The statement you reverted was: According to proponents, PLR has produced dramatic, rapid and permanent improvements in some clients who had spent years in conventional therapy.Woolger, Roger, Other Lives, Other Selves: a Jungian psycho-therapist discovers past lives, New York: Doubleday, 1987, ch 1, p. 15. ISBN 0385237162. The book cited is by a PLR practitioner (a Jungian psychotherapist) that has been published in 5 English editions, notably Doubleday and Bantam, plus German (Hugendubel) and Spanish. 

So how is this not a reliable source for the statement of what PLR practitioners claim PLR has done? This should be regardless of your opinion whether the claim is correct. There are also counter claims about the efficacy of PLR which should be included in the article, for example: M Schröter-Kunhardt (1996). Reinkarnationsglaube und Reinkarnationstherapie: Eine transpersonale Fiktion. Transpersonale Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 67-83 reprint. (Belief in reincarnation and reincarnation therapy: a transpersonal fiction).

I think this article needs to be balanced but the source you are objecting to is a reliable source for what PLR practitioners claim, which is all that the sentence states.