the body (that have nothing whatsoever" to do with structures in the body). It can be controlled using various methods (pin pricks, rubbing, tapping, contactless "touch", chanting, hot wax, tuning forks, etc., etc., etc.)" we have nothing to discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not need to posit Qi to note the effectiveness of various energy medicine modalities. Fritz-Albert Popp and the German institute for biophysics in such texts as Integrative Biophysics: Biophotonics, and James Oschman in Energy Medicine in Therapeutics and Human Performance (an overview of that text is here: http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=12460, and a review of that text is here: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/107555304323062464) offer a different paradigm, focusing on known forms of energy.

It is possible that biofields are holographically distributed, thus accounting for the success of acupuncture. The neurologist Karl Pribram noted that this was the case for memories, and the physicist David Bohm went further with this idea.

The success of acupuncture and other energy medicine modalities goes far beyond any "placebo" effect. As I noted before - a December 1, 1999 BBC article, "Scientists prove acupuncture works", noted that researchers found that acupuncture produced statistically significant pain relief in two separate studies, going far beyond any "placebo effect": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/545019.stm

It stated: "The fake therapy was administered using a "placebo" needle which, like a theatrical dagger, retracts into the handle when pressed onto the skin. ... Of 52 patients, 25 were given acupuncture and the rest received the placebo. After eight sessions, the first group showed much bigger improvements."

Also, a meta-analysis of 7 acupuncture studies (acupuncture being an energy medicine modality) conducted by the National Cancer Institute showed significant benefits from the treatment from all of the studies being analyzed. The summary of the meta-analysis stated that "Four randomized controlled trials,[1,2,4,5] a nonrandomized clinical study,[3] and two case series [6,7] found that acupuncture enhanced or regulated immune function.": http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/acupuncture/healthprofessional/Page5128.114.164.93 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about EFT. You cannot include in it a lengthy argument over whether a related therapeutic technique "works". Take it to Acupuncture. Next? Famousdog (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess the argument is, um, "holographically distributed". - SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

His point is that the statement "There is no evidence that acupuncture points, meridians or the other concepts of traditional Chinese medicine exist" is excessively strong. There is weak evidence. Hence I have weakened the statement. Enjoy reverting it. :PMindjuicer (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the non-existence of acupuncture points

From other articles:

Overall there is only preliminary evidence to suggest acupuncture points exist. There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points. Acupuncturist Felix Mann, founder and past-president of the Medical Acupuncture Society (1959–1980), has stated:

"...acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots that a drunkard sees in front of his eyes." "The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography. If someone were to get a spade and tried to dig up the Greenwich meridian, he might end up in a lunatic asylum. Perhaps the same fate should await those doctors who believe in meridians."

A 1997 NIH consensus statement has observed that "Despite considerable efforts to understand the anatomy and physiology of the 'acupuncture points', the definition and characterization of these points remains controversial. Even more elusive is the basis of some of the key traditional Eastern medical concepts such as the circulation of Qi, the meridian system, and the five phases theory, which are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture."

There are several plausible theories for how acupuncture works or what acupuncture points are, but for now none of these theories have been conclusively proven. Acupuncture points may exhibit low electrical resistance and impedance but this evidence is mixed, and limited by poor-quality studies with small sample sizes and multiple confounding factors.

Felix Mann (born 10 April 1931) is a German-born acupuncturist. He devised the system known as Scientific Acupuncture and is the founder and past-president of the Medical Acupuncture Society (1959–1980). He was also the first president of the British Medical Acupuncture Society (1980), and the author of the first comprehensive English language acupuncture textbook Acupuncture: The Ancient Chinese Art of Healing first published in 1962. In 1995, he received The German Pain Prize. Mann, who is based in England, has also lectured internationally on medical acupuncture. Mann has firmly distanced himself from beliefs in the existence of acupuncture points and meridians.

Brangifer (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondary and Tertiary sources

Well respected secondary and tertiary sources are perfectly fine to give an overview of a field in medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Trick or Treat even cover EFT? Was it subject to peer-review? Which page is this specific claim on? Note the claim in the Acupuncture article is a markedly narrower claim and is backed by peer-reviewed sources published in respected journals:

"Scientific research has not found any physical or biological correlate of qi, meridians and acupuncture points."

Skepticial Inquirer is an even less reliable source. I am reminded how much all the editors clung to that Guardian source. Mindjuicer (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

ToT does not mention EFT. It is, however, a perfectly adequate source for the statement as it currently stands in the article ("There is no evidence that acupuncture points, meridans or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist"). The chapter cited reviews the extensive literature and that statement summarises fairly accurately its conclusions. Famousdog (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the text justifying this statement? There's a Cochrane review [3] concluding a strong anti-nausea effect for acupuncture. Cochrane is the gold standard as far as medical science goes.

So ToT hasn't been subject to peer review, nor any reliable editing control. It hasn't been cited as a reliable source by any subsequent reliable sources. It presumably makes original statements. All this means it's not a secondary source. Mindjuicer (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please link to the review you mention were acupuncture needles are used in acupuncture points vs acupuncture needles being used in non-acupuncture points (aka placebo); I was unable to locate it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny how you you dispute the most credible source available when you don't like what it says yet insist a populist science book with relatively low credibility is adequate for an anti-EFT assertion in the intro -- which you still haven't disclosed the page or text which supposedly justifies it.

Read the review and learn what a secondary source actually looks like. It's a meta-analysis of 40 such papers, though some are comparing with antiemetics. Mindjuicer (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which meta-analysis you're referring to, since I have only just returned to editing this article after a well-deserved break from it. However, ToT, although written as a popular science book, reviews a considerable amount of Ernst's own work in addition to studies by many other researchers. It's a perfectly reasonable source. Your meta-analysis may be too, but I haven't looked at it yet. You ask what is the text justifying the following statement: "There is no evidence that acupuncture points, meridans or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist". How about p107, where it states "the traditional principles of acupuncture are deeply flawed, as there is no evidence at all to demonstrate the existence of Ch'i or meridians". Or p387: "Acupuncture points and meridians are not a reality, but merely the product of an ancient Chinese philosophy." Or p72: "Scientists are still unable to find a shred of evidence to support the existence of meridians or Ch'i." I think I'll add these as footnotes since you require them. Famousdog (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is clearly original research and quite POV. This makes ToT a weak primary source. Mindjuicer (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh? How is showing quotes from the book original research? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "original research" as in WP:OR (in which case you are wrong) or "original research" as in "Ernst has done original research over the last three decades and come to the conclusion that acupuncture is bullsh*t?" Neither interpretation justifies it's removal or supports your "argument" if you want to call being bloody-minded an "argument". Famousdog (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, ToT's statements are original research because they aren't justified by primary sources. It is CLEARLY NOT a reliable secondary source. Mindjuicer (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Brick wall. Talking to. The whole of TorT is based on, and cites in it's bibliography, various primary and secondary sources by Ernst or other researchers. It therefore could be considered as either a secondary source (in which case, the article "may make analytic or evaluative claims" based on it) or a tertiary source (in which case, it can be used to provide a "broad summary of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources"). You say it's "not reliable". It is written by an author who is an ackowledged expert in the field, who has published extensively on the topic in the peer-reviewed literature. Much of the book is based on that research, and the research of other researchers also published in the peer-reviewed literature. What, exactly, is your problem? Apart from the obvious problem that you don't like what Ernst and Singh say? Famousdog (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You also seem to have cherry picked your review [4] comparing electroacupuncture against drugs that are "partially effective" and ignored all the other reviews were electroacupuncture is ineffective. Firstly, we were discussing acupuncture, secondly the evidence still isn't great: Noninvasive electrostimulation appears unlikely to have a clinically relevant impact when patients are given state-of-the-art pharmacologic antiemetic therapy. Interpretation of reviews to justify the discarding of a secondary source seems like Original Research to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know where you got that link from. Here's the Cochrane independent meta-analysis [5]. Mindjuicer (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if you had not forgotten WP:FAITH, you give me no reason to repeat myself. I'll merely stick more nails in your source by pointing you at Medrs#Books, Medrs#Popular_press and Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_1#Avoid_citing_the_popular_press Mindjuicer (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the source then take it to RSN. Your links are all broken. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a single point on the wrist being stimulated reducing nausea is related to an alleged mental health counseling technique being effective. This is not a forum to debate the effectiveness of acupuncture, it's the talk page to discuss the EFT. Even if acupuncture points were real, that doesn't mean they're effective in treating mental health issues. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This was about the absolute claim that no evidence exists for meridians and acupuncture points. There is actually some weak evidence, hence I changed the claim ever-so-slightly before the zealots instareverted it. :) Mindjuicer (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually that isn't evidence for meridians or acupuncture points just that a specific treatment had weak evidence that it worked and not the existence of meridian or acupuncture points. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two secondary sources. The one you talk about is a Cochrane study hence pretty strong evidence. The other states that evidence that meridians and acupuncture points can be measuerd through lower electrical resistance is "suggestive". Hence ToT is wrong to make such an absolute claim. Mindjuicer (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I realise that I'm probably breaking WP:FORUM here, but the lead currently says: "There is no evidence that acupuncture points, meridans or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist." Firstly, lets deal with the electrical conductance review. Differences in electrical conductivity at different parts of the skin (assuming that this review correctly reports the results of primary studies that have, in turn, been carried out and reported correctly; is not an incidence of experimenter or publication bias; etc.) is not evidence for "acupuncture points, meridans or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine." It could be explained by any number of factors. I guarantee you that magical ley-lines of ethereal woo is pretty low on that list. Secondly, the Cochrane review is, as other editors have tried unsuccessfully to communicate to you, evidence that rubbing or stimulating someone's wrist stops them hurling after an operation. That is not evidence for "acupuncture points, meridans or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine." Thirdly, this article is about EFT, not acupuncture, so studies that have oblique and peripheral relevance to EFT should not be included. Take them to acupuncture. Thank you. Famousdog (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Differences in electrical conductivity at different parts of the skin... is not evidence for acupuncture points, meridans" (sic) -- errr yes it is. You seem to be confusing evidence with proof. Mindjuicer (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out (in an ad hominen, Famousdog can't spell, sort of a way) that "meridians" is spelt wrong in the article text, where I cut that quote from. That's now corrected. Secondly, since you appear to be in possession of some esoteric knowledge that I am currently lacking, please explain the relationship between meridians and electrical conductance, and how the latter is "evidence" for the former. Famousdog (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's unnecessary for me to ad hominem (oh but you did) as your IQ is adequately displayed for all with this comment. Same for SummerPhD. --Mindjuicer (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mindjuicer, that was a particularly nasty form of personal attack. It's unnecessary and doesn't help the situation at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, this article is beyond a joke and the talk page nothing more than trolldom for quite a while now. This is another reason why I'm on the other page you know me from - to see if protoscience articles stand a chance when there are editors who aren't anti-altmed zealots. Mindjuicer (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, differences in electrical conductivity is evidence for acupuncture points, meridians and such; in the same sense that the possible observation of a faster than light neutrino is evidence for George W. Bush being a lizardman. If acupuncture points/the lizardman story turn out to be true, the conductivity difference/fast neutrino might have something to do with it. Now, to find a reliable source discussing that conjecture... - SummerPhD (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mindjuicer, I asked you to explain to poor little me with my tiny IQ what the relationship is between meridians and electrical conductance, and how the latter is "evidence" for the former. You chose instead to launch into a tedious tit-for-tat personal attack on my use of ad hominen and SummerPhD and my intelligence quotients. If you are soooooo knowledgeable on this topic, that simple request should be fairly easy to fulfill. Stop dodging the issue and explain to us how you get from skin conductivity to meridians. Otherwise, stop indulging in original research and inappropriate synthesis of material from reliable sources. Famousdog (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)