Jump to content

Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are some scientific papers done regarding eft and there are scientific evidence for i

[edit]

There has been scientific papers studying EFT and the results show that it is effective for anxiety, ptsd and psychological stress

Disappointed with this Wikipedia article saying that EFT is pseudoscience and placebo. 197.252.213.253 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like? Bon courage (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have citations to provide, then don't just complain that the article is inadequate. Please edit the article and include references to peer-reviewed studies. That is how Wikipedia improves. — Epastore (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically studies that meet WP:MEDRS, which is more stringent than just 'peer-reviewed'. MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 of many reputable research studies made on this subject: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6381429/
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.951451/full
There is no evidence good enough for people who are stuck with "EFT is bullsh*t no matter what the facts show". I think it's sad that people who have the most time to undo everyone else's edits are the ones who get to choose what is included in the article. I will never trust Wikipedia again (let alone make any donations!). 90.215.225.39 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed several times, we don't report on single primary studies, and Church has a massive conflict of interest and published in an unreliable (it is not MEDLINE indexed) journal from a predatory publisher. We can't use this stuff per WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you do: "A primary source is one in which the authors directly participated in the research and documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or supervised those who did. Many papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made."
Church hasn't been involved in many, probably most of the studies on EFT. More examples: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tukimin-Sansuwito/publication/358283585_The_Effect_of_EFT_Emotional_Freedom_Technique_to_the_Self_Esteem_among_Nurses/links/61fb52e8aad5781d41c94f47/The-Effect-of-EFT-Emotional-Freedom-Technique-to-the-Self-Esteem-among-Nurses.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349185541_Emotional_Freedom_Technique_EFT_Therapy_on_Chronic_Kidney_Disease_CKD_Patients_to_Reduce_Fatigue 90.215.225.39 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting the definition given of what we don't use. If you read the rest of the guideline you might have notice the large bolded text reading: Avoid primary sources MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make any sense as any secondary and tertiary sources are based on primary sources in the first place. I don't know why you are so interested in preventing the public from accessing this information. I'd be more worried about the big pharma who are indeed profiteering from people's poor health while EFT can be free or low cost if you work with an EFT therapist (compared to usual treatment which is counselling + being on antidepressants for decades) and much safer. 90.215.225.39 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand the guidelines, feel free to ask questions at WP:TEAHOUSE. But this article is going to follow them even if you think they don't make sense. I am personally interested in keeping Wikipedia in compliance with its sourcing policies. People can 'access this information' on other websites. MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have been providing plenty of citations, they just keep being censored by those who have made of editing Wikipedia to their liking their full time job. It's sad that people cannot find a reliable and unbiased source of information on Wikipedia. 90.215.225.39 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been making lists of stuff that obviously does not meet WP:MEDRS. No amount of unreliable sources adds up to a reliable one. We keep fringe claims in predatory journals out of the encyclopedia for a reason. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a reference you yourself have included, that says it is not a placebo effect. It is not in keeping with guidelines to put references that are innacurate to the body of the text.
it is the 2018 one, the systematic review.
Rather strange for you to be doing this. Why not actually read through what you have given as a reference? ~2026-20316-11 (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability and consistency

[edit]

I noticed some discrepancies within the article. I have now left comments in the talk section, if you or other editors could review them and make the page more reliable and consitent, it would increase the quality of the information provided. There are much more nuanced takes on some other language Wikipedias, where the existing research is evaluated, and not presented such a way. If indeed some editors would like to call it out as a pseudoscience, then presenting a more detailed argument would also benefit them. As it stands, it seems quite obviously one-sided, it just reads as someone trying to vehemently deny any kind of discussion about it. Which makes the contents more suspicious and less trustworthy. There has also been newer research not included in the English language article.

The BBC has also made a news report about it in 2024 and included newer studies that showed effectiveness. ~2026-20316-11 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't do WP:FALSEBALANCE. Bon courage (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
then youneed to follow guidelines for
WP:BESTSOURCES
as you are omitting a significant number of valid credible peer reviewed research, which do not have conflicts of interest. See Talk point: "For future editors of page"
From WP:BESTSOURCE
"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."
-----> "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view."
This article is in clear violation of this guideline. ~2026-20316-11 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage ~2026-20316-11 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BESTSOURCES is wise indeed. We're using some. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For future editors of page

[edit]

Hello, for the future editors of the page I would like you to submit here the following research: --- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2025.112088

"The impact of emotional freedom techniques on anxiety, depression, and anticipatory grief in people with cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review" 2025

This is a paper published by the Journal of Psychosomatic research, included in Academic database of Elsevier

It has Chinese authors, if anybody attempts to claim it is baised because of cultural reasons, however it is a scientific study.

From the journal: Treatment Personalization in Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy

"The Effectiveness of Emotional Freedom Techniques for Depressive Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis" 2024

---

This is perhaps the best and least objectionable one so far:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2025.2538740#abstract

"Effectiveness of a single emotional freedom techniques session on facilitating forgiveness and mental health: a randomized clinical trial" August 2025

"Interpersonal transgressions can cause emotional distress and harm victims’ mental and physical health. This pre-registered clinical trial investigated the effectiveness of Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) in promoting forgiveness and mental health. A sample of 98 adults (91% female, aged 28–72) from Australia and the U.S. self-selected and were randomly allocated to an online EFT intervention or control task. Pre- and post-intervention measures assessed forgiveness, empathy, rumination, mood, and anxiety. Results revealed moderate improvements in most outcomes for the EFT group, suggesting its potential role in fostering forgiveness and psychological recovery. Findings suggest EFT may aid emotional reintegration, reduce stress, and enhance mental wellbeing after interpersonal offenses."

This was **randomised against a control task** meaning that they did even in fact do an alternative testing for a placebo effect** ~2026-20316-11 (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Primary medical research is pretty much useless for Wikipedia; see WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 studies given here, not just one. ~2026-20316-11 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In addition,FYI, a study done in a clinical environment by a neutral party is not a primary source, but a secondary one, as it is investigating the primary source. The primary source is the claim itself.
"A secondary source is one that gives information about a primary source. In a secondary source, the original information is selected, modified and arranged in a suitable format. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." <--- from Wikipedia page on Secondary sources.
It is really unbelievable, an editor for 19 years and you can not tell the difference between a primary and secondary source?
Even though it is clearly stated in your User page? ~2026-20316-11 (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is taken from the WP:MEDRS link that @Bon courage you provided:
"Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results that do not hold in later **clinical trials**."
Later on it is included:
In medicine, primary sources include clinical trials, ***which test new treatments***. In addition to experiments, **primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work**; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive. If challenged, the primary source should be supplemented with, or replaced by, a more appropriate source.
^ a primary source clinical trial puts forward a novel treatment, that is what makes it primary. if it is testing existing treatments it is secondary. It is not the primary first time testing a new treatment, but a clinical trial on an existing treatment that exists in literature already.
The primary source of EFT is any produced by the founder and associated organisations.
Any further testing of the treatment by a third party , is a secondary source.
Example: the original Milgram experiment - primary source. Must be repeated to establish validity and reliability.
Modern repeating of Milgram experiment - secondary source. A secondary source showing that the experiment has vaidity when applied to a modern setting within certain parameteres.
Or, Milgram experiment repeated on doctors - depending on results, valid or invalid when applied to a specific group.
In this instance an existing treatment, EFT, was applied to a specific sub-group of patients in a randomised setting (internal validity) and showed that the method was effective in a small sample group (<100) of patients with a specific conditions.
This is NOT a primary medical source. It is a secondary medical source testing the primary source in a clinical setting on a specific subset of a clinical population. ~2026-20316-11 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
doi:10.1080/23311908.2025.2538740 is a primary source, and so not usable for WP:BMI here. WP:CIR. Bon courage (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&oldid=1357233473"