Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Proposed addition to the " Other applications" section.

Hey everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia and as an undergrad project for my Abnormal Psych course, my professor has assigned me to add some small piece of information with a citation to a Wiki page involving a treatment for a disorder. I would like to propose the addition of this sentence to the Other Applications section on this page:

EMDR is currently being researched as a possible treatment for other co-morbid disorders such as: attachment disorder, grief, night terrors,and substance abuse disorders.

References

I hope that I have met all requirements to post on this page, if I havent please let me know and ill be more then happy to make any adjustments. Also please point any and all of my mistakes as I said earlier I am new to this. Thank you. IntellectualThought (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a better source is needed so we don't violate WP:MEDRS, WP:DUE, and WP:FUTURE. While the reference does indeed verify most of what you're proposing, it does so as a brief, final paragraph identifying future directions for research. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The source provided is a peer-reviewed RS and verifies that this is the direction of the future, I am puzzled at what a "better" source would be. A brief, final paragraph is verification, what is missing? Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The relevant para in that source is the very last one, which says "EMDR is also in the early stages of being identified as a type of treatment for attachment disorders, grief, nightmares, other anxiety disorders, and substance disorders. Research to date is limited, but the results available indicate that comorbid disorders may also respond to EMDR. It is important to explore the potential of EMDR to provide clinicians with a treatment model that can traverse many symptom presentations in an efficient manner." -- PMC 4189702 There's a significant delta from "in the early stages of being identified" to "is currently being researched as a possible treatment". For a drug intervention, it would be the difference between in-vitro studies and phase III clinical studies. It's a long road that Ronz' proposed text glosses over. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just wondering if there is a way to put something accurate in there about directions for future research. The original poster sounds like someone with a school project, It's nice to help if we can. Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable source about directions for future research, which isn't a paper that doesn't discuss the topic at all except for a brief sentence at the very end. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed journal noting future directions is a perfectly reliable source acceptable for a general statement; I will agree that LeadSongDog is probably right that one cannot exceed what is said, but the reality is that this is the direction research is looking at. Incomplete not to note it. Seriously, Name what a better source would be? Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Given that this is an encyclopedia and this is a MEDRS topic, I doubt any such sources exist that would meet our policies. (I hope I can assume that everyone here knows it is expected that any research paper will include at least a brief mention of possible areas of future research.) Hypothetically, someone might review the research on a topic looking specifically for promising areas of future research, then summarizing their findings. (I'd expect that such papers are written as part of the process of calling for research, but if I've ever seen such a thing I've forgotten about it.) However, we're not going to confuse a simple statement of possible future directions as a statement about what areas are actually promising as a whole. Granted, statements coming from a review are better than from primary research. Still, if editors can find GA MEDRS articles that include such information, it would be worth discussing them and examining what types of references they use. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree to the extent that you are assuming that there is a need to go beyond the source. There isn't; the proposed wording above may be overbroad, but a narrower version would be fine, I think.. If a source that otherwise passes MEDRS for other purposes in this article states the direction for future research, then it is also a RS for a statement here as to the recommended direction of future research. Nothing more. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

While such papers (and even specialist journals on Directions in xxxx) do exist, the papers are almost always primary sources. In any case, there is wp:NODEADLINE for Wikipedia articles. When and if the work gets done, published, and covered in reviews it will be incorporated quite soon enough. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"If a source that otherwise passes MEDRS for other purposes..." I'm saying that this simply is not the case. They are reliable for the research that has been done, that's all. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, what IS a reliable source for stating directions for future research? If not a peer-reviewed journal's recommendations, then what? You won't take a news journal either, it seems, (though WP:PRIMARY is not a prohibition). Seriously, I am puzzled that "future directions" seems to be verboten here. Montanabw^(talk) 07:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fundamental MEDRS, DUE, and FUTURE violations are rather verboten that is. I already discussed this and offered an approach to resolve the dispute: Find a GA MEDRS article that has something similar and discuss it. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, you are repeating yourself. It is my view that if an article that otherwise passes MEDRS also says "future directions for research are - or should be - X" that seems to me to be perfectly acceptable for a statement in this article. Likewise a "new directions in X" news article in a peer-reviewed journal also passes muster. Yet you keep saying nononononono... so I'm asking you: Show me an example (another article, perhaps) of a "future directions in research" comment that meets your standard, because I think you are simply being pigheaded here. Montanabw^(talk) 06:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I repeated the concerns that aren't being addressed. Responses based upon insults are not the way to advance the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tense

Statements in the current tense should be based on current sources per wp:MEDDATE. This normally means less than five years old. Certainly 1999 and 2000 sources should be clearly in the past tense. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: Nearly all the citations in the article are from before 2010, but you chose to add qualifiers only to statements critical of the therapy. This is obviously POV editing. Please revert your changes. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

IP you're editing very boldly for someone who admits to having little knowledge of the topic. The fact is criticisms of the therapy have reduced markedly over the last 15 years as the evidence for it's effectiveness has increased. You have stated this yourself after reading up on the topic 'As a response to this criticism, increasingly rigorous research was done which established the effectiveness of the therapy.' Not having qualifiers is actually POV editing, as it is implying that the criticisms and consensus on EMDR from 1999/2000 applies to 2015. But even those papers misrepresent how EMDR was viewed at that time. You're original edit summarized the consensus on EMDR today as

'EMDR is a controversial therapy within the psychological community, and its efficacy compared to other treatments and underlying mechanism continue to be the subject of debate.'

That is just not how EMDR is viewed by psychologists generally in 2015. It's efficacy is now firmly established.

Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

ip, I suggest you read the recent review sources before casting aspersions on your fellow editors. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above. Nearly all the citations in the article are from before 2010, but you chose to add qualifiers only to statements critical of the therapy. This is obviously POV editing. I stand by that statement. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW I am the same as 67.188.230.128, my dynamic IP seems to have changed recently. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate response to such perceived POV would be to provide current MEDRS sources asserting that a controversy continues, if they exist. I don't see any. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

IP, I did a rough count, 21 of the 60 or so so citations are from 2010 or later, so your statement 'nearly all the citations are from before 2010' is just not correct. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to "Children" subheading

Hello! As an assignment for an Abnormal Psychology course, our professor challenged us to constructively edit a Wikipedia page that dealt with any aspect of abnormal psychology. I propose the addition below as the last sentence under the sub heading "children." If you feel I should make any changes or did something incorrectly please do not hesitate to let me know, since I am very new to this process. I am adding this information because it seemed like this specific section was missing information regarding efficiency of treatment. Moreover, I though that a 2014 peer-reviewed journal article would help make that section more current and add valuable information. What I would like to add and the reference are stated below:

As recent as 2014, a randomized controlled trial found that trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) and EMDR were both effective means of treating childhood trauma, although parent reports demonstrated that TF-CBT was better able to treat the depression and hyperactivity commonly associated with children who suffer traumas.

Thank you in advance for all of your feedback!--Mdelaosa (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a primary source and does not comply with WP:MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Addition to "Controversy Over Mechanisms & Effectiveness"

I would like to add this piece "Many studies, like the ones listed below, have shown that this therapy is more effective at treating anxiety then doing nothing at all. However, it is unclear which characteristics of EMDR are actually contributing to alleviating symptoms." to the section concerning Controversy Over Mechanisms & Effectiveness. Currently the article states the findings of experiments that have shown the effectiveness between eye movement and no eye movement. But it does not state that overall EMDR is more effective than receiving no therapy. This is important because it supports the claims made in this section that some aspect of this therapy's procedures work, but it is unclear which those are.70.163.64.27 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

While that's an interesting article, it does not comply with WP:MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what statements the source would be used to support. WP:MEDPOP indicates that "The high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, that's an old source, from 2007. Do you have anything current to cite, or not? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My edits

I changed the structure of the article to be readable to an uninvolved person like me. When I started reading it, I could not tell heads from tails. You tag it as an "advert", but it was the sloppiest advert I've ever seen :-). I did not change a single phrase, just moved things around, for readability. I also moved list of arganization from intro, per wikipedia guidelines: an intro is a summary, for God's sake. In tomorrow more orgs endorse it, so what? shall we put all 200 of them into intro? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

For your convenience, here are my edit summaries:

• (cur | prev) 15:28, 14 May 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,184 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Move description section higher) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:25, 14 May 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,186 bytes) (+163)‎ . . (List of endorsing orgs moved from into into a separate section, leaving only brief summary, as supposed to be in intro) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:20, 14 May 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,023 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Controversy) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:19, 14 May 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,025 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (moved "History" to top; it gives a quick idea WTH is this.) (undo)

Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no big deal, I just thought for an article currently in dispute, changes (even in shifting text) should be discussed first. I thought the recommended cycle was edit, revert then discuss not edit,revert, revert the reversion and then discuss. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few articles are in dispute all the time. This does not mean that they are frozen from normal editing. You are referring to WP:BRD. Be careful with its usage and don't apply it when you don't have real objections to discuss. Mechanical application of BRD is a gateway to severe impeding of work: a malicious person can run around clicking "revert" at a whim (so do "page owners"). My edit summaries are pretty clear. The only thing you expressed a slight objection I self-reverted. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I did also mention that rearranging changes emphasis, specifically you've rearranged an important paragraph in the lead that is the subject of a current rfc. I think that should have been discussed first. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have bothered reverting. In retrospect I should have just reverted that paragraph and the detagging. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We typically lay out articles per WP:MEDMOS thus moved history section lower. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case please add concise description of the essence of the therapy at the top, per inverted triangle rule of reporting. This is encyclopedia for everybody, not just for doctors, who already know it all. I don't want to waste my time to read thru Phase I, Phase II, etc. which say nothing useful. How I can understand "Medical uses" section if I don't know yet what the hell is used medically? If the layout of this article follows MEDMOS, then IMO MEDMOS has issues in this respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This is about all what I can say about the article. What I did was simply out of my habit to edit what I read. I don't think I will edit anything else here, since I am not qualified as to the essence. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Advert tag

Please explain the advert tag. The tag is a politely written text, but it is intended to be slapped onto blatant advertising. Currently the article does not contain hype language, nor undue promotion of nonnotable businesses. If you think that an opposing view is not sufficiently presented, you must use some of WP:NPOV tags. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The article is generally well written and it seems EMDR has become an established intervention. I don't see any sections written as an advertisement. I removed the tag until someone can be more specific about to what ~sentences the advertisment claim refers. PizzaMan (♨♨) 09:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph in lead describing past and current views on EMDR

There has been some discussion over how to describe the current status of EMDR in the lead paragraph. Currently, the lead contains a paragraph describing endorsements by several organizations, and then mentioning that the issue has been controversial in the past. This paragraph misrepresents the situation by (a) presenting an appearance of overwhelming support and endorsement for the therapy, when in fact the support is more measured and moderate, and (b) minimizing the past controversy over the treatment's efficacy and the ongoing debate over its mechanisms. This RfC is for the purpose of crafting a more accurate paragraph, free from advocacy and bias. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of these issues have been previously discussed above. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• The article is full of endorsements of the treatment, and description of how it is applied professionally. But there is nothing on why or how it might work. And if the treatment as described does work, why the need for a professional therapist? Thinking about a painful memory while flicking one's eyes from side to side is something anyone could do at home. Maproom (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is obviously a bias in the article, EMDR is quite controversial in the scientific community. However this is not a properly formatted RfC. In fact, it's not an RfC at all, just a comment with the RfC tag slapped onto it. I've had it with being summoned to crap like this. I'm unsubscribing from RfC requests until a procedure is in place where not anyone can and will open an RfC for anything. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Edit: note that the article and it's references does make a case for EMDR becoming more accepted. Note that i studied psychology and heard about emdr back when emdr was laughed at and i didn't update my knowledge in the mean time. As perhaps some other editors here? PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comments and disclaimer: I am no trick cyclist, so, as someone incompetent in the field I am here only in response to the RFC (Though I sympathise with PizzaMan's annoyance, but if we are too sniffy about proper formatting of RFCs then it will be difficult for many editors to express justifiable concerns.) It all sounds very handwavy and placebic to me, but that is nothing I can do much about. Instead the best I can do at present is to suggest a bit of minor rewording. How about this for a start? If you find it a helpful basis to work from, feel welcome, if not, sorry, try someone who knows more about the field, or you can have a more organised go at formulating the RFC.

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a psychotherapy developed by Francine Shapiro[]. It emphasizes disturbing memories as the cause of psychopathology.[1][2] Some practitioners consider EMDR helpful in dealing with the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[3] According to Shapiro, when a traumatic or distressing experience occurs, it may overwhelm normal coping mechanisms, and the memory and associated stimuli are inadequately processed and stored in an isolated memory network.[1]

Supporters of EMDR argue that it assists in processing the distressing memories and allowing the person to develop more adaptive coping mechanisms. It involves having the person recall distressing images while receiving one of several types of bilateral sensory input, including side to side eye movements.[4] EMDR was originally developed to treat adults with PTSD; however, it also has been used in treatment of children and dealing with problem conditions other than PTSD.[5]

Since 2004 the Practice Guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association,[6] the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense,[7] SAMHSA,[8] the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies,[9] and the World Health Organization[10] have included EMDR. In 1999 [11] EMDR is a controversial therapy within the psychological community and its efficacy and underlying mechanism still are under debate.[12]

JonRichfield (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pizzaman and JonRichfield: Would you mind indicating what can be done to make this RfC more effective? I previously tried adding an "expert needed" tag to the article but it proved ineffective. This seemed to be the logical next step to request assistance. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

IP are the organisations mentioned and cited in the article that consider EMDR to be an effective treatment for PTSD just not expert enough for you?

EMDR has been recommended since 2004 as an effective treatment for trauma in the Practice Guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association,[6] the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense,[7] SAMHSA,[8] the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies,[9] and the World Health Organization.[10]

How about those organisations not included in the article, to name just a few, Canadian Psychological Association, British Psychological Society and the Australian Psychological Society that all endorse EMDR for PTSD?. As far as I'm aware virtually all the professional psychological associations/boards in western countries consider EMDR to be a validated treatment for PTSD. As does the Cochrane Collaboration. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My objection is not to the individual sources but to the way the sources are presented and the overall balance of the article. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OK you interpret the listing of the organisations that recommend EMDR as a treatment for PTSD as 'presenting an appearance of overwhelming support and endorsement for the therapy, when in fact the support is more measured and moderate'. I don't interpret it that way. All those organisations listed in the article actually recommend the treatment in a 'measured and moderate manner', they have generally speaking compared EMDR to no treatment at all, and to other treatments (especially trauma focused CBT), and have concluded that EMDR is better than no treatment at all and is generally as effective as trauma focused CBT for PTSD. There's nothing overwhelming about the support for it, there is no magic treatment for PTSD, that approach is reflected in the WHO document. What is overwhelming is that so many organisations and professional boards consider it an effective PTSD treatment.

I agree the article has enthusiastic language in several parts and that should be rewritten. But it is biased in the sense that for a currently validated and accepted treatment, more space is dedicated to the controversies rather than to the evidence that has established it's effectiveness for PTSD. That emphasis is really not minimizing the controversies. But I do agree that exactly how it works is still in debate. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What would improve this RfC would be 1. Boldly make the edits you propose. If someone disagrees with your edits, engage in a dialogue. Try extensively to come to a consensus. 2. If you can't reach consensus, try to clearly define and agree what you disagree on. 3. In the RfC, present two clear options that other editors can vote on by using the agree/disagree tags. Or more options if absolutely necessary. 4. Making a WP account would make a difference for me personally. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Like 73.223.96.73 I am less comfortable with the article than Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd seems to be. I think the tone is a bit POV and am doubtful about the flat claim that the treatment is currently validated and accepted; it seems to me still somewhat controversial, which suggests that demands for more NPOV writing could well be justified. However, the approach also does not seem to be support of clearly unreasonable quackery, and it would not be reasonable to demand that every observation on every topic must share the empirical verifiability of say, elementary mechanics, or we would be extremely unhelpful to nearly all our users, because there is hardly any topic that is totally free of niggle room. I reckon that the best we could do if we cannot immediately word it to suit all parties, would be to flag the article and let it stand while we hold our collective breath awaiting developments in the field. JonRichfield (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on citations to reliable sources. For medical assertions wp:MEDRS describes how to find these. Unless there are such current MEDRS sources to indicate an ongoing controversy (in opposition of Cochrane systematic reviews and other high quality sources), then we have nothing to work with. If someone has found such sources, by all means identify them. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

EMDR is extremely embellished in this article. I am the one who read ::the entire 240-page:: meta-analysis done by the Cochran Collaboration (CC) (Bisson, 2014 - see references on article page), which is one of the most respected independent research groups in the international medical community. In that study, 70 studies were analyzed, comprising a little less than 5,000 participants. Though numerous interventions for PTSD were reviewed, EMDR was heavily analyzed. The CC determined that the evidence quality was very low and that caution should be exercised when interpreting the results. This review done by the CC is important because in the World Health Organization's Guidelines for Treating Stress, which can be found here, it is cited when the guidelines state that there is no "consensus regarding its efficacy." Another meta-analysis I read and cited on the article page (see Lee & Cuipers, 2013) tried to determine if the bilateral stimulation (following the light back and forth with your eyes) had an additive value to the CBT therapy that envelopes it. The meta-analysts stated that they were only able to select 10 studies for analysis because the rest were of such poor quality. However, in the discussion section of that review, the authors admit that the 10 chosen were "less than optimal quality" and "underpowered" their analysis. Translation: the studies were unable to prove anything empirically, at least according to the strictest research standards of the day. Though I am not a medical doctor, I am a licensed clinical mental health counselor practicing and publishing in the field. It is my humble opinion that this entire article needs to be re-worked to bring it closer in line with encyclopedic-style reading and objectivity. The embellishment needs to be removed, and the focus needs to drive more towards what the literature is saying: using it in practice is indeed supported, but its efficacy has not yet been established conclusively; therefore it remains controversial for the time being. Lastly, bear in mind that many organizations who endorse EMDR are in no way involved with determining its efficacy. Researchers determine if a treatment is efficacious, the Veterans Associations, and other similar organizations, do not. They merely review research and try to gage as best they can from it if they will reimburse professionals using. In other words, endorsements from non-research organizations do not equate to proof of treatment effectiveness. It's just how the mental health field is set up right now. I didn't make the rules, I just work here. Urstadt (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite of controversy section

I'm attempting to rewrite the controversy section from a chronological perspective so that it doesn't misrepresent/ignore past criticisms.

This July 2014 version included a new and recent criticism, and the section partially reorganized soon after.

Recently, the section was largely rewritten to repeatedly compare old criticisms with the very latest research. I think a chronological approach could solve the concerns of those edits while not censoring notable viewpoints that may or may not be now out of date. It would probably be best to get help at WP:FTN to see how to address the once fringe theories that are becoming more and more mainstream.

There are notable criticisms since that should be incorporated as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Quickly searching for possible references to add: --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emdr.html - updated April 2011. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/emdr-taking-a-closer-look/ - Dec 6, 2007 --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• http://www.skepdic.com/emdr.html - Looks like minor updates over the past decade. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Rosen, Gerald M; Mcnally, Richard J; Lilienfeld, Scott O (1999). "Eye Movement Magic: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing". Skeptic. 7 (4). - discussed in prev section. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

FTN discussion started here. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone gets to it sooner, I'll make a list of the removed references. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a great deal of information including criticism, research, and theories about the eye movements, enough to justify at least one subsection depending on how it is all organized. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And some of the material removed for juxtaposing historical information with new provides this info with sources. It should be restored chronologically or in another proper context. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Quickly listing the removed references without checking if they are in the article elsewhere in the article: --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Devilly, G.J., & Spencer, S. (1999). The relative efficacy and treatment distress of EMDR and a cognitive behavioral trauma treatment protocol in the amelioration of post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 131-157.DOI: 10.1016/S0887-6185(98)00044-9
• Taylor, S., Thordarson, D. S., Maxfield, L., Fedoroff, I. C., Lovell, K., & Ogrodniczuk, J. (2003). Comparative efficacy, speed, and adverse effects of three PTSD treatments: exposure therapy, EMDR, and relaxation training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.330.
• Bisson, J., Roberts, N.P., Andrew, M., Cooper, R. & Lewis, C. (2013). Psychological therapies for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003388.pub4
• Watts, B.V. et al. (2013). Meta-analysis of the efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74, e541-550. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12r08225
• Gunter, R. W., & Bodner, G. E. (2008). How eye movements affect unpleasant memories: Support for a working-memory account. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 913-931 DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2008.04.006
• van den Hout, M. A., Rijkeboer, M. M., Engelhard, I. M., Klugkist, I., Hornsveld, H., Toffolo, M. J., & Cath, D. C. (2012). Tones inferior to eye movements in the EMDR treatment of PTSD. Behaviour research and therapy, 50(5), 275-279.DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2012.02.001
• van den Hout, Marcel A., and Iris M. Engelhard. "How does EMDR work?." Journal of Experimental Psychopathology 3.5 (2012): 724-738.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5127/jep.028212
• Lee, C. W., & Cuijpers, P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the contribution of eye movements in processing emotional memories. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 44(2), 231-239.DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.11.001
• World Health Organization (2013). Guidelines for the management of conditions that are specifically related to stress. Geneva, WHO. http://www.who.int/mental_health/emergence
• Van Etten, M. L.; Taylor, S. (1998). "Comparative efficacy of treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder: a meta-analysis". Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 5 (3): 126–144. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0879(199809)5:3<126::AID-CPP153>3.0.CO;2-H
• Bradley, R., Greene, J., Russ, E., Dutra, L., & Westen, D. (2005). A multidimensional meta-analysis of psychotherapy for PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(2), 214-227.doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.214
• Watts, B.V. et al. (2013). Meta-analysis of the efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74, e541-550. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12r08225

Again, chronological order appears to be the accepted solution to this. -Ronz (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Still no response? --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz: Please do not remove the studies done by Bisson and associates (2014) and Lee & Cuipers (2013). I am the one who read those reviews and am personally responsible for adding them to this page. I am in total agreement of reworking the section in chronological order, by all means. Just please don't remove them outright. Also, I have hard copies of both articles and can upload them to Google Drive or Dropbox if you would like to peruse them. Thank you. Urstadt (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missed something, but I think the list of references above is still inclusive of everything so far offered that is not currently in the article.

As far as moving forward: The criticisms sourced from Skeptic need to be placed in chronological order with enough context so they make sense. Proper inclusion of the expansion of research into the eye movements and its validation need to be added chronologically as well. Further, there are more recent criticisms that need to be added, with new references. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ronz you have no consensus for these changes, accept that. Stop edit warring, you are currently reverting two editors. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And for the record I'm opposed to your proposed changes for the same reasons as discussed in the previous section Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing#Skeptic_magazine_.28skeptic.com.29_reliable.3F. You insist on using inferior sources and not peer reviewed psychology and psychiatry journals. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the point is to cover the history of the controversy, or the state of the controversy? In the former case, a chronological sequence would make sense. In the latter, a rewrite to remove the antiquated sources (and the statements sourced to them) per wp:MEDDATE would be more useful. A middle road would be to have subsections for Controversy/History and Controversy/Current.

The present melange is chaotic, and clearly has a lot of wp:SYN problems, but there has to be an end goal in sight, not just slash and burn. Once there's agreement on where we are headed, I would suggest that any reorganization edits be purely reorganization, without addition or deletion. Then we can let the page stabilize for a few days prior to tagging obsolete sources for replacement. Substituting the replacement sources for the dated ones should be one edit per source to minimize confusion. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The conflict here is about the sources. I've got no problems with either a chronological or state approach. It is Ronz's stated intention to introduce skeptic sources such as http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emdr.html , http://www.skepdic.com/emdr.html etc that is the problem. These are not peer reviewed. In the previous section on this talk page even when provided with a source from a peer reviewed journal that include exactly the same argument, Ronz still insists on using skeptic.com. I won't revert if the sources are adequate and are representative of the controversy as discussed in psychology journals. Skeptic websites and magazines are inferior sources to peer reviewed journals as per WP:MEDRS. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a rather special case that has been discussed ad nauseum at wp:RSN, but in general yes. That said, a section which is about the controversy rather than the science does need to reflect the places where that controversy plays out while remaining cautious about the credence given to lower quality sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Quackwatch article on EMDR may not be peer-reviewed, but it is based on peer-review research and basic statistics. For example, the author explains that EMDR has yet to pass the "show me" test. While it is true that this statement was not peer-reviewed, per se, any basic, intermediate, and advanced research methods course in a reputable college is going to talk enough about the Show Me test to inform readers. In other words, their education on research methods is enough to tell them that they author is correct in his statement. As a Master's level licensed clinical mental health counselor working in the field and actively involved in research, I can tell you that the author of that article is spot with his review. Especially since other peer-review meta-analysis corroborate the author's claims. Urstadt (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the section in chronological order, including all the sources above (as much as make sense while not violating our content policies). If editors continue to have problems with sources, please take them to WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The opening sentences, "EMDR has generated a great deal of controversy since its inception in 1989. Shapiro was criticised for repeatedly increasing the length and expense of training and certification, allegedly in response to the results of controlled trials that cast doubt on EMDR's efficacy" are a true part of the historical record, yet they lack balance and add a sense of bias if they stand without comment. Thus, I have added, "However, the two articles and statements such as these were rebutted in a review entitled “A critical evaluation of current views regarding eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): Clarifying points of confusion.” In the section “Historical Misinformation, Slurs and Charges of Pseudoscience,” the authors refuted the claims point by point and decried that "scientific debate has begun to degenerate into slurs, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks”.Saturn Explorer (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As I noted, the material needs more context, however, the addition will have to be rewritten or be removed as it is more of the same SYN/NPOV violating content that has plagued this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think the initial sentences violate POV as they are not refuted before my more recent addition--made to add balance. Also, the initial sentences come across as a slur against shapiro. Perkins and Rouanzoin very painstakingly demonstrate how the criticisms about charges for training (based on alleged ineffectiveness) were made on the basis of misrepresentations of then current research. In any event, it should be clear that the issue under discussion is of historic value only since the therapy has been well validated for PTSD during ensuing years as indicated in multiple meta-analyses and also as indicated by the therapy's acceptance by several official bodies, perhaps most notably the WHO.Saturn Explorer (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to be siding with your preferred sources and opinions and want the article to be written from that perspective only. This is the very opposite of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)