This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Alternative views This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It's surprising to me that this article on representing doesn't mention any of the controversial times that proponents of this method have caused the abuse or death of the patients they were treating. This seems like important information to add to the article. FPTI (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Currently all references in this article are from the 20th century. I will look for and add some more current references. FPTI (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I added a multiple issues template to this article. Issues I see with it include: no mention of the controversial nature of the therapy (it is described by the APA glossary as "controversial"), uncritically citing a single study with very small sample size as an indication of its efficacy, many instances of awkward phrasing, assertions of fact without citations provided, describing the method of therapy as "mechanism" in the subheader, etc. Overall the article is, I think, unbalanced in that it intentionally presents the therapy as one that has been proven to be effective (it has not been) and without controversy or risks (it is not), and elides factual contextual information that would cast it in an unfavorable light. As other comments on this talk page reference, it is lacking in modern references and important information. I think a serious overhaul of the page is needed, as I see major issues in every single section. ~2025-35295-25 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply