This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Emotional Freedom Techniques article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on January 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Someone has recently attempted to use a 2022 review article by Church to claim that EFT is now 'evidence based'. We cannot use this source on Wikipedia - the conflict of interest held by Church has been well documented in the talk page archives. This review was also published in 'Frontiers in Psychology' - Frontiers is a predatory publisher, and this journal is not indexed in MEDLINE. Per WP:MEDRS we cannot use it for medical claims. This series of edits also conflated APA sources about Emotionally focused therapy with Emotional Freedom Techniques - despite the similarity of acronym these are not the same thing. MrOllie ( talk) 13:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I made simple edits to improve the scientific accuracy of the article, and they were reverted with the unhelpful explanation of "better before." I would re-revert, but do not want to war; so please explain what your edit means, @ Bon courage.
My edits were to change "EFT has no benefit as a therapy" to "EFT has not been shown to have any benefit as a therapy". The former makes an unscientific over-claim of certainty that there is no benefit. No such scientific certainty exists. Is not my edit more accurate? — Epastore ( talk) 13:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Now that we've gone full WP:GODWIN I suggest somebody closes this. Bon courage ( talk) 15:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It is really rough to see Epastore battling this point out while being obviously right. Like, burden of proof is a really important concept, but its place on one side or the other doesnt actually make claims a priori true or false. Thats.... not really how empirical stuff works. 78.148.194.54 ( talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Like even if you specified *what* EFT doesn't benefit, that could be supported by the literature but otherwise "no benefit as a therapy" is such an over-reach that it implies it doesnt even perform on par with placebo (it does). (Obligatory disclaimer than im not some pseudoscience person and dont think EFT is real, just that we should be careful with our language here) 78.148.194.54 ( talk) 22:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
There has been scientific papers studying EFT and the results show that it is effective for anxiety, ptsd and psychological stress
Disappointed with this Wikipedia article saying that EFT is pseudoscience and placebo. 197.252.213.253 ( talk) 16:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Avoid primary sourcesMrOllie ( talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Emotional Freedom Techniques article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on January 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Someone has recently attempted to use a 2022 review article by Church to claim that EFT is now 'evidence based'. We cannot use this source on Wikipedia - the conflict of interest held by Church has been well documented in the talk page archives. This review was also published in 'Frontiers in Psychology' - Frontiers is a predatory publisher, and this journal is not indexed in MEDLINE. Per WP:MEDRS we cannot use it for medical claims. This series of edits also conflated APA sources about Emotionally focused therapy with Emotional Freedom Techniques - despite the similarity of acronym these are not the same thing. MrOllie ( talk) 13:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I made simple edits to improve the scientific accuracy of the article, and they were reverted with the unhelpful explanation of "better before." I would re-revert, but do not want to war; so please explain what your edit means, @ Bon courage.
My edits were to change "EFT has no benefit as a therapy" to "EFT has not been shown to have any benefit as a therapy". The former makes an unscientific over-claim of certainty that there is no benefit. No such scientific certainty exists. Is not my edit more accurate? — Epastore ( talk) 13:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Now that we've gone full WP:GODWIN I suggest somebody closes this. Bon courage ( talk) 15:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It is really rough to see Epastore battling this point out while being obviously right. Like, burden of proof is a really important concept, but its place on one side or the other doesnt actually make claims a priori true or false. Thats.... not really how empirical stuff works. 78.148.194.54 ( talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Like even if you specified *what* EFT doesn't benefit, that could be supported by the literature but otherwise "no benefit as a therapy" is such an over-reach that it implies it doesnt even perform on par with placebo (it does). (Obligatory disclaimer than im not some pseudoscience person and dont think EFT is real, just that we should be careful with our language here) 78.148.194.54 ( talk) 22:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
There has been scientific papers studying EFT and the results show that it is effective for anxiety, ptsd and psychological stress
Disappointed with this Wikipedia article saying that EFT is pseudoscience and placebo. 197.252.213.253 ( talk) 16:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Avoid primary sourcesMrOllie ( talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)