Wikipedia

Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 3

< Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Sschubert in topic 2010 NPOV discussion

2010 NPOV discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago98 comments10 people in discussion

WP:MEDRS NPOV

From a quick skim of the article, it looks like it could use work per WP:MEDRS. I'll give more details after I've looked over the article and refs more thoroughly. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I remove this pilot study as a ref: [1] --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting a list of the systemic reviews that we have:

  1. Bisson et al (2007)

--Ronz (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Other analysis:

This is going to be difficult without access to articles. While I'm tempted to just start stripping the individual studies from the article that are not supported by the review or other analyses, that would probably be too heavy handed. Still, it looks like the NPOV problems can be resolved by simply following MEDRS. Individual studies are being used too often as references, being given too much weight, and are being used to counter other information. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess that the WP:SPAs editing this article are familiar with research publications that emphasizes primary sources and original research. Wikipedia article, in contrast, must be based upon secondary sources and avoid original research. Again, I think that MEDRS should be enough to resolve these problems. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of every article listed on this page. If you are after copies of the articles let me know and I can send them through. You mentioned that you would look at the refs more throughly - how can you do this without access to the articles? I can e-mail them through if you like. I am unsure of the reason you removed Boudwyns 1993. If you remove references please state why they are removed. and yes .... simply stripping the studies is definately heavy handed, especially if you don't have access to read the studies you plan to remove!

There is still no explanation as to why the NPOV tag is added to the page here. Again please state exactly why the NPOV tag has been added to this page.Sschubert (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I consider the comments above to be an explanation. If you'd like further clarification, simply ask for it. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like further clarification, and have been asking for further clarification for quite a while now (see our past discussions). You began by appearing to question the reliability of the sources (which you state that you do not have access to, thus have not read), but are now appearing to dispute the neutrality of the page? Which is it, as I believe that you are tagging the page with an inappropriate tag. Overall, I am finding it difficult to discuss and resolve the problems you have with the page, as I am still unclear on the specific issues you have with the page. Alterantively, What will it take to have the tag removed?

I have been clearly placing my reasons for removing the tag from the page, and I still do not see an adequate explanation on this page as to why the tag was added. Overall, in removal of the tag I have been following Wikapedia's guidelines that state:

  • "Especially in the case of a tag such as NPOV, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed."
  • Removing tags: "Any editor who sees a tag, but does not see any problem with the article, and who does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. It may be wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal."
  • "Adding and removing tags without discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as disruptive. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation."
  • Placing a tag such as an NVOP tag on the page without clearly stating why is disruptive and considered vandalism.

You have also asked for a list of systemic reviews so that the article meets secondary sources. There are many reviews and metaanalyses on EMDR within the scientific literature:

  1. Seidler & Wegner (2006)
  2. Waller, Spates & Mulick (2000)
  3. Van Etten & Taylor (1998)
  4. Sherman (1998)
  5. Davidson & Parker (2001)
  6. Sack, Lemos & Lamprecht (2001)
  7. Bradley, Greene, Russ, Dultra & Westen (2005)
  8. Bisson et al (2007)

There are also many international clinical practice guidelines based on reviews of the evidence for EMDR in treating PTSD such as:

  • Foa, E. B., Keane, T. M., Friedman, M. J., & Cohen, J. A. (Eds.). (2009). Effective treatments for PTSD: Practice guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (2nd ed.).New York: Guilford Press.
  • National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2005). Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD: The management of adults and children in primary and secondary care. London: NICE Guidelines. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG26
  • Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST). (2003). The management of post traumatic stress disorder in adults. Belfast: Clinical Resource Efficiency Team of the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Service and Public Safety.
  • Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (France) (INSERM). (2004). Psychothérapie, trois approches évaluées [Psychotherapy: An evaluation of three approaches]. Paris: French National Institute of Health and Medical Research.

It would be more useful to go through the reviews and meta-analyses that currently exist in the scientific literature, rather than to search through reference lists that appear on odd webpages. Sschubert (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the refs.
First thing first - What would you like further clarification on? Stop with the quotes, and instead follow them yourself. You've given me nothing that's actionable. I believe what I've given is actionable. If you disagree, tell me why so I can respond. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that you have placed the NPOV tag on the page? 124.169.99.245 (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Individual studies are used being too often as references, being given too much weight, and are being used to counter other information." "Still, it looks like the NPOV problems can be resolved by simply following MEDRS. Individual studies are being too often as references, being given too much weight, and are being used to counter other information." See WP:PSTS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MEDRS --Ronz (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the NPOV tag is still on the page without any evidence of the dispute still being rectified. What sections in particular contains too many individual studies? THe introduction and description of therapy section seem ok, and the emperical evidence section - it is appropriate here to cite the emperical evidence. THere is an entire special edition of the Journal of EMDR that has specifically been dedicated to reviewing the evidence in many different areas relating to EMDR. I would be happy to add some more references of review papers to sections you feel may be too weighted by individual studies. From a quick look over the article there appears to be many meta-analyses, review articles and books cited. I think one thing to remember about EMDR is that although it is evidenced based and has been for a long time for PTSD, how the therapy works is still a point of controversy (as it is with any therapy), and much research in this area is quite new. I think the article is quite good because it does appear to contain very up to date information for readers. New pieces of scientific information are hard to cite with secondary sources simply because the evidence is new! I would not remove new evidence from the page simply because the information cannot be cited by a secondary source at this point in time. Doing that would be detrimental to the page. Would adding more review papers to the areas you feel weighted by individual studies be enough to resolve the dispute and remove the NPOV tage from the entire page? Or maybe just place to tag over the sections neeeded fixing rather than the whole page. Geraldzeng (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The lede is one such section.
Note that the number of studies cited isn't the full problem. The weight we give them is also a problem. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but what do you mean by the lede? Do you mean the opening paragraph? what particular which section is weighted too much by individual studies? By adding review articles the weight given to individual studies would be lessened. I would like to help resolve the NPOV issue and I am willing to work on sections you think need fixing. could you please outline specifically which sections and I will work on this. Geraldzeng (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For the opening paragraph would you like review papers or meta-analyses cited for these sentences in particular: "Clinical trials have been conducted to assess EMDR's efficacy in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [3][4][5][6]. In some studies it has been shown to be equivalent to cognitive behavioral therapy and exposure therapies.[7][8][9][10] Although some clinicians may use EMDR for various problems, its research support is primarily for disorders stemming from distressing life experiences.[11][12]"

I just had a quick look to fix the opening paragraph, and to avoid being repetative in the article, the very next paragraph after the intro has 9 or 10 review papers cited that have reviewed the studies in the opening paragraph. references 13-21 are all either review articles, meta-analoyses or international treatment guidelines, the following section could be moved to the lead paragraph and removed from the beginning of the next section to remove weight from the individual studies that are cited there? I will move the section as described and await your response. Section moved: "Although EMDR is established as an evidence-based treatment for PTSD [13][14][15][16][17] [18][19][20][21], there are two main perspectives on EMDR therapy: First, Shapiro [1] proposed that although a number of different processes underlie EMDR, the eye movements add to the therapy's effectivness by evoking neurological and physiological changes that may aid in the processing of the trauma memories being treated; The other perspective is that the eye movements are an epiphenomenon, unnecessary, and that EMDR is simply a form of desensitization[22]." Geraldzeng (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you undid my edit. Without an explanation from you I guess that you didn't think my suggestion is appropriate? By moving the above paragraph it does appear to fit with my understanding of WP LEDE. Moving materail is not duplicating the information, I moved it to save adding the review/secondary references twice immediadetly after each other. From looking at previous discussions you seem to be quite hesitant to talk through suggestions or make specific suggested changes resolve the NPOV dispute to your liking - NPOV is a strong and serious tag to place on an entire page. I want to help rectifying the page, but without knowing how exactly it makes this job hard. Can you outline what you want to see on the page or removed from the page. I am happy to remove weight from individual studies and give more weight to secondary sources, but I do not want to spend time doing this if it still is not enough to remove the tag? Is removing weight from individual studies (by adding or replacing the references with secondary sources) in the lead paragraph enough to resolve this NPOV dispute? Kindly. Geraldzeng (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I had written a quick note here.
I don't understand how moving material into the lede resolves anything at all.
I'd like to get other opinions on how to proceed with this article. I'm not going to rewrite it myself, but I think it needs a rewrite per MEDRS. I've started looking for help by posting to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard.
I'm also going to continue working on the list of reviews. --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, the lede section is the last area to work on given it has to summarize the entire article. It doesn't summarize the article properly now, but I think it would be a waste of time to put time into it until MEDRS has been applied to the rest of the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

EMDR is not a fringe theory. It is not a psudoscience. THe article does not need a rewrite - more secondary reference yes, maybe. As I mentioned a while age, I am happy to e-mail a complete list of reviews, meta-analyses, book chapters (secondary sources) through to you to add to your list. and again, I am also happy to incorporate these into the article to give individual studies less weight - this is your main concern is it not? Sschubert (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm going to continue to work on getting the article rewritten per MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
While there are reliable sources suggesting some aspects of EMDR are pseudoscience, I think it's best to keep the focus on MEDRS. I've requested help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Application_of_WP:MEDRS_to_EMDR. --Ronz (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken. But you mistakenly have said in your above request to WP:MERS that you have been trying to get authors of the page to correct the page according to WP:MERS. There are two authors that have been trying to satisfy your requests with no avail. You have two authors willing to work on the article, and there have clearly been attempts to fix the article to your liking. You have suggested in your request to WP:MERS that the entire page needs a rewrite. Please state how? And I would be interested in your reliable sources suggesting that EMDR is a pseudoscience. Could you send through the references please? Sschubert (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Given your WP:COI, I'd rather find others to work on this that are more open to applying WP:MEDRS, rather than defending their personal pov. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. However, I am not aware I have any COI. I am a university student whose opinion is based on scientific literature, not personal opinion. Sschubert (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia, we follow WP:MEDRS when determining how to prioritize research. In university settings they focus on the most recent research, the most promising for research areas for funding, and the personal interests of the professors and lecturers. That perspective is not compatible with MEDRS and WP:UNDUE, and tends toward WP:OR.
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." - WP:COI --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Since it's been over two weeks without response from WP:PSY, I've asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Application_of_WP:MEDRS_to_EMDR, which was recommended at WT:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what others think, but sorry Ronz, I tend to disagree with you. Just beacuse I am a PhD student does not create a COI, and does not mean that I am unable to write according to WP:MERS. If people who are affiliated with universities could not write on wikapedia there would be no EMDR page! or many other wikapedia pages for that matter. Being afflillated with a university at least allows me access to all the references to this page, and being a PhD student then tends to indicate that I have actually read the sources you are questioning. You have said that do not have access to the sources, yet you are questioning the references on the page. Sorry, Ronz, but I am inerested in this page, the sceince in this field, and plan to continue to contribute the best way I can. Sschubert (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't make more of my comments that what I wrote. I've moved on. I hope you will as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you send through the reliable sources you referred to suggesting that EMDR is a pseudoscience? If they are reliable sources then they should appear on the page. 165.118.1.51 (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We've already a partial list here.
As I've pointed out, I'm starting with MEDRS which by definition will not address such issues.
If anyone wants to start a new discussion on the skeptic pov and how to properly incorporate it into the article, I'll participate.--Ronz (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the link provided above to the proposed reliable sources. The link is to a resolved past discussion that was resolved through your request to WP:THIRD. The third opinion response stated that the proposed links are not reliable sources and that they clearly "violate the various guidelines cited" by other authours who contributed to this discussion. I suggest that you put forward a clear outline of what it is that you would like to see on the page, then authors can work collaboratively together to incorporate it into the page as they have done in the past. Geraldzeng (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. I'll continue with my stated plans. --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please restate the issue simply

It's just possible that the reason third opinions haven't been forthcoming is that other editors are having difficulty seeing what the dispute is in all the verbiage above. If the issue is just that references need to be improved, there should be nobody who will dispute the replacement of poor references with better ones. I'd suggest starting by identifying the primary sources. I usually approach that just by putting "(primary source)" just before </ref> if I don't have a suitable recent review handy to replace it. If the dispute is over something more subtle, please spell it out simply. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article and this dispute.
Simply, the article doesn't follow MEDRS. I've been trying to put together a list of what MEDRS terms "ideal sources." I have at least a partial list of such sources. A simple check of the current references in the article shows that these ideal sources are not being properly used nor respected per MEDRS. They are given low prominence, when instead they should be given the highest.
A review of this talk page and its archive shows that there have been numerous pov disputes here, most with accusations of COI problems. I've not looked into these past disputes in detail, hoping that instead we can simply follow MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
If that's all the problem is, there is no serious dispute. Just get on with replacing low-quality sources with better ones. It doesn't need protracted discussion.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of simply replacing sources. It's a matter of giving the proper sources the proper prominence. That means removing or otherwise de-emphasizing material only based upon the poorer sources, and expanding and highlighting material based upon MEDRS's "ideal sources." --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, there's no serious dispute. WP:UNDUE speaks to the topic. The article should reflect the information expressed in the best quality sources available on the topic, in approximate proportion to the prevalance of those sources. Where there is serious academic disagreement (as opposed to WP:FRINGE), the differences should be made clear to the reader along with the relevant arguments, again, proportionate to the sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and hope the other editors here will as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a simply matter. if the sections and sentences that do not meet MP:MERS are clearly outlined, then authors can work on making the references more appropriate, thus resolving the NVOP tag. 165.118.1.51 (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they need to be outlined, but it might be helpful to try. What do you suggest? Obviously, anything that includes biomedical material. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How does biomedical material violate WP:MERS? The issues appears to be WP:MERS. The NPOV tag on the page is inappropriate for this simple issue Geraldzeng (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS problems are by definition NPOV problems. --Ronz (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I watched with interest the discussion and it is very clear to me that the opening paragraph is certainly neutral and appropriately cited. In fact it seems to understate the scientific support for EMDR. In keeping with WP.MEDRS, the most prestigious scientific review of therapies for post traumatic stress disorder was conducted by the Cochrane organisation which indicates that EMDR is an effective treatment for PTSD at the highest level of evidence required (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003388.html. Also the International Society for Traumatic Stress (2009) has also indicated in its review that EMDR meets the highest level of scientific evidence required. Any suggestions that the treatment lacks a science base in terms of efficacy is at odds with these scientific reviews. Anyone claiming otherwise simply does not read the literature. I have removed the NOVP tag as I can not see any specific sections of this article that violate NOVP nor is there any vaild explanation for the tag on this page.Zcwl (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the tag and have given ample reasons why.
Could you please indicate the full references you're referring to, so they can be checked against the list later on this talk page? --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


The full references that editor Zcwl refers to above are reviews that appear on the EMDR page: 1) Bisson, Andrew, Bisson, (2007) (the cochrane review)reference no. 15 on the page, and 2) Foa, Keane, & Friedman (2009) (the ISTSS review)reference no 19 on the page. Sschubert (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

External links

According to Wikapedia's guidelines on external links, the links listed on each page should be kept to a minimum, they should be meritable, and sites should be avoided if they give undue weight to certain points of view and/or are non-neutral in content. For this reason I have removed the following links until further discussion takes place between editors of the page: 1. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 2. Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing (EMDR): Science or Pseudoscience? - By Bunmi O. Olatunji 3. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: A Review of the Efficacy of EMDR in the Treatment of PTSD - Lakehead University, Canadian Psychology Department 4. EMDR Treatment: Less Than Meets the Eye? Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Article was originally published the Jan/Feb 1996 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.

These sites are not links to official websites related to the page's topic, nor are they peer reviewed sites, and some of the content is inaccurately or poorly referenced. The sites removed also do not appear to be contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to EMDR. What the sites do appear to contain is information on EMDR that could otherwise be incorporated and integrated into the Wikipedia page itself, hence the removal of the links.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschubert (talk • contribs) 09:59, 26 April 2010

I disagree with your assessment. The links you left are all to organizations, which I've now removed as being promotional and off-topic (one was a dead link).
I've restored the links you note above, fixing the one that was no longer working. All appear on topic. I share your concern that they all have shared perspectives, but this fits my WP:MEDRS concerns above. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, I removed
--Ronz (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDRS "it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The links previously removed and placed on this page for discussion about their appropriateness do not fit with Wikapeida guidelines on reliable sources, nor do they fit with Wikapedias guidelines on appropriate external links Wikipedia:External links. According to Wikapedia what should be linked is:

"1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

3.Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail, ... or other reasons."

And according to Wikapedia, what links should be avoided include: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting."

The links that were previously removed from the page do not provide readers of wikapedia with up to date, accurate information on the topic, hence risk the reader being mislead, the pages are non-neutral, and the pages contain content that for no reason (i.e. there are no copy right issues) cannot be integrated into the wikapedia page itself, and if the information was integrated into the page it would possibly add to the depth and accuracy of the page. To sum, the links previously removed were not reliable, up to date sources according to WP:MEDRS, thus until further discussion, I have removed the links once more. The links removed were:

1. the link to the article by Rosen & Lohr (1997). This article contains only 4 references, with the most recent being 1996 (14 years old). There is a vast amount of published, peer reviewed scientific research since this was written. Thus the article may be misleading, and on the whole, it contains information that can be incorporated into the page.

2. the link to, Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing (EMDR): Science or Pseudoscience? - By Bunmi O. Olatunji. This link is currently not working, however from memory, the article was also out of date, with all references being over a decade old. I also recall the page containing a poor, inadequate, and inaccurate description of the therapy process, and attempts to describe the mechanisms underlying EMDR without any reference to scientific research. I also believe the page stated that EMDR was not an evidence based therapy, which is misleading to wikapedia readers, as since the article was written, EMDR has been clearly estabilished internationally as an evidenced-based treatment for PTSD.

3. the link to the article, EMDR Treatment: Less Than Meets the Eye? by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. This article was written in Jan/Feb 1996, with the latest reference to literature being 1995 (15 years old). This article also states “Moreover, because EMDR has not been clearly shown to be beneficial for the condition for which it was originally developed, namely PTSD,”. This may have been appropriate to state in 1996, but again is misleading for readers of the current page. The article puts forward arguments that were vaild at the time of writing, but again the page does not provide wikapedia readers with up to date, accurate information on EMDR, and it would be more beneficial for wikapedia readers if points of view presented in the article were incorparated into the EMDR page itself with reference to more recent scientific research.

I agree with the removal of the links to EMDR bodies (i.e. Scotland and Europe) as links should be kept to a minimum, and having such links would warrant other links to other EMDR associations (i.e EMDR Asia, EMDR Australia, EMDR Belgium, EMDR France, etc.). I also agree with the removal of the link to NICE, as there is reference to the EMDR/PTSD review by NICE in the reference section of the page. However, according to my understanding of Wikapedia's guidelines of external links, the link to the organisation's official stie or web page is appropriate, thus the link has been restored to EMDR's official site, the EMDR international Association, until further discussion takes place. Sschubert (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you're arguing that information should be removed if you don't think it is up to date. This is nonsense, and would prevent us from having an article at all.
I fixed the Bunmi O. Olatunji link correctly this time. Thanks for catching my mistake.
This article is not about an organization, so WP:ELOFFICIAL doesn't apply. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that the information on these links are not exactly up to date, is one of my points (and is a valid, rather than nonsense point according to WP:MEDRS request to "use up-to-date information" section). But, I think the main point that I would like ot make is that the page, and readers of the page would benefit if the information contained in the links be incorporated into the page itself, and that the points of view presented in these links would benefit from refering to more recent scientific evidence to support claims. Or can you see any reason why comments within these articles cannot be incorporated into the page? In addition, the point about informaiton being out of date is quite an important point as such information may mislead readers who come to read this page hoping to find accurate information about the topic. Many of the claims put forward in these links are no longer valid or correct as a great deal of scientific research investigating the efficacy and underlying mechanisms of EMDR has taken place in the past 15 years. Also, as links on Wikapedia pages should be kept to a minimum, lets at least link pages that contain the most recent information about what we know and don't know about EMDR, pages that are at least less than a decade old, and are pages that conform with wikapedia's neutral point of view policy. That leads to my last point I have failed to mention so far, which is that the exteranl link pages appear to be quite value laden and present a non neutral point of view WP: Neutral point of view. It seems that we have quite different views on this matter, and although I am enjoying our discussions back and forth, it seems that we are unable to reconcile this dispute. I hope it is ok, but I will remove the links, and I am requesting the opinions from other editors to help us resolve the decisions about what external links are most suitable to include on the page. Sschubert (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left the one link that I believe we both agree is an appropriate link. I gather this as neither of us has removed the link during our discussion. Sschubert (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You removed:

--Ronz (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. I'm objecting to removal based upon the unsupported assertion that the information is out of date. This violates NPOV when all the information removed presents similar viewpoints.

At this point WP:THIRD (since the 124.148.218.241 is you) or WP:ELN would be useful for getting others' opinions. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that you may be missing my main point. That the information is out of date is not my main point. I state again, that my main point is that the information contained in these pages should be incorporated into the page itself, so that the page itself presents a balanced point of view. By your argument, the page presents one point of view, and these articles present another - that would mean that the page itself violates NVOP. There is a "controversy" section on the page in which different points of view are stated, thus the information could be incorporated into this section - as opposed to different points of view being presented in links that violate NPOV. I look forward the opionions of others. (and sorry, I am not sure what you mean by "the 124.148.218.241 is you". Sschubert (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they present a different point of view.
I agree that they should be incorporated into the article. Until they are, they can be listed as external links. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is nice to see that we agree on something!! However, please note that I have respected your views and opinions and have not replaced the links I feel should appear on the page until our disagreement is resolved. It is wikapedias policy that prior to placing information on the page that authors agree on the content (hence I have not replaced the links I feel are ok because you diasgree). According to wikapedia's guidelines the content sould be removed until our disagreement about the external links be resolved. In addition, they should not appear, as I have mentioned before, on the grounds that they violate WP:NPOV. If you feel the information is so vitally important to create an external link to the page, simply incorporate the information into the page as you see fit. So again I will remove the links, and politely request that they remain a point of discussion, and am requesting the opinions from other editors to help us resolve the decisions about what external links are most suitable to include on the page.Sschubert (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  Response to third opinion request:
Hi, guys. Noticed your third opinion request on the board was getting aged, so thought I'd try my hand at my first "third opinion" (just requested one myself, so might as well be a giver as well as a taker). It appears as if you're near a resolution already, but to get you the rest of the way and clear it off the third-opinion board, after going through the above, my third opinion on the issue is that I agree with Sschubert. I find Sschubert's initial statement and follow-ups regarding the conflicts that said external links have with existing medical-knowledge and external-link policies to be the more convincing of the two positions. As Sschubert points out, if the article without the removed links is so weighted that it has bias problems, adding appropriate cited information regarding the links' point of view to the page's controversy section would be appropriate. But it seems as if what Ronz suggests is to almost have the external links be a "rough draft" for the different opinion until it's written (I'm referencing the "until they are" statement that Ronz makes), and that's not the purpose of an article, and their presence there in the meantime would violate the various guidelines cited in Sschubert's initial statement. &#151; WCityMike 07:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. We've agreed that the links should be included as references. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason then not to include them as external links until they've been added as references.

The NPOV concerns are real, but misplaced. As I pointed out before this dispute began, the article needs extensive changes per WP:MEDRS. Removing specific viewpoints, because of allegations of bias, is the opposite of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How are the NPOV points misplaced? Also, how does the article need extensive changes? Which sources cited need revision as per WP:MEDRS. Please note that I have not removed any specific view points from the page itself. I have only removed external links that violate NPOV. The page itself in my opinion does not violate NPOV. If you are to put an NPOV on the page you need to state exactly how the article violates NPOV so that the issues can be addressed, like they have been in previous discussions between authors of the page.

Wikapedia's guidelines WP:NPOV disputeon tagging a page with NPOV states Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

So I ask that you please specify what it is that you would like to appear on the page, as at this point you have not specified what the specific content is that you feel is in the articles but not on the page. I have outlined my views and issues in detail thus far. Thus, as previously stated I am continuing torequest the opinions from other editors to help us resolve the decisions about what external links are most suitable to include on the page, and I have removed the NVOP tag until the specific reason for the tag has been outlined so that these can be discussed between also.

Also please note that as you, Ronz, requested the WP:THIRD, please read the response. As among the valid and thoughtful response, WCityMike states that the inclusion of the links on the page "violates various guidelines" that I have previously cited. thank you WCityMike for taking the time to response to the WP:THIRD request. Sschubert (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also just noticed that a new external link has appeared. the link being * EMDR: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (WebMD). This is also a web page that is not a reliable source. The majority (almost all) of the statements in the article are not referenced, and I cannot see any infomation in this web page (note that this link is not even a published scientific article) that does not appear in the page itself or adds to the quality of the page. Again, Wikapedia guidelines state "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic, and "the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum". There are thousands of web pages that discuss EMDR that could be linked. However, Wikapedia pages are not meant to contain lists of external links and pages are not meant to be directories to related web pages. thus this link is also removed until further discussion takes place. Sschubert (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to be ignoring what I've written. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what we mean by "reliable sources" here on Wikipedia. See WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am attending to what you are writing, however you do not appear to be answering my questions? i.e. what is it that you would like to appear on the page? How are "The NPOV concerns are real, but misplaced", and What is it about the page that violates NPOV? You need to state, according to wikapedia guidelines, how the page violates NPOV prior to adding a tag to the page. How can a NPOV dispute debate be discussed and resolved between authors if it is not clear as to why the tag was added? I have read the guidelines on reliable sources i.e.WP:MEDRS and it states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view....Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made...Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." When you first mentioned that this page needs to be extensively edited according to WP:MEDRS I took a great deal of time and checked that only published, peer reviewed, scientific articles were used as references, and checked that the articles were correctly supporting the claims being made. This took many hours. At no point am I aware of any specific view point being removed from the page, and the article, as you can see from the reference list, includes opinions and authors with different views on EMDR, and the page includes a controversy section where different points of view are stated (and can be edited and updated at any stage).

I am doing my best to try to understand your issues with the page's content, but you need to specifically state what you would like included or taken out if you feel that the page is violating NPOV. Until then a tag cannot be added (again see WP:NPOV dispute on guidelines for tagging a page with NPOV). Sschubert (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference removed

The following quote/reference/and external link was removed from the controversy section as the reference is from a web page, it is an opinion, and is not drawn from a scientific or peer reviewed source: “due in part to its having been "aggressively marketed before much research had been conducted on it". reference: Jim Hopper of Harvard University writes: "EMDR was aggressively marketed before much research had been conducted on it, with some fairly extreme statements about its ability to 'cure' PTSD in a few sessions, and without significant effort to explain how it works in terms of widely accepted academic theories. Thus it was inevitable that EMDR would be criticized (and at times viciously attacked) by some academic researchers – an outcome easily understood by anyone familiar with academic politics and the tendencies for conflict between therapists and researchers in the field of clinical psychology." Hopper, Jim. "Child Abuse: Statistics, Research and Resources" Updated 10/6/2008, URL retrieved 07 Aug 2009” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschubert (talk • contribs) 10:05, 26 April 2010

Given his expertise, I think this ref could be restored. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is not about his expertise, but whether the quote is taken from a reliable published source. The quote appears to also be used out of context.

NPOV tag

Please stop placing an NVOP tag on the entire page without clearly stating why the tag is there. There is no way of resolving the NVOP dispute without having your reasons stated on the page so that authors can discuss and amend the page so that in your view it does not violate NPOV. Please see wikapedia guidelines for tagging a page, i.e. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. 124.169.99.245 (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The tag links to Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing#WP:MEDRS_NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The statements "Based on the evidence of randomised controlled research trials both the practice guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association[2] and the Department of Veterans Affairs and Defense[3] have placed EMDR in the highest category of effectiveness and research support in the treatment of trauma. This status is reflected in a number of international guidelines where EMDR is a recommended treatment for trauma" in the section Empirical evidence are not borne out by the seven studies cited.

I admit I have read only the first two of the studies, but they both say the evidence is inconclusive with limited applicable evidence and less effective than other therapies in some cases. As a non-involved editor (I was looking for information about the therapy for personal reasons), this article appears to violate WP:NPOV and should probably go to the noticeboard based on the above statements alone. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Iagree that references 13 and 14 (noted above) should be updated and replaced with more recent reviews that have examined EMDR's effectiveness. The most recent scientific reviews by independent international organisations are by the Cochrane data base (Bisson, 2007) and last year by the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (2009). These more appropriate references now appear in this section on the page. Sschubert (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice to see we're making some progress. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of reviews

  1. Bisson et al (2007)
  2. Seidler & Wagner (2006)
  3. Bradley, Greene, Russ, Dultra & Westen (2005)
  4. Davidson & Parker (2001)
  5. Sack, Lemos & Lamprecht (2001) - not referenced in article
  6. Waller, Spates & Mulick (2000) - not referenced in article
  7. Van Etten & Taylor (1998)
  8. Sherman (1998) - not referenced in article

I've copied the list from Sschubert (01:32, 8 May 2010), ordering it in reverse chronological order for the time being. I've not verified them at this point. --Ronz (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Verified except for the ones I've marked as not referenced. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
MEDRS recommends reviews written in the past five years, which means we have two "ideal sources." --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the Foa (2009) reference meet MEDRS "ideal source" criteria? No one has claimed so. --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Foa (2009) paper is a review in a reputable academic book written by experts in the field of trauma. The book features reviews of treatments for trauma and is a position statement on the treatment of trauma published by an internationally reputable expert body. Thus it is an ideal source according to WP:MEDRS. Sschubert (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

List of other analyses

Copied from the list I started earlier (started 15:47, 4 May 2010) --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Substantial changes to the page without discussion

Section hidden

Over the past month there have been some substantial, serious changes made to this page by certain users (see "view history" of the EMDR page). The substantial changes have been made without discussion or explanation for the changes being outlined here, which means that the changes voilate Wikapeida guidelines and are considered vandolism of the page. This is a very serious issue. The substantial changes will be undone and further changes that occur on the page without discussion on this page will be reported as vandolism and a request will be sent for these users to be blocked form editing this page. Sschubert (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and report these baseless accusations. --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please leave this section. This is a serious issue and not harrassment. It is also an explanation as to why certain changes on the page will be undone. To remove this will also be considered vandolism of this page. I have removed user names. I hope this is more satisfactory Sschubert (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, Please do not remove this section - remove your own comments if you would like no part in this discussion. This is a serious issue that needs to be fixed and an explanation needs to appear on the discussion page to account for the changes back to the origional text on the page - this is in accordance with wikapedia guidelines. Sschubert (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also noted some recent changes in the page that have not been discussed here. This does need to be addressed here as Wikapedia is a collaborative forum and changes need to be agreed on by all authors prior to going onto the page. Geraldzeng (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why I removed NPOV

Ronz why did you replace the NPOV. In my comments to you above i articulated why i removed the tag. Have you ever read the Cochrane review (ref 14)? Have you ever read the International Society for Traumatic Stress guidelines 2009 (ref 18)?. You changed the page without any indication that you have read these documents which is the basis of my removel of the NPOV claims. In addition i have read your comments and fail to see anywhere that you have substantiated your non-neutral claims about the page. Please indicate which specific piece of the page you dispute is non-neutral and pleease read the reviews i have drawn to your attention which are referenced on the pageZcwl (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

I'm happy with all the details I've given so far. As I've discussed at length, the article's use of references fails WP:MEDRS, which is a NPOV problem. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article does not fail WP:MERS. For example WP:MEDRS states that "it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." This article is in line with WP:MERS and until specific examples of where the article fails WP:MERS is given I agree that the NPOV tag is inappropriate and should be removed. Sschubert (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article clearly fails MEDRS. The dispute is not resolved. I've added tags to each major section, as the lede should wait until the rest of the article is brought up to MEDRS and NPOV. Then we'll be able to able to write a proper introduction per WP:LEDE. --Ronz (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, you have been asked by many authors of the page to be more specific about your issues with references on the page. You appear to be drive by tagging. It goes against wikapedia guidelines to tag without providing specific explanations. Again, You have not provided explanations for each tag on each section, thus they have been reomved. Please follow wikapedia guidelines for tagging. Geraldzeng (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've explained myself thoroughly. Sorry that it is not enough for you. --Ronz (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop tagging the page with inappropriate tags that have no explanation here. This is vandolism and disruptive editing. As other authors have stated above, the issue appears to be a simple referencing issue raised by Ronz. Other authors appear to be happy with the page and its referencing as it stands. The page is B-class on psychwiki, and there is no COI. The tag was removed on this basis. Geraldzeng (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Denying the problems, overlooking the discussions, and disagreeing with others is not a reason to remove tags. Please stop your edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As other authors of the page have done, I have also removed the tag. I agree that the tag was inappropriate for the issues that have been raised. Major tags need to have clear and specific explanations on this page. Tags cannot be placed on pages simply by the opinion of one editor. They need to be justified and clearly explained. There is no clear explanation for the tag, hence its removal. Sschubert (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the tags. I'm happy to clarify anything. It doesn't appear that any of the editors objecting to the tags want clarification, nor do they appear interested in engaging in WP:CON nor WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

you must clarify and explain prior to placing a tag. This is what has been requested. Issues have been raised, past suggestions by the above authors and myself have been undone by you. I am awaiting for solutions to be put forward. Sschubert (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The tag is clearly justified-- see talk page discussion. For example, I just identified a passage in the "rape" section that fails to represent reliable, secondary reviews, and is biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

THe tag had numerous concerns, not just one. each concern needs a clear explanation for it to appear in a tag. If each concern is justified then it should not take much to explain it simply on this page, as requested. Once each concern is explained, then authors can work together to resolve them. Sschubert (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"THe tag had numerous concerns, not just one." I'm having a hard time making sense of this. Could you rewrite it?
"each concern needs a clear explanation for it to appear in a tag." Ditto here. --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Equally confused, since most of the tags need no further explanation, and those that do, are justified on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago33 comments2 people in discussion

The article currently has 91 sources. Normally, I'd list them all and work with others to decide what sources are appropriate for what. This requires cooperation that isn't going to happen when most of the editors are edit-warring over tags. Instead, I'm going to use MEDRS's 5-year criteria to cut down the list, knowing that some older sources will need to be used. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources
  1. Ehlers A, Bisson J, Clark DM, Creamer M, Pilling S, Richards D, Schnurr PP, Turner S, Yule W (2010 Mar). "Do all psychological treatments really work the same in posttraumatic stress disorder?". Clin Psychol Rev. 30 (2): 269-76. PMID 20051310.
    "Ideal source" per MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Cloitre M (January 2009). "Effective Psychotherapies for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Review and Critique". CNS Spectrums 14 (1(Suppl 1)): 32-43. http://www.cnsspectrums.com/aspx/articledetail.aspx?articleid=1966.
    "Ideal source" per MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. Bisson J, Andrew M. (2007). Psychological treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsIssue 3
    "Ideal source" per MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  4. Bisson JI, Ehlers A, Matthews R, Pilling S, Richards D, Turner S (2007). "Psychological treatments for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. Systematic review and meta-analysis". The British Journal of Psychiatry : the journal of mental science 190 (2): 97–104. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.106.021402. PMID 17267924.
    "Ideal source" per MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  5. Seidler GH, Wagner FE (2006). "Comparing the efficacy of EMDR and trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of PTSD: a meta-analytic study". Psychological medicine 36 (11): 1515–22. doi:10.1017/S0033291706007963. PMID 16740177.
    "Ideal source" per MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  6. Bradley R, Greene J, Russ E, Dutra L, Westen D (2005). "A multidimensional meta-analysis of psychotherapy for PTSD". The American journal of psychiatry 162 (2): 214–27. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.214. PMID 15677582.
    May be slightly too old to be considered an "ideal source" per MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  7. Benish SG, SG; Imel ZE; Wampold BE (2008). "The relative efficacy of bona fide psychotherapies for treating post-traumatic stress disorder: a meta-analysis of direct comparisons.". Clinical Psychology Review 28 (5): 746–758. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.10.005. PMID 18055080.
    A meta-analysis. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  8. Schubert SJ; Lee CW (2009). "Adult PTSD and its treatment with EMDR: A review of controversies, evidence, and theoretical knowledge". Journal of EMDR Practice and Research 3: 117–132. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.3.3.117.
    A review. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  9. Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health. (2007). Australian guidelines for the treatment of adults with acute stress disorder and post traumatic stress disorder. Melbourne, Victoria: ACPTMH.. ISBN 978-0-9752246-6-3. http://www.acpmh.unimelb.edu.au/resources/resources-guidelines.html#1
    Not sure what to make of these guidelines from a private research company. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  10. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2005). Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): The management of adults and children in primary and secondary care. London: NICE Guidelines. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=byID&r=true&o=10966
    Another guideline. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  11. Foa EB; Keane TM; Friedman MJ (2009). Effective treatments for PTST: Practice guidelines of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. New York: Guilford Press
    Another guideline. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  12. Scott CV; Briere J (2006). Principles of Trauma Therapy : A Guide to Symptoms, Evaluation, and Treatment. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. pp. 312. ISBN 0-7619-2921-5.
    A book. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  13. Hogeberg G; Pagini M; Sundin O; Abergwistedt A; Tarnell B et al. (2007). "On treatment with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder in public transportation workers - A randomised controlled trial". Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 16: 54–61.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  14. van der Kolk BA; Spinazzola J; Blaustein ME; Hopper JH; Hopper EK; Korn DL et al. (2007). "A randomized clinical trial of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), fluoxetine, and pill placebo in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: treatment effects and long-term maintenance". The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 68 (1): 37–46. doi:10.4088/JCP.v68n0105. PMID 17284128.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  15. Maxfield L; Shapiro F; Kaslow FW (2007). Handbook of EMDR and Family Therapy Processes. New York: Wiley. pp. 504. ISBN 0471709476.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  16. Elofsson UOE; von Schèele B; Theorell T; Söndergaard HP (2008). "Physiological correlates of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing". Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (4): 622–634. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.05.012. PMID 17604948.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  17. Sack M; Lempa W; Steinmetz A; Lamprecht F; Hofmann A (2007). "Alterations in autonomic tone during trauma exposure using Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) - results of a preliminary investigation". Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22: 1264. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.01.007.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  18. Lee CW; Drummond PD (2008). "Effects of Eye Movement versus Therapist Instructions on the Processing of Distressing Memories". Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (5): 801–808. doi:10.1016/J.janxdis.2007.08.007. PMID 17890048.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  19. Lansing K, Amen DG, Hanks C, Rudy L (2005). "High-resolution brain SPECT imaging and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in police officers with PTSD". The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences 17 (4): 526–32. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.17.4.526. PMID 16387993.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  20. Rothbaum BO; Astin MC; Marsteller F (2005). "Prolonged Exposure Vs Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) for PTSD Rape Victims". Journal of Traumatic Stress 18 (6): 607–616. doi:10.1002/jts.20069. PMID 16382428.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  21. Lee CW; Taylor G; Drummond P (2006). "The active ingredient in EMDR; is it traditional exposure or dual focus of attention?". Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 13: 97–107. doi:10.1002/cpp.479.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  22. MacCulloch M (2006). "Effects of EMDR on previously abused child molesters: Theoretical reviews and preliminary findings from Ricci, Clayton, and Shapiro". Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 17 (4): 531–537. doi:10.1080/14789940601075760.
    Primary source. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Only 26 24 23 22 sources were published in the past five years, if I didn't make a mistake. I expect there may be a few older references that have newer versions that we should be using as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Started indicating primary sources in the list. Will use terminology from MEDRS if it becomes necessary. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
After you made this list, I folded in two additional sources (from the bibliography and external links section, for a total of 93 sources. I also removed a perhaps dubious source (not one of those two), bringing the total back down to 92. The source follows:
It appears that this article was published in "Traumatology", the now-defunct journal once published by the now-defunct "Florida State University Traumatology Institute".
A bit of digging turns up this page: Figley Institute, where it is stated:
Dr. Charles Figley is a psychologist, family therapist, and Paul Henry Kurzweg Distinguished Chair in Disaster Mental Health and Professor at Tulane University School of Social Work. He is the founder and director of the Tulane Traumatology Institute (formerly FSU Traumatology Institute).
So... this "institute" appears to be the brainchild of Figley. PubMed, etc do not index this now-defunct journal. Does this source meet WP's criteria for sources? Wtf hello (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a review published about ten years ago, so it's of no use to us for medical claims per MEDRS, unless it's mentioned in a better source that we use with it. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm only half through the sources above. I'm not happy with simply labeling and individual study as a "primary source" when there are so many of them. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Of the sources published since 2005, we have 8 reviews, most fitting "ideal source" criteria. There are 3 guidelines, which I'm not sure how to weigh. Other than 1 book, the remaining 10 are individual studies. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential sources

Starting a list of additional sources that could be of use. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Medical guidelines

  1. Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health. (2007). Australian guidelines for the treatment of adults with acute stress disorder and post traumatic stress disorder. Melbourne, Victoria: ACPTMH.. ISBN 978-0-9752246-6-3. http://www.acpmh.unimelb.edu.au/resources/resources-guidelines.html#1
  2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2005). Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): The management of adults and children in primary and secondary care. London: NICE Guidelines. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=byID&r=true&o=10966
  3. Foa EB; Keane TM; Friedman MJ (2009). Effective treatments for PTST: Practice guidelines of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. New York: Guilford Press

These are the three guidelines we're using as sources updated in the past five years. WP:MEDRS doesn't say much on their use other than the can be ideal sources if they are from "nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." My first thought is of all the experts in the entire world, these see to be a very small and specific group. Are they cherry-picked to present only a certain point of view? --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I did the following to clean up this article and its talk page:

  • I archived older discussions (from 2009 and before) to the newly-created Archive 2, added a collapsible archive navigation box, and the appropriate navigation templates to the archives. The discussions on the page are from the last few months.
  • I removed whitespace from the talk page, capitalized a header, and indented all the sections pertaining to the NPOV discussion under one top-level header (so that other discussions can be found easily).
  • I took the single reference from the bibliography and the single reference from the external links and folded them into the article itself, removing these sparse sections. There are now 93 references.
  • I reformatted all available references using the cite pmid and cite doi templates, to reduce the page height of the text editors see when editing, and to unify and consolidate the references.

Let's work together to improve this article. Any further suggestions or feedback on these edits is most welcome. Wtf hello (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However, be careful that you don't change references by mistake. Someone needs to go over all the reference changes and make sure they're still correct, or we should undo them and start over. The "Herbert" reference, as an example, went from
  • Herbert L; et al. (2000). "Science and Pseudoscience in the development of eye movement and reprocessing: Implications for Clinical Psychology". Clinical Psychology Review. 20 (8): 945–971. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00017-3. PMID 1098395. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
to
  • Anderson, NM; Creasy, RK; De Swiet, M; Kahanpää, KV (1975). "Effect of temperature on optical density of rabbit blood in dye dilution studies". Acta physiologica Scandinavica. 94 (2): 271–7. doi:10.1111/j.1748-1716.1975.tb05886.x. PMID 1098395. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The PMID which had originally been provided with the original ref was incorrect; using cite pmid caused the wrong ref to be generated. That has been fixed. I confirmed every reference and found no similar errors.
I then went through the references section again, looking for duplicate references. I found quite a few. After consolidating the duplicates, the article is down to 82 references. Wtf hello (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks once again. FYI: There's a bot that can help with finding duplicate references. I never thought of it before, but I bet there's a way to get it to help with what you did. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. I like doing wikignome tasks. Thanks for the info about the bot, if you happen to know the name, please let me know. Wtf hello (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I just read the <dismal and now closed> discussion at the Fringe noticeboard, and although it contained a whole lot of puffery and opinion, I saw no indications of an understanding by all parties there of sourcing standards for medical articles, or the serious need to reduce the overreliance on primary sources here, and instead focus on secondary reviews. What credentials any individual editor professes to have are irrelevant; medical statements should be backed by sources conforming to MEDRS, rather than relying on editor opinion about primary sources.

The most recent review I could find in PubMed:

Ehlers A, Bisson J, Clark DM; et al. (2010). "Do all psychological treatments really work the same in posttraumatic stress disorder?". Clin Psychol Rev. 30 (2): 269–76. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.12.001. PMC 2852651. PMID 20051310. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

is cited only once in this article, in spite of full text being available, which is a benefit to our readers over individual editor's opinions and interpretations of primary sources not subject to secondary review.

Another free full-text review:

Vickerman KA, Margolin G (2009). "Rape treatment outcome research: empirical findings and state of the literature". Clin Psychol Rev. 29 (5): 431–48. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.04.004. PMC 2773678. PMID 19442425. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

isn't cited even once. Please address the embarrassment that this article has become by conforming to MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for voicing your concerns. I'm working above to categorize the sources per MEDRS to help identify all the MEDRS problems in the article and help get them resolved. --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Ronz, this Dispatch is helpful in locating full-text, secondary review articles. The problem of overreliance on primary sources, to the exclusion of secondary reviews, is pervasive in Wiki. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the resource. I agree on your assessment. The editing history shows coi problems here, plus some good faith editing from editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's focus on secondary sources rather than primary sources encouraged in writing for a research setting. We have classic NPOV/MEDRS problems here, like juxtaposing a review against a single study. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a sandbox approach is the best way out-- stick it in a sandbox, eliminate all the primary sources, and rewrite it from secondary reviews, and then plop the finished product back in here-- it would be hard for anyone to argue against that or revert it. Insistence on proper medical sourcing is usually enough to curb the POV/edit warring/OR that result from use of primary sources (editors Colin and Eubulides were masters at that!). But damn, identifying all the primary sources is time consuming, as is a complete rewrite. Have fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's another one for you (Wiki's articles on PTSD and this one overstate the case for EMDR by not adequately distinguishing it from TFCBT):
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

EMDR cannot be distinguished from TFCBT because EMDR is trauma focused CBT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.68.21 (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In which the eye movements apparently are unrelated to effect, hence ... <draw your own conclusions, but reliable sources have spoken to that already>. Please sign your entires with four tildes ( ~~~~ ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Boudewyns, P.A. (1993). "Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: A treatment outcome pilot study". The Behavior Therapist. 16: 30–33. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference APA04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference DVADD04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing/Archive_3&oldid=1090557447"