Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDDEF

@GreatBigCircles, see this part of our medical sourcing guidelines:

• Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not given equal weight. Studies can be categorized into levels of evidence,[6] and editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews. Low-level evidence (such as case reports or series) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided.
• Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources.
• Lower levels of evidence in medical research come from primary studies

Do not use primary sources like this [1] to make broad and sweeping statements like EMDR is widely used and generally considered by researchers and clinicians to be a safe and effective treatment for PTSD as you did here. It portrays a personal bias in reading this primary article and finding it convincing or choosing which secondary sources to trust and which to disregard, when our best available high-level evidence is more contradictory (e.g. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10].)

There is a reason we do not unequivocally state this in wiki-voice. It's because our secondary sources disagree. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Following the general consensus among academic sources is typically the only time something can be considered for Wikivoice pending a consensus. DN (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The secondary sources don't really disagree on "widely used" or "generally considered to be effective". Even critical sources agree on those points; the point they disagree about is the "why". Loki (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I note that many of the sources you link are quite old. WP:MEDDATE's guideline of trying to find sources from the last 5 years applies to nearly all those sources, and several of them are even over 20 years old. So I'm not that convinced that your list of sources, though long, actually represents current consensus in the field. Loki (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

MEDDATE has more to do with the overall speed of the field, not a hard 5 year cutoff. Rigid adherence to 5 years was not the point of MEDDATE. The field is also "psychology" not "EMDR". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's not a hard 5 year cutoff, and I never said anything about the field being EMDR not psychology. But surely you have to agree that if you're including six 20 year old sources in your list of nine, something's up, right? Loki (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be more interested to see what secondary literature has arisen in the intervening years that says EMDR is not a purple hat therapy, with insignificant addons etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"generally considered to be effective" is what statements from some of the sources above contradict. E.g.

• Thyer 2015: given that there is no evidence that anything unique to EMDR is responsible for the positive outcomes in comparing it to no treatment and the florid manner in which it has been marketed, we are including it in this book
• Sikes 2003: The variable findings regarding whether its effects are for reasons unique to this treatment, however, have become the focus of extensive discussion and debate
• Novella: Time and effort are wasted clinically in studying, perfecting, and using these methods, rather than focusing on the components of the interaction that actually work
• Devilley: To date it has become increasingly clear that (1) EMDR is more effective than no treatment; (2) eye movements per se do not contribute to therapeutic effectiveness; (3) the reprocessing (“R”) component of EMDR may be relatively inert; (4) full treatment packages utilizing competently administered exposure techniques are more effective than EMDR in the treatment of anxiety disorders; and (5) being trained by the EMDR Institute has no significant effect on treatment effectiveness.

among many many others. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

None of those contradict the claim that it is effective, and Sikes and Devilley are 20 year old sources to boot. They are saying that the reason why it is effective means clinicians shouldn't recommend it, but not saying that it's not effective. Loki (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

In any case, the new statement covers the same ground as the preexisting second paragraph of the lead, we don't need two treatments of the same subtopic. MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph is about official recommendations; it does not say that EMDR is 1) widely used, 2) generally considered effective, or 3) the subject of controversy. All three statements are abundantly supported by the sources. GreatBigCircles (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It's all the same stuff. Why is it recommended? Because it has some evidence of effectiveness and safety. Why is it widely used? Because it is recommended. The sources are not so clear an unequivocal as you seem to think. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@GreatBigCircles, wikipedia tells us to describe the situation, not to tell our readers what we think about it. We describe evidence, instead of telling them it's effective. Especially given that different guidelines disagree on the level of effectiveness. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

PLoS is given as an example of a "high-quality journal" by WP:MEDRS. It says: Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a method in psychotherapy for which meta-analyses have reliably demonstrated effectiveness in treating symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD. This is not a primary source, it is high-quality medical journal referencing multiple secondary sources.

None of the sources you referenced contradict the fact that it is generally considered safe and effective. In fact, literally all of the very quotes you selected say that it works:

• Thyer 2015: given that there is no evidence that anything unique to EMDR is responsible for the positive outcomes in comparing it to no treatment and the florid manner in which it has been marketed, we are including it in this book
• Sikes 2003: The variable findings regarding whether its effects are for reasons unique to this treatment, however, have become the focus of extensive discussion and debate
  • (The previous sentence: Eye-movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) has been widely supported in the literature for its effectiveness in treating Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and a variety of other diagnoses and symptoms.)
• Novella: Time and effort are wasted clinically in studying, perfecting, and using these methods, rather than focusing on the components of the interaction that actually work
• Devilley: To date it has become increasingly clear that (1) EMDR is more effective than no treatment; (2) eye movements per se do not contribute to therapeutic effectiveness; (3) the reprocessing (“R”) component of EMDR may be relatively inert; (4) full treatment packages utilizing competently administered exposure techniques are more effective than EMDR in the treatment of anxiety disorders; and (5) being trained by the EMDR Institute has no significant effect on treatment effectiveness.

Before you revert my constructive contributions yet again, show me one recent reliable source that actually says EMDR doesn't work. GreatBigCircles (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No one needs to find sources to refute a Strawman argument. MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie, rather than repeatedly reverting other people's hard work, would you be willing to make a constructive attempt at compromise? GreatBigCircles (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Rather than repeatedly making edits you know others disagree with, You should have a read of WP:BRD and set about getting consensus backing for your changes before you make them again. It is a great thing to be open to compromise and discussion, but discussion is not a filibuster you can use to keep your preferred changes in the article. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

discussion is not a filibuster you can use to keep your preferred changes in the article
Indeed. While discussion is ongoing, we should be leaving it at WP:STATUSQUO. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@GreatBigCircles The PLoS paper you cited is a WP:MEDPRI primary article. It is a piece of new research. Published as a "research article" instead of a "review article." See also this sentence from their conclusion (emphasis mine): We demonstrate first time evidence for a putative neurobiological basis of the bilateral alternating stimulation as used in the EMDR method Please read up more on the different types of scholarly journal articles. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That paper contains new research, but I am not referencing its new research; I am referencing its summary of past meta-analyses, as I quoted above. But no matter how much you challenge this one source, I—and you—have provided many other reliable sources that say EMDR is effective, and you have yet to provide one that says it isn't. GreatBigCircles (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

you have yet to provide one that says it isn't
That's because I'm not interested in saying in the article "EMDR isn't effective". I'm interested in making sure it complies with NPOV and not saying something that isn't supported broadly by a consensus of our available high quality sources. We already describe in the LEAD exactly which of such sources support its effectiveness. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink Will you please suggest wording for a sentence in the first paragraph clearly stating that evidence shows EMDR to be effective for PTSD? There are currently four weasel-worded sentences in the first paragraph about criticisms of EMDR, and not a single one about its well-established effectiveness for PTSD, which is its primary use. GreatBigCircles (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a push to be selective to the point of POV. There is some evidence EMDR is effective for PTSD, but it's almost certainly not down to the pseudoscience fripperies its vendors charge for. We need to give the whole picture and especially make sure the pseudoscience aspect is clear. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"Fuelled by marketing hype"

"Fuelled by marketing hype" is absolutely another account of your use of weasel words. Please refrain in the future. Enix150 (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

1) That's not 'weasel words', and 2) You are using a book from 2005 to cite a claim about numbers of practicioners in 2012. That's also not 'weasel words'. You're changing the article in unsupported ways with an obviously false edit summary. - MrOllie (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed weasel words. I did not add or cite anything. Please see the edit history if you are confused. Enix150 (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That's simply false, as anyone can verify by reviewing the diff MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I simply undid your edit that added weasel words, I didn't contribute anything. Merely subtracted unsupported words by reversion. Feel free to re-add without the weasel words though. Enix150 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You're making a mistake here. You definitely did contribute content. Specifically, you changed a sentence to say "by 2012 more than 60,000 therapists had been trained in its use". This is not supported by the cited source. Then you edit warred to keep this in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I simply undid this edit.[11] Enix150 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That edit removed 183 bytes of content. The edits you've been implementing have been 21 byte subtractions. It is not true that you simply undid MrOllie's edit. If you're saying it was a partial reversion, then why those parts? Why re-add content that is unsupported by the cited source? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Yes, a manual revert since it was too late for an undo. I saw no issue with their addition of citations, but I restored the paragraph that had been weasel worded. Enix150 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Please be careful when doing so in the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the original author of that text. Which edit of mine are you undoing? Others on the talk agree there are no weasel words to be removed here. Perhaps you meant to undo some other edit? MrOllie (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit. [12] Enix150 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is more involved than that. And in any case: Why, exactly? What are you trying to accomplish here? Have you read the rest of the comments in this talk section? You just keep repeating the phrase 'weasel words' in the face of disagreement from multiple other editors. MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it was a manual revert since it was too late for an undo. I saw no issue with your addition of citations, but I restored the paragraph that had been weasel worded. Enix150 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Please address the comments below that explain that those are not weasel words. That's a summary of the cited source, which explicitly relates the growth in EMDR practitioners to aggressive marketing efforts. Also, once again, I did not originally write that text or add that source, please do not assign credit to me that is not mine. MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a bizarre claim. Can you please spend some more time explaining your reasoning here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Enix150, could you please re-read MOS:WEASEL? I am not seeing how it applies here, so maybe you could quote the most applicable parts and explain the connection? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

My guess:

Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.

"Marketing hype" is a pretty vague term. What does it actually mean? On first glance, it sure sounds like it means something, but can you actually define it in a way that distinguishes it from any attempt to promote anything? Presumably Aaron Beck had to get the word out about CBT somehow; what's actually concretely different about EMDR, and if there is some concrete difference why aren't we saying that instead? Loki (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It means hyperbolic claims used for promotion. Fits in with what is reported elsewhere in the article. English language innit. Bon courage (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily distinguish "marketing hype" from "any attempt to promote". They live on a spectrum with each other. I think something specific and meaningful is being said. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The source attributes EMDR's 'rapid spread' to 'marketing and almost cult-like atmosphere that have accompanied other psychological pseudosciences'. We can use something closer to the wording of the source if you want to say something concrete. MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Closer to the wording of the source would be better on the MOS:WEASEL issue, but then we get into the issues of using MOS:LABELs (like "cult-like") from only one source.

I think "hyperbolic", as suggested by BC, is an important word here. If we were to say "Fueled by hyperbolic marketing claims," we might have something that avoids both concerns a little better. (But I'd still prefer some detail about, y'know, what sort of hyperbolic marketing claims.) Loki (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Controversial"

BC and I have been going back and forth on the word "controversial" in the lead a few times, so let's take it to talk before it becomes a full edit war.

Basically, I keep reverting edits calling EMDR controversial because, due to MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, we should by the letter of the MOS never be calling anything "controversial" in Wikivoice in any article. (Personally I think there are extreme circumstances which can be exceptions, but here isn't one.) The thing that's most commonly done instead is to explain the controversy... but we do that already. In the lead, even. Loki (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The lede does explain the controversy by outlining the pseudoscience and effectiveness questions (we should add more maybe about the superfluous training). Many sources say it's cpntroverial and this is long-standing text in the article. MOS is guidance; NPOV is policy and cannot be swerved. Bon courage (talk)

NPOV is policy, but nobody is saying we should ignore NPOV. Indeed, all the content that NPOV would demand we include is already in the lead. What you're suggesting is a rewording of that information to include a MOS:LABEL, and how we word things is absolutely the domain of the MOS. Loki (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow the reliable sources, which widely call this stuff controversial. Bon courage (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this is not a matter of sourcing. You could, by the text of the MOS, have infinite sources and not be able to call something "controversial" in Wikivoice.

Why? Because it's not a content issue, it's a style issue. Infinite sources that refer to "the pope" or "president Washington" would not make us stop referring to either of those people with capitalized titles either. We don't have any obligation to follow the specific wording of the sources, and the MOS says explicitly in this case we should not word things this way. So we don't: instead we word the same content a different way already. Loki (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You're treating MOS:CONTROVERSIAL like some ironclad rule that overrides over concerns - that's not what it is. Wikipedia articles can and do use the word 'controversial' when appropriate. We even have articles that use it as part of the title, for instance List of controversial video games, Controversial Reddit communities, etc. There are dozens of them. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the iron non-negotiable 'rule' on Wikipedia is NPOV. Many texts in fact call this stuff 'extremely controversial' so Wikipedia's coyness about this is a POV problem. Bon courage (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Neither of those articles should exist, or at least not under those titles.

Now, I agree that there are some circumstances where any of the labels in MOS:LABEL could be appropriate. In particular, the section calls out "pseudoscience" as a contentious label that nonetheless actively should be used if the sources support it. But there's also plenty of other cases where contentious labels are appropriate. We call Adolf Hitler and Richard B. Spencer Nazis, and David Icke a conspiracy theorist, and that's fine. WP:IAR is a thing for a reason, and frankly the language in MOS:LABEL about literally never getting to use the label in Wikivoice is clearly too strict.

However, the existence of exceptions doesn't mean that this particular case is an exception, and the reason I'm very confident that this particular case is not an exception is, again, because we describe the controversy in detail already. All the relevant content is already there. Loki (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those articles should exist, or at least not under those titles. Like I said, there are many, many instances of this. If you really think these are policy violations, it sounds like you have a lot of work to do. But I think it much more likely you're simply mistaken. MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty trivial to find articles that contain obvious violations of WP:NPOV or WP:V and those are core content policies. The example I can think of immediately is that most of the many articles on any vaguely major religion are clearly written by adherents of that religion, and often very poorly cited. See for instance Oven of Akhnai, which is barely cited at all, or Ihram, an even longer article with only three barely used sources.

Heck, you spend a lot of time on WP:FTN, right? How many articles have you run across that push something fringey? Because just from following it for a few months I can tell that concerningly fringe stuff gets posted there all the time. Loki (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The point is you are taking an extreme interpretation of a MOS guideline that is shared by almost no one. This isn't a stray example or two or a policy violation no one has noticed yet - there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of counterexamples that show your interpretation is not the standard one. Guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive - when you read a policy in a way that conflicts with a plain examination of the 'Pedia itself, it means you're wrong about what the guideline means. How many articles have you run across that push something fringey? Well, we're on the talk page of one right now, so... MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the mainstream opinion of this guideline. Trust me, I have been on the opposite side of this argument against people who really do believe there is no context whatsoever where we can say the word "controversial" on Wikipedia.

I could find you hundreds of examples of articles that violate WP:NPOV or WP:V or both. It'd be trivial, in fact. Most articles on Wikipedia violate a core content policy, as can be seen pretty starkly if you just go through a bunch of random articles. There's a reason why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and WP:OTHERCONTENT) is specifically called out as a bad argument. Loki (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

(Oh, and if you don't believe me that this is the mainstream interpretation, here's a recent and well-attended RFC about exactly the language you're talking about.) Loki (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant. Anyway, seems like you don't really get it from the NPOV perspective, so we should just go ahead and restore this. If you really applied your argument you'd remove it from the body too. Seems you just don't want this knowledge prominent in the lede right? Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I missed that we have it in the body and rephrased that line.

...and that's a clear WP:PA, please stop. (It's also false, because as I've been telling you repeatedly, the information is already in the lead. I just object to the word.) Loki (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

And I object to rephrasing the body in a way that introduces a significant difference in meaning. If you simply object to the word, feel free to propose a change of term that preserves the meaning (here first please). MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a PA at all. We've had the (correct) "controversial" text in the body as the consensus text for months, and you've not objected. Bon courage (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Loki, this discussion has been had many times. There is just too much RS supporting controversial. Your reading of MOS:CONTROVERSIAL needs to take a back seat, as MOS usually does to WP:RS. If we do it for "racist" we should for a much less loaded and much less pejorative term like "controversial". It's accurate and succinct. All the proposed options I've seen are obtuse and wordy. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm in rough agreement, though I'd say here that the policy the MOS needs to take a back seat to is NPOV. I'm on record as thinking that MOS:CONTROVERSIAL frequently leads to this bizarre clash and that it needs some rethinking. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? The alternative is already in the article. We already describe the dispute in question at length. There's no need given that to call it "controversial" as well.

I'm fine with exceptions to MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, but I just don't think this is one, for that reason. Honestly, I feel like there are fewer exceptions for "controversial" than there are for "racist": the reason to include a MOS:LABEL is not a matter of how loaded the word is but how easily the word can be avoided. When the sources are clear about "racist", there's no other word that will do, but even when sources are clear about "controversial" it's almost always trivial to just describe what the controversy is. And this is almost always better writing, in that it conveys a clearer and more accurate picture to the reader than just a single loaded word. Loki (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Well you already admitted the concept by adding[13] "has caused controversy" to the lede, which is just a gawky rewording of the same idea. Seems you're just hung up on one particular word. I think the bigger picture is what matters here, not which particular sequence of letters is used to convey the concept we all agree should be here. Bon courage (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The MOS is all about particular words, though. Of course this is about the particular word. Loki (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really, MOS is a means to an end not a string-matching exercise. There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but I think that the end being pursued by not using this word is valid. Saying something is "controversial" creates bad connotations around it while giving the reader almost no new information. Explaining the controversy (like, again, we already do) instead gives the reader actual information.

This is, incidentally, why I'm much more of a stickler about "controversial" than I am about other MOS:LABELs. "Racist" or "pseudoscience" or "cult leader" are all strong words but they do at least mean something specific, and when that specific meaning is warranted, there are few adequate replacements. "Controversial", on the other hand, in addition to being a MOS:LABEL is also a weasel word: it's both contentious and has very little substantive meaning. Loki (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It means something, especially as we use it. Bon courage (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"Criticisms" not "Controversial" is the norm on Wiki? In wiki psyc. science articles similar "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy" .. we see "Criticisms" listed at the end. They do not use the word "Controversial" at any point. The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2023

The neurological evidence published in Nature and widely cited when discussing EMDR should be included. My suggestion is to include it under the headline "Possible mechanisms". I propose the following subsection with the associated reference to the publication:

Suppression of fear encoding cells

Researchers have identified a pathway in the brain involving the superior colliculus that plays a crucial role in reducing fear through alternating bilateral sensory stimulation (Baek et al., 2019). In experiments with mice, they found that bilateral visual stimulation was the most effective in reducing fear. Using optogenetics, they also showed that it was sufficient and necessary to show this effect. The therapy influenced the activity of fear-related cells and stabilized inhibitory signals in the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotions.

Baek, J., Lee, S., Cho, T., Kim, S. W., Kim, M., Yoon, Y., et al. (2019). Neural circuits underlying a psychotherapeutic regimen for fear disorders. Nature 566, 339–343. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0931-y Bauma (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Please use this template to request changes for which consensus exists. Note: biomedical content needs WP:MEDRS sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

Change this text: "Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a form of psychotherapy that is controversial within the psychological community.[1] It was devised by Francine Shapiro in 1987 and originally designed to alleviate the distress associated with traumatic memories such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)."

Into this text: "Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a form of psychotherapy devised by Francine Shapiro in 1987 and originally designed to alleviate the distress associated with traumatic memories such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It is controversial within the psychological community.[1]" PeterTheHegemon (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  05:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Page should be deleted

I am astounded by this article. It cites research that is more than 20 years old, uses contentious language, and goes against mainstream opinion in the psychological community. This entire page should be deleted. Is anyone in charge here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:100:7F60:8E5:7BC4:1FC4:B0ED (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone in charge here?? No. Please read this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

agreed that it should be deleted for same reasons. 2604:3D09:1C8D:5700:42E5:940E:E8F8:4ABA (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:AFD is thataway. Bon courage (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Two possibilities:

• You know of reliable sources that contradict the article. In that case, bring them. We can then evaluate if they are really reliable sources, and maybe they will end up in the article.
• You do not know of any reliable sources that contradict the article. In that case, there is nothing wrong with the article as far as anybody here knows, and there is no reason to delete it either.

What you wrote above is far too vague to be helpful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is wild. And out of control. EMDR is conditionally recommended by the APA. Calling EMDR 'Controversial' is a stretch Some people think "climate change" is also controversial and can list various resources to "back this up". Please can someone edit. The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You should really read the rest of the talk page for an explanation of why this is. Or the cited sources. MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

... I did read this 'talk'/kids arguing page and MY conclusion is that its out of control for a science page.

Many on here are reflecting the same. And the controversial should be just be treated as criticisms ... and as such put at the end of the page as per is the norm in other similar wiki science articles eg CBT... controversial... is not really used in these sorts of things. I mean really? EMDR is noted by the APA. Its not contentious. The first source is not peer reviewed science it is an opinion piece in newsletter... a newsletter ..

RESEARCH ON EYE MOVEMENT DESENSITIZATON AND REPROCESSING (EMDR). The second cited article is from the New York Times.... come on. This is supposed to be science. Lets get it together. The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No, walling off criticism into a section at the end of the page is not the norm. In fact it is specifically discouraged on Wikipedia, especially for fringe topics. MrOllie (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"especially for fringe topics" .... hmm. Do you know who the APA are? They are not fringe. https://www.apa.org/about ... and I just pointed to the wiki page on CBT - the most widely used psyc therapy in the world ... it walls of "criticism" ... so I guess we had better jump on that page and tell them what's what too... we are going to be busy today! The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, you should really read the rest of the materials here. MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, I did. And this was MY conclusion. See you at the CBT page I guess. The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you also read Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 8#pejorative article?

The APA is not the only source talking about this. Wikipedia does not work like "this source says what I believe, so let us use that one and exclude the other ones that do not". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

While the APA certainly isn't the only source talking about this, I still find this article to give undue WP:WEIGHT to highly critical book sources (which are often older) rather than the recent high-quality WP:MEDORG sources which tend to be pretty positive.

WP:MEDRS says that WP:MEDORG sources are some of the strongest possible sources in this area, and we have tons of them, and they all broadly agree on a conclusion which this article dances around: that EMDR is an effective and evidence-based psychotherapy. There are other sources that dispute that conclusion, and I don't think we should ignore them, but they're pretty clearly a minority view if all these big medical organizations from all around the world say something different. Loki (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, so "Guidelines and position statements provided by major medical and scientific organizations". What are those source here? Bon courage (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources that we describe in EMDR#Medical_guidelines. Loki (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

But those (some of which are minor/old) are cited already then. We're not going back to your source cancelling-out argument again are we? Bon courage (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of those sources are cited only in that section, even though they're the strongest sources on the page. You personally have reverted attempts to add lines based on them to the lead several times. Loki (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The lede says: "EMDR is recommended for the treatment of PTSD by various government and medical bodies citing varying levels of evidence, including the World Health Organization, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and the US Departments of Veteran Affairs and Defense". Seems a pretty good summary, Bon courage (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

We've gone over this a bajillion times already, but to repeat it once more in case anyone else reads this discussion: many of those sources also call it "scientific" and "evidence-based", yet we have several claims that it is not scientific in the lead from an academic book, but no rebuttal from the WP:MEDORG sources.

WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant views present in the sources, and "EMDR is a scientific and evidence-based therapy" clearly is present in the sources, and in fact is present in the majority of our strongest category of sources. Loki (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a WP:DEADHORSE. So let's not get the whips out. Bon courage (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I work in psychology and have done so for decades. I completely agree with the article.

There's literally no way that this treatment is real and works. It's what's called the "Treatment Effect" in psychology which what the Purple Hat Theory addresses. 2601:49:4300:C540:0:0:0:E6FB (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want a less biased and more elaborate page on EMDR, go to the Dutch Wikipedia and translate that article. This article is indeed completely hijacked by skeptics. 2A02:A420:76:8306:57AF:359D:5E5F:B48A (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

WHO Report 2023 -- Please update the page

The 2013 WHO report is now outdated. Here is a link to the 2023 report: chrome-https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/374250/9789240084278-eng.pdf?sequence=1

There is a "strong" strength of recommendation of EMDR for children and adolescents with PTSD (page 48)

And on page 46 this statement: "Low-quality evidence suggests there may be no difference between face-to-face CBT with a trauma focus and digital CBT with a trauma focus, between CBT with a trauma focus and EMDR.."

I interpret that statement as there is no evidence to say CBT is better than EMDR.

I also think the 2013 report was misconstrued as even back then there were statements that "EMDR should be considered...." but that point is moot at this point. JeepDrivingMeerkat (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link: To quote page 48: Moderate-quality evidence suggests reduced rates of PTSD symptoms in children and adolescents using these interventions. - our existing language in the article is about the quality of evidence, which noted it was moderate for adults and low for children. I have removed the special language about children since it is all moderate now.

The bit about being similar to CBT is unsurprising, we already have other sources that note that EMDR gets its effectiveness by incorporating the core elements of CBT - the article already discusses that. MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. You know that the mechanism of action of ANY psychotherapy is virtually impossible to prove, therefore while there are some sources citing that EMDR gets its effectiveness by incorporating core elements of CBT, that doesn't mean they are the definitive answer as to why EMDR has efficacy. Both therapies cause changes in the brain, (see this article as an example: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00129/full ) but that does not mean that they have the same mechanism of action.

Continued exploration of the role of bilateral stimulation is ongoing and crucial (Yes, I know this research has problems--but all psychological research has problems -- hence the crisis that came to a head in 2011 or so).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173505018300086 I think a complete and neutral wikipedia article would reflect these multiple viewpoints. JeepDrivingMeerkat (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We do have to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE, though, as required by Wikipedia's policies. The way we do that is by sticking to the best available sources, which in the case of medical content typically means position statements from major medical organizations and systematic reviews (see WP:MEDRS). There's not a lot we can do with single data points like original research articles, particularly ones published in places like Frontiers. MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In that case, you need to remove this citation: Arkowitz H, Lilienfeld SO (1 August 2012). "EMDR: Taking a Closer Look". Scientific American. Retrieved 21 March 2023. It is outdated and an opinion piece.

The second link I sent looks at 25 years of reseach.

As far as I can tell, you are missing these:

Australian PTSD Guidelines https://www.phoenixaustralia.org/australian-guidelines-for-ptsd/ (2021)

The American Psychiatric Association https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/ptsd/expert-q-and-a (which basically goes with what the International society for Traumatic Stress states)

United Nations High Comissioner for Refugees (2013)

https://www.unhcr.org/us/media/clinical-management-mental-neurological-and-substance-use-conditions-humanitarian-emergencies

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services America (2014) https://www.samhsa.gov/resource/dbhis/tip-57-trauma-informed-care-behavioral-health-services JeepDrivingMeerkat (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Non medical sources like Scientific American can be used for non-medical claims. Your other links are a combination of stuff we've already discussed (see the talk page archives) or stuff that doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I am confused. The scientific American piece is basically anti-EMDR, an opinion, and outdated. EMDRIA has surpassed 16,000 members and that's only one EMDR organization that exists in the world (among others).

This page is completely slanted toward CBT journals and the pseudoscience literature. The neutrality appears to be very thinly veiled indeed. JeepDrivingMeerkat (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe people are confused by Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. It does not mean 'neutral' in the sense of takes no position, but means 'neutral' in the sense that additional spin is not added to the cited sources. If NPOV meant 'all views are balanced' articles like Modern flat Earth beliefs would be very different. MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, this is interesting and I will have to spend some time on the NPOV policy page.

"Additional spin is not added to the cited sources," BUT again, most of the sources are from the CBT world, which is historically anti-EMDR. I am very curious why the editors/authors of this page have chosen to take this position. Someone could have easily taken an overaly positive view of EMDR (I am not advocating for that, by the way). JeepDrivingMeerkat (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Bernhard source

New (to this article):

• Bernhard M (2023). "The Enigmatic Method". Virginia Quarterly Review. 99/1 (Spring/Summer).

contains some very pertinent material on Shapiro and the genesis of / reaction to EMDR. Bon courage (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

that's a literary magazine, not a scientific journal? Tom B (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's good on Shapiro though (who was an English literature person, not a scientist, by education). Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you, yes so more for the Shapiro article rather than this medical one, Tom B (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Useful for the history of how the stuff was dreamt up. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

... 'effectiveness is provided by the underlying therapy, not from EMDR's distinctive features.'

Stated as fact, rather than theory. Please amend, I do not have editing rights. Full sentence is "It has been called a purple hat therapy because any effectiveness is provided by the underlying therapy (or the standard treatment), not from EMDR's distinctive features." ~~ WykiP (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It is an accurate summary of the cited source as it is. It is unclear what the basis to 'amend' it would be. MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

In this section, there should be clarification of the data used in the citation research contradicting the efficacy of EMDR. General statements or summaries limit the understanding of the criticism or validity of EMDR. What/where/how is the exact disagreement explained.

Training

Shapiro was criticized for repeatedly increasing the length and expense of training and certification, allegedly in response to the results of controlled trials that cast doubt on EMDR's efficacy.[15][16] This included requiring the completion of an EMDR training program in order to be qualified to administer EMDR properly after researchers using the initial written instructions found no difference between no-eye-movement control groups and EMDR-as-written experimental groups. Further changes in training requirements and/or the definition of EMDR included requiring level II training when researchers with level I training still found no difference between eye-movement experimental groups and no-eye-movement controls and deeming "alternate forms of bilateral stimulation" (such as finger-tapping) as variants of EMDR by the time a study found no difference between EMDR and a finger-tapping control group.[15] Such changes in definition and training for EMDR have been described as "ad hoc moves [made] when confronted by embarrassing data".[17] 91.217.105.54 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find that information in the cited sources. Click on the little numbers. - MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Caro 2023 systematic review

I've just added the 2023 Cochrane review by Caro et al., doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013361.pub2, they found, "The evidence base for the effectiveness of other psychotherapeutic interventions for sexually abused children and adolescents is limited, particularly in relation to… EMDR." More research is needed to establish the effectiveness of EMDR in this context. --Notgain (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Also: Review published January 2024 that is paywalled:

The current study found no significant difference between EMDR and other psychological treatments.

ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)