Greywolfin

Hello, Greywolfin! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Scientizzle 18:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Allow me to explain...

...everything wrong with this statement.

How is it that clearly biased and derogatory comments are left posted when objective entries are disallowed?

Wikipedia relies on verifiable content pulled from reliable sources. Presentation of the information must be done in such a way that articles maintain a properly neutral point-of-view that does not give undue weight to fringe topics.

The Skeptical Inquirer is hardly an authoritative source for adjudicating the viability of subject matter clearly unintelligible to them.

Skeptical Inquirer has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (naturally, its targets often disagree), which makes it a suitable source for certain types of claims, particularly criticisms of the technique.

I would propose that accurate descriptions of EFT be posted without bias and the clearly biased commentary by detractors be deleted. Specifically, it is highly unordinary for critical commentaries to be part of the description of any entry. These need to be deleted. All references to EFT being a pseudoscience need to be deleted as qualification as some sort of legitimate scientific inquiry has never been required of similar methodologies and EFT makes no claims to be a derivative of scientific method.

You're so wrong here, it's tough to know where to start. Notable criticism of any topic, particularly scientific criticism of an allegedly pseudoscientific idea, is necessary to create a neutral article. Wikipedia doesn't whitewash criticism from article--and criticism sections are widespread. I can't help but note the irony of requesting the removal of solely negative information on the basis of eliminating "bias"...

I can cite my own credentials in the field of mental health and psychology and would suggest that critical comments about EFT and similar subject matter be accompanied by adequate field experience or expertise before they are accepted as being authoritative.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so flashing any credentials won't get you very far. What's important is that every claim made here is backed up by reliable sourcing. — Scientizzle 18:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)