Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 1

message: I am not convinced that this article should be in category:psychiatry and category:mental health as well as category:psychotherapy, category:clinical psychology and category:psychology. I have therefore removed it from categories mental health and psychiatry. Are there any objections? --Vincej 09:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Dear Folks,
This article starts with claims, (as if we are talking about quackery). The article on psychotherapy starts with intends.
Psychotherapy is a set of techniques intended to improve mental health, emotional or behavioral issues of individuals, group, or family interactional climates. 
How about we just use intends in the description, and leave accusations to the section on controversy?
::Good idea. DPetersontalk 12:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims

message: Please read the following: http://www.perkinscenter.net/page2.html
Kind Regards,
Ben Meijer 11:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Research for both sides

message: I propose that the following sentence be deleted if no one can provide a reference: Although the technique has been substantiated through repeated studies and meta-analyses, some in the field of psychology claim that it is non-falsifiable, asserting it should not have scientific status.  DPetersontalk 12:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that.  The section should be delted if no citation can be provided.  JonesRDtalk 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that makes sense.  I've deleted it...if anyone disagrees with my action, please let me know so we can discuss it.  RalphLendertalk 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. DPetersontalk 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The edits that DPeterson just added ("The long-term effects are still under study, with evidence of a deterioration in gains and relative inefficacy compared to well-practiced" and "The technique has been doubted compared to other treatments through meta-analysis and some claim that it is non-falsifiable") do not sound NPOV to me - they sound POV biased *against* EMDR. Kat, Queen of Typos 20:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find that DPeterson only made one edit and did not make the changes you are suggesting. (I'd first thought you were addressing me...sorry about that) Whomever added those also attached a citation.  If the citation/reference supports the statement, then it meets the Wikipedia verifiable standard and should stay.  However, if you find those citations and find that the articles do not support the statements, please note that here and then you should either delete and/or edit the statements. JonesRDtalk 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, my bad... the ones Devilly made. Kat, Queen of Typos 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete sentence if no citations are provided

message: The following in the beginning paragraph should either be better sourced or deleted:
The fact that EMDR appears to be similar to classic exposure therapy dressed up with unnecessary finger wagging lead to Harvard University psychology professor Richard McNally's classic statement on EMDR: "What is effective is not new. What is new is not effective."
If there is disagreement with my actions, I will replace the deletion pending further discussion here.  OK? JohnsonRon 14:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV? Delete sections or provide citations

message: I am not good with Wikipedia citations, but someone needs to remove the citations from the article body and place them in footnotes.  They are seriously impairing the readability of the article. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I've given up helping on this page. I have many scientific publications on this topic and know the research very well. Changes I made (backed with references) have been removed, references to any views other than that which will further the goals of EMDRIA (the company) have been deleted, any edits made by anyone suggesting that there is doubt on the method, it's utility, scientific standing (and even history of how it was 'discovered') have been neatly expunged and there is now a messianic cult feeling to the whole page. Is this really the point of Wikipedia? I think you'll find it isn't. Grant 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading Like A Sermon 

message: After searching Google, the only reference, period, to "Mortal Research Institute" is on this Wikipedia article.  Is it possible the name of the institute is incorrect? Kat, Queen of Typos 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're after: "Mental Research Institute, Palo Alto". I would correct it myself but, knowing a thing or two about EMDR, it seems it might be a conflict of interest ;-) Grant 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sarcasm is unnecessary. I refer to where you said "Why certainly - I'd be only too happy. I've put some of my papers (published in Tier 1 and 2 Journals) on a website for you to download." Kat, Queen of Typos 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mortal Research Institute?

message: I am not sure how - can someone fix reference 17? The URL near the end of the page, in the References column, stretches from column 1 across column 2 and makes it hard to read. Kat, Queen of Typos 11:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix reference 17