Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 older entries 2 How to clean up? 3 accuracy and neutrality dispute 4 POV text moved to talk 5 Balanced info? 6 Pseudo science or proto science? 7 A good scientific study was done, so why not base the article around that 8 Comments on the recent expansion 9 spam in Links section 10 Nomination for deletion 11 QW 12 Speculation 13 What about? 14 Row over Rowe 15 "claims" and "intends" 16 Recent edits 17 A Form of Meditation 18 Suggestion 19 recent changes 20 Suggested links 21 Psychotherapeutic Technique or Quack approach? 22 accuracy of entries 23 Administrator oversight

[edit] older entries

What? No mention of Wilheim Reich? Is it possible the connections are unobserved?4.234.102.89 03:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

This article was listed on Votes for deletion. Consensus was to keep. It was also placed on cleanup after removal of the VfD header.

OK, so the votes were for keeping this and deleting Gary Craig. Good. Would it be OK now to expand this article a little bit? Or do we have to leave it like this? Geraldstiehler 07:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How to clean up?

It's going to be hard to clean this page up when attempts to do so are removed by people such as CryptoDerk.

Removing the cleanup tag when it still needs cleanup and inserting all kinds of links doesn't help. CryptoDerk 06:05, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

The original author had included the list of alternative techniques, why not get rid of the whole list? I had also broken the single hard to read paragraph up into multiple paragraphs at what I thought was the original author's intent, based on the structure of the source. How is the decision to get rid of the cleanup tag made?

[edit] accuracy and neutrality dispute

Energy fields in the body store the memory of events? Eh? --Pjacobi 00:00, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

It's piffle, of course. (But it survived VfD.) How about preceding each stunning claim with Proponents actually believe that... or similar? -- Hoary 10:53, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

It seems, Hoary, that you are more stuck on the semantics than the substance of what was written. If you go to EFT's main site, www.emofree.com, it is quite plain as to the techniques still experiental stage. You rant about studies, yet do no research yourself. There are a few clinical studies on the net, how about doing some research on them?.

I have personal experience with EFT and can tell you that it defiantly works for anxiety attacks. Not only do the anxiety attack stop, but you are able to think about the issue that caused the anxiety without generating the fear and going into "fight or flight." Of course your problems do not just "go away" but you are able to deal with them with a calm, rational mind. 21:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Tamie

You might also point out that you're in the EFT business. Any disinterested, scientific evidence of therapeutic efficacy? -- Hoary 10:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link and an in-article reference to the only neutral, scientific study I could find online which specifically addresses EFT. Apparently part of EFT is to engage in something akin to traditional "talking therapy," consequently EFT does in fact show some positive results--but not because of the energy fields or any other features unique to EFT. I think it's good for Wikipedia to have articles on topics such as this, but it's important to reference scientific studies, not anecdotes or advertisements (which the removed text most certainly was). -- Alaren 21:01, 07 September 2005 (UTC)

I also have personal experience with the technique, and am NOT professionaly involved or have any business interests whatsoever. EFT does indeed work, and works extremely well. As I wrote below, I have been permanantly cured from many emotional ailments. While the mechanism behind it is still in question, I can definately say that simply talking about your problems will NOT have the same effect. People stay in counseling for depression their entire lives, and are never cured. And yet after a year of using this technique, I was. Research is in the early days, but I am confident that research will eventually prove what I've already known for years - EFT is the next generation of emotional healing. -- Fizfazz, November 10, 2005

[edit] POV text moved to talk

I've moved the following text to talk, as it is clearly POV, and also looks like a potential copyvio:

The following overview of EFT by Brian Walsh PhD

EMOTIONAL FREEDOM TECHNIQUE (EFT) and Learning

The State Dependant Memory Learning and Behavior (SDMLB) theory states that life events are encoded in a person’s physiology on a cellular/molecular level. These events, both positive and negative, include both the thought, which becomes a memory, and the original emotion attached to that thought. According to the research of Dr. Candace Pert, research professor at Georgetown University's Department of Physiology and Biophysics, our thoughts convert to emotions that in turn become neuropeptides. The neuropeptides, strings of amino acids, communicate with the body on the biochemical level. (If you watched the film “What the Bleep Do We Know?”, you may remember Dr. Pert as one of the participants.) These stored events reside in bodily energy fields that flow on unique major neural pathways, corresponding to what acupuncurists call meridians.

EFT is a meridian therapy, one of the many healing techniques in the new field of Energy Psychology, which, by linking an emotion/memory event to a physical tapping process, can clear negative, disturbing emotions, eliminate or reduce pain and phobias, and assist in setting and implementing positive goals. EFT can be thought of as a form of psychological acupressure, for it is based on the same energy meridians used in traditional acupuncture. Focusing on the issue and stimulating the major neural pathways through tapping initiates a memory process causing change, by unblocking the emotional short-circuit. This process results in substituting neutral or positive emotions for the negative emotions which were previously learned and associated with the issue.

The process initially requires the person to tune into the disturbing thought, event or issue to be addressed. With a simple finger tapping on key points on the face, head, chest and hands, kinetic energy enters the specific meridians which flow through these points. This combination of tapping the energy meridians and voicing specific phrases works to clear the emotional block from the body's bio-energetic system. This restores the mind and body's balance, which is essential for optimal learning and mental health.

Some of the other energy therapies are Matrix Works, Break Set Free Fast, Energy Diagnostic & Treatment Method, Attractor Field Therapy, Thought Energy Synchronization, Acu-Power, Healing From the Body Level Up, Neuro-Emotional Technique, Tapas Acupressure Technique, Psychological Kinesiology, and Healing Touch.

EFT can dramatically enhance intellectual performance simply by eliminating the emotional lids on our intellectual potential. END

[edit] Balanced info?

I have some experience of this technique, and could easily put a few paragraphs together. However, this is my first visit to this site (on recommendation) so feel the need to get a few guidelines and acceptance criteria sorted out first. Where do I find that stuff around here?

From "Halvibe"-

There are many users of EFT who can testify to its effects. Nothing can easily be learned when the "scientific" method is purely dependant on the profit motive. There are no funds to create a large scale scientific study of something like EFT. The validity of EFT stands out as a threat to the mainstream medical community. Therefore, the mainstream medical community will block any and all attempts to validate the method scientifically. The only real way for people to learn about this method is by the words of others. If Wikipedia would allow the testimonies of the thousands of people who have been helped by this technique to be placed here, THAT would be of real value to the people who want to know what works. To not allow that sort of input makes Wikipedia much less valuable to the public.

That's an interesting POV, Halvibe, but Wikipedia does not exist as a forum for testimonials, anecdotes, or advertising. I find it odd that you would talk about the scientific method being dependent upon the "profit motive" when in fact studies have been done which suggest EFT does exhibit positive results--not from imaginary "energy fields" but from the talking-therapy approach it borrows from mainstream psychology. While I agree that the medical community is often loathe to accept newcomers to the ranks of modern healers, that hasn't stopped antibiotics, psychology, chiroprachty, massage therapy, or any of a host of "new techniques" from becoming respected fields--once those fields brought some scientific evidence to the table. Thus far, EFT has brought nothing but the same kind of "evidence" peddled by mesmerists, snake-oil salesmen, mediums, thaumaturgists, and faith-healers throughout history. And finally, last I checked, a single session of EFT could cost as much or more than a visit to a real doctor--so the profit motive is a sword that cuts both ways and I'd be more careful about bringing it into play. For the moment I am content to let Wikipedia's rules about NPOV and citing scientific sources rule what gets posted here. Alaren 01:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

From "fizfazz"-

Actually, EFT is free if you learn it yourself. How do I know this? Because that's what I did! And have cured myself of depression, OCD, and even eliminated my need for glasses which I had worn for 4 years. Snake-oil salesmen? Since when has snake-oil given rise to a community of hundreds of thousands of users, many of them also Ph.D. and MDs? In fact, there is an advisory board of 14 MDs who all endorse the technique (just check out emofree.com, click on newcomers info, and look on the bottom right). And yes, EFT should be advertised, because for goodness sake, you can learn it for free, and its better by far than conventional pyschotherapy techniqes, of which I have yet to hear ONE case of someone being cured from their ailment. All it does is help people cope. I think I'll go with being cured, thank you. (11/10/05)

Congratulations, fizfazz. It sounds like you have effectively applied EFT to cure yourself of hypochondria.

Let me suggest a few things. Having a PhD or an MD just means you paid your money to a school. I know a lot of brilliant janitors and a lot of really, really stupid doctors. So I'm unconvinced by the letters. Snake-oil salesmen have given rise to many communities--the popularity of pyramid schemes and the very existence of mail fraud, email fraud, investment banking fraud, real-estate fraud, and other kinds of fraud in the world demonstrate this quite effectively. Your claim that EFT is "better by far" than conventional psychotherapy doesn't hold up to research; your claim that no one has benefitted from it is strangely in contrast with reality. You say "all it does is help people cope," and yet studies show that EFT is only about as efficacious as low-grade psychotherapy in helping people with anything.

I'm sorry you needed a psychological crutch like EFT to help you overcome your problems, but if you think it should be advertised, by all means, please advertise it. Just realize that, like I said before, this is not the place for it.

Must you be so rude? If you don't believe in EFT (or do), that is no reason to verbally disparage those with whom you disagree. Of course the controversy and doubts surrounding EFT ought to be reported in addition to a description of what it is and how it is believed to work, but can we not stay above personal attacks? -Paperflowergirl

This article reads like an advertisement brochure. It mentions the EFT website numerous times as well as the "free EFT manual". At times it sounds like an infomercial. The article does not inspire confidence in the EFT procedure nor wikipedia because it is clear the claims are being made without much objective scientific testing. -Lukas8

The irony is that even if fizfazz were as pathetic as the anonymous writer believed, the remark about hypochondria above could still be interpreted as an endorsement of EFT! Man with two legs 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. You are exactly right, since Hypochondria is a serious condition and there are millions of people suffering from it without getting relief from the conventional main-stream approaches. 84.190.172.20 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo science or proto science?

Hi,

I'd like to point out that just because a theory has not been proved yet, and it is not understood why it works, is no reason to call it pseudo science.

Here are some specific points I would like to raise:

• EFT is a simple to try procedure. The scientifically minded skeptics can try it out for free and assess whether or not it works. They may not be able to reach any definite conclusion but the veracity of the claims can be judged, at least to some extent, by each of us.

So far, I have not seen any posting on the EFT site that definitively rejects EFT. This, of course, may be because such postings are not put up, but if one of us finds that EFT is completely ineffective, why doesn't he/she write it up?

• The theory as to why EFT works (if it does) is not known, even the EFT website admits that they do not understand. It may be that the energy meridians have nothing to do with it, or it may happen that the statements have nothing to do with it. Yes, that means we need more control studies. So those who are in a position to do them should do them!! But in the meantime, evidence at the personal level conitnues to be valuable evidence, albeit not as reliable as a control study. And I seen no harm in people trying it out, even if what is operating is only a placebo effect. Who loses? It is free, and it's not gonna harm.

• Yes, it has not been validated scientifically. But everything that is up on Wikipedia does not need to be scientifically validated. Read the criteria for what kind of articles should be put up on Wikipedia.

• The so called scientific validation with control experiments does not really prove anything. If the energy meridian theory seems preposterous, is it any less preposterous that a tablet that we eat can cure us of headaches, and colds, and fevers? In fact, the chemical mechanism by which these things work is hardly well understood, even now, after it has been accepted by the medical community. The only reason why we do not find it absurd is that we have seen it since childhood.

In fact, the whole mechanism of life is so mysterious that it is best not to call anything preposterous without trying it out. Just as it is best not to accept anything as correct before trying it out.

To sum it up, I think that putting up the article on Wikipedia is best. This way, a large number of people become aware of EFT. Only when more people become aware will any progress be made towards validating or falsifying it.

A final point. If the article has only words of praise for EFT, that does not necessarily imply that it is not balanced. It may well be balanced from the viewpoint of the person who wrote it, who has only seen positive effects. If you are aware of any negative effects, then you are free to edit the article and add those in. Of course, this is modulo the assumption that you first try it out.

Okay, you seem calm and well reasoned, let me see what you have to say to this. First, you claim you would "like to point out that just because a theory has not been proved yet, and it is not understood why it works, is no reason to call it pseudo science."

You're absolutely right.

Then you say this: "The so called scientific validation with control experiments does not really prove anything." Again you are correct, although you don't seem to understand why. Technically, all science can effectively do is disprove things. That is what the scientific method is good for, and the scientific method has completely disproven everything that is unique to the TFT and EFT forms of therapy. And that is why it's appropriately labeled pseudoscience: anyone who presents it as "scientific" either does not understand what scientific really means, or is intentionally distorting the definition.

So here's the thing. If you have experience with EFT, please contribute to the article. Please contribute factually, as I have made it my personal mission (for my personal reasons) to swiftly and brutally enforce NPOV on this page. Factually does not include anecdotes about how EFT miraculously healed you. Factually does not mean you get to quote made-up statistics from webpages where EFT and EFT materials are peddled. Factually means, if you've got a study you can quote, do so. It means if you know what the "magical energy points" are and what they supposedly correspond to, you can say, "EFT adherents believe such and such" where "such and such" is whatever tripe you've been suckered into believing. But organize it properly, keep it NPOV, no anecdotes, no statements that sound factual when in fact they're just crazy opinions and faith-based assertions.

But by all means, contribute! Alaren 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you point me to a study that has "completely disproven" anything about EFT and TFT. 84.190.172.20 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A good scientific study was done, so why not base the article around that

The Waite/Holder study showed that the EFT technique was effective in reducing Phobias. The study was designed to see if the location of tapping was important. It showed that it was not important where, because all tested locations of tapping were effective --even just tapping the hands against a doll. So the proposed theory might not be correct, but the technique does work. People should be able to read about a technique that works for whatever reason. The theory can be adjusted to conform to the facts with future studies. Just caveat the text appropriately.

I think expansion is both appropriate and in this case desireable. I'd especially like to see more actual studies, since the ones we do have all pretty much discredit this monstrous hoax of a therapy. Explansion is good, but all previous attempts have grossly violated NPOV, made outrageous, unverifiable, untestable claims, and otherwise compromised the mission of Wikipedia. If you think you can appropriately caveat the text, I invite you to do so. Alaren 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoever did the latest expansions, I approve. The article stays neutral and factual, but is now more informative. Thank you. Alaren 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Alaren... I look forward to making more expansions in the future. SweetP112 18:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I was in therapy for OCD with three different practitioners. The first was a quack (who "had" a PhD, btw -- from an online, design-your-own doctoral degree program [I found this out after I'd paid her for a year]), and the other two were experienced OCD counselors (with actual PhDs). That intro was so I could say that the first "therapist" recommended EMDR (eye-movement therapy) for the OCD. We tried it once, and it made my eyes hurt and I felt like an idiot, so never again. When I started seeing a therapist with OCD experience, I didn't particularly care for the treatment he said was standard - Exposure and Response Prevention. So I asked him about EMDR. I give him credit for not laughing outright, but what he said that seems relevant is this:

Nobody has ever been able to prove where, exactly, memory resides in the brain, so it's not possible to link certain eye movements with either retention or release of certain memories. But he said some people may get relief from certain traumatic memories or anxieties or phobias because what is actually occurring is an exposure. An exposure is confronting a fear (traumatic memory, phobia, etc) in a safe and controlled manner. Even for a phobia, often simply thinking about the feared thing is an exposure. The eye movements of EMDR are only acting as a soothing, calming agent during the exposure. Repeated EMDR treatments actually mean repeated exposures, and hence, improvement in managing the phobia.

Finally, the connection -- from what I've been reading about EFT, much the same thing could be happening. In conjunction with the talk therapy, the "tapping" of EFT might be acting as the calming agent during what is basically an exposure (mental exposure) -- to past hurts/traumas, or to phobias or anxiety-producing things/events. This might be where the benefits arise that some people have had with EFT. This theory is reinforced by the study showing that WHERE the tapping occurs doesn't seem to matter. --Pokezon 10:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi People, I'm sick of seeing these pseudo-scientific skeptics being cited as scientific research. I'm sure they are, sort of, but not in respected journals, so I've altered the page, as you've suggested to include the Journal of Clinical Psychology's citation. I'm new here so I hope the link works OK. I've also altered your words around the TFT reference. There's a TFT page in wiki - that's where that reference belongs, not on the EFT page. Keep it factual. I also have treated myself and a number of friends and relatives with EFT, getting great results all round. Having seen the Waite Holder study I can see why the three groups got results - they were all using EFT. It would have been SO much better if someone who knew EFT had been involved with that study. Goes to show just because its in a journal doesn't mean its good research. Pokezon - the talking part of EFT is not exposure any more than the tapping is soothing. If the memory is disturbing, EFT's method is to take it slowly and not traumatise anyone by actually saying the real problem until it can be done painlessly. And once you know how to do it you don't need to physically tap. Peace to you all, Hazel--HazelR 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hazel, re your allegation that Waite and Holder was not published in a "respected journal" this is not correct. The Waite and Holder study was indeed published in a respected peer reviewed journal, The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice that is listed in the PsychInfo database -- it is a very mainstream, reputable journal. The study was specifically on EFT, not TFT, so I don't understand why you would say it deserves to be in the TFT article rather than the EFT article (it was also appropriate for the TFT article because it also tested their theory that includes meridians). The three groups were not all doing EFT. One of the groups tapped on sham points and the other tapped on an inanimate object. This article is about EFT and published in a peer reviewed journal so it deserves to be cited and I added it along with the reference. --MonicaPignotti 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone has added in a note that the Journal of Clinical Psychology is the only one indexed in Medline. This is misleading and seems to me to be a subtle way to imply that the other journals are not legitimate which is not correct, since the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice is indexed in PsychInfo, which is the top database for psychological oriented journal articles. I added that in.--MonicaPignotti 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on the recent expansion

Many thanks to Vipul (and a couple of anonymous contributors) for the recent expansion of this article. However, the current article (23:31, 16 January 2006) leaves a lot to be desired and there still remains a lot of cleaning up to do. Here are my ideas on some of the areas that need to be cleaned up:

• (from Theories of the energy system) "EFT combines in it the ideas of biocomputer programming and NLP with the energy centers concept of acupressure." Huh? What is biocomputer programming? How is EFT similar to NLP (I am knowledgeable about NLP and I fail to see the similarity)? Why is the phrase "energy centers" used when this phrase is never used in any official EFT materials? More justification needs to be provided for this sentence if it is to remain in the article.

• (from The Volcano Technique) Why is there a section for this technique? This is not considered an official EFT technique like e.g. "Chasing The Pain", "Tearless Trauma", or "Borrowing Benefits", and there is little or no evidence that this technique has been adopted by any EFT practitioners other than the originator of the technique (Rebecca Marina). I propose that this section be removed.

• (from Sites of EFT Practitioners) Presumably there is some Wikipedia policy that prevents people from adding links for purely commercial reasons. Can anyone provide a reference to this policy? For example, Carol Look and Tam Llewllyn are two of the most well known and respected practitioners in the EFT community. But neither one of their respective websites has much, if any, reference material. Their websites exist mostly for commercial purposes (note that Carol Look has a small amount of reference material on her site in the way of newsletter archives). Should these links be kept? I'm worried that we will end up with dozens of links to individual practitioner websites that won't serve any purpose other than commercial promotion, which presumably is contrary to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia.

There's a lot more I would like to comment on, but I'll leave it at that for now.

SweetP112 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found the Wikipedia policy that discusses the guidelines for determining what links are acceptable in the external links section: Wikipedia:External links. I have added the {Cleanup-spam} tag to the External links section in the main article. SweetP112 13:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Hi, I definitely plan to edit and wikify the article in the near future. I'm not really an expert in these issues and expanded the article only because nobody else seemed willing. Your points are very valid and I'll have a careful look at the various changes you have suggested. Right now, I'm a little budy with some other work. I'll get back to you some time after Sunday.

Thanks for your feedback

User:vipul 20 January 2006

I took out the following sentence from the Differences from TFT section: "EFT bypasses all this by tapping on all the points, and repeating the entire procedure a few times to cover all possible tapping orders as well." Where is the evidence that the comprehensive algorithm used in EFT is designed "to cover all possible tapping orders?" The article "The Evolution of EFT From TFT" at http://www.emofree.com/articles/scien-i.htm clearly indicates that the order of tapping points is considered irrelevant.

SweetP112 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed or changed the following lines from the "Controversy" section:

Here are some of the specific criticisms, the refutations, and the current positions.

Unnecessary explanation.

The EFT Research page contains links to researches that they claim validate the method, at least in part. On the other hand, there are studies which seem to negate the importance of the tapping process, such as the Waite & Holder study.

The page is linked elsewhere. No need to link it here. Maybe link the actual research?

The current position is not known. There are, however, plans of large scale studies that, in a few year's time, will determine the scientific validity of the claims.

Please cite these "large scale studies."

For those who use it on a regular basis, skepticism seems to fall away as results are realized.

Completely inappropriate and violates NPOV.

However, the following features of cures brought about by EFT are often used by proponents to show that the other factors, without the aid of tapping would not have been so effective:

• The speed of EFT: The effects of EFT are almost instantaneous, and may take at most a day to settle in. These effects, if borne out, are thus quicker even than those of many oral drugs! This also precludes the possibility of a mistaken association of cure with having performed EFT.
• The permanence of EFT: Many symptoms cured via EFT have not returned at all, according to claims made on the website by people who have applied EFT.
• The versatility of EFT: The fact that EFT based methods apply to a wide variety of problems, both of a physical and an emotional origin, indicates that the method at work cannot be working purely on a psychological level.

All three of these "features" are doubted and anecdotal--see controversy subtopic number one. No need to multiply entities here.

In short, this is a great expansion. I appreciate that the people who buy into this quackery have given us a largely NPOV description of what EFT is and what EFT asserts. It's a much better article now. But I'm still the only contributor who has cited an actual study, instead of throwing around "studies" or "pending studies." I don't see any need for the "controversy" section to become an apologetic for EFT. The controversy exists for a reason, and I have removed the lines that attempt to dismiss the controversy as "not that controversial." Alaren 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed these links:

• Caroline Dubois's website
• Hypnogenics website
• Tam Llewllyn's website
• Carol Look's website on EFT and abundance
• EFT Practitioners in Australia (David Lake and Steve Wells)
• Maryam Webster's EFT Training site (link to a quick summary of EFT)

I didn't see anything on these pages that isn't listed here or on the official website. Wikipedia is not a place to sell your wares. This article is enough free advertising for Gary just by existing. I also fixed the citations in the Controversy section. Alaren 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you know it's quackery? I guess this is because of your exhaustive study of it? Citation needed

I personally have no experience of the subject, probably like yourself, however I'm not as omniscient as you, so am unable to make a judgement without trying it for myself.-SKEPTIC??-220.244.16.58 00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried it and there is no doubt that it works because the effects are often immediate and dramatic. Personally I don't believe Craig's explanation of why it works (my view of science is strongly Western), but my experience and the published studies show that EFT does work. Sceptics would do well to try it before forming strong opinions because it is free and does not take long. I think the concept of the body's energy field, like a lot of Eastern mysticism, may be valuable as a metaphor rather than an engineering concept. Chi energy may not exist, but our brains are wired up so that chi FEELS like it exists which makes it a useful concept in healing. --Man with two legs 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Man with two legs - I appreciate your input. I'm the previous commenter. I hope you realise that both paragraphs were mine. I was outraged by the use of the word quackery. When it comes to mental 'issues' I can't see how anecdotal evidence can be dismissed. "I feel better because of EFT", "Oh you can't - it's pseudoscience!" WTF?? -SKEPTIC??

Thanks. I can see both sides of this point. There are many scientists who think "if I don't know the explanation then it can't be true" but there are also many charlatans out there selling desperate people remedies that don't work or do harm. It is quite a trick to be both open and rigorous. To his credit, Alaren is not trying to deny EFT a fair hearing even if though he seems to believe it is rubbish. --Man with two legs 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

SKEPTIC??, Man with two legs, thanks for your comments. SKEPTIC??, your problem here is that you are misplacing the burden of proof. Furthermore, it is disconcerting that you ask me for citations when I am one of the few people who has actually done research and cited genuine academic studies in this article. I am familiar with EFT both in my personal life and as an academic subject. I am confident that it is quackery and the scientific method is on my side here.

There is a reason academics dismiss anecdotal evidence. There is not much room for anecdotal evidence in provable, reproducable results. Anecdotal evidence does not prove or disprove anything. What people have in EFT is not knowledge, but faith. And while faith is perfectly viable as a personal philosophy, the existential or theological merits of EFT are not the scientific merits of EFT. A philosophy or religion or otherwise unproven methodology masquerading as medical science is quackery.

That doesn't even necessarily mean I'm right; if scientific inquiry discovers a way to measure these "Chi" fields or careful studies uncover a way to reliably reproduce the effects of EFT, well, that would be great. But it does not fall on me to disprove EFT when EFT has yet to prove itself. Quackery it is, and so quackery I shall call it. Personally I think the article as written is a decent explanation of what EFT is, and what it is not, and that's good enough for me. Alaren 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue of effectiveness needs some work because the section Anecdotal nature of claims is just wrong. There are studies that DO show it works even if there remain questions over the details. Also, if you have seen Craig's DVDs, the evidence there is so dramatic that it cannot be explained away. For example, at the US Government Veterans_Administration, a traumatised Vietnam veteran who had a height phobia was not cured by 16 years of therapy but after a brief EFT treatment he was able to go to the top of the fire escape and lean over the edge and joke about it. You can see his friends confirming they'd never seen him up there. A man clearly able to do something he was previously afraid to do is quantifiable and not anecdotal. The DVDs show several examples of people clearly doing things they were previously too terrified to do. I think IF it works and WHY it works are two very different matters. At some point, I might get round to correcting that section with proper citations. --Man with two legs 12:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The isue of effectiveness now has one decent reserach article cited which shows that EFT DOES work. Yes, Man with two Legs, there is SO much evidence it works, its only skeptics who won't try it and see. There are none so blind as those who choose not to see. Spoken by a woman who's regaining her sight using EFT and Bates Method - two topics blasted on wikipedia!--HazelR 13:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Following your useful edits to Controversy, I have further edited that section and added details taken from the DVDs. These examples each show an unambiguous behavioural change immediately following EFT and are therefore not anecdotal evidence. --Man with two legs 13:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the section (which I'd intended to post here but pressed control-c by mistake instead of control-v) that stated that EFT is suitable for events with a crescendo of no more than 5 minutes and that happened at least 5 years ago, because I know of no places where that is stated (certainly not on the www.emofree.com web site), because i don't believe it to be true and because (the only really valid reason) it is pure PoV.

As for my view on EFT, I believe it works, because I have used it many times effectively to "cure" phobias and other issues, including physical issues. However, that is obviously anecdotal and my PoV and has nothing to do with the scientific method. I would note that many things that are now accepted as verified scientific fact (like the existence of germs, the atom, flight, the earth being round) were once called pseudoscience (or the old term for it heresy).

Just because something hasn't been proved or disproved yet doesn't make it pseudoscience - it makes it an unverified theory. Some unverified theories will be proven correct, some will be disproved. There are two seperate issues to be proved or disproved with EFT. One is "does it work?" the other is "it works because..."

The former is easier to prove than the latter and some of the studies, albeit flawed, seem to lean towards showing that it does work (as does my personal experience). The latter is harder - but less relevent, even though people have seemed to hone on this one as if to say "if it doesn't work that way it can't work at all and it doesn't work that way' - a somewhat circular argument.

In fact, most people who use or believe in EFT don't state categorically that it works the way Gary Craig says it does - and Gary Craig himself has often said he's more interested in effectiveness than method and he'll be delighted if someone can prove it works in a different way to that which he's postulated.

He and many other "energy practitioners" have investigated other forms of related therapy that use different tapping points, that use holding rather than tapping or that don't involve tapping at all. The consensus appears to be that tapping is a useful but not necessarily essential part of it. So yes, it is quite likely that it is partly, of not entirely, a "talking therapy". So what? As someone who believes that EFT works and has a place in therapy, I don't really give a toss about how it works as long as it does. I don't need to know how electricity works to turn my tv on.

And when it comes to effectiveness, based on a great deal of anecdotal evidence (and at what volume does anecdotal evidence become valid, if ever?), my personal experience, a few studies (albeit badly set up) and Gary Craig's videos it does appear to work much more quickly than any other "talking therapy" of which I'm aware (with the possible exception of NLP - another 'pseudoscience').

For the purposes of Wikipedia I agree that scientific proof is desirable, if not always practical. For the purposes of therapy, people with phobias, addictions, ptsd, etc. don't really care whether the energy fields exist or not, whether they run in meridians or not, what sequence tapping should be done in, whether they really need to tap or how many studies have been done on it - they just want their own personal "anecdotal" experience of feeling better. From their perspective it doesn't matter whether it's the placebo effect, hypnosis (which has never been scientifically proved either - nor for that matter has the existence of Freud's Id, Ego and Super-Id, which I guess qualifies them for pseudoscience too) or whatever as long as it works and the change lasts. On that basis I'd label EFT a worthwhile tool that is worth trying and that is highly unlikely to hurt. If it works as claimed (ie quickly and effectively) - great. If it dosn't work quickly, at least the client isn't up for thousands of dollars in bills like the clients of "accepted" therapise like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Freudian Psychotherapy, which all stress that they take a long time (ie cost a lot) and might not work and many of which which are based on unverifiable theories (eg Freud, Jung). Cheers, Steve Hall

I have once again repaired the "Controversy" section that everyone insists on turning into a "there is no controversy" section.

First, Man with Two Legs, maybe you should understand what anecdotal evidence is before you try to argue against it. Your comments clearly demonstrate that you have no grasp of the term "anecdotal evidence." Anecdotal evidence is stories. Examples. Individual results. The list of "empirical" proof you give above is not empirical proof, it is anecdotal evidence. All of the examples on Gary Craig's marketing tripe are anecdotal, not empirical. They prove nothing. They are easily attributed to the placebo effect and the methods EFT borrows from real, actual, clinical psychotherapy. I have restored the anecdotal evidence portion of controversy and included a link to Anecdotal evidence on Wikipedia. Read it. Understand it. Stop trying to say "there is no controversy" when obviously you are wrong.

I never used the word "empirical" and I never claimed "there is no controversy" so kindly do not put words into my mouth. I stated specific, clear examples of people being able to do things following EFT that they were not able to do before. Regarding anecdotal evidence, "I felt better" is anecdotal while "I did something I could not do before" is measurable.

On the placebo effect, anything that uses the placebo effect to heal is a good thing no matter why it works and in any case, no one really knows how the placebo effect works or what it is. EFT and other placebo-type effects show that we do not have much understanding of the relationship between mind and body. If you think EFT works through the placebo effect, you are saying that it DOES work. The bit you have not grasped is that, for whatever reason, it works astonishingly well.

As for Craig's marketing, the examples I gave are on the DVDs you see after you have bought them or had a set given to you (which is allowed by the licence as long as they are not sold) so it is not marketing because the sale is already made. When telling someone how to do something, it is natural to show it working. What other form of illustration is possible?

I get the impression that you are so annoyed about people accepting the new-age, weird-stuff explanation of HOW it works, which is probably nonsense, that you are losing sight of the fact that it DOES work. I would prefer it if you could see my point on this because you and I are on the same side. I despise the quackery out there as much as you do, and your attempt at honest attack on it is a good thing. But it is not helpful to attempt to destroy the useful bit of it along with the rubbish. As it happens, I have a science degree from Cambridge and I have my own Western-type theory about how EFT works, but I am not currently in a position to test it and Wikipedia is not the place for original research. This is why all my postings on EFT are about IF it works and not HOW. --Man with two legs 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Second, I have avoided inserting remarks into the sections that "explain" EFT because I don't feel that is my place. This whole article is a detailed foray into a fantasy world. And that's okay, but please don't dice up the "controversy" section because it questions your faith in this chicanery. The controversy section is not for you, how's that? If you believe in the power of EFT, don't touch the controversy section. Make sure the rest of the article accurately portrays your ridiculous viewpoints. But don't think you need to "fix" the controversy section just because it doesn't cast EFT in a positive light. That's not what the controversy section is for.

Finally, I moved the "pro-EFT" study out of the controversy section.

If you would like to edit the controversy section more, please just don't. You wouldn't like it if I edited the rest of the article with phrases like "according to EFT marketers" and "for a fee, of course" even though both would be accurate in a lot of spots. Tempting as it may be to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for our individual beliefs, NPOV should be maintained. I'm doing my best to respect that. Please do the same and stop "fixing" the controversy section. Alaren 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the bits I put in could go somewhere else rather than in controversy, but I would prefer a tidy up that left those things in because they are relevant. I would be interested in your comments on them; I really don't understand why you are not as impressed with those results as I am. Have you actually seen the DVDs? --Man with two legs 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen rather a lot on EFT. I'd prefer not to get into it too much; suffice it to say that a member of my family spent a great deal of money and convinced herself for several months that she was being "healed," when in fact the treatments were not doing anything for her. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force; human beings would rather change their beliefs and reject empirical evidence than believe that they have made a foolish mistake. But eventually this family member realized what was occurring--there was no cure taking place. Just a lot of money changing hands, and some talking-therapy style stuff coupled with some useless mysticism.

Some people need that mysticism. Some people can't feel "properly healed" without magic words and special energies and mumbo-jumbo. Snake-oil salesmen have known this for centuries. The human mind is an amazing thing, and sometimes convincing someone that they are healed is all it takes to truly heal them. However in most cases, what this means is that their problems were not empirically real in the first place--they were subjectively real. I only minored in psychology at the University level so I am not an expert on this process, but I'm about the closest thing to it that has shown up here regularly.

EFT does result in success. Sometimes. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and EFT borrows liberally from empirically verified processes like "talking therapy," so it is not as broken as some so-called "energy therapies." But the scientific community has certain standards for proof, and EFT does not meet those standards. I do not believe EFT can meet those standards, but you know what? It doesn't matter what I think, since Gary Craig is making enough money from EFT that "empirical proof" is probably nowhere on his list of priorities.

Regarding "tidying up," I did move the one study. The rest of the comments were pretty off-topic I think. This page should not be a "point, counterpoint" on EFT. EFT makes its claims, and to maintain NPOV we include the controversy section so that empirical objections to EFT's claims can be aired. And then we're done. You can put the controversy section first. You can put the controversy section last. You can strengthen the rest of the article if you think it will help against opposing viewpoints. But it seems like every few weeks, someone new has decided to "fix" the controversy section to basically imply that "there really isn't any valid controversy." This violates NPOV and I will continue to fix it when it occurs. Alaren 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your point. Personally, I was able to use it effectively at zero cost and bought the DVDs afterwards. You can do EFT on yourself very cheaply and do not need to pay anyone once you have learned how. EFT can be a cheap and effective treatment where there is a psychological component to a person's pain (which is often) but does not cure anything purely physical. Problems fixed by EFT can come back if the underlying cause is not fixed. A specific example of this is in treating Chronic Fatigue Syndrome where EFT achieves spectacular results that usually do not last. EFT is at its best when dealing with irrational fears that are not part of your self-image (such as fear of spiders), where it works very well. Personally, I would not advise anyone to pay for EFT except the first session after which they can do it themselves. Was Craig personally connected with your relative? --Man with two legs 10:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think Gary Craig is making *any* money off of EFT? He sells the DVDs sets at cost, gives away the ebook and the website information for free, and doesn't charge for therapy sessions. I think Gary Craig is the last person you can accuse of being in it for the money. You might not believe in EFT, fair enough, but I don't think there's any just cause for doubting Craig's motives... SweetP112 14:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a "believer" in the effectiveness of EFT and a big supporter of Gary Craig, but I have no doubt that he is making a pretty decent living out of it. And what's wrong with that? Do psychologists and psychiatrists offer CBT or drugs for free? I think they too make a decent living out of helping people.

If Alaren thinks that making money disqualifies someone from being believed (which, to be fair, he doesn't say) then it wouldn't leave much - including Nobel prize winners. However I will pick up Alaren up on including very biased PoV on his comments. He doesn't believe in EFT - fair enough. No reason he should. But to summarily dismiss it as snakeoil because one relative spent some money on it and didn't get help (even though he/she thought he/she did) smacks of extreme anecdotal evidence and bias. Even though I use EFT and have helped people get over phobias and other issues with it (and yes, I did charge money on some occasions, by no means all) I accept that as yet there is no scientific studies that prove it works. Does this mean it doesn't work or just that no studies have been done? Time will tell.

Anyway, if, as an EFT adherent, I can accept that it has yet to be proven or disproven, can Alvaren accept the same or is he going to continue to disparage it with throw-away lines like "This whole article is a detailed foray into a fantasy world" and "Gary Craig's marketing tripe" based on one bit of anecdotal evidence?

Back to making money. EFT is becoming widespread largely due to Gary Craig's brilliant marketing (as opposed to TFT, from which EFT was derived and which has expanded much more slowly due to the originator's - Roger Callaghan's -very different marketing strategy).

It's the Microsoft marketing strategy compared to the IBM PC. Gary Craig gives away masses of information and free stuff that anyone can use to learnn EFT and then sells advanced information at a very reasonable price. Result - lots and lots of people learn about it, try it, but his CDs and tell others. EFT becomes very well known, with millions of people using it and Gary makes a very good living while helping spread the word and help people. (And whether it works or not, I absolutely believe Gary Craig sincerely believes it works and is trying to help people). While Roger Callahagn keeps everything cose to his chest, makes everyone sign non-disclosure agreements and charges a heap of money. Result - he makes a nice living but TFT is not nearly as widespread or well known as EFT. Gary Craig - make a little bit of money from a lot of people and help them - is that such a bad model? Even if EFT doesn't work (which I think it does) it doesn't hurt anyone - it certainly hurts/kills a lot less than prescription drugs that have been through a whole battery of scientific tests. Cheers, Steve Hall.

I will continue to disparage EFT because I believe it has been sufficiently disproven and because that is how I feel about EFT. Yes, there is some anecdotal experience there, but instead of basing my ideas on one anecdotal experience (as most EFT adherents do), I went out and did the research, which confirmed my suspicions. I don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks, but that's the beautiful difference between the "comments" section and the main article. I have not injected my opinion into the main article and I've asked others to refrain from doing the same. I will express my opinion freely here, the same as you.

Somewhat off-topic, I happen to actually be about as skeptical of the medical industry as of EFT. The difference is that you can speak about medical science without necessarily discussing the pharmaceutical, psychological, insurance, or hospital industries. My primary focus in studying psychology at the University level was on research demonstrating how much of modern psychology is unproven, insufficiently tested, or otherwise geared more toward making money than to helping people. Science is a beautiful thing, but when it gets tainted by faith or greed, it takes a very ugly turn. Making money doesn't necessarily disqualify someone from being believed, but it should certainly arouse your suspicion!

With EFT, there is very little "disinterested scientific inquiry" to rely upon (though I think the wiki community has done reasonably well in assembling that information here). Consequently NPOV is tough to maintain from either side, but as the article stands I think we've managed to come together to produce something valuable despite our differences. That's the spirit of Wikipedia and the spirit of NPOV. Not every contributor to this article fully understands or subscribes to that spirit, but that's why we have this discussion page. Alaren 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alaren, We disagree on the value of EFT, but hopefully in a civilised way. I hope my ad hominem attacks aren't too offensive and as you say, this is the place for disagreements. I share your sceptism in some areas so I'd be interested to know what "the research" was that confirmed your suspicions.

Without wishing to be any more provocative than normal, if you come from a background of University studies to debunk much of modern psychology (and I'd agree with you on many, but not all of your contentions) AND have a relative who you believe was fooled by EFT, then it is not unlikely you'll get what you look for - evidence that EFT doesn't work. I'm not implying conscious bias, but we all tend to find what we're looking for, so if you're looking for ways to disprove EFT I'm sure you could find them, just as the Flat Earth Society finds ways to disprove that the world is round and WD & HO Wills can find ways to say smoking doesn't kill you.

Let me ask you a question - in fact two. One, did you really set out in your research to objectively test the merits of EFT, or did you set out to disprove that it works? And two, what exactly did this research consist of?

You state "instead of basing my ideas on one anecdotal experience (as most EFT adherents do". In fact I think you'll find that most EFT adherents base their belief on multiple pieces of anecdotal evidence as well as substantial personal experiences. There is certainly a very large amount of anecdotal evidence that EFT can work - this doesn't prove it works but at what stage does massive anecdotal evidence become believable? Never?

You say you will continue to disparage EFT and of course that is your right. I'm not as brave as you - I can't say with absolute certainty that EFT is scientifically proven. You seem to feel certain it's scientifically disproven and I disagree with you on that. I do, however, agree that this is still controversial so the controversy section should stay.

If you'd like help with your problem in believing things you can't see, drop me a line and I'll be happy to do some EFT with you. Cheers, Steve

Change made. I have removed the words "this study did not involve human subjects and" from the anecdotal evidence paragraph near the end, for the very good reason that the Wells, etc article DID use human subjects. The topic was diminishing the fear of small animals, but it was fear of the animals in humans, not fear in the small animals. I'd have thought that was obvious but what do I know? Steve Hall

[edit] spam in Links section

Dear folks, I dont know if there are official guidelines, but I certainly see the spam added from time to time.

I have removed the tag {{Cleanup-spam}} but I have removed spam on several occasions.

Why dont we discuss what is and is not spam here, so we can clean up easily?

The web site of Gary Craig, although commercial, is the source, with lots of free stuff, anecdotal evidence, and free streaming video.

Personally I dont think all the present links need to be there. Lets just link to research, associations like AMET Etc (the ACEP is missing) and no further

any thoughts?

Ben Meijer 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for deletion

I nominated this article for deletion under WP:FRINGE. The central problem here is a lack of references. To be notable, per WP:FRINGE, "Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication." I can find exactly one (1) PubMed hit for "emotional freedom techniques", to a small study which examined its utility for "small animal phobia". The remainder of the references in this article are to non-peer-reviewed and promotional websites. It's just not possible to build an WP:NPOV, non-promotional article on a scientific theory with no peer-reviewed evidence base, and it fails WP:N on this basis. If the idea becomes the subject of more peer-reviewed literature, or is referenced more extensively in mainstream publication, then it could be reconsidered, but at present it seems there just isn't enough there to build a good Wikipedia article. MastCell 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

An angle on the meaning of referenced extensively: it could be interpreted as meaning one full article (as opposed to a passing mention) which the referred EFT article is. I maintain that the one cast iron reference you refer to is enough. And that is before wading through the heated debates above.

Also, I think you might consider this fact for your own edification: EFT does work in at least some cases. It is astonishingly quick and effective in eliminating phobias that are not critical to a person's self image.

Man with two legs 11:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether EFT works or not. The published paper suggests it does, at least in certain situations. But something can work, and still not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I think that's the situation here. One paper is not "referenced extensively". A good, balanced article requires multiple independent and reliable sources; those do not exist here. If more is published in the peer-reviewed literature, then it might warrant an article, but we can't have an article on every idea/hypothesis/system that has 1 PubMed reference behind it - and that's why WP:FRINGE sets the bar at "referenced extensively" in the peer-reviewed literature. MastCell 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. If you want to eliminate daft theories that have zero PubMed references and only 3 hits on Google, then I might well agree with you, but there is a huge difference between that and something with any PubMed references at all, that gets 1,390,000 hits, and which people want to know about.

The same paragraph in WP:FRINGE also says ...establish the notability of the theory outside of its small group of adherents. I think that 1,390,000 Google hits shows that the group of adherents is not small and that count alone makes it notable enough to justify having an article in Wikipedia.

As for multiple independent, reliable sources, there is no shortage of sources about what EFT is. The controversy is entirely about if and how it works.

Man with two legs 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then where are these sources? The article's been around forever, yet essentially all of the citations come from EFT's "small group of adherents." In a best-case scenario, the article needs a complete rewrite to utilize independent sources, but I've not seen evidence that these exist. Further, as it's presented as a scientifically based idea, the lack of a peer-reviewed research base is a killer in terms of notability. MastCell 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, you are verging on WP:WIKILAWYERING.

1. Regarding "small", which part of "not" did you not understand?

2. It is not presented as scientifically based, it is presented as based on traditional Chinese medicine but happens to be supported by at least one scientific study that demonstrates the results while remaining silent on the mechanism.

3. Sources: since one organisation has developed and promoted this treatment, that is an adequate citation as to what EFT claimes to be. EFT is notable because there are large numbers of other organisations promoting the same treatment.

4. Your stating "Lack of peer-reviewed research" is at odds with your own identification of a PubMed reference. For a branch of alternative medicine, much of which is pure hogwash, one peer-reviewed scientific reference makes it unusually notable and even more so because the results were positive.

Another point: this article is probably the only thing on the net that is readily accessable and which has input from people who are not uncritical supporters of EFT. People doing a Google search will find loads of commercial sites saying how wonderful EFT is AND this lone Wikipedia article which includes criticism. In addition, the discussion page is a useful resource for desperate people who might be duped by exagerated claims made for EFT because it describes how EFT sometimes does not work. Deleting this article would be a disservice to vulnerable people as well as a perversion of Wikipedia policies.

Man with two legs 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that MastCell's views are more appropriate for concerns about asserting EFT as a scientific therapy with several WP:RS references, now at this time. MC's concerns about deletion and notability might be better addressed in reviewing this as a newsworthy phenomenon where notability might be in the eyes of various journalists, from Forbes/WSJ/Wash Post to alternative coverage perhaps Mercola etc. Advocates should cough up other WP:RS coverage, and less assertion as current WP science.

Gary Craig's name appears a little overutilized for a non-biographic article. The amount of "how-to-coverage" is not encyclopedic. Although if I were interested, this information might be handy, the two sections moved here (below), go beyond mere description of the subject area, they should be moved offsite and perhaps linked with by reference.

I have moved these two sections here, by reference with diffs, for convienent discussion: Subtleties in the application of EFT and The EFT application procedure. I strongly recommend that these sections be trimmed and NPOV summarized by -3/4 line length.--I'clast 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the how-to and other detailed information should be summarized, and I think outside sites which are linked already contain most of those details. I think that if independent sources could be produced, that would go a long way toward establishing notability. Those sources could be popular press, but then the article needs to indicate that this is a theory notable for its popular appeal rather than scientific basis (e.g. WP:RS: "Avoid citing the popular press on scientific matters"). But at least it would establish notability - right now I think that's lacking. MastCell 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QW

MC, this QW reference I would have preferred to have given a pass here for several reasons, if I could justify it to myself at all. (1) EFT is specifically mentioned in only one line in a general introductory way, no new information there. (2) Even the TFT treament is a small and only a (last) fraction of the page. (3) The other Barrett related publication, at the CSICOP site, seems to much more ably cover the general TFT/EFT area. (4) If one or two references need to be salvaged from the QW TFT references, I would advise that over the general opinion piece but I think WP should try to focus on specific EFT references with TFT as background to perhaps fill perceived gaps. Sorry, I just find this QW reference to have very low critical content and is pretty much just an applied label by a known partisan, where the QW presence as a WP link farm issue is already a problem (I AGF and am not accusing, I am citing an emergent problem).--I'clast 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, no offense taken. I agree with you about the low content from QW; I inserted it primarily because it's one of the best known "skeptic" sites, and is critical of EFT (albeit very briefly). But I think what you're saying makes sense - I agree that the other criticism is more detailed, and - this may be hard to believe given all that's gone on - I really don't have any strong feelings or allegiance to Quackwatch. So let's leave it out. MastCell 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

Removed from article, not based on reliable source:

EFT has also been the subject of numerous books and non-peer-reviewed studies. For example, Andrade and Feinstein reported that EFT was most effective for anxiety and panic disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder. They reported that EFT was also effective in obsessive compulsive disorder, social phobia, mild to moderate situational depression, Tourette's syndrome, substance abuse, and eating disorders. These researchers found EFT to be less useful or contraindicated in major depression, personality disorders, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and chronic fatigue syndrome.^[1] This research appears on the webpage of the Assocation for Comprehensive Energy Psychology, and has not been published in a journal as of February 2007.

[edit] What about?

Regarding the quality of the source of the research? How would the following be rated?

http://www.fsu.edu/~trauma/v8/SixTraumaImprints.pdf In traumatology

http://www.emofree.com/Research/rowe-study.htm in Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal more info : http://www.psychologicalpublishing.com/ccpj/contents/v2_i3.htm

Kind Regards,

Ben Meijer 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear 217...

[edit] Row over Rowe

I reinserted Rowe.

What in heavens name is SA-45? The article does not explain, the reference does not explain. If I remove it from the text, what is left is a load of blah-blah. This is no info, it's bogus.)

You may not know what a SA-45 is, and you may not uderstand the significance of peer reviewed, or what has been written. Care to explain how this puts you in a position to judge and remove?

Kind Regards, Ben Meijer 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right: I don't know. But I make an effort to know. And you know how? I read an encyclopedia. Ah, look here, this IS an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to help me a bit. But help is on the way, because apparently you know what SA-45 is. So why don't you write a piece of text that explains. Make this encyclopedia informative, instead of overloading us with incomprehesible humbug. I'm teasing you, of course. I know that you probably don't know what it means, either. So why don't you take it. Rewrite your text. Wikipedia is here to inform us, not to confuse us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.166.234.175 (talk • contribs).

I agree. There needs to be some description of what kind of test the SA-45 is in order to make that section more understandable. WatchAndObserve 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you added a link to SA-45, and that you created this particular article, so everything looks okay now.

But does it?
Unfortunately, your contribution consists mainly of copy-paste sentences from two copyrighted websites, [1] and [2]. So you are violating the one and most important Wikipedia-rule that "you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

If this is your usual way of adding value to Wikipedia then people better review your previous contributions as well. Not very good, mr Meijer, committing plagiarism! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.166.234.252 (talk • contribs).

[edit] "claims" and "intends"

The use of the word CLAIMS is laden with POV. The intention is clear, so please lets stay on track and use the word intends. Faith healers intend, tradiotional therapy intends, doctors intend....

And so does EFT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.244.42 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 May 2007

Are you denying that EFT practitioners "claim" to heal? I think they might argue with that. "Claim" is a word. Words in themselves are neutral. Its what the reader brings that matters. "Intend" is not synonomous with "claim" and would be a poor substitution for it. "EFT claims to heal" is a completely different statement from "EFT intends to heal". What other option is there? Just saying "EFT heals"? I think some people might object. Famousdog 14:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the use of the word "claims". WatchAndObserve 19:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the UTube video and I think there is a divergence between what might be taken as a consensus position that a tapping routine might be able to have impact on psychological issues, albeit via distraction or displacement, and some of the more alarming claims by such as restoring eye sight and curing MS (from the web site You can also use it for everything from the common cold to cancer.). I would guess that mainstream psychologists, though not in agreement with the theory would agree that what is a fairly lengthy learnt routine (I've had a full routine demonstrated to be which has a sequence of 20 or more actions, including singing a happy song and rolling eyes, making a positive statement) can have a useful distraction or disassociation. I guess that the danger of this article is that it supports to a limited extent the phobia angle (which I find plausible) but this might be extrapolated to actual physical effects (which I find implausible). I think the article needs to be a lot clearer that the claims bit is wider than the psychological issues that I can be comfortable with. I guess it is a bit like hypnotism that most people accept as a valid and demonstrable process, but are more sceptical as to what it can achieve, or acupuncture where we might be sceptical of the underlying pseudo-science but can conceive that the stimulation of needles can have positive physical effects.

I suspect in the attempt to be NPOV, some of the extreme claims have been removed, yet they are out there. Having spoken to a practitioner, I would suspect that there is a divergence in the EFT community about what is sensible to claim, but these claims are made and that they are made is verifiable. Spenny 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel there is a big difference between CLAIM and INTEND.

from EMDR Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a psychotherapeutic approach developed by Francine Shapiro[1] to resolve symptoms resulting from exposure to a traumatic or distressing event, such as rape.

Summarized: EMDR is INTENDED to....

Hypnotherapy Hypnotherapy is often applied in order to modify a subject's behavior, emotional content, and attitudes, as well as a wide range of conditions including dysfunctional habits, anxiety, stress-related illness, pain management, and personal development.

Summary: Intention

Cognitive Therapy Cognitive therapy seeks to identify and change "distorted" or "unrealistic" ways of thinking, and therefore to influence emotion and behaviour.

Summary: intention

Interpersonal Therapy Interpersonal therapy (IPT) is a form of psychotherapy used to treat a variety of mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, bulimia nervosa, and communication disorders.

Summary: is used to treat (effectiveness implied?))

psychotherapy Psychotherapy is an interpersonal, relational intervention used by trained psychotherapists to aid clients in problems of living.

I like the INTERVENTION, I dont like used to aid, as this implies 100% effectiveness??

Chiropractic Chiropractic (from Greek chiros and praktikos meaning "done by hand") is a health care profession whose purpose is to diagnose and treat mechanical disorders of the spine and musculoskeletal system with the intention of affecting the nervous system and improving health.[1] It

Summary: (purpose = ) Intend.

Faith Healing Faith healing, also called divine healing or spiritual healing, is the use of spiritual means in treating disease, It is purportedly a supernatural manifestation that brings healing and deliverance from all kinds of diseases whether organic, functional, or psychological.

Purport Strongly POV. The condemnation can be felt.

Interventions are INTENDED, practitioners (all sorts) CLAIM. The effectiveness and criticism should, in my POV, be in a seperate section.

Greetings

62.36.54.67 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Several very pro-EFT edits have been made recently by anonymous users with the following IP addresses: 213.202.149.160, 60.231.4.76, 124.179.213.126 and 62.36.54.15. Between them they have only made contributions to the EFT page and Weight loss. Two of them have referred to works by Gillian Tarawhiti, an EFT practitioner. I encourage these user(s) to sign up for a wikipedia account rather than lurking in this manner. Famousdog 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Form of Meditation

It seems to be a form of yoga/meditation. Even tapping a doll is like tapping ones fingers with the doll. This brings focus to ones body like in yoga/meditation mindfullness which relieves stress. I noticed an instructor - magnustapping - on YouTube (there's a credible reasearch source) who mentioned "it actually works if you just imagine tapping - as long as your attention is drawn to the right points". John Kabat's body scan meditation calls for focusing on sensations in different parts of body to achieve a meditative effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.174.117 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Recent POV of http://bmsa-int.com/ is that EFT is merely a form of brief multi sensory activation intervention, and challenge all sorts of alternative theories on how it works and why, and instead refer to postulate neurochemical explanations. What the dont do, is link the EFT intervention to the meridian energy explanation. See also http://www.energypsych.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=27

In this light, can we just call EFT a therpeutic intervention technique that intends to desensitize. Considering there is now a pretty solid scientic explanation next to the alternative explanation, lets separate the fact (what is done, how, tap where, say what) from POV (whys) in the explanation of what it is and how it works. There are several alternative and a pretty good western scientific explanation.

Kind Regards 82.173.212.103 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent changes

To whomever it may concern,

The recent edit is aimed at 1) neutrality and 2) updated information. In the middle ages, there were doctores medicinae and barber surgeons, who hated eachother outright, and most of what they practiced would be considered quackery nowadays. Nevertheless, they are the basis of our modern medicine. Weeding out the ritual, arcane and old wives tales is part of the proces.

EFT is having the same proces. You may want to burn EFT on the stake, but it is maturing. Part of this proces is seperating PRACTICE from classical theories, and even from modern western scientific theories. EFT can stand on its own, without theories, as can moderm medicine. And EFT has holes in its theories, as does modern medicine.

What is the point of hanging on to condemming it for its history? I added the image for clarity. I added the practice to clarify what we are talking about.

Yes, my neutral point of view is a point of view. The older edit was a limiting (EFT is old energy theory yada yada) and condemming point of view. EFT is ALSO... so lets let up on the preframe of what EFT is and how it should be interpreted.

So lets go with the newer and more accurate information - take the time to read up on current acupuncture research. It is not oriented towards meridians, but on neurochemistry, trying to explain what is actually happening instead of trying to disprove. this research is here to stay, it will grow and prosper, and take over the old school, which will be marginalised in time.

Kind Regards

Ben Meijer 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to put the image back in. I object to the unqualified and unsourced text that accompanies it. I'm not "condemning EFT for its history". If anything, I'm condemning it for its lack of efficacy, circular logic, inability to answer the studies that show it is a combination of placebo and distraction and, frankly, it's sheer silliness. I'm well aware (and wholly in favour of) of the neo-acupunture literature which is removing the superstition from acupuncture and replacing it with physiological and neurological explanations for it's clear benefits and effects. But sticking needles into nervous tissue and simply tapping on those points have completely different physiological effects and are therefore not comparable. With acupunture there is a clear mechanism of action. Tapping points on the body... not so much. There's little or no evidence (beyond partizan sources) that EFT even has an effect, so why should we try to come up with a scientific explanation beyond the distraction and placebo theories? They seem to explain the current "data" fairly well. Famousdog 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You condem "lack of efficacy, circular logic, and inability to answer the studies that show it is a combination of placebo and distraction and, frankly, it's sheer silliness."

It is nice that you have so honestly put forth your objections. Re: Silliness: now that seems to be important to you. It signifies you do not take it seriously and denounce it, maybe you cannot take something like this seriously.

Placebo is your word: the quackwatchers (Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice) state: " ...suggest that the reported effectiveness of EFT is attributable to ::characteristics it shares with more traditional therapies" , not placebo." Overall, these findings suggest that certain components of EFT were effective,"

BTW: Do you forget that placebo works?? and is used lots of times in medicine?? What about using an antibiotic for a viral cold? Using knee surgery - scraping

for arthosis - See http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html

So, you deny its efficacy - ie that it works efficiently -- what 2 studies have shown up till now have shown it to work, and more will follow....

because EFT does not answer? -- Who is EFT, Who needs to answer and for whom?

Re: unproven working methods - Who says you need to prove every theory behind every intervention before you can use it? Scientific explanations have changed and evolved since the middle ages, and will continu to do so. Clinical practice is what gets done by clinicians. Evidence based is not what gets done, clincal experience is what gets done. I have often said to my patients and student: if eating grass as the cows do would do work, I'd have you all eating grass.

Re: distraction: Boy, this is one of the bigger errors in the conclusions or assumptions. You should try this. Take a person with a phobia, like a phobia for car driving, and distract them while you drive with them, and see if their phobia gets any less. It does not. Anybody can say that it is distraction, but distraction never yields a lasting result, EFT does.

BTW the SRMP research kinda sucks: they screwed up how you do EFT. The collar bone breathing exercise the did is used in about 5 % of the clients, when somebody gets stuck during processing. If such a large percentage of the n poplulation of that study did not respond to EFT, EFT was not properly administered. I am going to assume - and errors will allways be made by assumptions - that they did not divide the issues into aspects and tap on each aspect. They tried to apply EFT to all the containers (too general, broad /large)

Never the less, the SRMP did show that tapping works, tapping the body, tapping a doll while being busy with the phobia even works, what does not work is making a toy.

Now, about the line for line changes, please give me feedback:

My text -- : psychotherapeutic intervention tool that intends to desensitize emotions by tapping on the body. It has a background in

complementary medicine and has recently gotten a western scientific explanation as well.

Your text: Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a psychotherapeutic tool based on a theory that negative emotions are caused by disturbances in the body's energy field and that tapping on the meridians while thinking of a negative emotion alters the body's energy field, restoring it to "balance."

-- An encyclopedia needs to seperate fact from opinion, and state the facts and opinions as

such. Now you propose to put that EFT is based on a theory (blah blah) and I contend: What

IS eft? EFT IS an intervention, a tool that intends to desensitize emotions and feeling.

Then state some of the theories as to why it works, the most common ones. There are several

more theories, some quite good actually, like the Emotrance theory by Silvia Hartman.

remove the theories and separate them fom the practice.

Some proponent claim EFT is based on this theory.

Others dont care.

And those on the BSMA website say EFT is just one of several ways to adding sensory input

to an emotional memory.

If not all proponents claim EFT is based on this theory, and even the science does not

agree with it, why say EFT is based on this theory.

I removed the section about Gary Craig being the first to be trained in VT? So

what? relevance? Even if he had been the last to be trained in this VT, I still dont see

the relevance to EFT.

Re: But sticking needles into nervous tissue and simply tapping on those points have completely different physiological effects

Needles are NOT stuck in nervous tissue. Do you know so little about acupuncture? So what

is the exact difference? Sensory neurons will fire, the skin has lots of mechanoreceptors:

Meissner corpuscles, Pacini corpuscles, Merkel discs, and Ruffini corpuscles.

Ben Meijer 14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. That's a long post. Famousdog 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested links

I suggest adding the following link to the About Holistic Healing article on EFT [3] to the article's external links section. I am putting this in the discussion page because there is a comment in the External links text requesting that links be discussed before adding.

Also there are some more research links at [4]. I suggest either adding this link or investigating the linked articles for mention in the main article (some already are).

Michael614 (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that at least the first link has a heavy promotional bent to it. In general, I think we should shy away from those type of links (after all, they're readily findable with Google etc) and focus on links that add encyclopedic information. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought external links were supposed to give extra information on the subject. About.com is a general information site on many topics written by editors who are interested in the subject at hand. So you would expect each page on it to be passionate about each topic. It contains many articles on EFT so seems like a good link to add here. I did not read an objection to the second link except that you can find it by googling. I didn't know that the ability to find a link by google was a reason not to include a link! Many external links on most Wikipedia articles can be found by googling. That doesn't make them any less useful to someone new to the subject so long as they provide extra information about the topic. Is there a guide to what external links should be on Wikipedia? Michael614 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are very general guidelines at WP:EL. My objection was not that a link can be found by Google. It was that the link adds no encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and links - we need to sort out what is reliable, verifiable, neutral content and use that. Wikipedia does not aim to replace Google as a compendium of all possibly interesting links relating to a topic - hence we should be a bit more selective about what links we include, and justify them based on adding encyclopedic information to the article. We should also have a clear idea of why the link cannot be incoroporated into the article as a source, rather than as an external link. That was my point. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I hadn't seen that guide before - it helps! I will look for some suitable links and look at incorporating the research info as sources. Michael614 (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychotherapeutic Technique or Quack approach?

Gary Craig is not a licensed psychologist and the research is not convincing...my personal point of view is that he is just a great online marketer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.5.85 (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] accuracy of entries

I have studied and used EFT and similar methodologies from the field of Energy Psychology, begun 30 years ago by Roger Callihan, PhD and barely recognize the entries as accurate descriptions. How is it that clearly biased and derogatory comments are left posted when objective entries are disallowed? The Skeptical Inquirer is hardly an authoritative source for adjudicating the viability of subject matter clearly unintelligible to them. To include nearly slanderous mistatements as purportedly objective descriptive matter calls into question the entire usability of the GNU project as it cannot become denigrated to the level of blog commentary by hacks with a bone to pick.

I would propose that accurate descriptions of EFT be posted without bias and the clearly biased commentary by detractors be deleted. Specifically, it is highly unordinary for critical commentaries to be part of the description of any entry. These need to be deleted. All references to EFT being a pseudoscience need to be deleted as qualification as some sort of legitimate scientific inquiry has never been required of similar methodologies and EFT makes no claims to be a derivative of scientific method. Detractors are not allowed to post similar spurious commentaries as part of descriptive entries on radical behaviorism, for example, despite the fact that critics were so prolific that an entirely new school of psychology grew out of their disagreements: Humanistic Psychology.

I can cite my own credentials in the field of mental health and psychology and would suggest that critical comments about EFT and similar subject matter be accompanied by adequate field experience or expertise before they are accepted as being authoritative. Greywolfin (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't base its content on the credentials of its contributors (if you're looking for such a place, I would recommend Citizendium). Instead, content must have first been published by a reliable source, i.e. a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides credentials the greater issue is the consistency that sources with zero credibility are cited as if they had any basis other than a mention of slanderous statements. That violates NPOV in every conceivable definition. The fact that anyone with any degree of expertise is roundly edited for neutrality while extremely biased critique remains defeats the purpose of having reliable information. 148.78.68.142 (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia doesn't use "credibility" to determine whether a shource should or should not be used. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the guideline that we do use. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the definition of "credibility" being employed here is a bit idiosyncratic. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What's fascinating to me is that the opinionated beliefs of purportedly scientifically minded detractors are weighted heavily as justification for denigrating anyone with any direct knowledge of or experience in a field of study. Attacking information from persons with credentials on the basis that ignorance counts more is about the most absurd position statement imaginable. These edits are telling me that wikipedia as a truly open source project has failed miserably. It's becoming no better than a blog site wherein the most persistently aggressive editors post their grafitti. Greywolfin (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator oversight

I posted the following as requesting Administrator review of systematic violations of Wikipedia intent and policy: Members of a group identifying themselves as "Wikipedia Rational Skepticism Project" have targeted a number of articles, including "Energy Psychology" "Thought Field Therapy" and "Emotional Freedom Techniques" with specious rewrites of objective data. By definition skepticism in principle and practice, violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV as their revisions of entries are entirely biased with an agenda of debunking with no more claim to adequate expertise than active disbelief in a topic. Consistently entries from experienced sources with expertise on the subjects in question are deleted on the basis of NPOV and replaced with pejorative labels like "pseudoscience". A quick scan of the history of "Emotional Freedom Techniques" edits and comments gives ample evidence of these abuses.

The primary reference given by this group for justifying their skeptical comments is "The Skeptical Inquirer" a splinter group magazine with an agenda of promoting disparaging opinions via pejorative labeling. Attempts to elevate such publications to equal status with professional journals and authoritative writings by experts in a given field must be confronted as a thinly disguised campaign to use Wikipedia for commercial gain--specifically promotion of an organization actively soliciting members and selling subscriptions.

Wikipedia must have effective policing of abuses to the intent of providing unbiased content in order to remain a viable informational source for readers. I'm certain there are attempts from any number of splinter groups intent upon promoting and aggressively revising their favorite targets, whether they be anti-abortionist, political religious groups, skin heads, creationists, or in this case debunkers using the trappings of science terminology to attack specific targets. To allow such systematic and organized discrediting activities to continue unchallenged threatens the integrity of Wikipedia and risks turning it into the equivalent of a messageboard for highly politicized agendas. After all if The Skeptical Inquirer can be cited as an adequate authoritative source then anything Pat Robertson preaches, Rush Limbaugh spins, or political party eschews can be referenced to justify revising legitimate article entries.

I ask administrators to review the activities of this group and effectively prohibit their disparagement of legitimate on the basis that their agenda, as stated, is to deny readers access to information that they have targeted to actively disbelieve. After all, who cares what anyone else believes and disbelieves? Wikipedia is not a forum for voicing, let alone enforcing personal opinion.

Greywolfin (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here I am, I am an administrator, your edits violated WP:UNDUE, please don't do that again. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What about responding to the content of my concern? If you do not comprehend the problem then perhaps you need to resign as an administrator. How is debunking not a violation of NPOV and UDUE and a whole host of commercial as neutrality issues? 148.78.68.142 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If something has been debunked by reasonably reliable sources, then Wikipedia will generally report that. An overly promotional or one-sided article based primarily on advertising material associated with purveyors of EFT is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm pointing out is that the Skeptical Inquirer is blatantly promoting itself, along with the related website which is membership based by including it in text rather than in the reference section. Debunking by both self description and in practice constitutes violations of neutrality as it is entirely didactic, based on highly controversial evaluations and contrary to the scientific method because it judges fact without first observing and analyzing. So what we have here is a group egregiously involved in self promoting under the guise of skepticism while aggressively attacking objective descriptions of a target on that basis. This simply becomes a competition with Wikipedia and every innocent reader the loser. Greywolfin (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that analysis is incorrect on a number of levels, and a charge of promotionalism is a bit odd given the promotional nature of EFT-affiliated sources. But you already know my opinion. If you think I'm being unreasonable, you can either try a bit harder to convince me, or solicit outside input through a third opinion or request for comment. Additionally, there is a reliable sources noticeboard where you could raise the issue of the Skeptical Inquirer in this article, though I think SI has been discussed before on that board so you may want to check the old discussions. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you justify listing the name of a highly controversial, heavily politicized magazine within the description of any topic on the basis of supposedly promotional nature of EFT??? Skeptical Inquirer is promoting its subscriptions AND membership in a splinter group organization in the identical manner as EFT on the internet. Greywolfin (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then all the more reason that parity of sources applies here. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)