Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: 30 days

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

The content of Bilateral stimulation was merged into Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

broken doi link

The "persistent" identifier for one of the sources in the Effectiveness section, "Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review Update" by Forman-Hoffman et al, is broken:

https://doi.org/10.23970%2Fahrqepccer207

(I wondered whether this was related to DOGE restructuring of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, but it seems the page was already down in July 2024: https://web.archive.org/web/20240712081101/https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/ptsd-adult-treatment-update/research-2018)

Here are a few URLs where the study is still currently available:

Noamz (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is due to AHRQ being a bit crap about their document curation. The document is still available on their site: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/ptsd-adult-treatment-update/research-2018 Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, good to know. Does somebody with edit permissions want to replace the broken link with one or more of the above? Noamz (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Paragraph

Why is the final paragraph of the "Criticism" section part of the article? The rest of that section refers exclusively to academic critique; the website in question is not only unrelated to scientific reception and criticism, it is also satirical and makes no definitive criticism (e.g. saying that EMDR's bilateral eye movement procedure makes it a purple hat therapy), only vague disapproval from an unreliable source. I can see mention of the websie being relevant somewhere else in the article, but I believe it should not be conflated with genuine critique of EMDR. As it stands, it makes the criticisms seem one paragraph longer than they actually are to the casual observer. Amateur Truther (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research in Human Cognitive Neuroscience

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2025 and 9 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ceceiliapetta (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Berebriz13 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed protection

I discovered this article was XC protected as a result of the student assignment in the previous section. As far as I can tell, it was a consequence of this AE decision back in August 2023.

Looking that the talk page, I don't see any immediate problems, and I was wondering if it might be worth revisiting. Pinging Courcelles as the admin who made the protection decision. Guettarda (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, noticed that Courcelles hasn't edited in almost a year. Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]