Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Waiting for comment

I must confess I'm surprised that there has been no response to this proposal. In past talk pages, great emphasis, indeed insistence, was placed on discussing changes before posting, and yet, nothing but silence. May I interpret that as tacit acceptance? Jt940 (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I think it just means that you don't have consensus for the edit yet. You do not, of course, need consensus, per WP:BOLD, but it's great to seek consensus here, and thanks for doing so. My initial reaction is that the proposed change adds a substantial amount of content which I would consider over-detailed and not really consistent with WP:NOTHOWTO. I'm not expert enough on the topic to comment as to whether those who are more familiar with it would consider it neutral and well supported with regards to the Arbitration restrictions listed at the top of the page. For those reasons, my opinion is that I'd prefer to see more discussion allowed to develop amongst those most familiar with the topic before it was added. Sorry if that's not much help, but I didn't want you to think you were being ignored because nobody has commented. Begoon ^talk 10:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding an for your input. Having read the relevant documents, I don't think it's where near detailed enough to be a how-to. I'm just hoping to give readers a slightly better picture of the process. That being said, if you (or anyone) have input as to what would make it better or to avoid the impression of being a how-to, please make a suggestion. How long would you suggest waiting for further input? Jt940 (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hard to say really. We operate on the principle that there is no DEADLINE, and it is far more important to ensure we only include correct and relevant balanced content in our articles. In the meantime though, I am still concerned that the material may not meet the restrictions above - to me, for instance, it seems to be supporting and elaborating a positive view of a suggested explanation for something which the article describes in it's WP:LEAD as the " purported "energy" mechanisms" and notes to have been "characterised as pseudoscience". In that sense it's quite possibly problematic in the way it would affect the balance and thus the accuracy of the article. As I say above though, I'd very much like and prefer more input. Thanks for being so patient. Begoon ^talk 22:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see your concern regarding the last part of the lead. Unfortunately, that part is dated, particularly: "has not garnered significant support in clinical psychology". The fact is that while the American Physiological Association (APA) does not endorse Energy Psychology or EFT, it has recently approved courses as taught by the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) for continuing education credit for it's members, see http://energypsych.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=405. This claim can be verified by contacting the APA http://www.apa.org/education/contact-ce.aspx. The problem is, that ACEP does not yet appear on their list of approved sponsors. I was told that they are in the process of updating this list and expect finished around the end of July. I did not want to update this section until it could be easily verified on the APA web site.

According to the description at the top of this page, it seems to me that "Questionable Science" would be a more proper description. The characterization of Pseudo-Science seems to be based on a lack of "falsifiability", but would that not also apply to drug trials, where the criteria for acceptance is evidence of a significant effect?

I suppose it is the part of the second paragraph, starting with "Explanatory mechanisms" that give the impression of supporting a positive view, is that correct? If that part were eliminated, would that solve the problem? Jt940 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Altering the existing article in that way is likely to look like an attempt to 'shoehorn' in the content you want to add and seems to be swinging it in entirely the wrong direction to me. Changes like that should certainly not be made to the WP:LEAD without a good consensus of editors. Anyway, those are my views and I don't think I have much more to add at this point, so let's just be patient and await more, maybe wiser input. Begoon ^talk 00:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your statement "seems to be swinging it in entirely the wrong direction". What direction is that?Jt940 (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I should have worded it better. Any direction away from neutral, well supported, balanced and compliant with the list of restrictions I've pointed you to at the top of this talk page above would be a wrong direction. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. Now I genuinely have no more to say in this discussion, so I'll leave it to develop. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 09:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough.Jt940 (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph states the steps of this methodology from the originator of this technique. It is presented factually, and does not make any statement about efficacy. This could also be referenced to the book, the EFT Manual, published in 2011. This paragraph is a brief overview of the process; each step would need at least a paragraph to describe it to the point that someone could attempt to utilize this methodology, so it cannot be considered a "how to manual”, it is rather a very basic description.

While the lead section to the article states “energy mechanisms”, the Process Section should include Gary Craig's explanation of how the process works, i.e., clearing blocked energies. It is a pseudoscientific explanation as it cannot be falsifiable/testable, although the process has been tested for effectiveness. Another explanation for how this process works has come about through the scientific process, and as such it definitely should be included in an explanation of the EFT Process; the theory that David Feinstein puts forward appears to be well-referenced. It is an alternative theoretical formulation. “The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects”, therefore, contrary to Begoon's interpretation, it is the lead which should be in accordance with the article, not the article in accordance with the lead. Petefter (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Jt940 (et al) - consider the following sentences as an addition to your proposed change to the Process section: Gary Craig states that the theory underlying this methodology is that having negative emotional issues reflects disruptions in the individual's energy system, and that the EFT process provides energetic and emotional releases. [Craig EFT Manual] This is a not a scientifically falsifiable/testable theory, although, according to Paul Lutus, the whole field of psychology is based on foundational theories which are not testable and therefore pseudo-science.[*]

* Lutus, P., (2011) Why Science Need Theories, Accessed 6/12/13 http://arachnoid.com/theory

Also, I noted your recent change to the references. As the online EFT Manual PDF is not the same as the book, EFT Manual, I think that two references are needed. The two descriptions of the EFT process are essentially the same.

Petefter (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The addition seems appropriate, I'll put it in. I'll look into the ref. issue.Jt940 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Last call for comments: I think that there has been more than sufficient time for interested parties to respond to this proposed change to the process section, so unless someone objects, I'm going to make the change Monday 6/24. Jt940 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I mentioned above, there is no WP:DEADLINE. I have expressed my reservations about your proposed addition, and explained below how you can proceed with an RFC if you would like more comment from other, uninvolved editors.

I do object to the addition of your proposed content above. The content is WP:UNDUE, presents techniques classified as pseudoscience as statements of fact by wikipedia, and is unsupported by reliable sources. In my opinion the existing "Process" section is more than enough detail. This is an encyclopedia article, and not a place to describe in detail techniques with no support in reliable sources, or indeed to "argue" about such a classification as you do in the last sentence of your proposed addition, with the material about Lutus.

Whilst I do appreciate your willingness to discuss your edits in advance, continually rephrasing basically the same question is unlikely to get a different response. Begoon ^talk 05:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am in agreement with much of what Begoon has said here; much of this is UNDUE, and places too much weight on material from non-independent sources such as Feinstein, who make a living off of EFT so cannot be used as an independent source (as suggested by our guideline on fringe theories, which include EFT. I agree that the current Process section is certainly detailed enough for an encyclopedia article. A section on the history of how this was developed would be useful, however. Yobol (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the second proposed paragraph, it is stated that based on guideline is WP:Fringe Feinstein cannot be used as an independent source. The relevant piece that I see in WP:Fringe, is under Peer Reviewed Resources: "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact". This new theoretical formulation is presented as such, not as scientific consensus. I see no definition of"independent" as in independent reliable sources, or independent sources, so to me it has the typical meaning, that for example the Craig 2011 Manual cannot be used as a secondary source for Craig (nd) PDF, because it is not independent. Feinstein is independent of Craig, the originator of this methodology. As to if the Feinstein cites are reliable sources, (in this context it would, I believe, only have to meet RS criteria) it is claimed that Feinstein is biased because he makes money from EFT. (I would imagine that a good percentage of all researchers/reviewers have careers involving their subject matter.) Per WP: Identifying reliable sources "Biased or opinionated sources Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Per WP: RS:MED "Several formal systems exist for assessing the quality of available evidence on medical subjects.[4][5] "Assessing evidence quality" means that editors should determine the quality of the type of study. Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." Therefore, the Feinstein review articles cannot be dismissed on the basis of bias/his earning money from EFT. Even if he were to have funded the research studies he reviews, the reviews would have to be accepted as reliable sources as they are tertiary sources, i.e,. articles which are reviews of the research literature, are peer-reviewed, the journals are found in the Pubmed/MEDLINE database (i.e., mainstream journals), and the 2012 Feinstein article is published in a core psychological journal, Review of General Psychology, which is an American Psychological Association(APA) journal. If there is something I missed in WP:Fringe which is what was being referred to, please be very specific. Thanks. Petefter (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Petefter makes some convincing points, however, as the current process description is inadequate and misleading as even a casual reading of the reference material will show, let's see if we can come to some sort of agreement by narrowing down what it is you object to. I would think the first paragraph at least should not be problematic, do you agree or not? Jt940 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The comments thus far that have raised concerns in regards to the first paragraph, which is the description of the EFT procedure are: "over-detailed and not really consistent with WP:NOTHOWTO" and "the current Process section is certainly detailed enough for an encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia article, and not a place to describe in detail techniques with no support in reliable sources." I previously reponded: "The first paragraph states the steps of this methodology from the originator of this technique. It is presented factually, and does not make any statement about efficacy. [...] This paragraph is a brief overview of the process; each step would need at least a paragraph to describe it to the point that someone could attempt to utilize this methodology, so it cannot be considered a "how to manual”, it is rather a very basic description.[...] Petefter (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)" Also, the only detailed part is where it mentions "three times". It is only a slight expansion in length over the current procedural description, and it remains a short paragraph, slightly over 5 lines of text. (0ne-third of the length of this paragraph written here). From WP:NOTHOWTO Instruction Manuals "Describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic", and this article is specifically about "techniques", so there should be a reasonably good overview of the techniques. Actually the only technique that has some description is the basic one, other techniques are only mentioned in passing. The current version of the description of EFT could not be called accurate as per the cited manual; it is lacking some very basic concepts. Questions: From one comment it is sounding like it would be advisable for the procedure paragraph, attributed to the originator of the technique, to be also referenced to reliable sources, though in another context (further down on this page)I was advised other sources were not needed, so where is consensus on this point? And even if not needed, would it be better to show notability though having been published in other sources? Are there any additional concerns on the proposed procedure paragraph within the process section? Petefter (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I am in agreement that “three times” is the one specific detail in describing the tapping procedure, and not important to the general description, so it could be omitted. I also think that “a Likert scale for subjective measures of distress” should be omitted. Both this and "Subjective Units of Distress" have internal Wikipedia links, and in reading the page on the Likert scale, technically it is not applicable. It would make sense to explain in the process section the duality of this methodology, for self-application and professional clinical utilization.TWRobinson (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, per WP:MEDCOI: "What does a conflict of interest not mean? A conflict of interest does not mean a source or editor can be dismissed a priori." Petefter (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Jt940,et al, consider these sentences or something similar to go right after the procedure description: It is Gary Craig's opinion that the EFT Manual is the starting point for learning this procedure, and he highly recommends additional training through DVD's. He states that the casual student may get relief from emotional and physical pain, and that working with a professional practitioner can provide improved results, particularly for complex issues. (Same reference, and I've seen the attributed date to it as 1995.) Petefter (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to highlight that the current version of the description of the EFT procedure has several inaccuracies, which have been rectified in the proposed description. (Though it does make sense to delete "a Likert scale for subjective measures of distress")Petefter (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to me that, before charaterizing something as pseudo-science, one has to actually be a practitioner of the so-called pseudo-science. As an EFT practitioner, I can attest to the positive effects of EFT in my own life and I am the first one to be skeptic of pseudo-science. I think this article is extremely biased as it doesn't contain obviously any studies shedding more light on the benefits (or drawbacks) of EFT. The author of the article seems more interesting in making the case that EFT is in fact mumbo jumbo science.

(User: Veronique2/talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronique2 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2013

This statement currently on the site is inaccurate: "The available evidence from studies done on EFT have shown that while there may be small effects from use of this technique, they are likely due to well recognized conventional psychological techniques often used with the tapping, rather than the purported "energy" mechanisms." The statement gives no references to support the claim. Below is my statement that I request you add. It includes a reference from a well-established medical journal:

There is a growing body of research on EFT. One randomized controlled study, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Clinical Psychology in 2003, compared the effects of EFT and Diaphragmatic Breathing (DB) on specific phobias of insects or small animals (Wells, Polglase, Andrews, Carrington, & Baker, 2003). Five measures, including the Behavioral Approach Task (designed to measure the level of avoidance of the feared insect or animal), were used to calibrate the effects on the 35 subjects randomly assigned to either the EFT or DB group. Both groups showed immediate post-treatment improvement on all five measures, with EFT showing greater improvement than DB on four of them, including the Behavioral Approach Task. The fifth measure, pulse rate, decreased approximately equally with DB and EFT.

Reference: Wells, S., Polglase, K., Andrews, H. B., Carrington, P. & Baker, A. H. (2003). Evaluation of a meridian-based intervention, emotional freedom techniques (EFT), for reducing specific phobias of small animals. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 943-966. doi:10.1002/jclp.10189 Charlottechloe (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done That a primary source which isn't WP:MEDRS, so we cannot use it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The current status of EFT as an “evidence-based” practice is summarized in this statement published in the APA journal Review of General Psychology: “A literature search identified 51 peer-reviewed papers that report or investigate clinical outcomes following the tapping of acupuncture points to address psychological issues. The 18 randomized controlled trials in this sample were critically evaluated for design quality, leading to the conclusion that they consistently demonstrated strong effect sizes and other positive statistical results that far exceed chance after relatively few treatment sessions. Criteria for evidence-based treatments proposed by Division 12 of the American Psychological Association were also applied and found to be met for a number of conditions, including PTSD.”(Feinstein, D. 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.194.121 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As explained above by Yobol, David Feinstein cannot be used as a reliable, 3rd party, independent source, since he is an active, financially interested, advocate of the fringe theory. Begoon ^talk 02:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor Yobol believes that the Feinstein article is not acceptable. I have put forth a position that it is acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines, with specifically citing the relevant guidelines. Therefore, how is it that it is okay for Editor BitBus to delete my entry on the talk page? I am reposting my comment below: Petefter (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again it is being claimed the Feinstein's review article in not a reliable, 3rd party, independent source. However, this conclusion does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. I don't think there can be any argument that it is a 3rd party source (it is a review of the literature, which has been peer-reviewed). It is claimed that Feinstein is biased because he makes money from EFT. (I would imagine that a large percentage of all researchers/reviewers have careers involving their subject matter.) Per WP: Identifying reliable sources "Biased or opinionated sources - Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Per WP: RS:MED "Several formal systems exist for assessing the quality of available evidence on medical subjects.[4][5] "Assessing evidence quality" means that editors should determine the quality of the type of study. Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." Therefore, the Feinstein review articles cannot be dismissed on the basis of bias/his earning money from EFT. Even if he were to have funded the research studies he reviews, the reviews would have to be accepted as reliable sources as they are tertiary sources, i.e,. articles which are reviews of the research literature, are peer-reviewed, the journals are found in the Pubmed/MEDLINE database (i.e., mainstream journals), and the 2012 Feinstein article is published in a core psychological journal, Review of General Psychology, which is an American Psychological Association(APA) journal. You reference fringe theory which states: "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources,(criteria which the Review Article meets)not (just) the proclamations of its adherents. This is not just an advocate putting forth an idea; this is the conclusion reached based on the research reviewed. Petefter (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that Feinstein, who makes money selling EFT, is independent (in any meaningful sense of the word) in evaluating EFT is absurd on its face. When the only sources that see any value in EFT are authored by those who make money selling it, we have a tremendous red flag. Yobol (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013

Hi! I would like to add a useful illustration to this article, and I'm not clear on how to do so. I'm an illustrator and an EFT practitioner trained by EFT Master Paul Cutright. With the help of EFT practitioner Tony Macelli (who councils adults and children using EFT as a therapeutic tool in Malta) I created a How-To one-page comic with a supporting written article. It is designed to be a guiding tool to help people using Emotional Freedom Techniques with children. Tony has been using it with kids and is finding it very effective in helping them to release and move past debilitatingly intense emotional issues. I'd like to contribute the comic to this page. Here is a link to the comic on my Blog. I have high resolution versions, colour and black and white. I've built into the comic permission for people to freely distribute, publish, translate, print, photocopy, etc. so that if people find it useful they may share it in any way they wish. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cgEg5myqBy0/Ui4VRvGScVI/AAAAAAAACDQ/Hroj0BASncU/s1600/EFT+for+Kids+Colour+200.jpg

I have another one for adults that this one is based off of, but this one is a huge improvement over the old one and can be used by adults as well as children, despite the children-oriented art and language.

Thanks! Scott Mooney.

File:EFT for Kids Colour 200.jpg

This comic describes the basic shortcut EFT procedure step by step. You can use the thermometer on the side to non-verbally indicate the intensity simply by pointing to the appropriate place. You can tap as gently and as quickly as you prefer. The effectiveness of EFT depends on various factors requiring training and/or study to master, however quite often this basic procedure alone will be very effective.

Scott Mooney (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Thank you for offering it, Scott, but Wikipedia doesn't host How-To's (see here) and blogs aren't considered reliable sources, I'm afraid. Thanks anyway. --Stfg (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Scott. It explains the technique well, except for the confusion of the order of tappings; do we go across the top four and then across the bottom four, or top bottom top bottom ... for the eight? Thanks, htom (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense-peddlers attempt to influence Wikipedia

Thought this may be of interest. A prominent charlatan in this field sent me this yesterday...

DragonRising and our star-author Silvia Hartmann has been championing EFT and energy techniques since we published one of the first books on the subject “Adventures in EFT” in the nineties.

Yet there has always been resistance from a select few vocal individuals who are too set in their ways to read all the scientific research and evidence that yes, the subjective claims by tens of thousands of individuals who’ve had their lives transformed in ways that talking therapies had totally failed them.

Now we’re at the dawn of 2014 and things have definitely moved on. The media is much more open to our new “third field” thinking where former lifelong issues such as PTSD, grief, trauma and phobias can in most cases be transformed to people again leading happy lives.

With Silvia Hartmann’s Energy EFT and Positive EFT we’ve also begun a shift to make the technique work for you, even if you haven’t had anything bad happen that needs fixing!

Though with all the positive publicity there remains one strong-hold of defiance from the gloomsters and naysayers which is the community-edited encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Here they can amass together and influence the rules which governs pages such as EFT to reflect any negative circumstantial evidence yet disregard anything positive.

We very much think that people coming to Wikipedia should be offered a balanced and unbiased presentation of the facts. To this end, the energy community has started a petition to be taken direct to founder Jimmy Wales asking for change.

Please do take a minute out of your schedule to read the manifesto and pledge your support. You can also read the hundreds of comments about how EFT has helped transform people’s lives for the better.

The direct link to the petition page is here:

And – if you’ve dismissed EFT because of what you read on Wikipedia, please do read some of the testimonials written by real people that care as much as I do. If you’d like to know more about EFT I recommend our books:

Energy EFT by Silvia Hartmann – Learn all about working with negative and positive emotions. Positive EFT by Silvia Hartmann – Use EFT for building the life you want. This book is a bit more condensed that Energy EFT and is also perfect for helping with your New Years Resolutions!

Wishing you a stress-free run-up to the holiday season! Alex

Alex Kent Director, DragonRising

--PinkEllie (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

3,799 supporters so far have signed the petition:

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014

This entry appears to be inaccurately negatively biased against EFT. There have been dozens of validly structured studies that confirm EFT's effectivenss, including several studies with large populations of clients, and long term follow-up.

Specifically, at this time, I am requesting that notice be posted that this entry is possibly inaccurately biased against EFT.

In the near future I will provide specific citations and references for the studies I'm referring to.

Thank you.

Robert Holzhauser RHolzhauser01@gmail.com 2001:558:1418:0:0:5EFE:AA9:2448 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: - Article properly summarizes the best available sources in keeping with our medical sourcing guidelines. When you have specific wording changes backed up by policy complaint sources, though, please do bring those to this talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

The Daily Mail (UK national newspaper) has featured EFT today regarding its effectiveness backed by research. They are also claiming that because it is easily learned the cost-savings for the NHS would be substantial.

Please may the EFT -> Research section be updated with the paragraph:

It has been determined that just over five sessions EFT are required to treat clients, whereas between six and twenty sessions may be required using Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) depending on the condition and severity.

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2540469/Alternative-tapping-therapy-favoured-Lily-Allen-used-NHS-treat-anxiety-depression.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Charles Kent (talk • contribs)

The daily mail isn't a source that meets our guidelines for sourcing medical content. I looked at the underlying medical study they're reporting on, but as a primary source it doesn't meet the guidelines either. The primary author of the study, Stewart, also has a conflict of interest as a paid trainer in EFT. This isn't the source we've been waiting for. - MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that EFT should come under 'medical content'? The definition of 'medical' is 'relating to the science or practice of medicine' and the definition of 'medicine' is 'the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease'. EFT doesn't fit in here hence guidelines for sourcing medical content shouldn't apply. Alex Charles Kent

Comparing it to established medicine such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is clearly making a medical claim. - MrOllie (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Since when has the talking therapy Cognitive Behavioural Therapy been labelled as medicine? Alex Charles Kent

EFT claims for itself that "emotional relief leads to profound physical healings" (cover of the "EFT Manual", cited here), which puts it squarely in biomedical territory. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2-7-2014: American Psychological Association (APA) approved EFT for psychologists' Continuing Education Units in 2012.

The authoritative peer-reviewed professional journal "Review of General Psychology," published by the American Psychological Association (APA), meets Wikipedia's requirement of a respected secondary source of information. The "Review of General Psychology" published an up-to-date literature review of the existing research findings on Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) in 2012. This review article was, in turn, peer-reviewed prior to publication. On the basis of these cumulative findings, EFT was recognized by the American Psychological Association to be an evidence-based technique. As a result, in 2012, the APA approved EFT as a technique that psychologists could learn as part of Continuing Education requirements to keep psychologists' licenses current. Also in 2012, the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) became the first provider of continuing education in EFT approved by the APA. The following link takes you to the page on the APA's website where approved providers of Continuing Education are listed by state (ACEP is headquartered in Pennsylvania). http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sponsors.aspx

Kindly update your article on Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) to reflect its recognition by the professional Psychology community as being an evidence-based technique. Also, please note that psychologists are held to a strict standard of the types of techniques they are allowed to use, or risk losing their license. So again, please update your article on EFT to reflect its acknowledgement in the professional community as a a valid, evidence-based technique. Thank you. LareiaMelani (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sponsors.aspx?item=5#pennsylvania does indeed list "Association For Comprehensive Energy Psychology" of Ardmore, PA (or did a few minutes ago). Now, aside from any inferences one might make from inclusion in this list, what are the sources for the claims that:

• EFT was recognized by the American Psychological Association to be an evidence-based technique
• the APA approved EFT as a technique that psychologists could learn as part of Continuing Education requirements to keep psychologists' licenses current

? -- Hoary (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote from the 'Association For Comprehensive Energy Psychology's website at http://www.energypsych.org/general/custom.asp?page=329:

• What this does NOT mean: It is very important to note that our APA approved provider status for our energy psychology programs does not mean that the APA has approved any EP method per se. Please do not tell people this or imply this in any way. EP and EFT is no more evidenced supported than it was on November 10, 2012.

Even the people offering the classes don't seem to think we should use this as an indication that EFT is evidence based. - MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Please see the following links for verification that the APA now allows psychologists to earn CEUs for EFT (which is in stark contrast to the APA's policy prior to 2012 when CEUs for EFT and Energy Psychology were EXPLICITLY NOT ACCEPTED for psychologists):

PESI is a non-profit organization that has been offering CEs and CEUs since 1979, and is an approved and respected provider of CEUs for the American Psychological Association (as well as many other professional organizations). They are located in Wisconsin. http://apa.org/education/ce/sponsors.aspx?item=6#wisconsin

Their "2014 2-Day Trauma Competency Conference: The 10 Core Competencies of Trauma, PTSD, Grief & Loss - Evidence-Based Trauma Treatments & Interventions" brochure states, "This training provides take-away evidence-based, best-practice clinical interventions and techniques for the [various] phases of trauma treatment. In addition, completion of this two-day seminar meets the educational requirement when applying to become a Certified Clinical Trauma Professional (International Association for Trauma Professionals, www.traumaprofessional.net)" EFT is one of the techniques listed that is taught at this conference. The brochure for this conference can be found here: http://www.pesi.com/brochures/22204/full.pdf

A second CEU Seminar being offered by PESI is: "'Tapping' into Energy Psychology Approaches for Trauma and Anxiety." The brochure for this can be found at: http://www.pesi.com/brochures/22194/full.pdf Please note that it states clearly on the brochure: "At last! Now Energy Psychology is approved by the APA for Continuing Education!" EFT is one of the listed treatment techniques to be learned.

A third CEU Seminar offered by PESI: "Trauma, PTSD, and Traumatic Grief: Effective Assessments & Immediate Interventions" clearly states, "Evidence-Based Therapeutic Techniques" and lists Energy Therapies in its list of interventions, specifically in the "Reprocessing" sub-category of Immediate Interventions. Link to the brochure: http://www.pesi.com/brochures/22198/full.pdf

Each of these Continuing Education Seminars, approved by the APA for psychologists to earn CEUs in order to keep their licenses current, are taught by different doctoral level professionals with extensive experience in the mental health field. Also please note that all 3 are being taught THIS MONTH (February 2014).

Please update your article in Wikipedia to reflect the documented changes that have occurred in the professional community regarding EFT as an accepted method of treatment. Thank you. LareiaMelani (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that general discussion of acceptance in the wider scientific community will need to be sourced to WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing, such as literature reviews written by independent authors or policy statements by leading organizations explicitly endorsing EFT. Clearly a brochure for a continuing education course does not meet MEDRS. I should note that continuing education credits means very little in the grand scheme of things; homeopathy, the one woo to rule them all, still gets CME credits from some medical organizations. That doesn't mean homeopathy isn't a load of cow manure when it comes to medicine. Yobol (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

RESPONSE: The above links to verify that the APA has indeed approved EFT for Continuing Education units were in direct response to the requests for such verification as made by "Hoary."

In reference to your request for sources recognized by WP:MEDRS, it seems we are going in a circle. Please remember that WP:MEDRS states, "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals..." Since this falls under mental health, not medicine, it follows that respected, authoritative professional journals in the field of psychology are acceptable (after all, psychologists' licenses do now allow them to practice medicine, but to practice psychology).

The authoritative peer-reviewed professional journal "Review of General Psychology," published by the American Psychological Association (APA), meets Wikipedia's requirement of a respected, peer-reviewed, published source of information pertinent to the practice of psychology by licensed professionals. The "Review of General Psychology" published an up-to-date literature review of the existing research findings on Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) in 2012. This review article was, in turn, peer-reviewed prior to publication - meaning it was reviewed and approved by other respected psychologists acceptable to the APA before it was accepted for publishing. On the basis of these cumulative research findings, the APA REVERSED ITS FORMER POSITION regarding EFT: Psychologists were PREVIOUSLY not able to earn CEUs specifically on EFT or any other Energy techniques to continue their licensure; that has now been reversed. Whether or not you as an individual believe CEUs are unimportant to the practice of psychology does not matter. What matters is what the American Psychological Association will allow licensed psychologists to use in their practice of psychology. They are the experts in the legitimate practice of psychology, not individuals who write for Wikipedia.

Please remember that psychologists are held to a strict standard of the types of techniques they are allowed to use, or risk losing their license. (Indeed a psychologist in Arizona lost his license to practice psychology years and years ago because he was using EFT. The Board overseeing licenses in Arizona kept hearing that he was getting "miracle" results and wanted more information from him. When he told them it was EFT, they told him, "That's not an accepted treatment." He replied, "Who cares? It works!" then lost his license to practice psychology in Arizona.) The reference you made about CEUs was regarding the medical profession which answers to a different governing body (and interestingly, there are several MDs who have publicly talked about using EFT in their medical practices prior to the APA's acceptance of EFT as an evidence-based technique.) In the professional field of psychology, the subject matter must be approved by the APA before it can be offered as a CEU for psychologists - (and in fact this is in place to protect the general public from "quackery" types of techniques in the field of psychology).

Kindly update your article on Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) to reflect its recognition by the professional Psychology community as being an evidence-based technique as published in an updated peer-reviewed review of the research literature in the APA peer-reviewed journal "General Review of Psychology" in 2012. Also, please note that psychologists are held to a strict standard of the types of techniques they are allowed to use, or risk losing their license. So again, please update your article on EFT to reflect its acknowledgement in the professional community as a a valid, evidence-based technique. Thank you. LareiaMelani (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The brochures do not meet WP:MEDRS. I suspect the review you are talking about is the one by Feinstein, which has been discussed on this page multiple times. It is written by a person who makes money from promoting and using the technique. We need independent sources, per WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. If the APA has explicitly endorsed EFT, please provide the document published by the APA that have said they endorse EFT. Yobol (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

First, the part in which you make liberal use of FULL CAPITALS (thank you, but no more of this, please) does seem to be the crux: the APA REVERSED ITS FORMER POSITION regarding EFT: Psychologists were PREVIOUSLY not able to earn CEUs specifically on EFT or any other Energy techniques to continue their licensure; that has now been reversed. In which independent source do we read of this reversal of position? Secondly, you keep referring to a 2012 study in the Review of General Psychology; a bit of googling takes me to "Acupoint stimulation in treating psychological disorders: Evidence of efficacy". Is this what you mean? -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO YOBOL: Regarding the brochures: I never said they met WP:MEDRS. I offered them in response to Hoary's request for verification that EFT was approved for CEU's by the APA. While you are not accepting the offering of CEUs by APA-approved providers as proof that the technique has been recognized by the APA (which seems to defy logic, but I'll bite), I have contacted a psychologist (not Feinstein) who was involved in the APA decision-making process whereupon they now allow psychologists to get CEUs for Energy Psychology training. I do not know how long it will take for me to hear back from him as he is professionally very busy, but I will keep you posted as soon as I hear back from him.

Regarding the Feinstein article: In disregarding this article, you are violating your own WP:MEDRS guidelines. The review of the research may have been written by Feinstein (who is, by the way, in good standing with the APA), but it was also peer-reviewed and approved by other independent psychologists in good standing with the APA before it could be published in an APA journal. That is the definition of a peer-reviewed professional journal. The peer-reviewed journal in question ("General Review of Psychology"), as well as the process the article had to go through in order to finally be published in the APA journal, completely and totally meets your WP:MEDRS guidelines.

RESPONSE TO HOARY: I apologize for the use of capitals. I do not mean it as "yelling" but simply as a substitute for bolding or underlining, as these alternative means to place emphasis are not available in this medium. I simply meant the capitals to make those statements stand out from what is becoming a sea of text. I apologize for their use and will not use them anymore in the body of my answers.

Regarding the reversal of APA's stand on psychologists being able to now earn CEUs in Energy techniques (including EFT), and the Feinstein article, please see my above response to Yobol. Thank you. LareiaMelani (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to read WP:MEDRS, as well as WP:FRINGE, our guideline on fringe topics. Both talk about the need for independent sources. We use independent sources to determine how well a particular treatment is accepted by their community. We already have multiple independent sources labeling EFT as pseudoscience and/or otherwise not effective in our article. We need independent sources (i.e. not authored by those who gain financially by publishing positive reviews) in order to say it is effective. If the only publications that say EFT is effective is authored by those who gain financially by saying it is effective, we have a problem. Feinstein's website shows clearly he is not an independent source for such content. Please present independent sources that say it is effective. Please also note that personal correspondence is not allowable as a reliable source in Wikipedia. You need to present a publication by the APA or an otherwise high quality independent source stating they feel it is effective of such statements to go in this article. Yobol (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And for completeness' sake, I should also note we should not use the work of those who have been heavily criticized before, per WP:V, we use sources that have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; unfortunately, Feinstein has been heavily criticized before. For instance, see doi:10.1037/a0016025 and this book, where Feinstein's work is heavily criticized, and held out as an example of how not to do evidence based evaluations. Certainly if an author isn't independent, or has such a poor reputation, either by itself would disqualify their work. But if they have both, they have no place here on Wikipedia. Our readers deserve better. Yobol (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

RESPONSE to Yobol: The following are published statements by the APA with supporting links:

"The APA CE Sponsor Approval and the APA Continuing Education Committee work together to establish, implement and regulate standards and policies. CESAS ensures that the highest level of quality is maintained in program planning, management and delivery." (link: http://apa.org/ed/sponsor/index.aspx )

The APA does not put out statements specifically endorsing particular treatments. However, they do have published "Standards and Criteria" that must be met before they will approve a topic for inclusion in their CEU offerings. Thus, their approval of a topic in their CEUs shows that it has passed stringent review standards that have demonstrated Standard D1.2 "Program content has been supported using established research procedures and scientific scrutiny." (link: http://apa.org/ed/sponsor/about/standards/index.aspx ) (See below for other peer-reviewed published research on EFT.)

"Applicants who do not demonstrate that they meet the Standards and Criteria will not be approved." (cut & pasted from p. 7 of AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION APPROVAL OF SPONSORS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS: Policies and Procedures Manual August 2012 http://apa.org/ed/sponsor/about/policies/policy-manual.pdf (Preface on p. 2 states, "This document is the most recent revision of the document originally entitled APA Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists Criteria and Procedures Manual, first approved by the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives in January 1987")

The full manual for "Standards and Criteria for Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists" Feb 2009 can be found here: http://apa.org/ed/sponsor/about/standards/manual.pdf Please note the following cut & pasted from page 13:

"Standard D: Curriculum Content PRINCIPLE The content of continuing education is the crucial component of programs intended to maintain, develop, and increase conceptual and applied competencies that are relevant to psychological practice, education, and science. CE programs may include content related to well-established psychological principles, or may be based on content that extends current theory, method, or practice. ... CRITERIA 1. Sponsors must be prepared to demonstrate that information and programs presented are based on a methodological, theoretical, research, or practice knowledge base. This requirement must be met by at least one of the following: 1.1. Program content has obtained credibility, as demonstrated by the involvement of the broader psychological practice, education, and science communities in studying or applying the findings, procedures, practices, or theoretical concepts; 1.2. Program content has been supported using established research procedures and scientific scrutiny; 1.3. Program content has peer reviewed, published support beyond those publications and other types of communications devoted primarily to the promotion of the approach; 1.4. Program content is related to ethical, legal, statutory or regulatory policies, guidelines, and standards that impact psychology"

And here is the link that I gave earlier showing that PESI (in Wisconsin) is an APA-approved sponsor of CEUs: http://apa.org/education/ce/sponsors.aspx?item=6#wisconsin

And the links showing CEUs offered in EFT: http://www.pesi.com/brochures/22204/full.pdf http://www.pesi.com/brochures/22194/full.pdf http://www.pesi.com/brochures/22198/full.pdf

Finally, the Feinstein 2012 review article is not the only article published on EFT: "EFT has been researched in more than 10 countries, by more than 60 investigators, whose results have been published in more than 20 different peer-reviewed journals. These include distinguished top-tier journals such as Journal of Clinical Psychology, the APA journals Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training and Review of General Psychology, and the oldest psychiatric journal in North America, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. EFT research includes investigators affiliated with many different institutions.

In the US, these range from Harvard Medical School, to the University of California at Berkeley, to City University of New York, to Walter Reed Military Medical Center, to Texas A&M University, to JFK University. Institutions in other countries whose faculty have contributed to EFT research include Lund University (Sweden), Ankara University (Turkey), Santo Tomas University (Philippines), Lister Hospital (England), Cesar Vallejo University (Peru), and Griffith University (Australia)." link: http://www.eftuniverse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18

The above link also takes you to a list of many of the outcome research articles on EFT by topic. This body of peer-reviewed research is what most likely prompted the APA to finally approve EFT as eligible for inclusion in its approved Continuing Education.

Thank you for reading all of this. LareiaMelani (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to add up.

APA: The APA does not put out statements specifically endorsing particular treatments. However, they do have published "Standards and Criteria" that must be met before they will approve a topic for inclusion in their CEU offerings.

As I read it, this seems to mean that yes they have certain standards for inclusion; but that meeting these standards, and inclusion, means little.

APA: "Standard D: Curriculum Content / PRINCIPLE / The content of continuing education is the crucial component of programs intended to maintain, develop, and increase conceptual and applied competencies that are relevant to psychological practice, education, and science. CE programs may include content related to well-established psychological principles, or may be based on content that extends current theory, method, or practice. ...

I don't know whether this is to be taken literally, but if it is, then it seems extraordinarily permissive. For total nonsense about the mind (e.g. that homosexuality is a curable mental disease) is related to well-established psychological principles (rather as drunkenly aggressive driving is related to responsible driving).

Further:

APA: CRITERIA / 1. Sponsors must be prepared to demonstrate that information and programs presented are based on a methodological, theoretical, research, or practice knowledge base. / This requirement must be met by at least one of the following: / [...] 1.4. / Program content is related to ethical, legal, statutory or regulatory policies, guidelines, and standards that impact psychology"

Again this X is to be "related to" Y. As I read it, this is pretty much a catch-all. Oenology would be disqualified as irrelevant, but phrenology would be fine.

eftuniverse.com: EFT has been researched in more than 10 countries, by more than 60 investigators, whose results have been published in more than 20 different peer-reviewed journals. These include distinguished top-tier journals ...

Do generalizations such as this also come from reliable, disinterested sources? -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@LareiaMelani: "The APA does not put out statements specifically endorsing particular treatments." Well, Division 12 of the APA specifically lists treatments they feel have evidence basis. When EFT shows up on the website as having an evidence basis, we can add it to the article. BTW, please read WP:MEDRS before listing any further sources. Please don't waste our time with primary studies that don't meet meet WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to Add Content Based on Recent Study

I was surprised to find no references to any of the several recent studies, including one sponsored by the NIH and several published in peer-reviewed journals, indicating the efficacy of EFT generally and tapping specifically.

Is there any reason language such as below couldn't be added?

"According to a study of 30 veterans meeting the clinical criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), EFT subjects had significantly reduced psychological distress after six sessions than a control group. After the sessions, 90% of the EFT group no longer met the criteria for PTSD, as compared to 4% in the control group."

A link to the study is here:

And the full abstract is pasted below. Thank you for your consideration.

"This study examined the effect of Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), a brief exposure therapy combining cognitive and somatic elements, on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and psychological distress symptoms in veterans receiving mental health services. Veterans meeting the clinical criteria for PTSD were randomized to EFT (n = 30) or standard of care wait list (SOC/WL; n = 29). The EFT intervention consisted of 6-hour–long EFT coaching sessions concurrent with standard care. The SOC/WL and EFT groups were compared before and after the intervention (at 1 month for the SOC/WL group and after six sessions for the EFT group). The EFT subjects had significantly reduced psychological distress (p < 0.0012) and PTSD symptom levels (p < 0.0001) after the test. In addition, 90% of the EFT group no longer met PTSD clinical criteria, compared with 4% in the SOC/WL group. After the wait period, the SOC/WL subjects received EFT. In a within-subjects longitudinal analysis, 60% no longer met the PTSD clinical criteria after three sessions. This increased to 86% after six sessions for the 49 subjects who ultimately received EFT and remained at 86% at 3 months and at 80% at 6 months. The results are consistent with that of other published reports showing EFT’s efficacy in treating PTSD and comorbid symptoms and its long-term effects."

70.174.130.70 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The study is here; it's "Psychological Trauma Symptom Improvement in Veterans Using Emotional Freedom Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial", published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. It's one study. You said you had more? -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. For example, there's the pilot study done by the Veteran's Stress Project in 2009, published in peer-reviewed journal Traumatology. http://www.stressproject.org/documents/traumatology.pdf. Page The page http://stressproject.org/scientific-research/ has a summary of and links to several studies, although this subset is linked, by its nature, only to military veterans who exhibit characteristics of PTSD. A poster summarizing the pilot study is here: http://www.stressproject.org/documents/poster%20for%20usuhs.pdf Do you think the article could be updated and better reflect NPOV by including summaries or references to at least some of these studies? It currently relies more on content from Skeptical Inquirer and Quackwatch, neither of which are particularly neutral when it comes to EFT. Perhaps the article could at least make reference to these studies, and cite any related criticism of the studies? For example, my own reading is that there is widespread consensus (even at Skeptical Inquirer, in the cited article) that tapping/EFT is highly effective. The issue at hand is whether it's effective due to the existence of energy meridians (which is disputed, and which wasn't tested in any of the studies), the placebo effect (as suggested by Skeptical Inquirer), or something else (for example, the positive self-affirmations that one says and has reinforced while doing the tapping). (By the way, the primary Skeptical Inquirer critique (the absence of a placebo, on control group) does not apply to the 2013 study, which had a control group that received traditional psychotherapy.) I think that, beyond making the article more comprehensive, this content would be very helpful to PTSD sufferers. As with any condition, many patients simply care that something works, and place less emphasis on why it works.

Finally, the page http://www.eftuniverse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18#clinical has links to nearly 100 studies. I didn't read each one, but from a cursory review, each one appears to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and each one appears to indicate favorable results for EFT. Again, a legitimate critique is that the studies don't isolate *why* EFT works.

A good summary of this (which is consistent with both the results that have been demonstrated and a neutral or skeptical point of view as to why we see those results) is found in the Traumatology article cited above:

"Some proponents of EFT attribute the efficacy of treatments to the location of tapping points, which are located at endpoints of acupuncture meridians as described in traditional Chinese medicine (Gallo 1999). However, others ascribe the mechanisms of action of Energy Psychology to more conventional biomechanical mechanisms, such as increased regulation of the sympathetic-parasympathetic interaction, and of the HPA (hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis) (Lane 2006); decreased hyperarousal of the lymbic system and other brain structures involved in the fight-or flight response generated by trauma; changes in the amygdala and anterior cingulate areas of the brain (Felmingham et al 2006); utilization of the semiconductive properties of connective tissue (Oschman 2006); down-regulation and increased uptake rates of cortisol and other stress hormones (Church 2008); and increased regulation of the stress-regulatory immediate early genes (IEGs; Church 2009). Mollon (2008) has argued that the "energy" nomenclature used by proponents of this group of therapies is misleading, and that their effectiveness can be explained entirely in terms of well-understood psychological mechanisms...The pervasiveness of these mechanisms is noteworthy; during a stress response, entire organ systems are affected. In response to a stress stimulus...wholesale reallocation of physiological resources occurs. The body shunts away from non-essential systems...and toward survival systems, such as the peripheral musculature, the cardiovascular system, insulin production, and the respiratory system."

In other words, even prominent studies indicating the effectiveness of EFT do not necessarily rely upon, and in some cases argue against, the existence of energy meridians.

I'm happy to take a stab at an edit (in which the article would more comprehensively describe the evidence for EFT working, but take a skeptical or neutral view as to why it works) , but I'm new at this and completely understand if my edits need to be further edited. Sound good? 70.174.130.70 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No, we will not add primary studies to contradict secondary sources, per WP:MEDRS. We will also not use articles by practitioners of EFT (such as Church) who are not independent of the technique and would benefit from the promotion of the technique to use as evidence that it works. We need to find independent, high quality, secondary sources that say it works before it goes in. Yobol (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and no, you did not read the article correctly; they did not have an active control group, the control group was a wait list that got no treatment at all; so they compared EFT, used in conjunction with standard therapy, against nothing, just a horrible design and certainly not evidence for anything about EFT. Yobol (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not that important, I'll drop it. To be clear, the abstract refers to the population being "veterans receiving mental health services," so my understanding was that both groups were receiving standard mental health services. My understanding of "Standard of Care/Wait List" was that that group continued to receive standard mental health care, and was simply wait-listed for EFT (not wait-listed for getting anything at all). As the abstract notes, when that group received EFT, they improved as well. But I am basing this on the abstract, not the actual paper (which I don't have), so you may be right. There's also the fact that even The Skepitcal Inquirer (already cited as a secondary source in the article) argues that EFT works, it simply offers a different explanation for why (placebo and other effects), although the article doesn't mention this.

The passage quoted above (from Traumuatology) appears to be what you're asking for: a secondary source, without a dog in the fight, summarizing and analyzing results from many primary sources.

Here is a passage from the Skeptical Inquirer article already cited: "In addition to nonspecific and placebo effects, TFT appears to incorporate procedures from existing, well-established therapies. TFT therapists instruct clients to focus repeatedly on distressing thoughts and images during the tapping sequences. Such repeated exposure to distressing cognitions is a well-known behavior therapy technique called imagery exposure (Foa and Meadows 1997). Furthermore, TFT therapists utilize cognitive coping statements throughout treatment (e.g., “I accept and forgive them for what they did”), which represent another established cognitive therapy technique. In short, any effects that TFT might show can be readily explained by known mechanisms, without invoking unfounded concepts such as “perturbations” and “thought fields” (Hooke 1998a)." This is very, very close to the passage from the Traumatology article I quoted above. Both are secondary sources, and both offer plausible and scientific explanations for EFT/TFT benefits. If one is worth citing, perhaps the other is as well.

The reference to Church was not offered as a primary source to contradict a secondary source. Church's name appears within the secondary source (Traumuatology), which is summarizing and analyzing many primary sources.

These thoughts are offered for your consideration; you needn't respond directly. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views; I'll respect whatever decision you make. 70.174.130.70 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 70.174.130.70 (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I probably should clarify; I was going off my memory of the study when I read it a few months ago for a previous discussion when I commented above, and I was incorrect about their use of standard of care after re-reading the article. The problem wasn't that they were randomized against nothing (I was wrong here), it was that the authors never asked what the participants in the study were actually getting at baseline when they randomized (which could have been nothing), and did not control for what the "standard care" was between the groups when they randomized. While that is still horrible design, it's a different design flaw. I probably shouldn't go off my memory of any article before commenting in the future. The rest of the comments regarding the applicability of the study with respected to MEDRS still stands. The Traumatology article you are quoting was written by Church, and the article is primary study, and therefore has the same flaws per MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to Correct 2 Typos in First Sentence

The first sentence on this page has two typos. As of now, it reads "Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFTs) are a form of counseling intervention…" There is no 's' in the acronym. Emotional Freedom Techniques is abbreviated as EFT, and it is treated as a singular noun. So the sentence should read "Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a form of counseling intervention…" Thank you for making these corrections. --Charlottechloe (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I think. Seems to read ok now.

Thanks very much for pointing out the "error", without which I probably wouldn't have noticed a couple of other inconsistencies with WP:LEDE which I fixed at the same time. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Change EFT technique main image

We need to update the image for the EFT technique from this one:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Eft_punkte.jpg#file

To this one:

http://www.ojoonline.com/uploads/BRbodyPoints.jpg

The current image is very old (11 May 2005) and is missing the TOH tapping point.

This is the image as it is on Gary Craig (the founder's) website:

http://www.emofree.com/eft-tutorial/tapping-basics/how-to-do-eft.html

Sorry - I tried to figure out how to upload the image but couldn't!

Ojoonline (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Jo MartinOjoonline (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses freely licensed images, unless there is no possible free replacement image, which is not the case here: we already have a free image. According to his site's copyright notice, Gary Craig holds the copyright to your suggested replacement image and AFAIK has not freely licensed it, so we can't use it here. - MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, thanks for the info on the copyright. I've modified the current image so it is now in line and correct with Gary Craig's.

Please download it here:

www.ojoonline.com/uploads/Eft-punkte-updated-140326.jpg

Thanks for your help :-)

jo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojoonline (talk • contribs) 00:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

EFT evidence speaks for itself

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.

---

I did not expect to see a glowing appraisal of EFT as Wikipedia is ultimately a controlled source, but I'm still mystified at the blatant nonsense and ridiculous spin herein.

EFT has been successful in clinical studies many times, and miraculously so. EFT is an incredible tool and can help everyone on the planet.

In addition to the sentiment of those that do it and learn how great it is on their own, there is a pretty impressive body of evidence supporting its efficacy. I'm dumbfounded as to this site not happening upon any of it.. seriously sadly laughable.. Here is one displaying multiple studies and their successes:

http://www.energypsych.org/general/custom.asp?page=290

Here's another thoughtful and comprehensive review plainly shaming the BS of this wikipedia article and its ignorant lies

http://www.innersource.net/ep/epresearch.html

here's some more, so strange the Wikipedia experts couldn't find any of this stuff

here's some more

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364126

http://www.eftuniverse.com/research-studies/research#clinical

http://www.tapintofreedom.com/research/other.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12945061

There are also about a dozen studies on a clinicaltrials.gov but no results are posted.. however there are more eft studies they're currently recruiting for so if the studies didn't herald results then why are they continuing with more??

Here's yet more information, really Wikipedia professionals whoever did the EFT article you're looking pretty horrible and like you have no business contributing to the page as you did

https://s3.amazonaws.com/eft-academic-articles/Clinical-EFT-as-an-Evidence-Based-Practice-for-the-Treatment-of-Psychological-and-Physiological-Conditions.pdf

There's tons tons tons more out there too... get a clue and stop working for whatever corrupt entity you are trying to mislead and lie to the population reading Wikipedia

72.128.72.101 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 72.128.72.101 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Karen Elizabeth72.128.72.101 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 72.128.72.101 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2014 (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.

Request to Replace Sentence in Reception Section

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.

---

This statement in the “Reception” section is inaccurate: “Evidence has not been found for the existence of meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine[5]” (second sentence in the first paragraph). I request that it be replaced with the following: “However, research on acupressure and acupuncture (the basis of tapping) has demonstrated effectiveness for certain conditions, including chronic pain. A meta-analysis of 29 random controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 17,922 patients, found that ‘Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo.’ In a study using infrared technology to record changes during acupuncture treatment, the researchers concluded: ‘This study shows, for the first time, evidence of the existence of the acupuncture meridian structure in the human body.’" The first 4 references I cite meet WP standards as secondary sources (being research reviews). I am aware that the fifth reference is a primary source, but WP:MEDRS states "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature." I am using it as an adjunct and the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is a reliable source, per PubMed. Note that primary sources are included on both the WP psychology and psychotherapy pages. Thank you in advance for making this change. --Charlottechloe (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - There's no consensus for this alteration which I can see. Please read the archives of this talk page for similar discussions, our definitions of reliable, independent sources, due weight, and the conditions for edits to pseudoscience topics linked from this talkpage. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 16:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I have read the archives on this subject as well as the WP policies. The previous discussions on this subject did not mention the 3 review articles I cited. I’m willing to let go of the last sentence I proposed since the reference seems to create controversy. However, I repeat my request to replace the current sentence “Evidence has not been found for the existence of meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine[5]” with “However, research on acupressure and acupuncture (the basis of tapping) has demonstrated effectiveness for certain conditions, including chronic pain. A meta-analysis of 29 random controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 17,922 patients, found that ‘Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo.’” Here are my reasons for repeating the request: 1) You say there is no consensus for the change. Re academic consensus, WP rules mandate: “Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.” The source currently cited is outdated, as there has been extensive research since the pub date of that source, including the 3 recent review articles I cite. It appears to me that the editors of this page are applying their opinion re consensus rather than abiding by WP rules. 2) The 3 review articles I cite meet all the WP med research requirements, being reviews published in conventional journals recognized by PubMed (Archives of Internal Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Pain Management Nursing: Official Journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses) and, again, all were published after the source currently cited. 3) To decline to make a change because the editors of another WP page use a similarly erroneous statement propagates mistakes. Don’t we owe WP readers our best efforts to ensure accuracy? --Charlottechloe (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if we assume acupressure or acupuncture may work (you've cherry picked secondary studies that says they work, most says they don't but this is besides the point on this matter), it still does not logically mean that meridians exist, as it might work through some other mechanism other than meridians (placebo effect, etc). You will need to find a secondary source that says meridians exist for us to change what we have in the article. Yobol (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point regarding the deduction of the existence of meridians, but my proposed sentence does not say that research has proven the existence of meridians. It poses a legitimate qualifier, that is, that numerous studies have shown acupuncture/acupressure to be effective for certain conditions. I stand by my proposed change as a more accurate representation of the facts. Regardless, there are still two errors in the sentence as it is. First, it is inaccurate to say "there is no evidence." There is at least one study, which I cited in my first posting on this topic. That WP will not include the reference doesn't make the WP statement correct. The other error is the vague phrasing of "other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine." I suggest that either these "other concepts" be specified or that part of the sentence be deleted. Thus, I request that the sentence be changed to: "There is little evidence establishing the existence of meridians, the operating principle of traditional Chinese medicine." Followed by my addition as noted previously: "However, research on acupressure and acupuncture (the basis of tapping) has demonstrated effectiveness…" --Charlottechloe (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Have removed discussion of other concepts of TCM as they are largely off topic except for the discussion of meridians as a concept. That also means that any discussion of the usefulness of acupressure/acupuncture is also off topic and should not be included. There is no evidence for the existence of meridians. You will need to find a reliable source that says they exist before we can discuss this further. Yobol (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making that change. I feel compelled to respond to your comment that I “cherry picked secondary studies” that say acupuncture/acupressure works. The 3 review articles I cite are the latest I found that review the large body of research that has accumulated in recent years (the articles were published in 2012 and 2013). From what I have observed on this EFT page, there is ample evidence of sources being “cherry picked” to support the debunking view of EFT, without allowing the significant-minority position to be “represented fairly and proportionately,” as WP mandates in its Fringe rules, despite the existence of reliable sources supporting the inclusion of a different view on EFT. Using such sources as The Skeptic’s Dictionary and Quackwatch certainly qualifies as “cherry picking.” Both of these are virtual industries in and of themselves, reaping much financial reward from taking a debunking viewpoint, so they could hardly be characterized as “independent.” Another WP policy re “Fringe theories” is “neutral point of view.” This page cannot be characterized as neutral. Particularly in the Research and Reception sections, it presents “non-neutral sources,” which WP allows, but without including “supporting information about the different viewpoints held on [the] subject,” per WP guidelines for dealing with biased or opinionated sources. In addition, two of the sources cited in the Reception section (#6 and 7) are woefully out of date (one published 8 years ago and the other 11 years ago). Much has happened in the field of energy medicine during that time, including more than 50 studies. --Charlottechloe (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You should read WP:FRINGE, specifically WP:PARITY. The existence of meridians, the ability of tapping on these meridians to treat psychological conditions all are pseudoscientific (as documented by our mainstream sources); no independement, reliable source acknowledges any validity to the claims of EFT. When you find WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing that says EFT works it goes in, otherwise it doesn't. What MEDRS sourcing we do have (psychology textbook, etc) says it doesn't work. Yobol (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have read Fringe: Parity. And none of the sources I have cited thus far have been published in “obscure texts that lack peer review” nor could any of these journals be characterized as “fringe journals,” all of them being recognized, as I pointed out previously, by the NIH. I’m not going to continue to press about acupuncture, but I need to address your reference to “WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing” re EFT research. It says that primary sources may be used “with care.” The complete barring of all primary sources from the EFT page is unreasonable, especially when, again, compared to the prevalence of primary sources on other WP pages, e.g., the Psychotherapy page. --Charlottechloe (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it almost always people who can't find what they want to promote in a high quality secondary source the same people who insist on using primary sources? There is a good reason why MEDRS says "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content." That other pages are poorly sources does not mean we should make this page poorly sourced too, to push a particular point of view against neutrality. Yobol (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The requirement of secondary sources creates a catch-22 because the only people who are interested in doing a review of the literature are those who are professionals in that field or those who want to debunk the field. The editors of the EFT page are clearly willing to accept the latter while excluding the former on the grounds that they are not independent sources. I maintain that the insistence on secondary sources creates a false image of independence and sacrifices quality in the process. I’ll back that up in a new topic.--Charlottechloe (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to science. To understand why any claim must satisfy skeptical inquirers as well as sympathetic ones, see n-rays. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 22 April 2014 (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.

Request for Change in Research Section

In an April 11 post under the discussion “Request to Replace Sentence in Reception Section,” Yobol said re EFT research: “Why is it almost always people who can't find what they want to promote in a high quality secondary source the same people who insist on using primary sources?” Let’s look at the current contents of the Research section on the EFT page. The only research cited is a research review by DL McCaslin. At first glance, his publishing record appears impressive. In PubMed citations, there are 29 articles by DL McCaslin. A little investigation reveals, however, that 28 of the articles are by Devin L. McCaslin, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences at Vanderbilt University. The 29th is the review article by Danny L. McCaslin, whose PubMed author info states only “School of Human Service Specializations, Capella University.” This is the one and only article by Danny L. McCaslin listed in PubMed. Further investigation reveals that Capella is actually an online university and Danny L. McCaslin is a graduate student in counseling who has yet to earn even his master’s degree. His LinkedIn profile states that he is employed as a case manager at a community organization, providing case management services and housing assistance. One has to wonder whether he got published in the Psychotherapy journal on the strength of the other 28 articles authored by a DL McCaslin. In any case, Danny McCaslin can in no way be considered a “high quality” secondary source. Nor is he in any way qualified to conduct a review of psychological research or make any statement about EFT, much less draw the “expert” conclusion that the positive results may be "attributable to well-known cognitive and behavioral techniques that are included with the energy manipulation. Psychologists and researchers should be wary of using such techniques, and make efforts to inform the public about the ill effects of therapies that advertise miraculous claims."

Let’s compare Danny’s background to that of David Feinstein, PhD, whose professional, comprehensive, and balanced review article the editors of the EFT page refuse to include. (Yes, I’ve read the arguments against the inclusion.) David Feinstein is a clinical psychologist who earned his PhD from Union Institute in 1972 where his doctoral advisers included Virginia Satir, MSW, the psychotherapist who pioneered family therapy, and Joel Elkes, MD, then Chair, Dept. of Psychiatry, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. While earning his MA, he worked closely with Carl Rogers, PhD, founder of the humanistic psychology movement who revolutionized psychotherapy with his concept of client-centered therapy. Feinstein served on the faculties of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine where he taught psychiatry and the California School of Professional Psychology. He served for 6 years as Senior Clinical Psychologist at San Diego County Mental Health Services in California, and has been a psychotherapist since 1972. Thus he has been a professional in the field of psychology for more than 40 years and worked with revered members of that field. Among his long list of publications are articles in the Review of General Psychology, which is a peer-reviewed journal of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Traumatology, a peer-reviewed medical journal that covers research in the field of traumatology.

My request is to cite Dr. Feinstein’s research review in place of McCaslin’s, specifically replace the current paragraph with: “A 2012 research analysis of 51 peer-reviewed papers, including 18 randomized controlled trials, reporting or investigating ‘clinical outcomes following the tapping of acupuncture points to address psychological issues’ found that the statistical results ‘far exceed chance after relatively few treatment sessions. Criteria for evidence-based treatments proposed by Division 12 of the American Psychological Association were also applied and found to be met for a number of anxiety-based conditions, including PTSD.’ ” After this, you could present the other side from a source with equally strong research credentials (not the McCaslin poor excuse for a source).

My further arguments for the inclusion of Feinstein’s review are: 1) Writing about EFT without citing Dr. Feinstein is like writing about psychoanalysis without citing Carl Jung. Dr. Feinstein is a pioneer in the field of energy medicine and his more than 40 years of professional psychology experience eminently qualify him to conduct research analyses and draw conclusions about EFT’s efficacy. 2) Regarding the repeated charge in these Talk pages that Dr. Feinstein is not an independent source, researchers in psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy make their living in those fields, which makes them reliable authorities on their subject while at the same time opening them to a charge of bias. In addition, many receive research funding from pharmaceutical companies, which further suggests bias. No one is independent, so wouldn’t we rather hear from the experts instead of uneducated opinion? 3) Dr. Feinstein’s review article is a clear demonstration of application of professional standards to a research review. His conclusions are logical and objective, as he was trained to be. Have you read his review? 4) The publication in which his article appears is a peer-reviewed journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). So Dr. Feinstein and his review meet APA’s stringent quality standards. What is the professional expertise of the editors of WP’s EFT page that qualifies them to overrule this APA stamp of approval? --Charlottechloe (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it singular that there are no studies supportive of EFT other than from proponents? The problem is that we already know from other research that there are no such things as acupuncture points. There is very solid evidence form the field fo acupuncture itself, that the positioning of needles makes no difference at all. In fact it doesn't seem to make any difference whether the needles are even inserted. So there's a bit of a hill to climb in claiming that tapping the acupuncture points, where the non-existent meridians for non-existent qi purportedly reside, would have any effect over anad above tapping any other point. And it seems the same applies to EFT: consistent with everything we know about human physiology, the location of tapping makes no objectively measurable difference. Because the "energy" that proponents claim, doesn't exist. It seems more likely that the effect is due to a combination of distraction and a breathing exercise (which is also actually a form of distraction).

I agree that Feinstein is one of the major proponents of EFT. Your loaded language about the quality of his work is unpersuasive, however: as a proponent, he has a strong vested interest (again, isn't it odd how only "big pharma" is asserted to have conflicts of interest, while a free pass is given to advocates of quack therapies?). A review of studies for any quack therapy is likely to find an overall positive effect, because most published research findings are wrong, disconfirming results rarely make it to press, most investigation is done by proponents, and a small net positive result is the expected outcome for an inert therapy due to confounders and publication bias. That's what has sustained hoemopathy for the last half century after all. This applies particularly where the study sizes are small, and the EFT studies are all ridiculously small as far as I can tell, I can't trace one with n>119 on a quick search.

Publication in a journal is not the "APA stamp of approval". The claim that it "meets APA standards" is made on a number of sites advocating EFT, and none that are not long-term advocates of quack treatments. Mercola says it, the APA themselves do not. Again, telling. You are placing the words of a proponent in the mouth of an organisation. That's like saying that The Lancet supports the MMR-Autism link because Wakefield's fraudulent paper was published in The Lancet.

So to answer your question: no, there is no chance of replacing a reality-based source with one from an advocate. There is some chance of placing the advocacy source in the article, but I am looking for independent commentary on its significance and quality, because we know that the EFT proponents are very determined to legitimise their field even in the absence of any credible theoretical underpinning, and we know that psychological interventions are virtually impossible to separate from CBT-type effects.

You have virtually no edits to Wikipedia other than advocating EFT. You will not know about our policies on fringe science, and the long-term problem of people pushing such a POV on Wikipedia. This is not your fault. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am of the view that Feinstein's research is so bad it has no place on Wikipedia; however, if it is included, it has to be placed in context by the the critiques that show how bad it is. Yobol (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You (Guy) have misrepresented my positions in numerous places in your post, but I’ll let that go in the interests of focusing on the main issue. You did not address McCaslin’s utter lack of qualification to be used as a source, much less to serve as the entire Research section. Please explain your justification for using this source, given the points I raised about McCaslin. --Charlottechloe (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't misrepresented your positions because I have barely touched on them. The issue here is that this is a field that is based on a long-debunked idea of human physiology involving energies that don't exist and non-existent meridians along which these non-existent energies do not flow. As always with pseudoscience and pathological science, the proponents are so caught up with their own cleverness and proving their ideas that they forget to test whether their ideas are actually correct. When you test tapping of the acupoints versus tapping of any random point, you get no discernible difference. Ergo, the acupoint claim is bollocks. Since the proponents are unwilling to take this on board, they have made themselves a laughing stock. This is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are three examples of your misrepresentations: 1) You say “there are no studies supportive of EFT other than from proponents.” Untrue. There are numerous studies, but you won’t cite them because they are primary sources. 2) You say: “isn't it odd how only "big pharma" is asserted to have conflicts of interest, while a free pass is given to advocates of quack therapies?” I made no such assertion. I said, “No one is independent.” I am being even-handed. You may not personally agree with my editing requests, but my arguments are logical. 3) I did not claim that EFT meets APA standards, as you say, but that Dr. Feinstein and his review article do, as demonstrated by the APA publishing the article in one of its peer-reviewed journals. I stated this as one of the reasons for including the review on this page.

You still have not addressed the McCaslin issue. --Charlottechloe (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely understand, you are a true believer. Now where's the evidence that the specific points tapped make any difference? That would seem to be an essential first step towards establishing the validity of the field. Oh, wait: when you test to see if the location of tapping makes a difference, you find it doesn't. Fancy that: it's almost as if there's no such thing as qi and no such thing as meridians. Hang on, I think I might be onto something there...

You've noticed, I hope, that we have now included the Feinstein review? Admittedly you may not entirely approve of the fact that we note his conflicts of interest and cherry picking of only the supportive studies, but it would be a gross failure of policy to fail to do so of course. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes to refer to both sides of the debate. A few points. In the Mechanism section: Why is it okay for you to use a primary source (ref 7)? Errors in the Reception section: 1) Re the statement “Feinstein did not disclose his conflict of interest.” Untrue. He filled out the standard APA conflict of interest declaration for the publication of the review in the APA journal. 2) In the last paragraph: "Feinstein dismissed higher quality studies that showed no effects of EFT, in favor of methodologically weaker studies that did show a positive effect." Untrue. There is only one negative study, Waite & Holder, and it is very weak methodologically. It fails 3 of the 7 APA "essential" criteria for a methodologically sound study. (And I note that this study is the only primary source you have allowed on this page.) Changes requested: 1) In the mention of Feinstein’s 2012 review, please state that the review was of 51 peer-reviewed papers, including 18 randomized controlled trials. 2) You still have not addressed the McCaslin issue. And now you’ve added another reference to his review. I maintain my request for the removal of all references to him and his review as not up to the standards of WP medical sourcing. --Charlottechloe (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You are disputing reliable sources based on what you think is true rather than summarizing what reliable sources say. That is going to go nowhere fast. For the record, I don't think Feinstein meets criteria of MEDRS (he is not independent of the subject, which is what MEDRS says we should rely on), but then again he probably doesn't even meet our policy on verifiability on what a general "reliable source" is because he certainly doesn't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, some POV pushers insist on including his views; if we are to include it, we have to include those reliable sources that criticize him. You can't go around stating a dubious author like Feinstein is reliable and then try to remove those who criticize him as unreliable. Yobol (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is science. It's not two sides of a debate, it is claimants with an implausible theory failing to carry the burden of evidence. There's a terrible tendency to ascribe parity in such circumstances - we see it all the time with advocates of quack ideas like homeopathy, chiropractic and such, with the very clear intention to paint science as just an opinion. In this case, it's very clear that honest tests do not bear out the claims made, and that work which does bear them out, is scientifically shoddy. In science, any compromise between an an accurate statement and an inaccurate statement, is an inaccurate statement. The accurate statement here is that there is no credible evidence that this is anything other than the already well established distraction therapy with an overlay of bullshit. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your justification for using McCaslin, given the points I raised about him in my April 15 post. --Charlottechloe (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your criticism of McCaslin amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and there is no evidence that the conclusion is unreliable. It forms paret of the published record in respect of Feinstein, in exactly the same way that Brian Deer, who has, as far as I can tell, no medical qualifications at all, forms part of the published record in respect of the fraudulent claims of Andrew Wakefield. There is no "McCaslin issue" to address, it's a valid source used in a valid way, entirely in line with policy. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

My criticism is not about "I don't like it." It's his utter lack of any qualifications to make the statements he does and the fact that his statement re the use of EP does not derive from the results of the studies he reviewed. It is an extrapolation by a master's degree student at an online university. Not a reliable source. I repeat my request for you to remove it, or at the very least identify him as a master's degree student. --Charlottechloe (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So you say. The fact that he knocks holes in your preferred source, is pure coincidence no doubt. However, the paper is published in a reliable peer reviewed journal as an obvious response to another source we also discuss, so your view of the status of the author is irrelevant: the journal editors' judgment trumps any of ours. Now it's time for you to drop the stick and step away from the deceased equine. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Reference

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.

---

I notice that there is no citation in the text for Reference 2 (Oliver Burkeman (2007-02-10). "Help yourself". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-06-29). Rather than correcting the problem by inserting the number in the text, I suggest that the reference be deleted from the References list, per the criteria of WP:IRS. Though the Guardian offers “published materials with a reliable publication process,” the author cannot be “regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject.” I know both are not required, but the reliability of a primary source is stronger if both are present. In addition, the article is out-of-date (being more than 7 years old), and being an opinion piece by a non-expert further weakens it as a primary source. Oliver Burkeman is a journalist who writes a regular column for the Guardian. The article cited is one of his columns and is an opinion piece. As Oliver Burkeman is not a name many people would recognize, his value as a commentator is negligible. And given the WP preference for secondary sources wherever possible, it seems a waste of a primary source to use one that is not factual. That Mr. Burkeman is not an expert in the field of psychology or medicine further weakens his article as a primary source. Again, per WP:IRS: “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. [bullet] When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[5] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.” As no opinion is attributed to Mr. Burkeman in the text and for the other reasons stated above, I suggest deleting Reference 2. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. --Charlottechloe (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a citation in the "infobox" at the right, with a little "[2]". Click on that and you're taken to the reference. This is not a primary source; it's a secondary source. Whether or not the reader recognizes the name Oliver Burkeman is by the way. (As it happens, I do recognize it. And if I didn't, I could click on the link "Oliver Burkeman" provided there and read a bit about him.) You object that the article "is out-of-date (being more than 7 years old)"; how is it out of date? -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse me for missing the reference in the text. Thank you for pointing me to it. And also thank you for clarifying that this is a secondary source. From my reading of the rules, I wrongly concluded that an expression of opinion was a primary source. I see my error now. I still maintain that this is a weak source, secondary or primary, given his own admission that he was new to the subject, and, as a clever entertaining short column, there is little room for investigation of the subject. As for how the article is out of date, I refer you to Mr. Burkeman’s statement, “only one peer-reviewed study has offered any support.” Since he wrote this column, there has been much research. There are now 51 peer-reviewed articles reporting research on tapping acupuncture points to address psychological issues; these include 18 randomized controlled trials.--Charlottechloe (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

So can we delete the outdated Burkeman reference? There is another reference re the claim it accompanies, so it isn't needed.--Charlottechloe (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, waiting for an answer on deleting the outdated Burkeman reference per my points above. Thank you. --Charlottechloe (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you also explain how Burkeman's column meets WP guidelines for sourcing medical content while the Daily Mail article cited in the discussion on January 16 (dailymail article) does not? Thanks in advance for clarifying this point. --Charlottechloe (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Burkeman but can say with complete confidence that there are few more relentlessly unreliable sources of medical information than the Daily Mail. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 23 April 2014 (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.