Split article from Chronic fatigue syndrome per talk. I have kept the dispute tag invocation, only changing which tag it invokes as this is no longer a section but a standalone article. As with more than one split off section, the summary in the main article is in much better shape -- work is needed here. -- Strangelv (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following unsourced edits have been removed from the article. If appropriate citations can be found, the material can be considered, Jagra (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Subsequent studies have shown that CBT is ineffective toward treating CFS. There may be some value in treating any related depression or anxiety. However, researchers have tried to make CFS a psychosomatic disorder when in fact there have been numerous studies proving underlying physiological abnormalities in these patients."

"Subsequent studies have shown GET has no benefit for CFS patients. In fact, patients' symptoms may worsen with aerobic and anaerobic exercise. This may be due to the mitochondrial abnormalities that have been found in patients with this disease. "

I forgot to add a comment with my edit. I found an English summary of the Belgian CBT study, so I added it as a new reference. Also added a comment saying that it used group CBT therapy, which may be less effective than individual therapy. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is your personal (faulty) guesswork and should not be in the article. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typical comment of yours Guido. Are you looking to get banned again? If so, you're going about it the right way. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is typical because you repeat yourself ad nauseam. No other comment applies. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited some of the worst stuff out of several CFS and related articles but there seems no end to the tendentious pov statements, erroneous attributions, selectiveness, utter nonsense, inaccuracies, messes, etc. These articles have only deteriorated since I last looked at them, I am sorry to say. They look more like a warzone than like something encyclopedic. Cleaning up seems a tall order; I'm much inclined to restart from scratch. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the section on CBT for failing NPOV since it makes claims to the effectiveness of this therapy that are not supported by the referenced sources, and when I corrected that, User:Sciencewatcher reverted all corrections. Please reinstate my corrections or find sources supporting the text before removing the template. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would work with other editors instead of just insulting them, perhaps we would not have these problems. I've removed the invalid npov tag. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the tag is explained above without any insult whatsoever. Find sources to support your text, as it is disputed, or allow it to be corrected. Do not remove the template until the issue is resolved. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Which is your personal (faulty) guesswork and should not be in the article" which sounds like an insult to me. It certainly isn't harmonious editing behaviour. And the revert to your other change was because you changed a large chunk but you said you only made "small changes" and you wouldn't explain what you have done, instead insulting me again saying I didn't understand diff. If you have any specific npov issues, please discuss them reasonably and I'll be happy to work harmoniously with you. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. I will be waiting for sources to support your text. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the comment "This study used group CBT therapy, which other studies have shown to be less effective than individual therapy"? If you look at the conclusion of the ref I added it says "Group CBT did not significantly improve ... although such changes have been demonstrated in the literature for individual CBT". Feel free to reword the comment or discuss here what problems you have with it. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you explain why you tagged this as a minor edit when it clearly isn't a minor edit? --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Guido, you need to provide diffs and give a more thorough description of the problem. Verbal chat

I refer to my edit summaries. As a consequence of your reverts, the article now again contains the same unsubstantiated, tendentious statements by Sciencewatcher, in part falsely attributed to sources that say something else entirely, and the tags indicating so have gone. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify with reasons here, thanks. Verbal chat 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done so at the beginning of this thread. There is nothing more to say at this time except that I would appreciate it if nobody would revert disputed text back in or remove indications that it is disputed while the dispute is ongoing. It's up to you to convince me that these statements are neutral and verifiable after all. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Sciencewatcher's statement on the diminshed effectiveness of group CBT. I checked the article (abstract and full text) and it seems to be saying that group CBT was superior to individual CBT on some measures and comparable on others, including the one they defined as overall success. So this particular study doesn't back up the claim in the article; in fact, it is closer to working against it. Mangojuice^talk 14:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the full article: "It is difficult to compare this treatment with individual CBTs for this condition." and "If the definition from [] trial were used, it would appear that the current trial has demonstrated a successful clinical outcome when compared with individual CBTs." (2nd paragraph, pg. 42) Mangojuice^talk 14:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest moving the page to treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome or something similar, but I'm not sure, so I started a discussion at WT:MEDMOS#ME/CFS therapies move. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 11:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far the article has little to do with treatment. These are management therapies and one coping strategy that is not a therapy. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. I'll move it. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinclude ME in the title. With the present title, there is no place in Wikipedia for ME management that does not fall under the header of CFS management, e.g. brain stimulation exercises and dietary regimes. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]