265:. There is one peer reviewed study in a major academic journal, (showing that EFT produced significant reductions in phobias to small animals): Wells, S., Polglase, K., Andrews, H., Carrington, P., & Baker, A.H. (2003). “Evaluation of a Meridian-Based Intervention, Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), for Reducing Specific Phobias of Small Animals”. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59 (9). 943-966. The implication is that EFT has been considered serious enough for academic researchers to be the subject of at least one well designed study.
364:. The subject of the article is notable for its popularity among psychotherapists and the general public even if it is not notable as a topic of scientific research. I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape though. I think the best route to take is to trim the article substantially, and find sources from the popular press to establish its notability. Also,
294:(it's pejorative), but it applies here. The "professional literature about psychotherapeutic methods" is generally indexed on PubMed, yet there's nothing except the one small study from 4 years ago. The rest of the refs are self-published by people who sell EFT books and DVD's. Again, not enough to establish notability or build a good article,
317:
Pubmed is only a database covering journal articles with formal empirical studies. Outside Pubmed there exist a large literature where therapists develop concepts and methods, discuss the field and similar matters. These books are written by professionals for other professionals in the field and not
274:
And by the way, EFT does not purport to be a science. It is a newly developed technique that shows workable empirical results when used in practice. Absence of rigourous large scale studies proving the effects of a method is not enough to delete an article describing an emerging practice based
250:
for the moment. This article is too long and promotionally detailed. Perhaps cut it in half and expand reference sources. I do not think an article on this subject has to be "all scientific" but rather descriptive if the subject is notable and popular. I am unfamiliar with EFT except for minor
251:
exposure from working on the
Mercola article. This sounds somewhat different - are there substantially different EFT versions or is Mercola's newsletter a more circumspect summary? Also I would expect an attempt to address any claims/connection on "psychoneuroimmunology", pro and con.--
318:
for the wider audience. That’s where you can find references to EFT (which should be used in this article). I can agree that the article needs more references and a more NPOV. (And by the way, disliking something is not a valid argument in a deletion debate either
224:
2. The article is not simply a list of promotional web sites, although a link to the man who developed it is promotional in the same way that a link to
Microsoft is to a promotional site. As it happens, much editing has been done by people hostile to
270:
In the professional literature about psychotherapeutic methods, EFT is mentioned as one of several emerging techniques. And yes, these references should be here in the WP article but their absence does not mean that the article should be
347:
and Talk. It is pretty rough writing but it is meant as a starting point for more encyclopedic coverage. I think that AfD is permature without a good faith attempt to try to add notable coverage from outside the mainstream medical
463:, remove detailed claims , edit generally, & clarify that the originator has no formal qualifications. Thee is also no information either in this article on the one on Craig about the background of his mentor, Dr. Callahan.
132:). References to "research" in the article almost all lead to the same commerical site - other than the one PubMed article, cannot find any peer-reviewed research on this theory. Without a peer-reviewed research base or other
228:
3. If EFT were not notable, then there would not be so many people actively using it (which they do, incidentally, because it works even if we do not know why). There are much sillier things on
Knowledge
397:
255:
352:
123:"Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual."
110:
83:
78:
87:
70:
429:
466:
442:
Thank you for the legwork... those are all good sources. All 3 range from moderately to strongly critical of TFT/EFT, so I suppose if the verdict is
278:
To claim that something is "fringe" when one does not understand it or have knowledge about the literature could be construed as – well – arrogant.
204:; it's impossible to build a solid, NPOV article on a scientific topic based on 1 small peer-reviewed article and a bunch of promotional websites.
179:
mainstream publication which does not make sense. The way I read it, one respectable peer reviewed reference is enough, and EFT has at least one.
171:(I seem to remember this article has been voted on before) The policy above is poorly worded because taken literally it suggests you need
514:
17:
74:
495:
133:
520:
502:
482:
450:
380:
326:
302:
282:
238:
208:
183:
161:
148:
52:
373:
365:
66:
58:
535:
36:
221:
1. Why impossible? There is no logic there. Especially since even ONE peer reviewed article carries a lot of weight.
478:
534:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
319:
140:, the article can't progress beyond its current promotional/advertising state, and topic is non-notable per
235:
180:
403:
369:
415:
Can We Really Tap Our
Problems Away? A Critical Analysis of Thought Field Therapy (Skeptical Inquirer)
499:
426:
377:
295:
491:
291:
141:
118:
49:
232:(How do I know it works? Because I used it to cure someone of fear of spiders in a few minutes.)
419:
414:
126:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
409:
410:
Assessment of the
Emotional Freedom Technique (Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice)
137:
158:
201:
474:
447:
394:
349:
299:
252:
205:
145:
323:
279:
104:
517:
157:
as per the reasoning of the author, unless more decent sources can be found.
129:
470:
372:. Maybe we can look to that article for ideas as to how to improve the
393:
of the notability from other sources, it would aid the AfD nicely.--
528:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
200:
1 peer-reviewed article. One PubMed hit doesn't make something
344:: MC, I have suggested an editorial approach, see the article
125:). One (1) hit on PubMed for "emotional freedom techniques" (
345:
100:
96:
92:
420:
Unorthodox
Therapy in New Orleans Raises Concern (NPR)
446:, the article should be rewritten to reflect that.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
538:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
368:is a derivation of, and quite similar to,
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
496:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (science)
490:This discussion has been added as a
24:
117:Non-notable fringe theory per
1:
521:15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
503:07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
483:23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
451:17:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
430:15:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
398:08:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
381:03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
374:Emotional Freedom Techniques
366:Emotional Freedom Techniques
353:06:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
327:09:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
303:22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
290:: I don't like the title of
283:22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
256:15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
239:11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
209:17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
184:10:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
162:19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
149:19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
67:Emotional Freedom Techniques
59:Emotional Freedom Techniques
53:18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
402:Ok, here are some from the
298:arguments notwithstanding.
555:
494:to the proposed guideline
531:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
197:referenced extensively
469:comment was added by
404:Thought Field Therapy
370:Thought Field Therapy
389:I would appreciate
119:WP:FRINGE#Guidance
505:
486:
236:Man with two legs
181:Man with two legs
546:
533:
489:
464:
195:: I interpreted
138:reliable sources
108:
90:
34:
554:
553:
549:
548:
547:
545:
544:
543:
542:
536:deletion review
529:
500:trialsanderrors
465:—The preceding
427:WatchAndObserve
378:WatchAndObserve
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
552:
550:
541:
540:
524:
523:
507:
506:
487:
456:
455:
454:
453:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
424:
423:
422:
417:
412:
384:
383:
358:
357:
356:
355:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
320:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
308:
307:
306:
305:
276:
272:
267:
266:
259:
258:
244:
243:
242:
241:
233:
230:
226:
222:
218:
217:
211:
187:
186:
175:references to
165:
164:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
551:
539:
537:
532:
526:
525:
522:
519:
516:
512:
509:
508:
504:
501:
497:
493:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
462:
458:
457:
452:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
431:
428:
425:
421:
418:
416:
413:
411:
408:
407:
405:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
385:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
354:
351:
346:
343:
340:
339:
338:
337:
328:
325:
321:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
286:
285:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
268:
264:
261:
260:
257:
254:
249:
246:
245:
240:
237:
234:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
215:
212:
210:
207:
203:
198:
194:
191:
190:
189:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
128:
124:
120:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
530:
527:
510:
460:
443:
390:
361:
341:
287:
262:
247:
213:
196:
192:
176:
172:
168:
154:
122:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
348:journals.--
134:independent
296:WP:ILIKEIT
513:per this
492:test case
406:article:
376:article.
292:WP:FRINGE
159:J Milburn
142:WP:FRINGE
479:contribs
467:unsigned
448:MastCell
391:examples
300:MastCell
271:deleted.
206:MastCell
199:as : -->
146:MastCell
130:12945061
111:View log
395:I'clast
350:I'clast
342:Comment
324:MaxPont
288:Comment
280:MaxPont
275:method.
253:I'clast
248:Abstain
214:Comment
202:notable
193:Comment
173:several
84:protect
79:history
50:W.marsh
518:Addhoc
515:search
229:(XXG).
155:Delete
88:delete
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
511:Keep
475:talk
461:keep
444:keep
362:Keep
263:Keep
169:Keep
136:and
127:PMID
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
498:. –
471:DGG
322:).
225:EFT
177:one
109:– (
481:)
477:•
144:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
485:.
473:(
459:'
216::
121:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.