Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Summary of editor blocks for breach of Arbcom, sockpuppet and meatpuppet use

Summary of case, including useful links and quotes

HeadleyDown was a large scale sockpuppeteer, who seriously degraded the Neuro-linguistic programming article with virulent POV warfare and heavy duty personal attack between Summer 2005 - June 2006. The final decision is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming (February 2006). As of 6 June 2006, all POV editors identified in that Arbcom request have been identified as closely connected sock puppets, meatpuppets or sock pupeteers.

BLOCKS BY MENTORS, SINCE ARBCOM RULING

HeadleyDown blocks:

• HeadleyDown editing as "Camridge" - blocked 13 Feb (1 hr), blocked 14 Feb (3 hrs), blocked 24 march (24 hr), blocked 22 may (indefinite, sock)
• HeadleyDown editing as "AliceDeGrey" - blocked 18 April (24 hr), blocked 5 June (indefinite, sock)
• HeadleyDown editing as "HansAntel" - blocked 6 May (24 hr, later shortened), blocked 5 June (indefinite, sock)
• HeadleyDown editing as "Bookmain" - blocked 15 May (24 hr), blocked 5 June (indefinite, sock)
• HeadleyDown editing as himself - blocked 5 March (1 hr), blocked 2 May (48 hr), blocked 5 June (indefinite, sockmaster)

Also blocked (and in many cases suspected to be sockpuppets of HeadleyDown):

• "Flavius vanillus" - blocked 15 Feb (1 hr), 15 feb (6 hrs), 26 feb (24 hrs), 26 feb (extended 48 hrs), 26 Feb (extended again 1 wk), 1 April (2 wks), 2 April (indefinite block)
• "JPLogan" - blocked 5 March (12 hrs), 17 April (indefinite, confirmed to be a sock)
• "DaveRight" - blocked 23 March (3 hr), 23 march (24 hr), 17 April (indefinite, confirmed to be a sock)
• "Medius Maximus" - blocked 17 April (indefinite, confirmed to be a sock)
• "Addsquad" - 18 April (indefinite, confirmed to be a sock)
• "LemonMnM" - 24 April (indefinite, confirmed to be a sock)
• "Oblio Yu HK" - 24 April (indefinite, confirmed to be a sock)
• "Figleaf Riverdance" - 24 April (indefinite, confirmed to be a sock)
• "Superkyewl" - 24 April (indefinite, confirmed to be a sock)

(See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans)

ARBCOM ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

1) If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked ... After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. (Passed 9-0) WP:RFArb/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Enforcement

user:HeadleyDown has been blocked by mentors 8 times since Arbcom under his own name and various sockpuppets. It is likely most of the other socks were also him, in which case it could be up to around 20 times.

ARBCOM AND MENTOR COMMENTS

• user:David Gerard] states "There may be other throwaway socks involved, email me if you have a list. Unfortunately, they guy is on an ISP with fast-changing DHCP addresses..."

• user:Katefan0 stated to user:HeadleyDown: "A recent checkuser [1] indicates that you and Camridge are editing from the same IP. I anticipate that you will protest that you and Camridge are indeed different people who happen to live in the same place and have the same interests. I find this argument unconvincing -- two sarcastic friends at a Hong Kong university with perfect English and enormous NLP libraries, AND a bias against NLP, AND you found your way to Wikipedia within a month of one another. Not to mention all the other sockpuppetry that's come out of a certain Hong Kong university just recently. So I'll be blunt: which account would you like to use going forward? The other will be blocked."

• user:Woohookitty, the last mentor to resign, stated on WP:RFCU: "I am a mentor on the Neuro-linguistic programming. The above 4 seem to be working together to try to get around the restrictions put upon them by the NLP arbcom decision. Essentially, one of the non affected people is reverting and then the affected people are editing. Any help would be appreciated."

• user:Katefan0, another resigned mentor, commented on LemonMnM, Oblio Yu HK, Figleaf Riverdance and Superkyewl: "Hong Kong sockfarm checkuser'ed and blocked"

Posted for the record. FT2 (Talk) 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

HeadleyDown statement

Comment by HeadleyDown on being blocked: "Well, its interesting how many facts are going to be deleted now. And how many will return in future:) Its only a matter of sending the info to the right editor." [2]

Whoa!, Headley-on-Down, probably a master trainer of NLP, one of the only people that can even write anything on NLP, is being taken down like a criminal, just becasue idiots(correct use of the term btw - the ignorant), furiously, in a fit of rage, refute and edit his/her posts using tamed words and sockpuppet missions. Clearly, stating facts about the teachings of NLP are not a 'POV' besides from the view of someone who has learnt something. Hello? Is this a news forum or an encyclopedia? Put simply, the culture here at wiki, needs to be addressed. If you sockmusketeers put your weapons down, HeadlyDown wouldnt have needed to make all those accounts to get the non-subjective-truth out, Ie Facts. Structure might change the culture. Its up to you, the user, to do something about it. If you are happy with people being conformists, start a conformity society.. Everyone is just ganging up and writing chronicals about witches in the NLP section. There is too much guilty by association still, see: McCarthyism. Fix IT.

Comment to sceptics society (if any others are asking)

I have posted this on user:Helen Wu's talk page:

Hi to both User:Antaeus Feldspar and User:Helen Wu. I doubt much I say will make any difference. However, here to clarify is why the HK sockfarm / sceptics place was banned:

Wikipedia has rules and policies. Those rules govern, inter alia all personal conduct, and approaches to articles. Because of the nature of the internet, they also govern when and how a user may be removed for suspected accounts, or for multiple editors working together in a manner that blocks proper functioning of Wikipedia, even if by chance they are different individuals sharing computers. You may not like this, but each place has its rules, and those were spelled out over a very long period of time, and at many levels. They were spelled out by numerous individuals, personally and on the article, by mediation, by arbitration, by mentorship, and ultimately, by removal.

The users named have been blocked not because of a sudden desire by a number of editors and mediators (most of whom had no prior interest in NLP) to take a side. In fact they were not formally removed until the mediators tired of their knowing improper conduct, after many months of work by 3rd parties who feel their time was wasted. That's how life goes: - in a communal work, no individual is indispensible, and those who do not learn, tend to ultimately discover this. I'm told it's a bit of a shock. They were removed because, simply put, they did not learn how to write in accordance with an encyclopedic style. they were removed for "warfare", vandalism, invention of false facts, deletion of valid sourced material, persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards, breaches of sockpuppet policy first notified to them over 8 months ago and not rectified in that time, running of one of the largest sockpuppet/meatpuppet groups of 2005 (WP:SOCK refers), and virulent personal attacks. Most of these things had little to do with the content they were writing.

(Incidentally, several of them were the same individual, not just the same computer. That's been confirmed a number of ways. No I don't plan to clarify, just to say, "do you think this is the first time it's happened here"? Again, ask Headley)

Anyhow, it's done. This is written, on the off chance there are genuine individuals who wonder why the bans happened. Now you know. FT2 (Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I also wrote on her talk page. The thing that the anti side never quite got is that meatpuppets are as against policy as sockpuppets. There is no distinction between the 2. And all of the anti side...every single user...really only edited this article. And from the same university (most were anyway). And the same club. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes... the same many things. There was a lot more than that to point to WP:SOCK violations.

I have also posted a note on the other articles this cabal have edited, so other bona fide editors can begin assessment and cleanup if affected, and be aware if they return: Principles of NLP, Richard Bandler, Dianetics, Engram (neuropsychology), Modeling (NLP), Scientology, Neurofeedback, Wikipedia:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods, as well as reverting vandalism and deleted categories and links on a few others. I can't judge how bad each was hit, but if the editrs are aware, they'll edit as they see fit. FT2 (Talk) 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Going forward

The last mentor (user:Woohookitty) has just resigned mentorship.

Going forward, and the last current major sockpuppeteer banned. The article may therefore be able to be worked on, hopefully without too much disruption by further sockpuppetry.

Two things seem obvious:

• Much of the last years editing has produced a mix of information. A lot has been dug up, but the article, its structure, format, bias, slant and reliability, is completely questionable, since so many sockpuppets of HeadleyDown worked on it in that time, and because much dubious information and slanting was forced into it.
• None the less, some valuable information has come out, and this should not be ignored just because it was presented by POV warfare editor/s. Indeed much valuable sourcing has been obtained too. The problem is, is this really representative of the subject? It seems from research, to be a minority view, not a majority one. It's certainly cited in a non-neutral way (ie selective sourcing for effect).

I am going to edit the page to at least revert some of the blatent stuff. then I suspect we will have to evaluate what we have from before the vandalism, bona fide material removed during vandalism, and valuable or questionable information obtained in that time, to try and construct an article that is representative of the field.

I therefore suggest that we resist the urge to revert everything, and limit ourselves to carefully editing clear POV statements for now (which there will be a lot of) rather than rewriting it all and adding too much new material without thought. The damage is simply too pervasive. We can deal with the obvious... then we need to look hard and discuss a bit maybe.

Comments? FT2 (Talk) 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there has been information added that seems valuable to the understanding of NLP, and at the same time it the entire 1st section is so strongly POV in structure that it should definitely be reverted. Perhaps there's a way we can not delete the information which has been added, but move the bulk of all criticisms to the criticism section, while reverting most of the rest of the article.

Once the criticism is properly sectioned, we can go over what is validly sourced, and appropriate and what's fringe POV and redundant. And then add the appropriate criticism to the appropriate section, if need be. In anycase, since A) There remains at least one more sock introduced in the last week or two and B) He'll be back, I think it's important to move boldly and decisively in the immediate future to create a NPOV article, rather than be in the middle of removing bits and pieces when the sock puppets arrive again. Let the sock puppets have to battle to make the changes rather then have us battle to remove the POV and slanting. At least, those are my thoughts. Doc Pato 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Question in that case. I've much done as you suggest (we seem to agree), and moved the POV to the crit section or cleaned it up. But in fact almost nothing of NLP itself is left, the article it turns out, was about 80% +/- POV warfare. Would it be better to find the best previous version we can, reinstate, and then look for valid material from the last 9 months to add back? Its a huge POV pile here right now. FT2 (Talk) 02:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I do think the criticism is important and healthy to have. Further having valid, properly sourced criticism should assist in stemming other similarly motivated POV attacks. It just deserves to be in it's proper place so the reader can get a clearer less distorted picture of the phenomenon of NLP and make their own decision. Your suggestion is probably the best course of action at the moment given the distress of the article. The valid material will still be accessable and we can cut and paste it into the criticism section as need be for review. Doc Pato 02:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with FT2 and Doc Pato. I'd prefer to salvage the article, but am open to the idea of reverting to a time when the document was stable. To salvage the article from its current state woud require alot of work and major restructure, and we'd need to deal with the following issues:

• Opinions in the current article are asserted as fact, sources are misrepresented, and minority views currently framed as the significant majority. For example, the overview starts with a assertion from "Hunt, a sociologist...", if we were to characterise the biases we could write, "Stephen Hunt, a sociologist who writes on Christian perspectives in sociology.." This would need to be done in small stages, rather than removing POV we'd expand it so that it is identified as such, or so that the biases of the sources are clearly identified. This can be applied neutrally to the views of proponents and critics. --Comaze 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree Comaze. In an ideal scenerio, surgical clean up would be the best option. However, again, these banned socks aren't likely to stop the hardcore POV warrioring we've witnessed. Such an effort would be hijacked again within a matter of days. Progress on creating a NPOV article would be slowed dramatically. Reverting is unusal and shouldn't be used lightly, however this is an unusal case. I don't believe any other Wiki article has been so throughly and persistantly attacked by POV warrroring, and therefore such a situation is just cause for action of this nature.

I propose we move forward with the revert unless there's an legitimate policy based objection from an editor who has been working on this article (in order to having progress thwarted by new socks coming into play). Doc Pato 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some sample revert versions? (link + date) I'd like more than 1 or 2; we can easily handle a few and discuss their merits, probably quite quickly. FT2 (Talk) 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Was there ever a good version of this article? I can see other critics point from earlier articles which seemed POV in the other direction. Here' one Reversion Link, but it too needs some work.

Another option: What about appending the scientific analysis sections, and the criticism section to the Principles_of_NLP page.... then merging it into this article, replacing this articles content entirely?

That way the bulk of criticism remains and there's something decent to work with? Either way, the revert or this works. Doc Pato 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep it clean. Keep "principles" as principles, with criticisms only of actual principles. NLP and science has its own artticle being developed, which will cover that controversy. Realistically, criticism will end up in the main article, linked to History of NLP (in respect of lack of control, charlatans etc), and linked to NLP and science (in respect of scientific views and criticisms), as well as anything that doesn't fit into either. Those are the main 2 areas of criticism. Sounds sensible? :) FT2 (Talk) 18:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Other suggestion how to get a decent article:

Skim through the history (It started getting vandalized between June 2005 - Sept 2005 for the record), and pick out sections and snippets that look good. Merge the material you find into a new "empty" workshop version. That way 3 things: (1) We will create a good structure and version as we go, (2) we aren't tied to "one version" as "the best so far", (3) we can respect different people's input and views better as to what's good content. It'll be slightly long, but refactoring, adding cites, and cleanup, is easy compared to rewriting, and we can then see the best of what various editors added at different times.

Would folks like to try that, in preference to a "find a single best version to revert to"? FT2 (Talk) 07:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Errrr the more I look at the older versions, the more reversion seems to be an equal amount of work. That being said, I have no objection. I just don't see any version that's particualrly worthy. I've taken the liberty of making a number of structural edits as well as merging from other NLP articles. I'll continue to do so when I've time. If anyone has any objections or corrections, unless their fundemental, I'd suggest for the moment just doing it.

The only thing I noticed about some of the merged material, while more accurate, it's not sourced very well. Citiations and sourcing are going to be the big issue I think. Doc Pato 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm steering a little clear as all these changes go forward. I commend everyone, things are looking far far better. For the next few days there'll be very little change that isn't fundamentally better than what was there before...so we're likely to agree quite well.

The article has also been missing some pretty important NLP info too - maybe you've already added it (I'll try to catch up soon). For instance, HeadleyDown removed info and quotes we had from NLP books in favour of his sources, which skewed what was being said - so we're lacking some of those really fundamental references. He also removed the valid criticism of variation in NLP training (and made NLP appear to be a single standard), which made it easier to find a bad training and tar NLP generally with the same brush. Anyway.. all good things :) Greg 09:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the background - I just noticed a few typos and grammar that needs to be copyedited. It now includes something about the difference in quality of NLP training as you suggest. You could also add a little about the various standards associations, and training associations - this is a common criticism in the literature. Based on the today changes, I'd like to see if we could just import snippets of the best versions of the article, and merge the best parts of the sub articles. We've got megabytes of archived text to draw upon. --Comaze 09:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See my draft approach at Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Reconstruction. This is slow and painstaking, so lets get a decent version up. But its a way to try not to lose the best of what was created. I reviewed about 30 versions to find what seemed to be plausible approaches to the intro. The same could be done for other sections. Not sure if this is a sensible way. Might be best to pick one semi-decent version and then tinker. The last decent version before POV warfare seems to be this, dated May 18 2005 (first two suspect named editors D.Right and EBlack joined the article 17-18 May, may have been IP-only editor issues before but minimal). Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Focus on objectivity

Psychology is the most subjective of all sciences and therefore I ask everyone to keep an open mind towards NLP as a science, as the aim of Wikipedia should be to provide neutral and objective information rather than articles based on bigotry and partisanship.

NLP is the antithesis of traditional psychology (modeling extreme cases of mental illness and searching for causation) as NLP models people with the ability to do something extremely well in order to map how such 'healthy thinking' can be reproduced by other people. Therefore, supporters of traditional psychology have a serious conflict of interests that makes it impossible for them to contribute without bigotry or partisanship in some form or another. However, while traditionalists may be incompetent in contributing to writing an objective and informative article about NLP, they are more than qualified to review the text to ensure the neutrality of the wordings.

I know that there has been a lot of sabotage on the NLP page, but more or less anal argumentation against NLP by supporters of conventional psychology should be considered destructive sabotage as well. The discussion about whether NLP should be recognized as science or not belongs in foot note form only, as everything beyond "NLP has been criticized for lack of merits and some supporters of traditional psychology refuse to recognize NLP as science" is completely useless for the Wikipedia visitor who is searching for objective information about NLP and not intellectual masturbation by the academia.

NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago; it is a new approach that will never get a fair peer review, because there is no real peer reviewers as long as the already recognized scientific peer is entrenched with bigotry and partisanship to support the exact opposite thesis.

In order of relevance, a neutral article about NLP should contain points about a) WHAT is NLP, b) HOW does NLP theory differ from traditional psychological theory, and c) is NLP RECOGNIZED as a cognitive science. The last point is the closest to irrelevant and please note that it asks whether NLP is recognized as science, not whether it is a science.

Sorry for the long rant, but I just wanted to contribute with my view on how the new NLP article can be better structured.

Thomas

Hi Thomas. It is true that Psychology and NLP have different goals, methodology, & support 'infrastructure'. NLP does not teach the scientific method in any way, nor the statistical procedures associated with it in Psychology. And there's no career path associated with such research for someone in NLP. However, it is possible for Psychologists to write an objective article about NLP, though they'll have their own filters as to their understanding. Druckman & Swets talk about NLP studies, but then almost exclusively focus on PRS. Many people who know a little about NLP think of Swish, Anchors, Embedded commands - they don't consider the Metamodel or Intention & 6-step reframes.

Psychological testing of NLP patterns is certainly possible, and has been done. However, within Psychology and Psychotherapy there exists already a 'chasm' between "counsellors" and "researchers" - problems such as making the environment too artificial for an intervention to be effective. Anyway, many NLP patterns are as testable as CBT interventions, but Psychologists are taught CBT and are much more prepared to test it. Their tests are less controlled than traditional tests and show an overall result after CBT interventions. We have 6 such tests of NLP indexed in Medline with similar positive results, but they are not as controlled as the CBT tests are, and this is a problem.

Anyway, I do agree that psychologists are likely to approach NLP from a Psychological viewpoint, and that means there interpretation may be skewed. However, we can represent that POV, and represent the differences in NLP and Psychology, to clarify these things rather than make them murkier. Greg 01:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Greg,

I am not a psychologist nor am I an NLP practitioner. I am a relatively ordinary person. I say relatively ordinary, because I see challenging authority and questioning status quo as a way of life :)

I know you would like to hang your hat on the scientific method, but using the generally accepted definiton of science and even the dictionary definitions of science, then the scientific method is not necessarily the litmus test of science, but science is just as much systematically collecting and organizing knowledge as an object of study. It may be that NLP does not fit into a conservative interpretation of the scientific method, but is cognitive science not a science? Is cognitive science a bullet proof example of strict adherence to the scientific method?

The Wikipedia "cognitive science" article mentions three levels of analysis; behavioral, functional, and physical. NLP is based on modelling and simulation on the behavioral and functional levels because it is focused on finding out what works (output/behavior) and how it works (processes/functionality) rather than why it works (physical/organic mechanisms). NLP is based on presuppositions derived from observations on the behavioral and functional levels as it recognizes that insufficient knowledge and technology is currently available to give definitive answers to how and why the brain works on the physical level. Would it be more scientific if NLP was purely based on assumptions that cannot yet be proven right or wrong?

The original goal of Richard Bandler and John Grinder was to create new and improved tools for cognitive therapy, but rather than seeing NLP as a supplement or a potential optimization of traditional cognitive therapy it was seen as a direct competition. If you go through NLP literature you will see plenty of references to NLP as a set of tools, but I doubt you will find anybody claiming that NLP is all-including psychology.

Considering that psycology therapists are human beings like the rest of us, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that they are just as susceptible to the 'resistance to change phenomenon' as everybody else. Therefore, the lack of objective 'scientific' studies of NLP supports that it may be more the rule than the exception that neurology and psychology scientists are in bed with each other. This also explains why there is 'no career path' or rather 'no recognized career path' in main-stream science as NLP supporters have been pushed out in the cold by the incumbents and have had to establish their own parallel universe with education framework, peer review, and career paths - I suggest you do an internet search for 'NLP university', 'NLP training', and 'NLP certification' which will show you a corner of that parallel universe ;)

I can reccomend this article by Jaap Hollander, a clinical psychologist and NLP supporter, called "NLP and Science - Five recommendations for a better relationship" http://www.nlpca.com/articles/article14.htm Though he does not fully agree with 'my definition' of science it is still a very interesting article smack in the middle of the subject we are discussing.

Would it be neutral and objective to describe NLP as something in the direction of "NLP is a relatively recent, and still developing, school of thought in cognitive science with a focus on developing tools for..."?

Anyway, I am not religious about the science label and regardless of whether NLP is 'in vitro science', 'organic science' or '(scientific) theory at a pre-science stage' it may be more productive to focus on what NLP is, rather than on what it is not :)

Have a nice day,

Thomas - --TSinBP 13:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick reply. I think we're mostly in agreement. I don't "hang my hat on the scientific method" in any way, I agree there's animosity and that science has a belief system too, I just believe there's value in both systems. DIfferent perspectives. Greg 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Return

I think I am ready to make a serious return to editing this page (though I did comment during the mentorship here and there). Now that the "anti" side is pretty much completely banned[3], I'd look to help clean up the POV wars mess and also makesure that neutrality is maintaned.Voice-of-All^Talk 05:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And I want to add that I did resign my mentorship but I am still going to monitor this page and contribute when I can. If anything else, I can now edit this mess. ;-) I was a bit leery of blocking the final "anti" NLP user, but using that many socks was such a blatant attempt to get around the arbcom decision that I couldn't let it slide.

Anyway, the main thing I'd like to see here is a reduction of the number of sources. Let's see if we can get the citations to under 50. Let's get it manageable. Any edits I'm going to do are probably going to make this article more readable to John Q Public. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello all! Wow. Finally verification of what was obvious in other ways. And you're right - we need to act quickly and decisively. And I too am ready to return.

The reversion seems to be a worthwhile idea. It MAY be possible to get the NLP(temp) page undeleted if that is of any use - the goal of that page was to represent everything that this page was saying, but in its proper context and appropriately weighted - it never succeeded, but may be useful to start with. Other than that - it's difficult to find a good historical version. HeadleyDown came in a year ago and changed alot, but we were also here adding stuff. Perhaps the "principles of NLP" may serve as a basis, but it is much shorter - it simply doesn't have the structure to fit in what's currently here.

Perhaps we should look at the structure. What should be the main 4 or 5 sections? And their 4 or 5 subsections? If we can quickly pick that we could then move information into that structure and begin the cleanup. Comaze made a suggestion, as did I.

I think overall we'll have to simply pick a starting point - and then put the article in one editors hands (who has some time) to do his/her best. For instance - if Doc knew he had the next 4 hours to devote to the article, he could have free reign to make it as good as he can in that time. Otherwise we'd step on each other's toes. Is that feasible? Greg 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

ps. To avoid sockpuppets derailing again in the near future, we should probably consider people with a legitimate history on here as more involved with any restructure. Greg 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the idea of a reversion or one editor doing alot of edits. I would caution, though, that we should probably have users who want to do that give a general outline on here as to what they want to do. I'm just looking to avoid chaos. :) Another thing to mention is the {{Inuse}} template. Use it if you are doing one of these 4 hour edit sessions. It basically tells other users that a major edit is being done on the page and that they shouldn't edit until the time is complete. As you can see on the template page, you can give it a time interval, like 5 minutes or 4 hours or however long the major edit is going to take. I'm pointing this out because it's a template that lots of users don't know about and it can be quite useful here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I notice lots of good work already happening on the page .. I just rewrote rep systems but someone else posted theres before I finished ;-) Damn ! But who cares! Progress! Greg 06:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Progress. What a concept. Btw folks. If anyone ever asks you to become a mentor, I have 3 words for you. Just. Say. No. lol I am glad, though, that we were able to find the socks before mentorship officially ended. But being a mentor was the hardest thing I've ever done, no offense. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And mediating all these people, just being one person myself, not being able to block (as a mediator), was harder than coding the hardest javascript I coded. I'm glad nobody has to waste their time of this again, and hats off to all the mentors who bothered to give a darn.Voice-of-All^Talk 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? :) You never saw just *how* bad it was. I suffered mild wikiburnout just trying to do the Arbcom case for the sockpuppeteering last November. I got to about 14 confirmed socks then, plus strong evidence, and it got too complex to arbcom-ize........ FT2 (Talk) 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'll second FT2. I don't want to relive March ever again. Ever. Again. :) IIRC there was appx. 1 MB of talk just in a 6 week period. I will say though. I don't want to give HeadleyDown/Camridge/Alice/Bookmain et all credit, but keeping all of those socks straight must've been a challenge. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(and hats off to user:Comaze for sticking it out amidst such nastiness!) FT2 (Talk) 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

okokok... and hats off to you and the mentors too * grins * Do I detect a party mood on this article here? :) FT2 (Talk) 07:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(And you don't have to. All of them said the same things, so it wasn't exactly complicated. >Pick random sock. >Spout same rubbish. >Repeat. :P) FT2 (Talk) 07:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a post mortem. We deserve it. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A very apt phrase, in the context. For my part, with all due deference to WP:NPA, the more mortem and the less post(ing), the better :P FT2 (Talk) 08:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's time to use rename -=C=- back to Comaze 09:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I archived the workshop talk page

926 KB total. That's. 9. 2. 6. :) I'm going to erase the workshop page and redirect it back to here. If we ever want to recreate it, we can. As Comaze and Greg can attest to, we didn't really have any progress anyway. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And you stopped us before we got to 1MB, how could you? --Comaze 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to get slapped? :) I'm kidding. Well if you include all of the archives, it's way over 1MB. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Our maybe get scrached? :D Voice-of-All^Talk 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Semipro?

Will this have to have indef semi-pro? To bad you coudn't range block IPs from editing a certain article. Maybe a VoABot could .split('.') the names of IPs and check the last blocks for range combinations and autorevert, I always though something like that would be interesting...Voice-of-All^Talk 16:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Development

I'm concerned that it might end up becoming a "soft" article, lacking focus or balance if "stuff gets added back" at whim. I know that's the approach I thought would work, but I don't know if it will now.

What I'd like to suggest is, can we get it to a reasonable balance, at least enough to present the main facts and main criticisms, and then cease working on the main article and instead open a workshop + talk page and look carefully at how it's structured and what should go in its sections?

I have set up an overview structure of the article as it stands, at /Workshop, for editing and discussion. Hopefully we can flesh out what the article should look like, and then start to fill it in. FT2 (Talk) 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• First major clean-up. History of NLP moved to its own article, sensible wikipedia-style section and link replaces it :) FT2 (Talk) 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Second major clean-up. "Users" section created, so that claims (whether of use or scepticism) are not merely left as hearsay, allowing users to judge the places NLP is used for themselves. FT2 (Talk) 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Third major cleanup - can someone please sort out the "fundamentals" which is basically a copy & dump from "Principles of NLP"? See below. Thanks! FT2 (Talk) 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Fourth major cleanup - I'm working on a much needed article, NLP and science. I think this one will actually not be hard to do, since it's pretty much a matter of "list research, summarize a balanced view of all sides, and comment". But it needs careful work. Once I've put in what I can that is fair, that I know about, I'd like some help to ensure all sides are fully and fairly represented and cited. That's not yet, but "soon". You can see on that stub, the outline I'm working with. FT2 (Talk) 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remember to avoid rhetorical questions. Wikipedia is not a research journal. We're not here to "prove" theories. Secondly, the article has "Anecdotal evidence from users". That is unencyclopedic. Again. We're not here to prove theories. We're also not here to give "real world" examples. Again, that reads like a research paper. The "Is NLP a science?" section needs to revamped. I have no problem with an article looking at the relationship between science and NLP, but we're not here to prove theories or to put forward theories. You have to make it sound more authoritative sounding. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• I made the one section less rhetorical by removing the questions and putting it into a format we generally use. It still reads too much like a research paper in parts. It needs to be "dumbed down" a tad. But I'll wait to do anything else until you are done, FT2. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wanted to add that your other changes are good, FT2. Very good actually. I always felt like this article should be split into several different articles with the main article summarizing what's in the offshoot articles. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually anecdotal evidence can be made factual. Its all down to what's meant by anecdote, and citing sources: "It is notable that NLP has been regarded as valuable by many independent clinical bodies (list of cites), and police forces (list of cites), although other bodies consider it unproven or express doubts (list of cites)." Thats how you make anecdote scientific. We aren't presenting a scientific point of view, but a neutral one; it is notable that many bodies regard NLP as valuable, it is also notable that few of them have formally tested it as such, in a laboratory sense. That's the meaning of "anecdotal evidence". It's suggestive of findings, but it is not in any sense scientific "proof". Does that clarify at all? Let me know if that makes sense. FT2 (Talk) 16:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As I said, I'll wait until you've added everything you want to the NLP and science article before I edit it. Just a warning though. I'll be editing it alot. :) Just need to change the tone from college essay to encyclopedia. I won't change what you are saying...just how its said. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentals -- Can someone else compare the "fundamentals" section to the article Principles of NLP? They pretty much coincide, it's almost a direct "lift". That's why the article is so insanely long. None the less, some recent cites and edits from this article ought to be merged back into "Principles" (if valid). When "Principles" is up to date on everything of value, the matching sections in this article needs to be cut right down to a summary plus "Main article: LINK". Thanks! FT2 (Talk) 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we could merge 2.1 Foundational assumptions and 2.2 Presuppositional beliefs. "2.8 Other Concepts, Models and Techniques" could also be merged, by introducing and linking to them from other sections. --Comaze 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you? Thanks! FT2 (Talk) 02:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best, but I'm a techie not an academic, so if you could copyedit my work I'd appreciate it. --Comaze 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comaze - I may get involved in that as well. There ARE NLP presuppositions which are separate from fundamentals... though currently those 2 sections are synonymous. I may elaborate on presuppositions. Is that okay? Greg 05:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Greg, I've posted my first (early) draft of the principles / fundamentals section... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Reconstruction#Replacement_of_Fundaments_section_.28working_title.2C_Principles.29 - you're welcome to edit, however you wish.. Just let me know if you are working on it. --Comaze 10:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Next clear-up... NLP and science was long and going to get much longer since new studies can always be added. That's a problem now, more so in future. So I've moved the actual research to List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming with NLP and science then linking and summarizing. Should be a lot cleaner. FT2 (Talk) 10:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That felt good

I just made my first real edit to this article. I made the first paragraph cleaner and clearer. I never could figure out why some were set on cramming so much into the first paragraph. For one thing, "personal development" covers really all of the main reasons why people adhere to NLP principles. Specifics can be covered later in the article. As I've said from the start, we need to write this article for the average reader, not experts. You guys have no idea how long it was that I had no idea what NLP really was. NLP isn't that complicated. We need to make sure people can read through the first paragraph without going "Huh?" like I did when I first read it. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

yay! And you just helped me figure out why I never liked it. The thing is, one of the 3 is not subordined to the other two. It's how all three interact together. I didn't spot it till WHKitty edited :) Does the revised text help at all? Comments? Three versions:

• Version #1 -- "The term 'Neuro-linguistic programming' stems from being a set of models and principles meant to describe the relationship between mind (neuro) and language (linguistic) and how their interaction might be organized (programming) to affect an individual's mind, body and behavior."

• Version #2 -- "... meant to explore how mind and neurology (neuro), language patterns (linguistic), and the organization of human perception and cognition into systemic patterns (programming) interact to create subjective reality and human behavior."

• Version 3 -- "... meant to explore how mind and neurology (neuro), language patterns (linguistic), and the organization of human perception and cognition into systemic patterns (programming) interact, and how they give rise to, and are influenced by, subjective reality and human behaviors."

I hope that builds on user:woohookitty's neat editing, in a good way. The third version highlights the 2 way nature of it. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 14:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I find that 3rd version quite complicated, though I'm not sure how to keep the concepts and make it simpler yet. I'll have a play some time (though I'm finding it hard to keep up for now, no time)

On a slightly different-but-similar note, I once wrote a paragraph replacement for the literal meaning of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. It was an attempted compromise and as such wasn't "free"... but if any of it is of any value then good...

• Neuro-Linguistic Programming literally means "brain-language programming". NLP teaches that the brain has an internal language which is programmed through life experiences. Everyone has different experiences and learns differently - sometimes people learn well, sometimes poorly - and sometimes someone develops excellence in a certain field. A key goal in NLP is to help people learn or develop new behaviours & thought patterns - both by learning new patterns based on what others do particularly well (NLP modeling), and through exploring a person's existing way of doing things to find new perspectives & possibilities. NLP claims that people do the best they can given the choices they believe they have - and that if someone finds a new more effective way of doing something they will use it in preference to the old.

Greg 02:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well FT2, I'm glad you like it. I think the intro (and alot of this article) got overcomplicated when there were just too many chefs stirring the pot. It happens. And that's not an indictment of the anti-NLP side. I think that if we had 12 editors that were all pro, the same thing would've happened. Just too many voices and viewpoints and they couldn't agree on anything. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro reword?

I was looking at the intro, wondering if it really was as smooth as it could be. Do people like any aspects of this?

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs developed around 1973 by Richard Bandler and professor John Grinder, in examining why certain world-renowned psychotherapists were so effective. Rather than explore this question by forming theories, Bandler and Grinder sought to study directly what exactly the therapists were doing in their sessions that enabled them to obtain such results, and to categorize and systematize it.

Based on these observations, NLP teaches people how to observe and utilize patterns, and to adapt their approach and respond to others in a high quality and skilled manner, as did the original, very effective therapists drawn upon. It was metaphorically described by the original developers as "therapeutic magic" and 'the study of the structure of subjective experience".

NLP is predicated upon the assumption that peoples' behaviors have structure and purpose. The term itself summarizes how mind and neurology (neuro), language patterns (linguistic), and the organization of human perception and cognition into systemic patterns (programming) interact, and how they give rise to (and are influenced by) subjective reality and human behaviors. NLP focusses upon a wide range of areas beyond its core area of communication, including therapy, coaching, skills analysis ("modeling"), negotiation, personal development, and allergy and trauma change.

(Last paragraph on criticisms, as at present)

I've drawn on Druckman to rewrite the description. Is it any good? FT2 (Talk) 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, but may be selling NLP and not neutral enough. As for the old intro - I was going to question the existing "NLP was influenced by ideas of the New Age" (which ideas are we talking about!?) and "primarily personal development" as most NLP I've seen is working with 2 people... yet it is for the personal development of the client. Greg 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Synesthesia

Hi. There are a many paragraphs here and there which won't make sense to a lay reader, and as the big brush strokes are being well done by you guys I may get involved in some of that - so if there are areas where you're happy with the broad result let me know and I'll have a look at any ways I think might be better for wording things. I know woohookitty is doing the same. Anyway, one example is this.

• NLP does not recognize any ultimate mediator in the structure and organization of subjective human thought except the senses, sensory representations, and human neurology and physiology. However it does not place a limit on what may be represented within or by those systems – possibly by synesthesia, the experiencing of one form of sensation within a different sensory system. So NLP considers it a legitimate question to study the subjective experience, and subjective processes, of anything that humans claim to experience.

I think the first sentence can be cleaned a bit, but I was firstly checking that it actually made sense. I got stuck on "possibly by synesthesia" - what are we trying to say with that? A synesthesia is a connection between senses or sensory representation systems, via human neurology.... it IS human neurology. Perhaps it should say "examples include synesthesias and .... (beliefs? habits? etc)".

FT2, you said it needed to be there but not sure how - can you clarify the intent / what you want to say generally, and I'll play with the wording? Greg 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Long winded explanation of what and why I have used that term there..... When NLP says stuff "is" processed auditorily, visually, etc, it is, at least possibly, talking metaphorically. In other words, its possible that one interpretation of NLP is, "for practical purposes we can treat it as if it is procesed sensorily". Now... when NLP models something esoteric and new-agey, like ESP or spirituality, and renders it down to sensory specifics, it is POSSIBLE that what's meant is, "if this was a sense, what sense would it be". It may be an "as-if"... that we are rendering it into other sensory modes, but this does not mean that (if they existed) spirit or ESP are a sensory mode. Sensory modes are a means of working with impressions that the brain, by analogy and metaphor, understands. Same as when NLP says "you don't know how, but PART OF YOU does", its pushing for a translation of the system into a "you" that doesnt and a YOU that does, and working with that... NLP doesn't know if its true, but it says, its useful to work with it as if it is. Synesthesia is the term used when something that is actually in one sensory system, is perceived in another too, so it fits this. It's a term I'm using to say "ESP/spirituality/whatever impression may not have actually been in that sense, but by metaphor and analogy, LETS ASSUME it is rendered into some "known" sense, what would it be". Hope that (in a vague way) helps.

If there is a better term or way to clarify the fact "NLP does not technically say it IS always sensory, but that it helps to AS-IF that it is always a known sense, even if that means some mental manipulation to As-If translate it to another modality...." -- then use it :) FT2 (Talk) 00:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow... okay I'm a little lost. NLP never actually says what IS going on inside... just how people report its experience, or as evidenced in their language and actions. And in that sense - doesn't NLP say that all experiences are made up of VAKOG elements? Personally I say that our concepts (F2 transforms/second attention) are mapped onto VAKOG elements (which only works if you can map some things into Internal Dialogue). Let me think about this :-) Greg 07:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, its the crucial difference of accuracy of saying "it is VAKOG" or:

• "it can be represented and manipulated as if it is VAKOG"
• "It's subjectively perceived as VAKOG"
• "As you look at that, does it seem <submodality description>?" -- does this direction mean it was a voice, or was it an impression which we create an auditory version of?

NLP is not averse (as I see it) to saying "we don't know what that imopression is, but it can be described and manipulated in VAKOG language"... and possibly thats a subtle but important issue. FT2 (Talk) 07:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently added sub-articles open for editing

4 new sub-articles added, and their statuses:

1. History of NLP -- development finished, discuss on its talk page or edit it, as normal.
2. List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming -- development finished, discuss on its talk page or edit it, as normal.
3. List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming -- From "NLP and science" so that the "studies" section of that article doesn't get insanely long. Open to editing and discussing as normal, some sections incomplete, sketchy or not drafted. Main article structure done. Generally supportive research added. Cognitive/neurological research omitted and to be added (have research, needs summarizing). Accurate representations of any critical studies omitted at present as I'm not convinced I have an accurate representation of them. There is a strong negative view, the studies reporting it need fairly representing. Please edit and discuss this article and help fix that weakness.
4. NLP and science -- much of it is done, but unfair to draft the summary sections for this until the above article ("List of studies...") is more complete.

In brief, all 4 of the above can be edited, completed and discussed as normal, in their own right. FT2 (Talk) 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Also updated: The mess in "rep systems", "modalities" and "submodalities" now mostly re-cleaned up, see Representational systems (NLP) and Submodality (NLP). Needs cleanup still in some sections. Woohookitty, you might like that intro, it actually explains what rep systems are about in NLP, not just "technical jargon" :P :) FT2 (Talk) 12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know I might get kicked for saying this thing but I get what is happening here. You dont want a critic in the discussion. Hong Kong people are pretty anti the NLP as you see in the newspaper. But I'm not stupid. You guys just ask me to post things here to get me kicked. Hylas Chung 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't get what's happening here. We want critics. We just don't want more meatpuppets that have come here via the University of Hong Kong skeptics club. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where I should post this... I want to work on the follow articles... Perceptual_positions (cleanup), Meta_model_(NLP) (expand and cleanup, add third party references), Rapport_(NLP) (merge with Rapport), Neurological levels (expand article). Generally, we need to rely on third party reliable references. --Comaze 17:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On the project page? A list there under "things to do" of "pages needing attention" (and why) would be a good idea. FT2 (Talk) 08:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming

I have problems with List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming. It's just simply not needed. And it'd be impossible to maintain. It's simply not necessary to have a listing of every study done of NLP. And it reads like a bibliography for a college essay. There isn't another article on the site like it and I just don't see the need for it. We have a reference list for this article and we're going to for all of them. We don't need anything additional. We're not here to make arguments about how "valid" NLP is. We're here to write an encyclopedia article on it. Readers can make up their own mind by going through the References. We don't need anything beyond that. I really think it should be deleted. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many such "list of..." articles. They aren't intended to make a case, of "prove" anything, but to provide useful source materials for others who may be interested. A large proportion aren't expected (or able) to be complete. There are "list of..." articles of everything from List of open source software packages, List of television personalities, List of algorithms, List of neologisms on The Simpsons, List of portmanteaux, List of digital library projects, List of biomolecules, List of trivia lists, List of family separation research articles... Research into NLP (for and against) is not that well listed anywhere, and is clearly valuable as information to those with an interest in the field. In what sense is it not encyclopedic to have an article listing known studies (of all sorts, not just "for" or "against") in a subject? FT2 (Talk) 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You are talking apples and oranges, FT2. The lists you listed are lists for general knowledge. That's what encyclopedias are for. A list of sources of NLP is not general knowledge. It's essentially a very long article that consists of a bibliography with a long reference list. And it's not just a bibliography. It's a bibliography with commentary, which I know is going to be disputed by the anti NLP side. It's unencyclopedic in that it's simply not an encyclopedia article. You are never going to find an article in an encyclopedia that is entirely a list of sources. If you see anything approaching that, it's going to be a reference section and we already have that in this article. So it's redundant. It's not needed because we already have reference lists in other articles. And it's unencyclopedic in that you are never going to see just a listing of sources as a separate article in an encyclopedia. That's what reference lists at the end of articles is used for. Read Wikipedia:Listcruft. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I sort of see the point you're making. I was looking more at WP:LIST, "Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list..." It's hard to see a list of studies as not being that. As I understand it, part of what you're saying is, if a study is discussed in NLP and science it'll be footnoted there, and if it isn't then it doesn't need mentioning, so a list would be unnecessary in any event. Is that about right, or am I missing something more fundamental? FT2 (Talk) 05:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've got most of my point. It's just not needed. And I think that having it just opens us up to more rancor and fighting and we've had enough of that. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be okay to leave it as a reference article for a while, as we clean the field up? It's a bona fide list of sources at least, and will serve well to use as source material for criticism and citation sections (if someone adds the "against" articles), and its value can be judged by that. If it gets hostility I would agree, but it's hard to see people legitimately objecting to a list of research papers as "invalid" or "biased". I don't think it meets AFD criteria... though obviously I can see where you are coming from. can we leave it a while, and come back to it? It's a useful source while all this is going on... and would be more so if the "negative" articles were also cited for reference too. FT2 (Talk) 12:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually FT2, I'd recommend moving it to your userspace. Articles like that should probably be in an userspace. If you don't know how to do that, let me know. You basically just go to your userspace, add a / to the end of the address and then add the name of the article and then just create the article. I can do it for you if you don't know what I mean. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

N.L.P.

This is interesting. I see quite a few sudden changes to the article but with not much in the way of reliable backup (in fact some reliable backup to science has been removed). Looks a little desperate. I find the scientific research by Devilly, Sharpley and others to be highly convincing and quite conclusive. I think NLP looks pretty much like pseudoscience. I'd like to see if I can salvage some of the sensible views on NLP. Banning rule-breakers is one good thing, but the science view really does need caretaking. Its pretty clear what the general science view is. I'd like to keep it maintained. I've access to most of the research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by brightonRock101 (talk • contribs)

Much as I try to assume good faith, I do feel in this case there's a good chance we've just met the first of the sneaky sockpuppets, pretty much as predicted. Before we go further, would you care to make a statement that you aren't in any way related to the recent sock/meatpuppet ring or the Hong Kong Sceptics group? FT2 (Talk) 18:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is with great dismay that I have just read through the Wikipedia information on the subject of NLP. It seems to be filled with comments from people who have only a passing knowledge of the subject and have based their recording on a 'gut-feeling'. No details of research were shown to place some illumination on the basis of the criticism. They seemed to be examining only the high priced seminares from those engaged in the commercial selling of NLP. minimum details in education-sport-health progress.

As a psychologist with 15 years of experience in consulting people with minor health conditions. In conducting many work-shops for lay people to experience NLP. I would like to add two observations 1. The detractors claim no research has been undertaken that validates the use on NLP as a method of substance. That is a nonsense request just as it is for the natural health discipline acupuncture to be examined by existing medical research methods. Once an academic -medical practitioner writing on the subject of NLP clearly understands that no two people have similar attitudes and beliefs, such an academic would then surely understand that it is impossible to make comparisons. (using present protocol) How can one place acupuncture needles within a body without an effect being caused. Our outdated research system is the reason that one cannot examine NLP to be accepted in present protocol restrictions for authenticity. They claim that case history results do not carry weight as evidence in favour of the value of NLP. That is a pity becaue I have over 2,000 cases in my records showing positive changes made by people being helped by NLP. The growing number of organisations placing NLP within their own list of resources surely adds to the evidence. The strength on the psychology discipline is underlined by the number of Fortune 500 companies using NLP 2. My firm belief in the reason for the dismissive manner that NLP receives from the medical establishment is this. The average number of clinic visits for a patient to need when undergoing an NLP treatment is 3 visits. I just wonder how many of the learned respected contributors the the Wikipedia Encylopedia had this fact in mind when damning the discipline so stongly. Ray Trevor Twine MA (behaviour psychologist) Owner of the Surry Clinic Surrey UK 1992-1998 trustee of the Complimentary Medicine Research Project Trust Uk.

Hi, and thanks for commenting. It's valued.

Some background that may help, on both this article, and Wikipedia in general. As regards this article, it has recently (this week) emerged from almost a year of extreme editorship on the critical front. Accordingly editors who are attempting to balance both "sides" and present it neutrally and fairly, are still in the process of cleaning up and attempting to sort out valid from biased information. Please read About Wikipedia for more on Wikipedia to understand the manner in which this happens, and that it is an inevitable aspect of an open encyclopedia -- sometimes vandalism or mis-editorship arises and takes time to remove. This was a very large-scale case of it. The payoff is that it is hard to vandalise something long term, and the system is by and large robust, comprehensive and self-correcting. So it's "swings and roundabouts".

Second, regarding Wikipedia itself, have you considered publishing, perhaps with a degree of peer review, your 2000 cases? I ask since Wikipedia attempts to exclude unverified information, for accuracy's sake. Clearly the best verification that something is accurate is from a published source which others can confirm to themselves. Individual practitioners unpublished records or case notes, as such, aren't verifiable by the world at large until published in some form. Please see Wikipedia's original research, verification and source citation policies.

If you do have valuable information that is omitted, please do feel free to be bold and edit it in yourself, being mindful to keep to Wikipedia's standards in those policies -- you're welcome to do so, and it's much appreciated when professionals contribute of their specialist knowledge. However be aware that we also document the failed experiments, the damning reports and the studies that show no effect, as well, since they are also part of the picture. We attempt to present both sides fairly, and whilst the article doesn't do that at present (for exceptional reasons explained), it is the hope here that it will. In the meantime, you might find List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming interesting. If you have citable, sourced evidence on Fortune 500 usage, that would be valued, please add it here or to the talk page there. FT2 (Talk) 13:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight -- I want to make sure I have understood you (Ray Trevor Twine) correctly. Are you maintaining that the request for published controlled studies to support NLP's claims is a "nonsense request"? I want to make sure I have not misunderstood what your phrase "nonsense request" refers to before I continue with my response. Thank you.

Monica Pignotti, MSW

I am glad that things are starting to clear up, even though the administrators had to take such drastic measure in the end. --Dejakitty 20:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing from Brighton in England, I'm not a sockpuppet or a skeptic. Sockpuppeting is clearly not allowed here so I think I’ll give it a miss thank you very much. Von Bergen was my first deep introduction to NLP as I study human resource management and included it in a project. I discovered the Von Bergen’s article after googling and found it here. It got really interesting for me when I saw the various arguments on this article discussion page and they helped me get my head around pseudoscience in HRM.

I took a good look through the research I managed to collect over the last few days, and checked over the article and archives. Devilly, Eisner, Drenth, Lilenfeld, Beyerstein, Von Bergen, and Singer all write concerning the occurrence of the practice of NLP and the problems of its ill-advised adoption by self-helpers, therapists, public bodies, and businesses (Human Resource Management). The opening needs to be far clearer on this in the criticism paragraph. I havn’t got through the Levelt or Winkin papers as they will take a bit of babelfishing. I think this issue could do with better representation in the main body of criticisms too. It will explain things better why scientists are writing their criticisms about it. BrightonRock101 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, BrightonRock101. I greatly appreciate your contributions and agree with you. For the record, I want to state here that I live in the United States (California) and have never been to Hong Kong. My background is that I studied NLP for four years (1989-1993) in New York City and completed and was certified in the Practitioner, Master Practitioner and Trainer's trainings. I wanted to make this known so people here would realize that I am familiar with both the NLP proponent point of view and the skeptical point of view on this topic. Monica Pignotti —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaPignotti (talk • contribs)

Hi Monica,

But you have been intouch with HeadleyDown in one of his other sockpuppet alias (Krishsing66) on your skeptical yahoo group. You didnt seem to know that much about NLP back then as I remember and now you're certified up to trainer level - amazing! Lee1 08:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lee1,

I don't know who HeadleyDown is and as for Krishsing66, he is on a list serv I'm on and we have participated on dialogues on the same thread. Are people to be labelled as sockpuppets just for participating in discussions with these people who happened to be on the same list serv who I happened to agree with? That hardly seems fair, especially since my history with NLP predates any of these discussions. I'm not sure what you're remembering about my history with NLP or what you feel I know or don't know about it, but I attained that certification 1993 from the NY Training Institute for NLP, so I know quite a bit and I have been very clear about my background in past discussions. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaPignotti (talk • contribs)

Putting this comment in this section, since it's abbout the abbreviation - at least in the linguistics fields I know and love, NLP is used as the abbreviation for Natural Language Processing. I'd be surprised if subfields of linguistics would allow ambiguous abbreviations. Is this the case? UltraNurd 14:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why so much of Anti NLP positioning?

I have been referring to wiki for quite some time now and I can say it provides balanced and quite good views on various topics. But I am amazed to see so much of Positioning on this particular topic and over domination of one angle of perspective.

Being in the age of information technology, this article looks like a 10th century Witch test. There are a lot of things that science cannot explain and especially one as subjective as Psychology. In such a case, is it prudent to publish something which is so thoroughly one sided on the topic.

I hope this improves over time.

That's an interesting perspective, because I see just the opposite: NLP proponents making highly misleading claims and statements, attempting to leave out or reverse edits on opposing points of view. Pointing out that unsupported claims are being made is not a "witch test".

From a behavoural psychologists perspective it is not interesting if you see JUST the opposite clearly declaring that you have no intention of 'seeing' otherwise. Ie: You are not interested. Sarcasm..

Yes NLP does have allot of false and half-hearted practitioners. All this can be cleared up in a single line "As there are allot of false 'masters' and practitioners, prospective clients are warned to cite their certificate and do research on their linage of teachers". It very much is a 'witch test' article, not only becasue it sounds like one, but also becasue it looks and tastes like one.(inside joke) Just becasue there are a few people who dont understand that what they are buying is the person and not the NLP, dosnt mean that the study of NLP is bad. This article should start off with the history(in a more enclyopedic fasion), to enforce a more "someone had to come up with all of this mumbo jumbo" perspective, rather than an "NLP is Controvercial because idiot bought some "NLP" one time and off the wrong person.(You cant BUY NLP!!!). NLP is associated with the behavours of New Age, Occultism, Scientology, Religion, Fundamentalist Christianity, Right wing Nazi's and the neo conservative party of america and england. (not to mention Tony Blair having learnt nlp-ha! - so he sounds more believable, but wont be.)" NLP's assocation with those who also practice esotericism is only because those NLP practioners know how to keep a committed open mind without deluding themselves.

I agree with you. This article is terribly written. The first 3 lines are impartial and/or irrellveant, and i wont bother to edit it incase some troll decides hes more right. Isn't Wikipedia meant to be an encyclopedia? Look up the top of your browser "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Not a poor skeptics soceity. Articles should be created by those who are experts in the subject matter, such as a one who has a NLP Trainers Certificate.

No. I can't believe I have to explain this. The fact that NLP has experts or certified practitioners doesn't make its claims facts - it makes NLP itself a fact. And it is NLP itself the topic of the article. The only say the experts have on the article is on the claims, not on their meaning.

Like "certain" other disciplines, NLP conveniently only makes unfalsifiable claims - every time I read the phrase "every case is different, so the client/patient/etc. should see a specialist", my hand runs to my revolver (and now don't compare yourself to an MD. Just. Don't). And oddly, such "certain" disciplines never see any significant progress, they are handed down "from above" once and never, ever progress. In some circles "progress", in fact, seems to mean mudding up the discipline further by liberally borrowing left and right (applies to NLP as well as Reiki, to name one).

Don't expect scientific treatment for such an aggressively unscientific belief. --85.18.35.21 04:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure some trainers have tried to write an approprate article on NLP, and have been disgusted by the attitude of several more than willing 'editors'(trolls) who know nothing about NLP, have decided to just let it go... Then an appropriate skeptics section can be created for them to 'go nuts'. Becasue thats all it is. Idol skepticism which attempts at polluting the article in the name of 'buyer beware'. Prospective buyers however, SHOULD be advised that 'audio tapes' do not work as everyone is different, and what works for you dosnt work for someone else, and is not a replacement for an instructor or doctor. Logical?! The 'audio tape' phenomenon in hypnosis is even worse. But this is no reason to refute ALL of NLP. Any idiot should be able to work that out about the audio tapes. NLP is not, and never can be, a self help guide of psychology. The claim that 'NLP... adherents use primarily as an approach to personal development is utterly false. The person who wrote that was probably searching for some personal development. It started out as a modelling process. This is where NLP focus on business is, the duplication of mastery. "Learn how to learn". The 2 NLP founders who had developed a proper modelling process(by means of a background in computer science), went out and modelled Virgina Satir,

You misspelled "Vagina" --85.18.35.21 04:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

a family therapist who, at the time, was widly a publicised as being the best in therapy, because of RESULTS. Vagina Satir openly credits them in the preface of the first NLP book, as having done so well in presenting a part of herself in a book. Most people however, are refuting the Ericksonian techniques modelled in NLP becasue its 'airy, fairy'. Well it is! But it makes you think. Some practioners however, never learn its purpose or even when to use it appropriatly. Used together and appropriate times, any qualified NLP practitioner knows that they become harmonious to acheive the clients desired outcome of the session. NLP is most useful as an adaptive process which guides an already qualified therapist or-the-like the ability to adapt to the individual client getting straight at the problem. I would like to see this article complelty re-written. Please consult those who are on [4] Start a thread like "Wiki and NLP" or something.

Steve Hassan Reference Possibly Misleading

I have known Steve Hassan for 17 years and have worked with him on a number of exit counselling cases (he does not wish to be called a "deprogrammer" so that part needs to be changed). The portrayal of his views on NLP in this article seem misleading and strongly imply that he actively endorses it and built his model of exit counseling centered around NLP when this is not the case. As he states in his book (I will add this reference with a direct quote to the article) he studied NLP in the early 80s but he has concerns, not only about the fact it is being used by cult leaders, but also by the way NLP is being marketed. What he said was that he went back and studied some of NLPs sources (e.g., Satir, Baetson, Erickson, etc.) and is now basing his work on those people, and others who had nothing to do with NLP. To make this more objective, perhaps the best way to resolve this would be to directly quote what Hassan actually wrote. I have his book and will look up the exact quote, cite it and put it into the article.

It's been removed. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Users of NLP" section

I removed the entire section for a number of reasons. First of all, it sounded promotional. I have no problem with a short paragraph stating that many organizations use NLP. But what was there was basically promotional material. And it was attracting the kind of POV remarks that we need to avoid here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, Woohookitty. I noticed that after you did this, someone added back in the sentence in the introduction about people and "credible" professional bodies that endorse NLP, which I found to be misleading and and also sounded like promotional material. The fact is that the two top major psychological professional bodies in the US (APA and APS) do not endorse NLP, which will not be found on the APA's list of empirically supported treatments. It is simply not accurate to state NLP has widespread professional acceptance, especially from the psychology profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaPignotti (talk • contribs)

There are some counter-examples to this. A small number of organisations promote professional standards in NLP, some notable examples include EANLPt, a European wide accrediting organisation (EWAO)[5] within the European Association for Psychotherapy (EAP), and the Graduate Certificate in Neuro-linguistic Programming (Government accredited qualification in Australia)[6]. There are atleast some credible bodies that endorse professional standards. We atleast need to make a distinction between the unqualified practitioners with little or no training, and those who have had at least 6 months full time postgraduate training. --Comaze 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you name and cite the specific organizations, I don't have a problem with that. What I initially objected to as misleading was generalized statements such as the one that was previously there that would give the reader a general impression that NLP has widespread acceptance from mainstream professional bodies when that is not the case. The fact is that the main psychological professional body in the US, the APA does not endorse NLP, nor does it include NLP on the list they keep of empirically supported treatments. It is not surprising that NLP organizations endorse NLP. Psychologist Gerald Rosen (see Journal of Clinical Psychology Oct 2001) has called this type of self-reference and echo attribution. The word "credible" is subjective -- credible to whom? Just because an NLP organization has managed to get in politically enough in some countries to have a government sponsored accrediting agency does not necessarily mean that it is credible with mainstream professional psychologists -- again, it begs the question, credible to whom. That's why I objected to the generalized statement that previously existed. Now that you've given specifics, I have no objection to that although this entire discussion could be considered an argumentum ad verecundium (argument from authority) rather than a factual statement about NLP so my preference would be not to have it at all. But if you must and the moderators here accept it, then I much prefer your current version --Monica Pignotti MonicaPignotti 17:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Folks

I'm extremely frustrated with this article. In the last 2-3 weeks, it seems to have gotten worse. It now reads like a promo booklet. Honestly, if this continues, I'm going to take this article off of my WL and just give up. No one here seems to know how to write a Wikipedia article. Why do we have all of this bold? We're not here to be "eye catching", which is the only reason for all of this bold. We have sections that repeat other sections. We have block quotes with almost no context. As I've said many times, this is NOT a research paper. We're not here to make arguments. I don't know if people just don't want to listen or what, but frankly, I've had enough of all of it. I'm about ready to say that this is a lost cause and leave you all at it until you get an admin involves that isn't as nice and tolerant as me and Voice. Sorry for the negativity, but it's frustrating to leave a bad article...come back 2 weeks later and somehow it's worse. I don't know what to say. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And if you guys want examples, the entire pre-suppositional beliefs section is a mess. For one thing, pre-suppositional is not defined until after it leads a section, which frankly, is kind of dumb. It's mentioned in the sections before ("Foundational assumptions"), but it isn't defined there. I just get so frustrated with you folks. We are writing this for the average person, not for college students. My girlfriend has a masters degree and yet I asked her what pre-suppositional meant and she had no idea. And this is just one small example. There are numerous others where it's written for college educated people, but you cannot write it like that. Most of the readership is not going to be college educated. You need to write it for the average person. I don't know. Maybe the users involved in this article don't know what that means. The other problem with the pre-suppositional section is that it's way way way too long. There has to be a way to truncate some of those sections so they can fit together. Again, we're here to explain things to regular users, not to get into so much detail--Woohookitty^(meow) 09:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Comaze and Greg are looking into that section. I've left it alone on the basis "too many cooks". Much of it's a duplicate of the sub-article Principles of NLP, so all that should be needed (as I've stated above) is to synchronize the two so no cites are lost, then summarize it all in this article with a link to that one. Beyond that, I've left that section well alone. Is help needed there? FT2 ^{(Talk | email | contribs)} 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I started rewritting that section, and Greg was assisting, but he's been unavailable for the last few weeks. I would like to cut most of the pre-suppositional beliefs and incorporate it into the Historical background. The different ideas can be introduced, and those sections could be linked to other pages if people want more technical description. I'll post what I've done shortly.. --Comaze 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've done my best to fix up the presuppositional beliefs section. This needs some more work. Actually the entire article needs alot of work. Using the historical background as a framework for introducting the various ideas and influences in NLP would be useful. --Comaze 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot shorter, haven't read in depth but shorter has to be good. It was a ridiculous length before. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Separately, in response to Woohoo's concerns above, I have been looking at the NLP article overall. I'll take some time to try and put it into a decent shape. Here are some of the issues I'm aware of:

1. The critical view is a problem. We don't know in any trustworthy sense what it is, we only know it exists.

   • This is because the previous sock/meatpuppet group (who are undoubtedly still hanging round) freely played around with and misrepresented the findings of those who did express criticism for fun, so in fact we do not know how representative the 'critical' quotes we have are of the actual sources. In many cases we find they are not. So we have a problem in that we know there is a critical side, but we don't know its fair representation. We don't know if the quotes we have are honest or representative quotes that neutrally sum up the views of the authors, nor how influential those views are. Probably nobody does, it's still being explored.
   • The best we can do is state this, and characterize what we do know. What we do know is most researchers, when examined, state that it is not yet proven, or they want more research to draw conclusions. Others often show weak-positive or weak-supportive views. I'd say that past aside, that has to be the starting point because that at least is what we can be sure of.
   • We could, perhaps, be sure of more... if those warring for that view hadn't also freely exaggerated and faked it too. It leaves one not knowing whether anything they said was more than a fringe view by fanatics, supported by extremely selective citations. When one looks at usage and other research it seems to undermine the claims that the sock-group presented.

2. The article is grossly mis-structured, as Woohoo suggests. It doesn't describe or characterize NLP at all well, it's basically become a mangled intro, some history, some basic concepts, some disorganized cites being used to prove points on both sides, and 20 kinds of criticism. That might be what HeadleyDown wanted. But it's not a neutral representation in the WP:NPOV sense.
3. The article, perhaps in response to past vandalism and POV warring, has become slanted in a different non-wikipedian way, ie "is it pseudoscience or isnt it". Actually characterizing the subject neutrally seems to have mostly fallen by the wayside. I think a rewrite's in order, using such material as is verifiable ... and bearing in mind the antics of the sock team, in this context verifiable means not just that the quote exists, but that it is a valid, fair, and representative representation of the author's views.

To that end I want to try and REWRITE what we have into a decent form, and then add appropriate cites and check it's sensibly balanced. I've drawn the main content areas from the articles and template, on the basis those are probably the ones most needing explaining, and the focus is to explain what the core methods and concepts are about, not arcane theory. We can debate after whether something like rapport is a "principle" or a "presupposition" or a "working approach", or if it makes sense to divide these. But right now we have not got a decent article, the fine tuning can be done later. The structure I'm thinking of is something like this:

• Intro
• What is NLP (to define contents)
• History of NLP

• Influences

• Principles of NLP

• Eg touching upon:
• Subjectivity (map territory, subjective world view, etc)
• Meaning and context in communication (meaning of communication=response, the process of making sense of meaning, etc)
• Intent (positive intent, strategies as means to meet them, secondary gain, cosncious/unconscious)
• Ecology
• (ie not just a list of definitions, more encyclopedic, a cited discussion of main areas)

• NLP concepts and methods

• Current concepts

• Representational systems and submodalities
• Language patterns
• Strategies
• Perceptual positions
• Reframing
• Anchoring
• Modeling

• Old or outdated concepts
• Unified models (various approaches)
• Working methods

• Rapport
• Outcome orientation
• Feedback and flexibility

• Perspectives on NLP

• Nature of NLP (science? engineering? placebo?)
• NLP and philosophy (empiricism, cultural relativity, etc)
• NLP as a discipline (promotion or over promotion, control or lack of control, bodies addressing these)
• Applications
• Controversies

• Evaluating NLP

• Researching NLP (research, research issues, aspects worth considering when researching)
• Scientific view (NLP and linguistics, neuroscience, etc)
• Usage
• Skeptical view

• See also
• External links
• References

That's what I'll work towards unless anyone has a good reason otherwise. (A desire to add POV warring by any party is probably not a good reason, I should add). If anyone wants to modify or add to it please comment below. The aim is to get a decent 1st draft article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In terms of organising the article, what I attempted was to merge the history with the principles of NLP. The historical background provides a framework in which to introduce the various topics and link to the subarticles for more detail. When describing modeling, we can introduce the early models and how they influenced the meta model. This can lead into how Gregory Bateson got involved and his influence on the co-founders and the field (ecology, map/territory). For example, when describing Erickson's influence we can introduce rapport, metaphor, pacing and leading, as well as conscious/unconscious mind and how it is used in NLP. To me, this seems logical and consistent with the literature.

That makes sense as one approach. The question is, do people want a long narrative that covers both history and practice, or do they want the two separated somewhat? I'd be more inclined to do part of what you suggest which works well, the people and their influences. But the principles can probably be better summarized in a separate section since I'm thinking people will want to be able to read "what's NLP about" and "what are its principles" separate from "how did it come about". For me those are very different subjects. A fuller "one stream" narrative approach might not be so good for this purpose. But we can certainly do as you suggest and name briefly the areas they influenced, that sounds sensible. Just not in depth. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The skeptics, science and anti-cult theorists sections really needs some work to improve the style, group similar views, to fairly characterise the biases of the various authors and to introduce some counter-arguments. --Comaze 03:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its worse than that. We don't actually have any trustworthy information on the skeptical view, since its proponents faked information (or its representation) as freely as they chose. So we have the names of papers or authors, and that they criticized. but many of them that was one part of a balanced view, and we don't know what a balanced view would say. Beyond that, we don't know much at all. We need copies of those authors papers, to assess a more honest take on their words, since right now almost no cite on that front is fully trustworthy. Every one I looked at and checked, was a dubious interpretation somewhere. The other thing is, its a critical section, of an overall article. So it needs to say what it says, but the present length and verbosity is a bit questionable, just like other parts are too long too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed you my summary of the criticism of NLP. Its based on a summary of the academic literature. Feel free to edit it, or incorporate it into what you're working on. --Comaze 06:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I believe there is a pretty serious censorship effort going on here by NLP proponents. Looking at the quality of the information, the only work that needs doing is to properly support the reliable non critical information and make it brief and clear. That "should" be easy if you are editing legitimately as there is not much reliable information among the dross. A lot of it just needs to be cut. The criticisms are accurate and well supported according to my own collection of literature and I can see it is all supported using verifiable form (page numbers and years of publication). So wanting to remove it on the basis that some proponents don't have access to the literature is certainly evidence of censorship. I think this article needs quite a lot more clearer writing, and it does seem to be far too promo recently. I know the general subject of NLP and I can see why using NLP literature will be confusing to any reader. Btw I'm editing from Yorkshire so I hope you don't mind me speaking my mind. I noticed the opening has been changed a lot in the last several weeks. There used to be a line in the first paragraph that said NLP uses visualization, trance states, rituals and a few others. That was about the clearest line in the opening. It really needs to be there. The criticism also needs to be clearer in the opening. I have no idea what happened to it, but there was a perfectly good criticism paragraph there only a few weeks ago that cited lots of scientific articles in a straight and encyclopedic manner. So the opening is really in need of better balance after the NLP people have censored the core of the criticisms. Saying "On the other hand" is totally argumentative and biased and is clearly an NLP way of trying to promote NLP by testimonial as most of that testimonial comes from NLP promotional materaial btw. There is certainly a lot of concern from scientists over the promotion of NLP in psychology bodies and in general. A large part of the criticisms have been removed by NLP proponents to suit their own agenda. I noticed that NLP adherents are doing their best to present a selective view. Critics (clinical psychologists especially) say that NLP is promoted in some psychology bodies, and they believe it shouldn't be. NLP is definitely not supported empirically in theory or in practice, and I know it appears in reliable books about pseudoscience as an example of pseudoscience. Science minded psychologists are therefore very concerned about people and bodies being hoodwinked into adopting it. So how about the adherents stop the censorship effort as it will undoubtedly cause a lot of conflict as I can see it has in the past. 62.25.106.209 07:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree regarding attempted censorship. The references to the critical pieces were properly cited and accurate and just because an NLP supporter is of the opinion that they are not and interpret what was written in a different way, is no reason to hold such material to a different standard than any other material on Wikipedia (e.g. people who disagree needing copies of the citations to read what was said).--MonicaPignotti 17:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason for this is that Wikipedia information should be verifiable. Sometimes that's so easy as to be allowed by default. Sometimes a quote or a cite is enough. In this case though, among the many other helpful things HeadleyDown did, was forgery and misrepresentation of otherwise valid research. In other words, valid research was itself mis-cited or deliberately misrepresented, or its sources given fraudlent academic credentials. For this reason, as with many other aspects of this subject, HeadleyDown did the whole subject a disservice (all done for "fun" and because it was "highly amusing" as he put it), because now it is not possible to trust even that correctly quoted mini-cites from certain sources actually represent the authors' real views in certain areas. Again, same refrain, feel free to vent at HeadleyDown, and see my comment above to Comaze about the predictable consequences. In particular, demand for higher standards of verification are a usual predictable consequence of academic fraud in any academic field I'm aware of. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There criticism can be organised a few broad sections.

• The lack of support in the psychological and experimental literature, the research mainly focuses the eye movement model.
• Bandler and Grinder had a preference for experience first, and immersion in the world of their models, they have been quoted as saying that they were not interested in the truth - questions are rasied over this anti-theoretical stance. Dilts et al and others in the development group clearly have attempted to underpin NLP with theory. The presuppositions were also criticised and questions raised over the reliance of over simplified or outdated theory. Due to its open access, there were also questions raise over NLP use for manipulation, although this is at odds with the purported systemic nature of NLP.
• The NLP rhetoric that promotes empirical improvement of its models, is also questioned because the field generally does not encourage critical review of techniques and models. And evidence for efficacy of training, its models and practices are most often testimonial.

--Comaze 07:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As I understand it, the main objection critics/skeptics/evidence based psychologists have to NLP is the first point you mention, the lack of evidential support in the literature (peer reviewed journals) in the form of well-designed published studies. But also a key point of the criticism is the fact that claims and promotions have been made for cures of conditions such as phobias that are based on anecdotal reports, rather than research evidence -- in other words, making claims that go beyond the data--MonicaPignotti 17:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If everyone's happy with Comaze's suggestions as a broad approach, shall I adopt it into the version described above when I get onto "evaluating NLP"? I've already included much of these under "controversies" , but I'm happy to adopt that as a checklist of the main formal criticisms to discuss, if that's what it is.

Also, to keep folks updated on the draft referred to above, the main "controversies" I've identified and added into the draft under that section are: "Cult use", "Mass marketing and unethical promotion", and "Lack of critical self-evaluation". I'd be willing to add "questionable efficacy" as a "controversy" if it was needed, except I think by the time "evaluation of NLP" is done from various perspectives, that'll be answered there more properly (because that issue is more about research, evaluation methods and validity of conclusions). It's looking good, I think. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppet / sockpuppet group

Various users and editors, from mentors down to everyday Wikipedians, have tried to be civil and assume good faith. Although brief, I too will be civil in my comment. However it's very likely that good faith is questionable given visible activity:

Pack it in. You know who you are. So, with a very high probability, do we.

This ring has been blocked from Wikipedia, and is editing in breach of policy and rulings.

A chorus of self-agreeing vandal socks/meats, is not what Wikipedia is about.

This applies to edits on the NLP article, talk page, and related articles, from:

• MonicaPignotti (talk · contribs)
• BrightonRock101 (talk · contribs)
• 62.25.106.209 (talk · contribs)

Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never made any secret of who I am. As you can see, I use my real name here. This name calling (e.g."chorus of self-agreeing vandal socks/meats")sounds like an ad hominem attack to me and does not sound civil at all to me. I'm new here and just getting used to the system, so if I did something technically wrong, I apologize -- I'm still learning so I hope you will in keeping with Wikipedia, assume good faith (your statement sounds to me like you have assumed the worst about me). That being said, I can assure you that the assessment I made of NLP was made on my own, following my own experience training in it for four years along with my knowledge and expertise in controversial novel therapeutic approaches. I am puzzled as to why you feel that just because I happed to have agreed with certain others, I am in some sort of sock puppet ring. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm sorry to have to say that this sounds to me like another attempt to suppress criticism.--MonicaPignotti 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The "something technically wrong" is, that associates of the same blocked meat/sock group are (as I understand it) blocked from this article. That's indifferent whether they are the same person or different people, editing of their own free will or actually an existing blocked editor. This may seem unfair or not, but you may wish to thank the existing sock/meat team for creating that condition. That condition now exists. It's known as messing things up for your successors. Sources for this statement:

• Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which states that meatpuppets and sockpuppets under these circumstances are usually treated alike,
• WP:RFArb and subsequent blocks and administrator decisions, which ruled that the existing ring of socks, meats and associates (whether the same or different people) is to be blocked on sight.

This does not prohibit you from editing or contributing to other (non-NLP) articles on other topics. But there is no question that by every standard I am aware of, the "MonicaPignotti" account is a sock or meatpuppet of blocked user HeadleyDown in this context, and as such, that really is simply, the way it goes. With great civility but I am sure you will understand, and you will express your unhappiness to HeadleyDown (if you are in fact a different person). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that I am a "sock or meatpuppet of a blocked user" is without any basis. It doesn't make sense to me that just because I happened to have agreed with some of what was said by a banned user makes me one. If that is true, then that would mean that anyone with a critical view on NLP would be thus classified as agreeing with meat puppets and blocked from editing this article but as far as I know I have not been blocked. I do not see how the fact that I participated on a list serv where someone discussed the situation here is proof that I came here to do that person's bidding. That is not the case. I speak only for myself and have my own opinions on this topic--MonicaPignotti 19:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

With great courtesy, re-read the definition on WP:SOCK and understand that being an associate, or possibly engaging in debate due to a connection with a known meat/sock group is, in itself, a definition of meat puppetry. As user:Woohookitty said, we are open to critical views. Just not those which may be part of the HK sock/meat ring. It doesn't matter whether they are sockpuppets or genuine contributors -- that is part of the definition of meatpuppetry. As said above, for a year, HeadleyDown, for fun, seriously damaged this article and causes stress to bona fide editors. He took great vindictive pleasure in running his sock ring, uncaring as to the damage, upset and confusion it caused. The logical consequence of that is similar to "crying wolf": - those who appear to be or may be socks or meats will tend to be blocked too. The rapid blocking of edits to NLP topics, from anyone with any prospective connection (even if not "proven"), is completely foreseeable under the rules he himself willfully chose to break, and is in line both with user:David Gerard's advice to the Mentors appointed by Arbcom, and with the Arbcom rulings he himself chose to cause to be invoked by his deliberate vandalism and policy breaches over that time. If these results trouble you, then sadly, venting at HeadleyDown (if he is a separate person) would be your logical next step. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, this does seem to be the position, and is entirely due to the past year's actions. If I can help in any other way then of course that's my pleasure, let me know. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi All. Monica, I want to apologise for my earlier posting to you. However, you should realise that this page has been subject to an extremely prolonged and vicious edit war maintained by one person using a huge range of scokpuppets/meatpuppets. In my view, the whole thing was unneccesary and came about through a determination to split everything and everyone ito pro/anti NLP groups. Without the assumption of bad faith of his/her behalf, it need not have arisen. Most editors here would be more than happy to see a fair and balanced critique of NLP as part of the article. What nobody wants except the sockpuppet master is a paranoid slur campaign based on an ill informed POV leading to a crap article.

Unfortunately, the aftermath of all this is what you have walked into, and undoubtedly at the behest of HeadleyDown (who is also KrishSingh66 and about fifty other socks) who has proved him/herself to be completey untrustworthy and willing to bend all rules and lie to get his POV across. In the course of trying to investigate the history and source of those contributions, I came across him trying to enlist people in the yahoo group of which you are a member

This article really needs someone to represent the critical viewpoint. It really needs someone who doesnt assume bad faith though, and credits other editors with some intelligence and treats them with respect as human beings. I personally would be very happy to have an open critical viewpoint involved as I too have some NLP background and plenty of questions about aspects of its theory, practice and application. If all this could be done in an atmosphere of mutual co-operation the article would be all the better for it. Lee1 08:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why that couldn't be the case. It has never been my intent to slam anyone personally or denigrate anyone's intelligence or intentions.--MonicaPignotti 19:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to hold off criticism for now till article clean-up is completed. This article is still too long and lots of details can be transfered to other sub-pages. --Dejakitty 17:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I have no idea who these other editors are, I don't know you, or Woohookitty, and I really don't think it matters to me as an editor. I have no connection whatsoever to any kind of skeptic society or meatpuppet circuit. I do have lots of literature on NLP though, and I would like to correct some pretty big problems in the article. My subject does make me critical of NLP because I am coming from a cognitive/social scientific background. I will maintain the critical side perfectly within the criticisms of NLP as the literature states. 80.189.81.19 10:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

For various reasons, summarized above, I find myself able to be civil, but unable to assume good faith in considering the above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reconstruct of article

As discussed above, the article reconstruct is coming on well.

An article on Wikipedia starts by explaining the field itself. So the bulk of the reconstructed article is an explanation (without judgement) of what NLP is. Wikipedia isn't a book, so it will explain but leave a lot of detail out. However there's still a lot to cover so it will take a fair bit of space to do so.

A major issue with previous articles on NLP is that it's a methodology within a philosophy/worldview. I've given the worldview its own section which has worked really well. I've also tried to write an effective summary article, not just list jargon and soundbites. About 3/4 of the sections are written so far, so it's finally come together nicely. There's quite a lot of footnoted material, as opposed to "just cites". The current outline looks something like this:

1. Intro (what it is, where it came from/what it's about, how it's seen)
   • 1st para -- NLP studies and models how people perceive their life and how to work with the underlying cognitive and emotional processes at a practical level. (That's what NLP *is about*). It has a broad structure. List some common mainstream areas used.
   • 2nd para -- *Based* on therapist models, B&G *concluded* that self taught skills and approaches were responsible for their abilities, that these could be summarized and passed on, and that inner experience could be known via behaviors rather than via a theory. Result was called "NLP", meaning the neuro/language/programs which seemed influential.
   • 3rd para -- as at present
2. Overview of NLP
   • Definition and scope of NLP
     (What NLP is, its aims and approaches, how it views humans and human reality, what its training is about and what it's focussed upon)
   • Meaning of term "Neuro-linguistic programming"
   • Historical background of NLP
   • Influences
   • Self-descriptions and quotes
   • No one "correct version" of NLP
3. NLP attitudes and worldview
   • NLP's world view
     (Subjective view, Human nature (unconscious mind, learning, etc), Systems view, Meaning and context in communication, Form and content, present/future orientation)
   • Examples of some common aphorisms (sayings, principles, presuppositions; bulletted only)
4. NLP concepts and methods
   • Basic structural concepts
     (Representational systems and submodalities, Language patterns, Strategies, Perceptual positions, Reframing, Anchoring, Modelling, Other (chunking, timeline, logical levels etc), Outdated concepts)
   • Working approaches and methods
     (Strategic / outcome oriented, Rapport, Elegance, Feedback and flexibility, Ecology and ethics (including misuse), NLP's approach to clinical conditions)
   • Examples
     (A handful of basic techniques named and described, 1 or 2 lines each - V/K, swish, reframe, etc)
5. NLP as a field of knowledge
   • Taxonomy (classification) and connected subjects
     (Where NLP fits into human knowledge)
   • NLP as a discipline
     (Conduct and standards supervision, professional bodies, training structure... and issues concerning the frequent lack of these)
   • Distribution and applications
     (How NLP is encountered and distributed, including mainstream and dubious approaches)
   • Controversies
     (Cult use, Mass marketing and unethical promotion, Lack of critical self-evaluation)
6. Evaluating NLP
   • Researching NLP
   • Scientific view
   • Users' anecdotal views
   • Skeptical view
     (Skeptics concerns that NLP – at least, as commonly presented – shares too many features with other pseudoscientific subjects for comfort: - New Age, own terminology, either poorly explained or psychobabble, not yet positively accepted by consensus of major bodies of clinical or neurological scientists, frequently marketed and applied commercially in dubious or 'fringe' styles)
7. See also
8. External links
9. References

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Polymath?

Does Gregory Bateson really deserve to be called a "polymath"? His Wikipedia entry describes him as "anthropologist, social scientist, linguist and cyberneticist," and the first three are related soft-sciences at best, and the fourth is not much better. I do not think that there is any way that he merits being called a polymath.Hi There 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced. We'd need to research more to check. But I don't see linguistics and anthropology as "related" very much, nor cybernetics. So thats at least 3 distinct fields he was acknowledged in: anthropology/social sciences, linguistics, and cybernetics. Those don't seem to overlap at all strongly. So I'm tempted to put the term back in, unless its too strong a term for this. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_scientist states "The social sciences are groups of academic disciplines that study the human aspects of the world......Social scientists engage in research and theorize about both aggregate and individual behaviors." Merely changing this to read "The linguistics is an academic discipline that studies certain human aspects of the world......Linguists engage in research and theorize about both aggregate and individual behaviors" gives us a fairly good definition of linguistics. This is appropriate because linguistics is, after all, a field that is properly a part of the social sciences. Changing "social sciences" or "linguistics" to "anthropology" likewise gives us a fairly good definition of anthropology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology states that "Anthropology... consists of the study of humanity (see genus Homo). It is holistic in two senses: it is concerned with all humans at all times and with all dimensions of humanity. Anthropology is traditionally distinguished from other disciplines by its emphasis on cultural relativity, in-depth examination of context, and cross-cultural comparisons." You could replace "anthropology" by the word "linguistics" and have a fairly good definition of many aspects of linguistics. If you replace "anthropology" with "various fields of social science" you get a servieable definition of those various fields.

Anthropology (and ethnology) and linguistics are both social sciences, and both are concerned with human behaviour; although linguistics confines its study to a narrower area but an area, nonetheless, that is contained in or at the very least overlaps anthropology and is, more broadly, contained within the social sciences. Therefore, "three fields" in which Bateson worked should be seen as related.

Let us now look at the fourth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics tells us the following: "...cybernetics is the study of systems and control in an abstracted sense - that is, it is not grounded in any one empirical field... cybernetics has the scope and rigor to encompass the human social interactions of agreement and collaboration that, after all, require goals and feedback to attain..." Or in other words, it is a method of analyzing systems amongst which systems can be included human social interactions. (The cited article has an extensive but certainly incomplete list of fields in which cybernetics can applied, including many social sciences.) http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/definitions.htm quotes Bateson himself as describing cybernetics as "the study of form and pattern" and that is a decription that is applicable to linguistics, to anthropology, to social science, and in fact to ALL sciences both hard and soft. Cybernetics in this case can be seen as part of his approach to the social sciences and not necessarily something separate and apart from it. It can also be seen as part of his approach to his (seemingly strictly behaviouralist) view of schizophrenia, the "double-bind" most probably being a situation where an action on the part of the subject is not met with a consist response (or in cybernetic terms, feedback) from the environment or other agents in the environment. In this case, not only is his cybernetic interest part of his other social science interests, but his "psychiatric" theories are also an outgrowth of his approach to analyzing human society and interaction.

So it seems, to me, at any rate, that all his areas of study and research are related and overlapping.

I must add that I have no intention here of criticizing his work - work with which I am not familiar; my only issue is with the term "polymath" which I do not believe fits him at all. Although to be fair, I am participating in a discussion of what is and is not a polymath on the WP "Polymath" and "List of Polymaths" articles. My idea of a polymath is Alexanxer von Humboldt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_von_Humboldt and please to note a section of this article entitled "Universal Genius".)

Hi There 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood. But not sure I agree the logic. The fact that 2 subjects can both be described in a similar template is not really evidence that they are at all similar. I don;t feel that "The linguistics is an academic discipline that studies certain human aspects of the world......Linguists engage in research and theorize about both aggregate and individual behaviors" is a good definition of linguistics, which is about how language is used, manipulated and created, rather than human society. Although they interact, they don't much overlap, and a linguist will not in general be an anthropologist and vice-versa. Bateson was a recognized scholar in 3 pretty much completely different fields -- human society and culture, language development and structures and language families, and information systems and control mechanisms. Those seem 3 completely different areas. Interaction doesn't really mean similarity, it just means he used his knowledge from field A in studying field B as well. Thoughts?

Clearing problems in article?

Hello Woohookitty. You're comments;

• It seems to have gotten worse. It now reads like a promo booklet. Why do we have all of this bold? We're not here to be "eye catching", which is the only reason for all of this bold. As I've said many times, this is NOT a research paper. We're not here to make arguments.

• Sections that repeat other sections.

• Block quotes with almost no context.

I see what you say Woohookitty. Its part organization of the paragraphs and part the writing. I have just finished an English writing course and I think I can do a better job as of now. Hylas Chung 08:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I tried to clear the redundant text. There is more I will do. The citations need more filling. I don't understand why there is philosophy and self declared scope. NLP is not a person so the lines should not be written like NLP is a thinking thing. I have other articles to work on and I will do more here soon. Hylas Chung 08:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see user:Woohookitty's comment above, of 10:43, 9 June 2006:

"No, you don't get what's happening here. We want critics. We just don't want more meatpuppets that have come here via the University of Hong Kong skeptics club"

and my various comments to other sock/meatpuppets of HeadleyDown. These apply equally to you too.

• Before: "Beyerstein, Lilienfeld and Eisner express concern over the verification of certain aspects of NLP."
• After: "Beyerstein, Lilienfeld and Eisner are concerned about ... NLP spreading pseudoscientific or misleading ideas...."

I've reverted the edits. There is far more duplication of these ideas, if duplication is a concern, than bona fide explanation of NLP itself. Please read my and Woohookitty's comments above, both to you and others. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FT2. Woohookitty said that you can not ban all Hong Kong citizens from editing the article.

Here are Woohookitty's words to me: "HongKong, that is a gross overstatement. Those folks who belong to the skeptics club of the University of Hong Kong are the ones getting blocked because they are meatpuppets of each other. Not every citizen of Hong Kong is being blocked. --Woohookitty(meow)" 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [7]

FT2. I live in Tsim Sha Tsui Hong Kong. I am not in any skeptic society. I am not at the University of Hong Kong. I am a bona fide editor. I can edit. I make very good edits. I can work with good editors. My edits agree with Woohookitty and his suggestions. You reverted my good edits. Now the article is again more promo. The article needs work. There have been no good changes in more than a month. The main body needs organization and changes. I can make the article better very easy. I can make the article less promo and I can clear away the essay type argument. The opening needs summary style writing just as WP:summary style says. Hylas Chung 08:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FT2. This version is better: [8]

Woohookitty suggested that the essay style is bad. I took away the line on credible bodies worldwide. It is your original research. I will work on the main body of NLP. NPOV style can be added to clear and explain the NLP. It is easy to describe. Just simple statements of what NLP people do. Fair does not mean equal. Fair should say what NLP simply is. Good knowledge about the findings of NLP make it fair. This article can be written much more clearly. Hylas Chung 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the evidence. Its easy to see: [9]. NLP is thought to be pseudoscience. So scientists say it should not be promoted like science. That is the criticism. That is right for summary style opening. Hylas Chung 09:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Those words were to you, not people in general, as you know. Meatpuppetry on this article associated in any way or shape with HeadleyDown is not allowed. Thats what comes of vandalism, I suppose. See above for comments, and note that Woohookitty's decision stands as far as I can see. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FT2. I am a bona fide editor. I will wait for Usercheck [10] to verify. Hylas Chung 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FT2. Woohookitty has given a new reply to me on my talkpage. You can check it. I will wait and not edit the article until this is sorted out. I need more clear advice from outside source. Hylas Chung 03:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I decided I will not edit the article. Woohookitty is helpful. You have no evidence or right to be calling me a puppet. The checkuser was inconclusive. I have many other articles to edit. This article will have to be edited by other bona fide editors.Hylas Chung 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I noticed that this article has been unprotected. Please watch this article closely as it has been prone to madness in the past. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up Criticism

I made a first stab at reordering the arguments in the "Criticism" section, bringing together all of the arguments on the basis of science, of mainstream psychotherapy, of religion, etc. Where it was possible, I consolidated various citations from the same author into one paragraph. There's a lot more to do along these lines! -- Shunpiker 19:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello I have been on this page before. Some may say iam for NLP and a fanatic. Well there are shades of grey in there. I am glad HeadleyDown is gone, nothing personal. My point really is without getting into all the politics that Since the world began there has been ignorance toward particular avenues. One would be a cave that a cave man clan would not enter because some guy claimed to be a wise man said there was evil in there. The clan would never find out and would never enter so they would never really know but the shaman's word is taken as real. The wikipedia is a trusted source editted by many people with valuable information that can enrich peoples lives and for those who just peruse and do not edit may make the distinction thatthis article has portrayed NLP as crappy and not worth investigating. They may stop there and not really know. Another example is if someone tells me "hey that guy over there is an idiot don't talk to him, You wont like him trust me". How do they know? I could become good friends with that guy whereas if I had listenned to my other friend I think I start becoming a sheep. Baaaaah! I don't read movie reviews either. So please keep the wikipedia aplace of learning. Thank you [Justin]

Maybe you should Neuro-linguistically program yourself for better English. --Gigantic Killerdong 20:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

HI. I thought I'd find a factual page here. Theres a lot of unsupported claims tho. The scientific looking stuff with citations looks really good, but there are some very hypie lines that either don't have support from authors, or it looks like someones presenting their own view using a bunch of testimonials. JM

A bunch of testimonials... you mean like every pro-NLP source? Snicker. --Gigantic Killerdong 20:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

NLP and suicide

The links between the study of NLP and elevated suicide rates hasn't been mentioned at any point. NLP is shortly going to be banned along with Scientology and a bunch of similar cult/con artist types in Ireland. I know of a number of cases where Scientologists drained sick people of their cash and then removed them from treatment until they were so weakened that even with medical care they died. NLP 'trainers' have trained a lot of people who go on to commit suicide shortly after leaving the course. They would debate that they train a lot of people who are so called 'three time losers' but if that were the case there wouldn't be a task force assigned to their investigation.

NLPs close relationship to hypnotism and ease of use by con artists has led to many tragedies and any number of criminal cases. Hopefully the ban in Ireland can be extended to the EU and the Scientologists will soon follow. 83.70.226.196 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats a bunch of CRAP! There is no evidence for NLP being banned in Ireland. You havn't shown any reference or date on your dirty allegation. The evidence is opposite to what you say. NLP is the most flexible and advanced positive psychology in existence. I seriously doubt that you can find any source to back up your dubious claim. D.Boyle.

NLP has its problems, but there's no evidence connecting it with suicide. For example, this NLP devotee has a bunch of notes about suicide prevention.[11]Yakuman 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Update article with latest research

I've just added a link to the NLP Research Centre featuring a recent review of the NLP literature to date. I had some involvement with the technical side of building the database. But the actually research was completed by a researcher in cognitive science. At the same time I have removed some external links to sites that did not contain any referenced; unreferenced articles are inherently unreliable. I'd like to suggest that we look to reduce the number of references on this page and replace with scholarly references. It might be a good idea to add a few more links to the industry associations. Also, are all those "See Also" links necessary; many are only barely related to NLP. --Comaze 08:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there is a chance that experts and researchers might expand the NLP and science article? Eli the Barrow-boy 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the science section says it all. Its an unscientific development. If anything, the claims in the NLP explanation sections above need better refs. Why is there so much good refs in the science and criticism section, but hardly any in the NLP claims sections? When I compare with other psychological articles on wikipedia, this one seems to be very un-backed-up in its claims. Alan Barnet

Alan. There are differing "NLP claims" or in NPOV terms, multiple definitions of NLP. Some versions are more like folk psychology than others. Preference should be given to scholarly sources in summarising the various definitions of NLP and its uses. Some applications have limited support in the academic literature. While NLP has become popular in education and management training, some psychologists have raised concerns about the lack of scientific support. Perhaps the focus of the topic "NLP and science" would probably best be described as "theoretical basis of NLP" then we could go into the scientific, psychological or experimental basis, or its lack thereof. --Comaze 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a nonstarter Comaze. Theres no claimed theoretical basis to it apart from how the science measurements look at it and they pretty quickly say it doesnt work at all. I would stick with what scientific knowledge says about it. But just say what the claims are earlier. I got some books on NLP from the university library and they certainly dont make claims like normal psych books. It needs framing properly. Say what the science papers say about its claims, then list the claims. Then show the results of the testing. Now it looks like a lot of guff with no clear message about the guff within the guff. I looked in the history tab and there is a lot of good stuff in there thats been deleted. Looks like the whole article was well solid before. I think some of that can help the present problems. I added some on patterns that are in the books, and some information on the models. Why was this deleted before? Its full of useful refs and its obviously right if you look at the common books. I also sorted out that section on goals. Its not the NLP that has goals. The user is supposed to have the goals. Theres a lot of that sort of writing in the nlp article and it needs more sorting out. Alan Barnet

Arguably, science can generally be given more weight on wikipedia than psychological or evidence from popular NLP books. However, what is more important is that we make an effort for all significant views to be represented fairly. I don't see how inserting text from past disputed versions of this article is bringing the article closer feature article candidacy. I've made an attempt at rewriting the scope to bring it more in line with this goal. --Comaze 07:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know who disputed the deleted info but its very much in order from the books I have read. The views are a bit narrow. I noticed some views from previous versions from other academic fields in the history tab. The NLP books have had a large say already but it is a bit one sided towards the commercial view. Now I think the other scholar areas need a mention as well. I'll see how it all fits together in the right view-proportion. I'll also get an account for myself and read more about the rules of Wikipedia about articles like these. Alan Barnet

Alan, I've started to notice recent academic monographies on psychotherapeutic approaches, cognitive science, and synergetics that include sections describing theoretical structure of NLP. These are being published even in Russian. Articles on NLP as a phenomenon that gives some insights into the structure of communication are included in some recent psychology encyclopaedias. It seems to me that the status of NLP as a scientific subject is a matter of time. Or perhaps, on the basis of NLP and other insights, a purely scientific approach will be developed, if necessary. For me NLP represents only three letters used to describe some interesting findings from different approaches, and it seems so unfortunate that more attention is attracted to these letters, not to the structure of this yet protoscientific approach. Eli the Barrow-boy 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

New comment: I can understand how an article about this kind of work can arouse strong emotions both in those who want to affirm it and those who want to express problems they have experienced or witnessed with it. Perhaps once a suitable and neutral article can be formatted from the available information (by moderators or preferably an NLP expert taking care not to stray into promotion), an additional link to "experiences with NLP" on a discussion page such as this one will allow people to battle it out without ruining the encyclopedic descriptions. I came here just to clarify for myself what NLP is about but it is really clear that the article has been tampered with by enthusiasts and detractors and I cannot rely on it.

ftr I have had experience with group training programmes (not necessarily defined as NLP) that left me uncomfortable because their self-certainty verged on bullying and left me in a bit of a mess as to my own development. Additionally I was unhappy with being sold courses and with the failure to accept my existing strategies as already powerful, in the context of intense training to which I was surrendering myself. However I tend to prefer concentrating on the benefits simply because some of the excellent tools I learnt do require an affirmative outlook and they are that embedded.

People for whom NLP works are clearly not savvy enough to the pitfalls and how powerful those can be to unsuccessful subscribers. And people for whom it does not work or who reject it are apparently reluctant to respect the value of this work for others. It is an interesting conversation that maybe warrants a Wikipedia article in itself. Dom 10 November 2006 Ends NB Please reformat as appropriate if necessary. I don't know what all those tags are about.

Dom, as far as my study of NLP goes, it all depends on the trainer and his training qualities. How he/she develops interrelationships within the group, or, to put it correctly, how effectively he sets the scene for interrelationships to flow. I can tell nothing about the person and the group where you had training, however what I can share from my point of view is that in NLP it is presupposed to respect or at least acknowledge other person's map—or adaptation patterns to the world, if you prefer. And the point of NLP training (in NLP-Practitioner-like courses) isn't that it has to destroy your adaptive balance with the world and crush your effective adaptive patterns. At first, I didn't understand this point that in that kind of training they only give you new tools to explore, and if you don't find them effective you always may stick with your preferable effective strategies. Of course, one needs to consider obvious limitations of group trainings. I think the arcticle will become more informative on this account sooner or later. Eli the Barrow-boy 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Eli. The article is looking much improved. Dom, 08 December 2006

NLP and linguistic developement

It seems somehow ironic to this editor that the proponents of a treatment called "Neuro-'linguistic' programming" communicate in such terrible English. Food for thought. --Gigantic Killerdong 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many talented writers were scared off. Hopefully we can enourage some to return and contribute. When the article is up to cratch we'll encourage copy editors to clean it up. --Comaze 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the recent additions to the main article have some awful language in them. I'll have to sort them out. I had a pretty good look at the recommendations in NPOV policy pages, and there's a lot of work to do here to catch up with the quality of other articles. AlanBarnet 20:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've sorted out the English in the Commmon patterns section. At the same time, I've improved the NPOV language in that section. The rest of the article needs work. --Comaze 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze, it may help if you took a good look at the articles on writing style and words to avoid. There is a lot of useful information there that will help you keep the language in the article more neutral. AlanBarnet 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm current rewriting that techniques section in paragraph style. By the way, inserting that section on "NLP as a New Age approach" at the top of the article raises the NPOV flags. Some of your other edits, for example to Scope were fine. --Comaze 10:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Its definitely overview material. I'll find some more to place there. I got rid of the heading. Theres a lot of copy editing to do in this article and I'll focus here as much as possible until its done. The history tab has a huge amount of good sourcing in it. In fact its also useful for other articles. I really think writers here should start looking more closely at the policy pages before they start writing. AlanBarnet 10:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see where you're going with that move now. Can you have a look at the techniques/ritual section again. I think that ritual is POV as it is rarely used to describe the techniques in the academic literature. It appears to overemphasise the spiritual, or otherwise flakey aspects of NLP. Similarly to use of "a god's eye view" in the current description of perceptual positions has the same problem, so does the description of circles of excellence. While there is only a few hundred articles on NLP indexed in psychinfo it does gives a reliable indication of what is considered to be the "core" techniques and terminology. Otherwise it will be very difficult to come to some agreement over terminology because of the many different schools. --Comaze 12:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ritual is basic psychology and we all use it in writing just as Dilts and the other refs I verified. Likewise with the spiritual aspects. Its obvious from the literature already there that its psychospiritual. Flakey really is a matter of POV though and I'd definitely not use the term outside of quotes. Psychinfo database, or any other such base is not reliable. The books you see in the stores are pretty much spot on as an indicator. The online Dilts reference mirrors that perfectly. I just took a look at it as the article was begging for verification. It all holds. Agreement or consensus is unnecessary here as NPOV policy is simple and says if it is verifiable and reliable then it can be used. There are far more shaky areas that need improving and sourcing. I suggest you focus on those. It looks like NPOV priorities have been ignored for a long time in this article. AlanBarnet 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet, You have raised a number of issues that I want to bring up here in relation to the patterns/techniques section and more generally to promote reliable sources in the article. Firstly, ritual is not generally used in the psychological literature to describe NLP patterns/techniques therefore claiming that ritual is basic psychology is simply not valid. It is clearly skeptical POV. Technique or pattern would be more neutral. Similarly, emphasising the spiritual aspects pushing a similar POV. Again please use neutral language. Furthermore, the psychinfo database is trusted by most university and psychology departments. Why claim it is unreliable? The peer-reviewed articles it indexes are more reliable than any book on NLP found on the skeptics site or in a flakey new age section. It seems like a straw man argument is being set up by defining NLP in terms of new age flakes. Self published books are certainly not as reliable as peer reviewed journal articles, for instance, the online Dilts reference is self published, and would not hold as much weight as a peer reviewed source. NLP University and "American Pacific University" are both non-accredited. I bring this up to point out that there are many unsupported claims made in the books and marketing of NLP. Some trainers even claim to have PhDs from non-accredited universities. It is then most important to give preference peer-reviewed or only those NLP works that are highly cited in the peer review literature like "Structure of Magic Vol 1 and Vol 2", Frogs into Princes, etc. If we can agree on peer-reviewed articles as a strategy then we can begin to make some progress. Otherwise, any work on the article that does not use reliable sources will have to be revised at a later date. --Comaze 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up ritual again. Ritual is mentioned in the online source of Dilts and I did not include it. It should therefore be included. I'll make the changes. Accusing me of POV pushing is unconstructive. NLP uni press is the publisher (not Dilts) and can be considered reliable as expert source. Plus, ritual is a common psychology word and is as appropriate as using words such as excellence and programming. AlanBarnet 22:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your information on NLP university press is incorrect. It is a self-published source because "NLP University Press" is owned and operated by Robert Dilts. And he is the primary author. Also NLP University is not an accredited university so don't be fooled into thinking it is reliable source of information. Again, ritual is not generally used to described the techniques used of NLP. It has pejorative connotations. --Comaze 03:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Juan Matus

I believe that Juan Matus of Carlos Castaneda refered to Neuro programming in his concept or teaching of 'Not doing' and 'internal dialogue'. Words and languages are percieved or understood differently influenced by internal prejudice and 'internal dialogues' which maintain a fixed view of the world. We see what we want to see and our own internal programming and scripts and act accordingly. Stop the internal dialogue and you will be able to see/percieve more, and broaden your thingking. Since I can't find an official authority to support this and this is a personal reflection, I can't place this in the article.--Jondel 06:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In Turtles all the way down (Grinder & Delozier, 2000) and Whispering in the Wind (Grinder & Bostic St Clair, 2001) there is reference to internal silence in that it is important for achieving states of external attention with minimal conscious attention. Grinder refers to this as "first access". It is required for perceptual positions, and NLP modeling exercises. Check the other literature to see if it is included reliable third party sources. --Comaze 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Castaneda is a new age guru who the authors of NLP refer to quite a lot in the refs I have. AlanBarnet 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the "Religosity" section, and now it is called "Religiosity & Spirituality." However, I'm not quite sure if we can call Castaneda's teachings a "spiritual practice", since there are more of shamanic elements in it (for instance, Arnold Mindell in several his books describes Castaneda's works as works on shamanic worldlook and practices), than of pure "spirituality" development. Castaneda article is a NPOV mess right now, so I wouldn't want to dig into it to figure that out. Eli the Barrow-boy 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• "as states Robert Caroll of Skeptics dictionary , "At the same time, much of what NLP is teaching is how to do cold reading. This is valuable, but an art not a science, and should be used with caution." [12]"
• Bandler says (eg. David Gordon: Therapeutic metaphor, 1979) that the influence of Jon Juan Casteneda, spirituality or Milton Erickson can be explained by their use of metaphor.
• Grinder says that while spirituality is vague term, he considers this to be a personal belief which has no place in NLP. To include it would be an ethical violation (Whispering 2001). --Comaze 22:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact and reference check

"Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next."WP:Reliable sources I want to begin to checking all the sources running reference checks on this article systematically. When this is complete, we can ask for a fact and reference check. Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are more reliable, other things being equal, than those without these procedures. If you can help, please let me know and we can assign different sections to each other. --Comaze 00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Findings

1. Some of the quotes from Devilly were misleading. There is nothing new in Devilly's paper. He simply comments on NLP as an example of "Power therapy". Devilly cites Sharpley's review for its lack of controlled studies. --Comaze 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
2. The section title Scientific analysis and "Claims to Science" also mixes facts with opinions. While Beyerstein is reputable and should be included somewhere, Beyerstein has not conducted any new reseach on NLP. Similar to Lilienfeld, Beyerstein takes a hard nose scientific stance on any talk therapy. Be careful to separate scientific evidence from opinion or commentary from these authors. --Comaze 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Biases noted

Well, I just had a checkup on the recent changes and reversions. My journalist suspicions got pretty much confirmed when users like 58.179.189.82 have shown a severe reluctance to admit well sourced facts about theory. Also Comaze, your latest changes have led me to believe there will be a very much uphill struggle to present anything vaguely related to facts as the are or even NPOV policy. You made some very odd changes to the article that look just like some kind of promotion and business bias. I noticed an authority above in the discussion page ( the user Woohookitty) who complained about similar edits and I’m not at all surprised he got sick of editing here. I will explain: I looked up the Devilly paper, and the Beyerstein credentials. They are both professors. That is the job they do and that is their bias. If you can find any reliable info about them using scientism then post it up for discussion. Devilly talks about NLP as a power therapy and says it is pseudoscience. In the edit about German education and scientology, you say you were unable to verify the source. Why? Babelfish is easy to use, and the term scientology is clear already. You removed the Kelly ref and gave no reason for why you think the section is unbalanced. Claiming unbalance is not a reason to remove information. You will have to do better than that. Kelly is a reliable book source and it is pretty much confirmed by the rest of the article. You changed New Age therapies to alternative therapies. Why? The whole article is about the New Age. Your reluctance to have such information presented smacks of strong promoter bias. You cut Druckman’s line - NLP has been found to be most ineffective concerning influence/persuasion and modeling of skills - and it is very clear that Druckman says it is uneffective for influence skills. Your deletion there is very bad and again smacks of promoter bias. You added Druckmans comment - While Druckman found little support many many aspects of NLP, they comments that the merit of modeling required further investigation Scientific review in the early 1980s finding that modeling (p.138) - but that is highly inaccurate considering NLP has been dropped since then in such research. I noticed the later Von Bergen paper says NLP has been dropped by Druckman completely from the research. Devilly emphasizes this kind of fact saying the research has come and gone and only the belief remains. It’s a new age belief system rather than just an unsupported talk therapy. With so many hides going on the only thing to do to make the editing work is to revert all of your changes. Sorry, but your bias has become very clear now. If you are going to work at all on this article you are going to have to tread far more carefully. AlanBarnet 13:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that German ref does not count as a verifiable source. And it was misleading. There are many other misleading sources used on the article. Let's assume good faith here. I have attempted to make edits with guidelines. {{quote_required}} or {{dubious}} tag to the disputed text. Also you have misrepresented Devilly in your comments. Devilly cites Sharpley, otherwise it is simply opinion and should really be excluded under NPOV. Now, I don't usually do this but under the circumstances I am going to revert back to my version. I'd appreciate it if you mark the specific text you disagree with rather than blanket revert, you will find that on the whole it is an improvement on the article. --Comaze 14:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Marking all your changes dubious is unreasonable. If you don't want your edits reverted then stop deleting verifiable information. All of the reasoning for your changes is completely unconvincing. AlanBarnet 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. Please stop reverting. I'm in the middle of a major fact and reference check. --Comaze 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No Comaze if you revert again I will revert yours later the next day according to the rules. You cannot keep deleting or skewing reliable information. AlanBarnet 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in any revert war. I did not delete any information. Nor did I set out to skew any reliable information. Rather I based my changes upon checking the references. I made notes for each change in each edit. Nonetheless, I will check and revise my edits before posting again. If you blanket revert again, then we'll have to engage in dispute resolution. Let's try to resolve these issues first. --Comaze 03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sort out article

Ok Im going to make an effort to sort this article out. I know there is pressure to make a promo booklet here and I will make an effort to clear that problem up. Just looking at the kind of argument that the promo booklet editors use it is easy to see what info they don't want in the article. Unfortunately that looks exactly like the info that will make the article right again. Lilienfeld seems to be a major player in the scientific line. If anyone has his book refs or quotes they will do well here. There are some presented above in discussion and I will check them out online wherever possible. AlanBarnet 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll assuming good faith here. You have now reverted several times. I will take into account your suggestions when working with the article, just please stop blanket reverting. The articles does need alot of work, and that will just slow us down. A review of the science in the article is needed. I have a database of all the peer-reviewed research to date on NLP which we can draw from. I can provide you access to that database if you require. As I said I also have access to the university library databases and psychological journals. Most of the "science" in this article was written by someone who had little respect for the difference between fact and opinion. Keep in mind that Lilienfeld and Beyerstein take a hard nose stance against any talk therapy including those used by APS members. Be careful though, on wikipedia we take a Neutral POV. It is not a Scientific POV. This means even a "pseudoscientifc psychobabble" or alternative talk therapy must be represented as atleast plausible. --Comaze 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I will stop blanket reverting when you stop blanket warping the sources. The article needs less work now that I have made appropriate changes over the last few days. Why did it take you so long to jump into action? Judging by your activities you have made next to no constructive changes for months despite the need though you have made edits that involve deleting the solution to the problem. I have read both Beyerstein and Lilienfeld online just now and they display a normal scientific viewpoint when tackling subjects like NLP. All of the edits I made were true to NPOV policy and the majority of yours were against NPOV policy especially in terms of misrepresenting the facts or quotes from sources. Woohookitty spelt it out pretty clearly what I am up against here. So with that mental set I will keep improving the article despite your resistence if need be. Your resistence to Lilienfeld makes it pretty clear that the view needs including. I will trawl back through the history tab to see if it has been appropriately included in the past. AlanBarnet 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lilienfeld does not display a "normal scientific viewpoint". They take a hard nose scientific stance toward any talk therapy, that includes all psychotherapies. Besides Wikipedia is not written from a scientific point of view. It is written from a neutral point of view. --Comaze 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Change to techiques section (or Patterns or Rituals)

As per my edit comments I made changes to the "techniques" section or what was called patterns/rituals. I removed the pejorative connotations such as banish, ritual, gods eye, chakras, floating back, and replaced with neutral language. --Comaze 03:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I've cleaned up the description of VK/D, renaming it to "the cinema technique". I want to avoid calling it "5 minute phobia cure" because could be misleading. It is called the cinema technique in a few psych articles. Otherwise it is called VK/D by Figley, Lillienfeld, and Lohr. --Comaze 06:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Additionally, Dietrich (2000) reviewed of the VK/D literature and found that it supported effective for "treatment of posttraumatic sequelae" This journal article is available online, [13]. --Comaze 06:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
3. There is an additional source, Hossack, A. Bentall, R. (1996) "Elimination of posttraumatic symptomatology by relaxation and visual-kinesthetic dissociation" Journal of Traumatic Stress, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 99-110. --Comaze 06:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
4. I've rewritten the description of swish based on the description written by Bandler. And also, what is available in the peer reviewed literature. There were only a peer reviewed case studies on the swish. --Comaze 07:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
5. There is a good definition of rapport in NLP on page 593 from "Einspruch, E and Forman, B (1985) Observations Concerning Research Literature on Neuro-linguistic Programming Journal of Counselling Psychology Vol.32, No.4, pp.589-596" --Comaze 07:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Bandler and Grinder observed that Milton H. Erickson ... "was a master at building rapport by subtly mirroring his patients’ body language. In mirroring his patients, he would not directly imitate the patient but would simply tilt his head at an angle similar to the angle of his patient’s and/or respond with body movements comparable to those performed by the patient."(p.541) - John Clabby, PhD; Robert O’Connor, MD "Teaching Learners to Use Mirroring: Rapport Lessons From Neurolinguistic Programming" Journal of Family Medicine Vol. 36, No. 8

Yes well all those changes are consistent with what user Woohookitty called the promo booklet style. Sorry but the most constructive thing to do to all your incorrect changes is to revert. If you want to make such suspicious changes you are supposed to discuss first. You didnt so you get reverted. AlanBarnet 09:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) The most responsible set of scientists (Lilienfeld, Beyerstein and others) show the clearest message. Of course some people choose NLP but they are pretty much fooled into thinking it is science. The most obvious statement I could find about this is now in the opening and it explains why there is concern about NLP and the like being used or adopted by the unsuspecting or the gullible. AlanBarnet 10:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You are doing great job, Comaze. Thank you! Eli the Barrow-boy 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately all of those changes were reverted: [14][15][16][17][[18]]--Comaze 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comaze you are editing against NPOV policy and your edits are as user Woohookitty said - promo booklet style. I decided to adopt user Woohookittys attitude as it is not worth my time having to deal daily with pov pushers. I will work with editors who are willing to talk straight and edit straight. You are completely unwilling to do so according to your edits and comments. I will keep a really close eye on this article and at regular times will revert any promo booklet style editing. I have other articles to work on but this will be one I will return to regularly. Something needs to be done long term about the problems with promo pushing on this article. AlanBarnet 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep working on that section. I've added an undue weight banner on that section for now. I'll add some more statements from peer reviewed psychological literature, and neutralise any promotional language. If you disagree with any of the statements please add the request quote tag. --Comaze 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, you are doing a great job. Please ignore anyone who threatens to stalk you on wikipedia. They will be banned for stalking in due course anyway. 58.178.144.203 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That version AlanBarnet has paste in is somewhat cynical[19]. Even if you think NLP is New Age pseudoscience or alternative therapy, it still has to be presented as plausible. I'll revise it, again. Any suggestions / ideas ? --Comaze 14:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Circle of Excellence etc

• '''Circle of Excellence''': Standing in an imaginary magic circle, filling it with symbols and archetypes of choice, in order to banish negativity and enhance positive thinking for use in any NLP situation.<ref name="dummy">Ready.R. and Burton.K (2004) NLP for Dummies John Wiley & Sons ISBN 0764570285 p.250</ref>

Is this a reliable source for describing the Circle of Excellence? Has it been interpreted correctly by the editor?

I was somewhat confused by this description, because it didn't match the information that I had. I don't have all the books at hand right now, however a quick googling for "circle of excellence" showed this result [20] with a nice description of what it is:

The Circle of Excellence is a basic self-anchoring process originally developed by Dr. John Grinder co-creator of NLP. Circle of Excellence can be used to elicit, create and stabalise desired states.

The point is that the Circle of Excellence technique isn't about magic, it is about anchoring resources (in terms of NLP). Eli the Barrow-boy 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Perceptual positions: A situation is considered from different points of view of those involved, typically 1.self, 2.other, 3.a neutral observer, 4. a god's eye view.

This description seems incorrect to me; and I think the sources are misinterpreted again. NLP mainly considers three positions, and the original names for those are:

1. First position
2. Second position
3. Third position (Meta-position)

Here is an article with a short overview [21] (though I wouldn't recommend it as a main source). There seems to be no "a god's eye view" at all in NLP terminology. Although the fourth position is mentioned:

Robert Dilts (1990) specified the Fourth Perceptual Position in his book Changing Belief Systems with NLP. He defined the Fourth Position as “We?? – from the perspective of the system. Many refer to it as the “Systems?? Position. [22]

We may use it as a hint for further reliable sources investigation. Eli the Barrow-boy 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rapport: Mirroring or copying somebody's body language, and representational language (VAK) in an attempt to gain trust and directly influence their subconscious mind (Bandler et al 1977p10).

That's not very correct description. As far as I know, rapport is a specific state of relationships between two people (or more), where communication flows in an effective system. Mirroring is a pattern used to build rapport, the second element is pacing, where you influence a person by influencing yourself (your behavior). I think a more accurate description should be written. Eli the Barrow-boy 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

References

I'm going to make some effort towards fixing the references. For whatever reason (debris from an edit war?), many of the references are currently similar to...

• 62. ^ a b c d (1990 p.30)
• 63. ^ a b (1997 page 291)
• 64. ^ a b c d
• 65. ^

...which aren't much use. Addhoc 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou Addhoc. We need to ensure that your changes are not lost when people make edits. I will also clean up the references as I check work on different sections of the article. --Comaze 20:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

History and development

Hi folks,

I'd like to help improve the history and development section. I'd like the section to reflect the growth, spread, controversy and diversity that is so especially fascinating about NLP. In order to do that I'm wondering if someone can point me to any historical edits of the article that attempt this approach to telling the history of NLP in all it's grotty glory. My first guess approximation would be section titles like: - 1970's (therapists, hypnosis, new age philosophy) - 1980's (growth, spread, new developers, scientific assessment) - 1990's (divisions, controversy, marketing, etc) - 2000's (new fields, government regulation, legal actions, core techniques)

Any improvements? ideas?

If anyone has the motivation to start writing something along those lines, I'd be able to chip in when I have time. 58.179.183.152 12:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The main article is for general overview, so unfortunately it is not possible to fit everything in. However there is History of neuro-linguistic programming, and you may find it interesting to improve it in first way. The article mentioned does need improvement. Eli the Barrow-boy 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as Woohoo said just before he left, there is alot of repeated content, with little attempt at introducing, or linking different ideas. For example, there are block quotes with no introduction. There is also very little cohesion within paragraphs and even less flow between them. We need to work on the structure of paragraphs. A good place would be to develop the topic sentences of each. Also there should be one idea per paragraph. Many paragraphs seem to be a patchwork of fact and opinion. 58.179.183.152's suggestion will insert some much needed structure. At the same time, I think the history should be short and link to the subpage for more detail. --Comaze 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the other similar articles have history at the top, then definitions or principles. Have a look at article structure of Hypnosis or Psychology --Comaze 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened the history and development section and moved the alternate styles section up there. It focus is on the development between 1973-1980 so I renamed the headline accordingly. Something needs to be done with the "Origins of the name" and "Alternative styles" section. I think that 58.179.183.152 provide a good framework for organising that information. BTW, the Overview/Principles section are still a mess. --Comaze 02:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What do you think of the history section now? any comments or suggestions? What about the 1990s section? --Comaze 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Science summary

Though the theme is still strong in the article I've cut this extract to here:

These empirical studies and review papers have given NLP a negative assessment, that there is lacking scientific support for many of NLP's assertions and claimed efficacies .

There is far too many falsified citations and quotes being found in the article to allow this summary to stand. When we have rectified things they may not support this summary. When we have finished weeding the fabricated quotes and citations an appropriate summary can be reinserted. All good. 58.178.144.203 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. We also need some way of distinguishing between high impact peer reviewed sources, and the somewhat less reliable sources. Some statements are written in an exaggerated tabloid style. We need to make sure that we also remove any promotional style descriptions of NLP. --Comaze 11:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vagueries, Superlative degree, and Proper Attribution

Hi folks. I find the following statement formats quite acceptable:

'...NLP is at times criticized as pseudoscientific...'
'...NLP is criticized by {person description} {person X} as pseudoscientific...'
'...NLP is criticized by {geeky internet blogger} {Fred Smith} as pseudoscientific...'

However, the following:

'...NLP is criticized as pseudoscientific...'

Is an inacceptable use of the superlative degree and is obviously not verifiable. To avoid these kind of statements should be especially obvious for anyone claiming to have a background in journalism (which I doubt). So please leave proper scoping and contextualising statements, especially avoiding nonsense edit summaries like "removing vaguery". Statements of degree and contrast are useful (like "at times" "however" etc) and create an obvious context of flow when connecting fundamentally disparate statements. It is anal and beligerent to delete every adjective, like some kind of vigilante autistic. 58.178.103.26 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This will help reduce the black and white thinking that has crept into the page. Characterising the biases of sources is a necessary part of NPOV especially for criticism. There still remains there bald statements, or block quotes with no introduction or transition. I believe the authors in question may have been trying to avoid argument by just making statements with no context. Unfortunately this has been at the cost of context, logical flow and cohesion. The Claims to science is just a jumble of unlinked sentences. It has no logical flow. --Comaze 12:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Analysis

Hi Comaze. I prefered the previous layout for the Reception of NLP section. I would prefer long titles like "Lack of empirical evidence in controlled studies" to simply be "Controlled studies" or "Empirical evidence". The section titled "Promising 'power therapies'" doesn't make sense to me as a subtitle of "Reception of NLP". There's a few other issues with headings also. The section as a whole would probably get by with 3 or 4 subtitles, instead of around 8. I like the main sub heading "Scientific Analysis" or "Scientific Review." Still I can see it's a work in progress, I hope it flows more when you're done. 58.179.175.151 06:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I was using those headline to attempt to the current content in order to sort it out. Please comment again when I'm done. --Comaze 08:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

All good. Keep up the good work. 211.27.114.68 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Mental health section

Hello Comaze. Please stop writing your own commentary and original research. For example:--- Under the mental health practice section, you wrote, "Nonetheless NLP is used or suggested as an approach by some mental health bodies, including ...etc". Who states that? Comaze states that! It is OR. Lilienfeld (2002) says NLP is a new age therapy and is unvalidated. They don't like it to be promoted the way it is. They already include the fact that it is promoted in some psychology societies. I have noticed a lot of your sort of promo writing going on over the last week or so and it is unacceptable according to Wikipedia policies. You are creating a lot of unnecessary work for other editors who wish to create a NPOV article. AlanBarnet 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the full context. I'd like to get a third opinion on whether this is OR. --Comaze 07:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clinical psychologists and other professionals have used NLP techniques in applications to relieve mental distress in a health and social care context. There has been little scientific research conducted to evaluate these NLP techniques for use in psychological care and interventions (psychotherapy). According to Lilienfeld (2002) the majority of interventions in the psychotherapy and mental health context are unvalidated or scientifically unsupported which threatens to undermine the reliability of mental health practice; this criticism can also be extended to the use of NLP in the psychotherapy and mental health context.. A notable example is V/KD or the cinema technique which has been taught alongside other promising treatments in trauma workshops. Other so called "power therapies" led by Professor Charles Figley include Thought Field Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Emotional Freedom Technique and Traumatic Incident Reduction. These "power therapies" have been criticised for lacking substantive clinical support.. Devilly (2005) raised similar concerns for psychology and psychiatry. Nonetheless NLP is used or suggested as an approach by some mental health bodies, including the National Phobics Society of Great Britain. MIND, USU: Student Health and Wellness Center, the British Stammering Association, the Center for Development & Disability at the University of New Mexico Center for autism, and Advocates of Child Abuse Survivors.

Also, NLP is officially used as a therapeutic approach in the Professional Psychotherapeutic League of Russia (link in Russian). This organization is related to the European Association for Psychotherapy. There is an association for NLP within EAP - EANLPt. Eli the Barrow-boy 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a paragraph on government accreditation of training standards and applications to psychotherapy. A postgraduate course has been accredited in Australia[23]. We need to be careful not to overstate the influence of these bodies as there is no central body that governs the use of the term NLP or the application of NLP. There is then no inherent ethical or training standards. --Comaze 12:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all cited correctly and meets source criteria. I think it's fine Comaze. The introductory sentence is as unbiased a summary of the citations as is possible. You'd have to be seriously stretching your imagination to call it [WP:OR]]. That said, it's not exactly cohesive reading either. Perhaps flesh it out a bit. 58.178.145.2 08:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This article does not need a list of bodies who use NLP. Thats not what an encyclopedia is for. Such a list could be better placed in another article of its own, labeled testimonials or some such. Otherwise you will have to include all the societies that like NLP, including the societies you don't like the sound of. AlanBarnet

05:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Unvanquishable POV Warrior

He was at it for over a year with his continuous POV Warrioring, a relentless attempt to present not an readable overview of what NLP is or claims to be but instead an article that conformed to his 'NLP is pseudoscience/fraudulent/cultish' POV. He was banned and banned and banned sockpuppet, after sock puppet after sock puppet only to keep on coming. Is anyone surprised he's back as 'AlanBarnet' making the same POV changes to the same sections using the same quotes then offering the same denials? Let's keep on top of his POV Warrioring and keep pointing it out...

Clean Version: . Some reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed psychobabble

NEW POV AlanBarnet Revision: Reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed psychobabble

All reviews Alan/HeadleyDown? Why get rid of the 'some' if your not tryng to POV Warrior?

Clean Balnced Version: These "power therapies" have been criticised for lacking substantive clinical support.. Devilly (2005) raised similar concerns for psychology and psychiatry. Nonetheless NLP is used or suggested as an approach by some mental health bodies, including the National Phobics Society of Great Britain. MIND, USU: Student Health and Wellness Center, the British Stammering Association, the Center for Development & Disability at the University of New Mexico Center for autism, and Advocates of Child Abuse Survivors.

New POV AlanBarnet Version: hese "power therapies" have been criticised for lacking substantive clinical support.. Devilly (2005) raised similar concerns for psychology and psychiatry.

AlanBarnet Just wipes out the balanced nature of the article to enforce his POV view. Anything indicating and validity or acceptence to NLP MUST simply be deleted, or marginilized.

Clean Version: Research reviews suggested that the techniques and underlying theory may even be untestable.. Moreover subsequent peer-reviewed psychological and experimental research in various disciplines has been sporadic.

New AlanBarnet Version: Uh Oh. AlanBarnet just deletes the inconvenient cited facts.

Why delete that AlanBarnet/Headlydown? Because the idea that NLP may be untestable conflicts with this point of view that NLP has been tested and has failed.

AlanBarnet/HeadleyDown... you're just going to get banned again for this blatant POV Warrioring and the article is going to get balanced out again. Why not pick up another hobby? The EFT article is looking pretty vulnerable?. No need to reply or complain about good faith. I'm not touching this article again. Let him dig his own hole.74.38.250.5 06:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith here with all new editors. There are many skeptics, scientists, clinical psychologists who could review the research and make a valuable contribution to this series of articles and wikipedia more generally. Some of AlanBarnet's edits have merit. --Comaze 05:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call Comaze. You have a level head on this. Personally, I assumed good faith weeks ago. And though I am proud to have done so and feel good about it, I think the article will do fine without disastrously POV edits thrown in amongst a camouflage of unecessary grammar fixes and marshmallow edits. It's a hard decision but it is necessary to turf out all the edits when there is a fair chance an editor is behaving deceiptfully with their edits. That is why I also reverted User:AlanBarnet's edits recently. 58.179.176.92 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I replied to user 74.38.250.5 on my talkpage. AlanBarnet 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC) User 58.179.176.92. You made a request previously to add specific names, dates, who said what and so on. I did so, using verified information. Reverting it seems to be against good faith, totally. AlanBarnet 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Figley

Can anybody explain the 'led' in 'led by Prof. Figley' under 'Mental Health Practice'? The only Figley source cited in the article is about the 4 therapies listed, not NLP, and was exploratory anyway. Or has Figley gone further, in which case it needs another citation. Fainites 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fainites, Figley teaches the V/KD (Frogs into Princes, Bandler & Grinder 1979) as a "promising technique" or as one of the "power therapies" in Trauma workshops. He is probably the most reputable proponent of NLP in clinical practice. Lilienfeld et al in Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (2002) criticised VK/D in trauma workshops (Figley 1997) for its limited empirical evidenence for efficacy of VK/D in controlled studies. The reason I included it in the mental health section is because that was the focus of Lilienfeld's literature review. Devilly (2005) also uses the term "power therapy" as coined by Figley. Otherwise Devilly cites Sharpley's literature reviews (1984, 1987). I can provide additional sources if needed. --Comaze 05:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Additionally, Figley has published a review of Lilenfeld (2002) in a refereed journal, "Figley, C. R. (in press). Review of Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, and Jeffrey M. Lohr (Eds.) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (New York: Guilford, 2002), Journal of Trauma Practice. " --Comaze 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. On a construction note, shouldn't the 'sentance' starting 'Although NLP...' in the 1970's section come after '....neuroscience'? I'll edit it but feel free to revert if I've missed the point Fainites 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Under 'Mental Health' V/KD is listed as a promising treatment without qualification. Am I right in thinking the phrase 'promising treatment' comes only from the Prof.Figley study Fainites 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the quote from Figley and Carbonel: "Visual Kinesthetic Disassociation (VK/D). This approach was represented by the second treatment team to participate in the study (mid October). VK/D, which is a component of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), is practiced internationally to eliminate phobia and trauma symptoms. It employs, among other methods, a "fast phobia trauma cure procedure," developed originally by Richard Bandler [and John Grinder (1979)], which asks the client to focus on the causal origin of the traumatic stress. It establishes a 3-place dissociation method that reportedly enables the client to eliminate all affect associated with the stressor (MacLean, 1986; Einspruch & Forman, 1988; Andreas & Andreas, 1992)." Figley, CR, Carbonel J. (1999) Promising treatment approaches. Electronic Journal of Traumatology. Available online at [24] --Comaze 01:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In a review of Brief Treatments edited by Figley, Wilson states that "specific treatment approaches as narrative therapy, thought field therapy, multisensory trauma processing, neurolinguistic programming, traumatic incident reduction, and the “rewind” technique. Although these chapters are often interesting and adequately descriptive of the clinical procedures, there is little, if any, empirically validated dated outcome studies to substantiate a “theory driven and research informed brief treatment” (p. 173–207)." Wilson, John P. Brief Treatments for Trauma and PTSD. PsycCRITIQUES. 49(4):472-474, August 2004. Wilson's position is similar to that of Lilienfeld et al (2002)--Comaze 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Avoid skepticism or promotion

Comaze. Do not call my editing tabloid style. I take that to be extremely incivil. My edits are neither tabloid nor broadsheet. I am editing Wikipedia style using straight reporting. I have added no editorials. Your preference it seems - is towards promotional editorialising. I am in the middle of correcting your editing by removing the commentary. I see more and more why user Woohookitty has given up on this article. Once I have determined who are the authorities here I will be able to write a detailed account of your activities and your seeming collaboration with other promoters - if you continue to editorialize. AlanBarnet 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid exaggerated skepticism or promotion of NLP. By tabloid style skepticism I meant controversial or attention-grabbing. It was a comment on the content, not the contributor. A typical example of what I consider tabloid skepticism that keeps popping up is the desire to descibe NLP techniques as New Age "rituals". On wikipedia when there is significant disagreement, then the disagreement is to be described objectively. Can you explain what you mean by "removing the commentary" - many times when you've written proceeded to remove context or transition signals. There is nothing wrong with using "however" or "at the same time" or similar transition signals to introduce new ideas, opposing ideas, examples, counter-examples, etc. Rather it should be encouraged. --Comaze 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. You have repeatedly removed reliable and verifiable views from the article giving the excuse that they are skeptical. They are not. They are generally science views. Removing your commentary means exactly that. When you write "NLP has had mixed reviews" that is your opinion. In fact NLP has been found to have no support according to reviews. Revewers say the research has come and gone. When you delete parts of a quote that is negative it can be restored. "However" is a word to avoid. You have filled the article with argument and nonsequitur over the last few weeks trying to trump negative research by saying "nevertheless, NLP is promoted by .....". Scientists are worried about NLP being promoted as a therapy or a science. That is all the explanation that I am going to give because you should know far better than me the ins and outs of NPOV policy yet you show scant regard for it. AlanBarnet 06:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been asked to explain myself by an anonymous editor due to entirely justifiable concerns about past sockpuppeteering. I have no connection with such matters. I came to this site for information having come across an NLP practitioner and found myself riveted by it's violent and checkered history. I have no special knowledge of the subject but as an interested reader found the over long, ungrammatical sentances and dense jargon difficult to understand. No insult intended as I can see that alot of it is the result of reversions and controversial edits. My interest is in something that a reasonably well educated reader can understand, including basic concepts, development, relevant research, relevant controversies (clearly set out) and current status. I hope nobody is offended by my edits in pursuit of clarification.

On that last point, some of the references lead nowhere. This is a bit disconcerting for those of us without access to peer reviewed literature. Fainites 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. I get a lot of those wild accusations thrown at me also. I'm just treating it as anonymous trolling. I've been verifying the references that are there and complete and I also found some that need restoring. Its easy enough to do. It'll probably need restoring on a regular basis though. AlanBarnet 05:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, on the last discussion about ritual, in the Shorter OED 'ritual' is described as pertaining or related to or connected with or of the nature of or forming rites. Rites is described as a formal procedure or act in a religious or other solemn observance, or a formal or general or usual custom, habit or practice of a country, people or class of persons. All of the examples given with the exception of Shakespeares 'rites of hospitality' are religious. I mention this because although the meaning of the word could possibly be stre-e-e-tched to include pattern or technique, the ordinary reader on seeing the word 'ritual' would tend to assume a religious or quasi religious meaning. To a scientist such a description would be pejorative and therefore it is clearly POV unless backed by verifiable evidence. Fainites 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Any significant views in the peer-reviewed literature will be referenced in other works. Abstracts for the major peer-review works are available online. If a statement does not match the abstract and is not verifiable from a third party source then the WP:verifiability and WP:reputablility flags are raised. I believe that peer-reviewed sources will remain verifiable for longer. Ask yourself, will this source be available in 10 years? --Comaze 23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Its what the NLP authors claim that is important. They claim that all techniques are rituals. Rituals is the common psychology term for them anyhow. So the term rituals is absolutely nothing to do with skepticism. AlanBarnet 05:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of the article will be out of date in 10 years in any case. If you suspect there's a better source for a statement it is best follow common sense and leave the statement in the article. It's much easier to track down better sources than it is to wade through the history and restore stuff that was unceremoniously and unecessarily deleted. There has been some rather hasty and unecessary deletions lately. 202.67.113.200 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello 202. I had no trouble verifying what is in the history tab though it is a lengthy process requiring research. Anyone with access to a set of good databases could do it after a time. I shall restore some of those hasty deletions of reliable relevant views. Again. AlanBarnet 05:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Double weasel

I simplified a double weasel comment that said:

research reviews suggested NLP may be Z

It is unecessary to say it may or may not be the case, the word suggested already conveys this meaning. 202.67.113.200 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However there is a theme in (minor?) research papers in training and development suggest that the "The verdict on the efficacy of NLP is unclear." Eg (Dowlen 1996, Thompson & Dickson 2002, Mathison & Tosey 2003) References: Thompson, Lisa and Dickson (2002) Journal of European Industrial Training Vol.26.6 --Comaze 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggest still works. Being suggested doesn't indicate a final verdict. Saying it is unsupported and untestable is pretty much what Bandler and Grinder say anyway. They say they made it up based on what they observed don't they? Thanks for the link. Is it in the review section? 58.179.185.29 07:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairness and balance

Fairness and balance are a matter for discussion. But there is no way we can ever get to fairness or balance if editors keep deleting reliable and relevant views. So please stop deleting facts, adding commentary, and adding undue argument. Once all facts have been verified and properly cited then balance may be possible. AlanBarnet 06:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

At the same time as claiming "fairness and balance" you have added again ritual to the headline. When you know that this is against consensus and it has been explained to you 5 times that it is pushing a POV. Under wikipedia policy POV should be avoid in headlines. --Comaze 06:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Ritual is the term that NLP authors use. It can be included. I am not pushing any kind of POV. I am including all relevant views. The views of scientists and the views of NLP authors. I verified the research as was requested in the article using verify tags. The terms are in the literature. Stop deleting relevant reliable and verifiable views. NPOV policy says to state all relevant views. That is priority. Otherwise any group could use consensus to say whatever they liked about their interests. AlanBarnet 07:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet, you have added "ritual" to the headlines 5 times[25][26][27][28]. The consensus is that ritual is pejorative and adding it was controversial. The reasons it is unacceptable is that it has religious connotations and undermines the other edits. To my knowlege none of the peer-review NLP literature describes NLP as rituals. Perhaps some individual practitioners or authors have described some the techniques as rituals, but this is an insignificant view in in comparison to the use of the term techniques. Descriptions of the techniques is prominent in the majority of NLP literature, including peer-review psych literature. It is essential to be objective to maintain academic tone on wikipedia. --Comaze 07:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The term ritual has no place in that context within this article. I thought the only editor that pushed that phrasing was HeadleyDown. Certainly he was the only that claimed it came from within NLP. AlanBarnet, if you do your own research rather than relying on dubious and fraudulent assertions from the history tab we'd all be a lot better off. What is your association with the previously banned editors? You obviously have a vested interest in pasting their edits into the article. How about some disclosure and honesty here. 58.179.185.29 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. My interest is in verifying the information that was requested. My bias is investigative journalism. I investigate and check up facts. I have been checking up on facts on Wikipedia on many articles and removing arguments and fitting NPOV recommendations to the articles I know about. I check up on articles that I know something about. I also know a bit about NLP and have learned a lot more recently. I (and others here) have had wild acusations chucked at us for no apparent reason apart from the fact that we are not particularly promotional editors. Now lets have some honesty from you. As per our discussion on my talkpage the IP checker showed your IP is Australian and mine is Dutch. After a brief investigation on Wikipedia a minute or so ago I found the only term -Comaze- is a firm promoting NLP in Australia. You and Comaze have spent the last few weeks covering up reliable and relevant yet negative facts and views about NLP. So now its all open and honest. I have been learning a lot more about NPOV policy the last few days and I have to say that you or Comaze seem to me to be fighting hard against the inclusion of all relevant views. User Woohookitty did say that this article had too much promo and argument and I am here to repair that and other articles. At the top of this section I appealed for fairness and balance after inclusion of all relevant views. You have fought against that appeal for reasonable discussion and inclusion and you have just deleted a whole lot of straight reporting in favour of your and Comazes own opinion and commentary. Stop working against NPOV policy, stop deleting relevant views, and start adding some sources to the views you want included. Then we can get on with discussing balance and fairness. AlanBarnet 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) PS in the meantime I don't mind removing the term ritual from the title. But it belongs in the article. Its a relevant view. Stop using it as an excuse to delete as many relevant views as you like. AlanBarnet 08:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. I wasn't the subject of a wild accusation, just a polite enquiry. I'm glad its agreed to keep the term 'ritual' out of the introduction. My point is I suppose that the average reader, on seeing the word 'ritual' in the opening description would assume something religious and/or sinister so in that context it's POV. I agree with you that the issue of ritual should be included somewhere in the article and indeed it is pretty much covered in the section on religiosity.Fainites 10:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I mean the Manipulation section Fainites 10:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think to talk about 'ritual' in context of NLP means to bring some misunderstanding in the article. While I agree that some kind of ritual-like approach has been applied to make learning of techniques and principles easier at NLP trainings, the basic idea in NLP seems to make new ways that work, rather than to repeatedly use rituals, i. e. unchangeable patterns that have rather symbolic meaning. I hope there are some reliable sources to support my point of view. I consider the work that is being done on this article to be excellent, especially in terms of references. Eli the Barrow-boy 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Intuitively, I agree with Fainites, ritual could be included in one of those sections. By the way, the consensus is not being assumed here. Both 58.179.185.29, Fainites and I have disagreed at times and have come to a tenatitive consensus in some sections. I have no known connection to 58.179.185.29 or Fainites. Based on the IP locator, 58.179.185.29 and I are located in different states of Australia. Comaze was partly involved in the NLP Research Project (2006). --Comaze 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. Just looking at the last two edits from you and number 58, the difference in tone is striking. From number 58 we have 'unsupported', 'untestable', intellectually questionable', 'scientifically unvalidated' and 'misconceptions'. From Alan Barnet we have 'pseudoscientific', 'unethical', 'psychobabble', 'fraudulent', 'potentially harmful', and 'duped'. And all this in the introduction! Can I say AlanBarnet that if your purpose is to raise legitimate concerns about NLP then I think you overstate your case. An outside reader coming across the language you use would instantly realise this was not a neutral article. It seems to me that if there are legitimate concerns about NLP then the precise, non-emotive words such as those used by number 58 are far more powerful simply because they are more precise and are NPOV.I hope you don't think this is too personal.Fainites 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. I was wondering. Is there a list of people who consider NLP pseudoscientific? I think that term could be a subject for the opening because it is so core to NPOV policies. As long as it is handled in the correct way. Devilly considers it to have all the hallmarks of a pseudoscience. I'm just wondering who else holds that view. It may help to distinguish that issue from the issue of it being unsupported. Just a thought. Harristweed 07:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harris and Fainites. There are quite a few sources in the archives that still require verification. Drenth is a prominent name. Also Williams has NLP identified as a pseudoscience in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience. There is also a new reference by Norcross (2006) which is a survey by other prominent psychologists. They list a set of pseudoscientific therapies and determine how discredited they are. NLP is rated as "possibly discredited".

Norcross also states that Singer, Lilienfeld and Carroll have written their respective books in order to identify pseudoscientific therapies and theories. NLP are covered in each book so thats pretty strong evidence that NLP is considered pseudoscientific across the board. On top of that it shows a fairly moderate level of agreement that it is discredited according to the survey research. I'll post the actual quotes soon when I have time. I know from reading the policy on NPOV that surveys hold quite a lot of weight in Wikipedia especially if they're peer reviewed. AlanBarnet 07:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Alan. I found Norcross on the web and there is no mention of NLP there though. It is just the web version though. I'll see if I can get it from my library or dbases. It looks like a good source though and peer reviewed. I can also see if I could get something from Drenth. Could you give me a ref for that? Harristweed 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. The real difference between 58s and my edits are mine are accurately cited and quoted, and 52s are wrong. 58 uses a wrong and watered down editorialized version - and I use straight quotes without any opinion added. I was requested to verify - I verified and reported it straight.

The first two lines of that para are just to water it all down. Then it says reviews say that NLP is untestable. Thats wrong. Reading properly Sharpley suggested that it may be untestable but he suggested many things and that isn't the conclusion of the study. The conclusion is that NLP is unsupported. Lots of other reliable sources say the same off their own bat and with reference to Sharply. Then more editorializing - "Subsequent peer-reviewed psychological and experimental NLP literature has been sporadic" - there is no source for that. It is just stuffing and can be cut.

"Moreover evidence-based psychologists (eg. Lilienfeld, Beyerstein) are concerned about the adoption of scientifically unvalidated techniques such as NLP in the mental health profession and also the spread of misconceptions about how the mind works.[9]"

that needs fixing with proper citation. I can do that.

"Despite the lack of controlled clinical studies, the growth and spread of NLP in psychotherapy, self-help, management training and other disciplines has continued."

That last line is pure nonsense and nonsequitur. It tries to reverse the previous criticism and worry that new age therapies are being adopted. It has no source. Its pure editorializing and it were cited we would have to cite anonymous editor 58.

There's no arguing over direct quotes. -Mixed reviews- is wrong. "Unsupported" is accurate and correct. "Pseudoscience", "dubious", and so forth is what they say it is and that can be quoted. I am pretty certain we could argue over wording with the other editors here ad infinitum. In the interests of keeping the peace and adopting useful discussion - using direct quotes will lead to less or no conflict. So lets delete the editorializing and get back to straight reporting NPOV style. AlanBarnet 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) PS. Really Fainites on the other articles I am editing - when I remove an argumentative phrase to NPOV standard - editors tend to respond - thanks well spotted. But here Comaze and 58 just keep restoring their own opinions and arguments. The only thing to do is to revert their editorializing. AlanBarnet 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. Perhaps you are unaware that it comes across as though you are avoiding my question; perhaps to avoid full disclosure, so I'll ask again. What is your association with the previously banned editors? 58.179.182.101 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No 58. My reply is extremely clear. It shows the situation perfectly as it is. I have no relation or association with any banned editor. Your insistence seems very much to be trolling and I am becoming more inclined to ignore it. AlanBarnet 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings AlanBarnet and everyone. Alan, I noted you have correctly inserted the Devilly statements in the review section. They are, I think, the latest research on the subject of NLP. I will check up on you and your editing of the rest of the article though. Harristweed 05:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I apologize and retract the last statement. I will assume good faith. I will help doublecheck the quotes and citations. Harristweed 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Alanbarnet. I do believe your recommendation to present facts first, then to discuss balance, is reasonable. I also see there is some friction over this and I cannot see why. If editors keep asking your credentials it is probably best not to expose theirs. Your edits look to be quite well based and well sourced. In the interests of keeping the peace, you probaly should ignore any untoward demands. As regards collaboration. I do lack access to some of the references you present. If you could supply them for me I would be grateful. Thanks all. Harristweed 06:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) If you could send me any more info on Figley that may help. I would like to be more certain about the information you have presented on Figley. Thanks in advance. Harristweed 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I restored the fuller version on research reviews. It is in need of verification and that is why I believe it should have those fuller statements. I know some of it is covered in other sections, but they tend to be very vaguely stated. So like I did with the quotes below, it may help smooth the way if we show who said what exactly. Harristweed 08:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mental health practice

Comaze. Under Mental health Practice, Lilienfield lists NLP amongst all the other unvalidated and scientifically unsupported interventions in his article. Would the third sentance read better if it read 'the majority of interventions in the psychotherapy and mental health context, including NLP are uvalidated' etc' and then the last bit of the sentance after the colon becomes unecessary.Fainites 12:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice. That's more concise whilst retaining the meaning of Lilienfeld. --Comaze 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just another change to Mental health, ie Devilly raising similar concerns 'for' psychiatry and psychology. When I first read this I thought it meant he was saying psychiatry and psychology were also unvalidated. So I've changed it to 'on behalf of'. Fainites 13:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Devilly criticises NLP as a unvalidated "power therapy". He relies on Sharpley's research (1987). --Comaze 13:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Freud's most flawed thinking

The sentence from the Mental health practice section:

NLP is also based on some of Freud's most flawed and pseudoscientific thinking that has been rejected by the mainstream psychology community for decades[43]

This statement seems dubious to me because, in my opinion, firstly, we need to specify what exactly NLP has adapted from classical Freudian thought, secondly, there is no reference, and, thirdly, I am simply curious about that. It is strange to see phrases like "pseudoscientific thinking" in relation to Freud, since during the period of his life he was definitely in the mainstream paradigm. Shouldn't we remove this sentence? Eli the Barrow-boy 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It has one of those little reference numbers that is then a blank. Does this mean there once was reference that has since for some reason been deleted?Fainites 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found a reference for the Freud quote. It's in the history in an AlanBarnet edit for 25.11.06. The reference given is the book 'The Death of Psychotherapy' by Eisner. Is this book being accepted as a valid source?Fainites 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote: "NLP seems to use the same kind of clinical divination that led Freud to know what was happening beneath the surface."(page.159) It is a reputable book but we should be aware that it is a "cynical guide"(Psychology Today) to many current talking therapies. --Comaze 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Are you saying Eisner does not associate NLP with pseudoscience or Freuds pseudoscientific thinking? AlanBarnet 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Without judging the book either way, that quote does not support the statement "NLP is based on some of Freud's most pseudoscientific work" or anything like it. I'd bet there's better material than this to cite from that book. 58.179.182.101 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that Freud studied with french hypnotist Jean-Martin Charcot before developing psychoanalysis. Perhaps hypnosis is the connection made my Eisner. NLP does use the idea of unconscious from Milton Erickson. This is not to be confused with Freud, in that "although this will most likely be clear to many readers, it may be well to make the point here that the authors' conception of the unconscious is definitely not the one held by Freud."(Andre M. Weitzenhoffer (1976) Introduction/forward in Hypnotic Realities by Erickson & Rossi, 1976). NLP does not use Freud's three-tiered concept of id, ego, and superego. Interestingly Jay Hayley's Brief therapy, like NLP, was based on the work of Milton Erickson's; it has been described as anti-freudian. Furthermore Freud's industrial metaphors of releasing pent-up emotional pressure, fighting with the resistance and dream analysis have no part in NLP. I'm sure that some ideas incorporated from gestalt therapy and Satir's family systems have origins in Freud's work. To call them pseudoscientific is unfair to Freud because if he was around today he probably would have updated his theories based on the lastest science. --Comaze 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi all again. I found the Eisner book and here is the full account of that which is presented above. "As with psychoanalysis, Gestalt Therapy and Strategic Therapy, there is the impression that the practitioner of NLP somehow knows more than the patient. NLP seems to use the same kind of clinical divination that led Freud to know what was happening beneath the surface. As a credible therapy technique, NLP seems to have gone under that radar screen in terms of providing clinical confirmation of the results of therapy. This way, there is no need to be concerned with proving any of the claims. Adherents of NLP simply declare that it works and move on. Costly threeand fourteen-day seminars are held to learn all the secrets of NLP. Any theory that relies on borrowed techniques needs to be careful that the methods have some validity. Since there is little support for the origins of NLP, it is not surprising that the concocted theoretical amalgam of NLP has failed to produce any credible substantial evidence of its effectiveness. At present, it appears that NLP has no empirical or scientific support as to the underlying tenets of its theory or clinical effectiveness. What remains is a massmarketed serving of psychopablum." I hope this helps. Harristweed 07:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I had a further search and there is something about "Building on Freuds flawed edifice". "The question is where are the individuals who attest to the improvement in their clinical conditions or their lives? Recovered Memory Therapy may be another in a long line of placebo engendering procedures somewhat akin to est, Neurolinguistic Programming or Primal Therapy. These therapies and techniques have not stood the test of time (Chapters 3 and 7). There was great initial enthusiasm, but as time passed, it appears the so-called effective results have diminished or disappeared. The initial excitement of finding the cause of psychopathology by extracting forgotten memories needs to be viewed with caution. The memories may or may not be true. The therapists may or may not have found the source of psychopathology. As the next decade may prove, much of the work of these therapists borders on the search for fictional causes.". Again I think this resolves the problem using access to the actual phrasing. Harristweed 07:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Sorry thats all on page 86.Harristweed 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On the sections quoted above, there seems to be a comparison to Freud as the 'all-knowing' therapist and then a complaint of 'borrowed techniques'. Are these borrowed from Freud or Erickson? As things stand, the sections quoted from the book don't support the sentence in the article.Fainites 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like they are borrowed from many sources. I have altered the section in the article and added direct quotes. And I removed the pseudoscience term. On reflection it could be better placed elsewhere. Any ideas?. On reflection it looks to be better off as a direct quote in the review section. Eisner is refering to chapter 7 (a chapter on NLP I believe) Harristweed 08:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

HarrisTweed. Does Eisner actually say 'flawed' thinking or is it just out of date thinking that has not stood the test of time or been subsequently validated? Fainites 09:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Fainites. The title of the section is "Building on Freuds Flawed Edifice". There is no mention of pseudoscience. I think this is good reason to present quotes rather than interpret the statements. Harristweed 11:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also should Eisner be described as a commentator do you think to distinguish him from a science researcher or is that a distinction without a difference in these matters hwere people are essentially looking at other peoples research (or rather lack of it).Fainites 09:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Faintes he seems to be a science researcher in psychology. He has professor credentials. Harristweed 11:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

HarrisTweed. The 'pseudoscience' bit goes well with Devilly as you've done it as that is what Devilly was looking for and found.Fainites 09:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychology Today describes that Eisner's book as a "cynical guide". You could characterise Eisner as a critic of psychotherapy. --Comaze 10:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well again I don't see how we can present all reviews of all books in the article. The article should be focused on NLP rather than on criticising scientists. Eisner seems to have very good credentials and I can't see any reason to present him as anything but a scientist and certified psychologist. The bottom line really is that he agrees with the science view that NLP has failed scientific testing. Harristweed 11:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not looking to criticise scientists. I have a preference for science. But when it comes to Eisner's book. It is obviously biased and needs to be characterised. Have a look at the wikipedia policy on characterising the bias of critics. This is fine as long as those biases are published by a reputable source, in this case, Psychology Today. --Comaze 11:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi AlanBarnet. Regarding 'untestable'. This is about as critical and damning a statement as you get from scientists. If something is untestable it can never be science. Fainites 10:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Fainites you are correct and this is an important issue. I don't intend to post information into the opening on the basis of its damning nature though. I included it in the article because its important as you say and it is part of the discussion rather than any hard conclusion. The opening should represent what the main science views state and you could be right that untestable can be included there and I am still open to the suggestion. Discussion will help. I suggest placing it somewhere where it'll help the reader understand the issues though. Its a bit of a deep discussion so I think putting it in context in the science section will be the easiest for the reader to understand. I'm open to reasonable suggestions though. AlanBarnet 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi HarrisTweed. I don't quite understand how Eisner 'seems to be' a science researcher. You have the book. Doesn't he make it clear? If he is a science researcher in psychology and if the book is effectively an extended review of therapies, including the results of research, isn't his view as valid as a source as any of the other scientific commentators who have reviewed research rather than undertaken it, whether he's cynical or not?Fainites 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry HarrisTweed. I hadn't read some of your other entries! I've just been reading the report of Druckman from the research section. What the study actually says is that another use of NLP 'may provide an approach to modeling expert performances that can be adapted to specific training programmes and as such merits further consideration'. I'm not sure that this or anything else in the report translates into 'the idea of modeling of expertise appeared to have some merit', as the entry in the article currently stands. I think the existing quote needs to go. The question is, is the opinion that an aspect 'merits further consideration' worth putting in? Fainites 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fainites and Harris again. The Von Bergen article mentions this "merits further consideration" point so I think its worth putting in the article. The article says that Druckman dropped NLP a year later and of course Von Bergen says NLP is unvalidated and in error conceptually. The information was arranged in good order a day or so ago but Comaze seperated the two related points yesterday when deleting all those relevant views from the article. AlanBarnet 08:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, suppose the title of Eisner's book were added. A book called 'The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions' does rather give the reader a hint as to the approach or conclusions of the author without in anyway detracting from the validity of his findings.Fainites 21:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Even the shortened title The Death of Psychotherapy would be ok. --Comaze 05:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the direct quotes Harris. Thats pretty helpful. AlanBarnet 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Commercialization

The quote from Margaret Singer in this section has lost it's reference. There are 2 Singer books in the list of references. Does anyone know which one this quote comes from? I'm looking through the history but with no luck yet. Fainites 22:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is probably not "Singer (2003, First edition 1995) Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace". If you search the book on Amazon, there are no results for "NLP", Grinder, Bandler, or Neuro in that book. --Comaze 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Cults in Our Midst does not mention NLP, then it is most likely "Singer & Lalich (1996) Crazy Therapies Jossey-Bass Publishers. --Comaze 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

When Singer was sued many of the cult allegations were removed from subsequent revisions. This might explain why the cult allegations are not present in the latest version. The general consensus is that NLP has been used in the personal development movement. --Comaze 05:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. The way this article is being chopped around at the moment I wouldn't be surprised that more refs don't go missing. If we were given a chance to verify properly without all the hasty deletions then things would go smoother. I'll doublecheck on the Singer references. There may be more sources to post also. It sounds like Singer has had a long career in psychology. AlanBarnet 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cult status/following v. misuse by cults

• "compared to the almost cult following that NLP has achieved, mainly in the USA but latterly in the UK" Ref: Ashley Dowlen (1996) NLP – help or hype? Investigating the uses of neurolinguistic programming in management learning.
• "It is as if NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than another psychological fad that will go its merry way until it is replaced by the next fad." ref: Elich & Thompson 1985

Dowlen (1996) and Elich & Thompson (1985) are commenting here about the gap between the popularity of NLP and relative lack of research. --Comaze 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance of relevant views

Comaze has spent the last few weeks trying to remove relevant (and not particularly promotional) views from this main article. NPOV policy says that each article should include all relevant views. The science view/research section with all its related and relevant views should be maintained. It is particularly unhelpful to persistently remove relevant views when they are in the middle of being discussed and verified. Please stop doing it. You will only get reverted by editors concerned about maintainting relevant views. AlanBarnet 06:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific. --Comaze 07:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. You removed relevant views concerning the science findings that I have just restored. And thats just the short version. AlanBarnet 07:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Those minority views can be adequately covered in other areas. Inserting a patchwork of exaggerated comments about lack of research only undermines the reliability of that section.[29] If you want to include those minor sources you should not exclude the supportive evidence. --Comaze 07:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Look at the recent changes, I want to revert these recent edits diffs. Really, if we're going to include those minority views then we'd need to also summarise the more positive commentary to balance it out. As it stands, most of that information is already covered in other sections. --Comaze 07:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze they are not minority views. They are relevant views and from reliable notable sources. They are connected strongly to the research on NLP. Additionally and again - your deletion of those facts from this main article is harming the verification process. Now please stop your uncooperative behaviour. We are not going to get anywhere near balance if you destroy other editors efforts to verify whether something is correct or not. AlanBarnet 08:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Barnet. I quite understand why you want to include relevant research but may I suggest that you add it to the research section rather than revert to a much older version. It's now a bit of a mess with various things quoted twice and haphazardly and work done on correct quotations, citations and grammar has been lost. Also two links have been lost.Fainites 08:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Fainites. I'm working on that right now. Comaze deleting so many relevant views so persistently really has been a pain. AlanBarnet 08:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. Why don't you revert your last edit where you put the old stuff back and then add the extra research you want as appropriate. I think you'll find it easier! There's been alot of discussion about correct quotes from Eisner and Druckman and Singer and so on and the results of those discussed and agreed edits are lost if you don't go back to that version. I also think you'll find if you look that it is not only Comaze who has worked on this section. Alot of scientific stuff was put into the NLP Science article with a link created. Don't you think there's some merit in this? Lots of researchers all saying the same thing ( ie that theres no scientific evidence) is perhaps a bit unecessary for the average reader.Anybody who wanted to really explore all the research could take the link to the science section.Fainites 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Fainites. I think things should be a lot smoother when Comaze stops deleting relevant info. I doubt if a new section on the "science" of NLP is even necessary. NLP authors seem to either claim that it is not a science while trying to make it seem like science and the scientists just say it is not a science. So apart from the section of relevant views in the main article here there is not much to explore. We need to include all relevant views and the ones mentioned are relevant and clear up to some exent why people are saying it is not supported or pseudoscientific. I'll get on with the checking and correcting. There are yet more views to add also that should help readers understand the views properly. There seems to be a lot of fuss and attempts to remove the information there but very little attempts to improve the actual descriptions of NLP methods in the upper sections. A lot of it is written in a very unencyclopedic way. AlanBarnet 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you've restored most of the first paragraph. The rest of the section fails WP:NPOV and WP:OR. However I do appreciat ethe comprimise on the first paragraph. I look forward to seeing your edits in the rest of that section. I'll hold off reverting until you'd had a chance to balance it out. There are hundreds of studies on NLP, and overall it the literature is not as black and white as your edits have suggested. There are studies and reviews of studies that are atleast partly supportive. --Comaze 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. If you delete relevant views yet again you will have your edits reverted. AlanBarnet 08:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Druckman & Swets the same as the USRC report? Fainites 09:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Wait a sec... I'll check. They are both from USNRC. Druckman and Swets (1988) also has a chapter on the Army Research.

• "John A. Swets and Robert A. Bjork (1991) Enhanncing human performance: An Evaluation of "New Age" Techniques Considered by the U.S. Army"[30]
• Druckman and Swets (Eds) (l988) Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques, National Academy Press. --Comaze 10:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. I think from looking at it that it was Druckman & Swets who did the report for the USRC. AlanBarnet, I have removed the duplication - the Beyerstein passage and Margaret Singer were in twice and some others, and also Singer was quoting the USRC when we already had the USRC quote. So please don't revert just because it looks shorter! I have also rearranged it Chronologically. It may now be easier to see what should be in and what shouldn't from an encyclopaedic point of view. Fainites 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've search my collection of NLP reseach. There are no references to Druckman & Swets. There are only a few references to John A. Swets and Robert A. Bjork which surprised me. I think we've stuffed up somewhere along the line. We should be using John A. Swets and Robert A. Bjork (not Druckman). It surprises me that Swets and Bjork are not mentioned in the subsequent research reviews. Perhaps Swets is outweighed by the more comphrehensive review by Sharpley. --Comaze 10:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1988 National Research Counsel one cited in the references IS by Druckman and Swets. If you go to the reference and look at the opening page it states so and says it's 'for' the NRC. I don't think the Swets and Bjork study is cited in the article. The quote about 'merits further consideration' comes from the 1988 study. Perhaps we ought to look at the 1990 Swets and Bjork to see what happened next! Could you let me have it in some way as when I follow the reference they want me to subscribe. Fainites 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Email me and I'll send you some excerpts. --Comaze 11:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I've now found it on the National Academies website. I've read the whole chapter on Modeling and there is no mention of NLP or any terminology that sounds like NLP. I'll check through the rest but it looks as if they didn't consider NLP even though this looks like a follow up study to the original Druckman and Swets. I'll get back to you on this one. Fainites 11:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article cites Swets and Bjork... [31] --Comaze 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I've been through the Swets and Bjork study. They refer on page 7 to the fact that in the previous study they thought the idea of modeling experts merited further consideration and they basically credit NLP with placing importance on the idea that experts should be 'decoded'. However, all the research on learning models that they then cite and draw conclusions from comes from different disciplines. It's sort of thanks for the original idea but that's all. I have edited the research page to reflect this but it might be a bit too detailed an unecessary for an encyclopaedia don't you think? If you think Swets and Bjork warrants inclusion, could you add the reference because I haven't yet worked out how to do that. Fainites 12:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine Fainites. So there is not much connection back to NLP sources? There are several other aspects of NLP that are supported in other fields. Unfortunately most NLP practitoners have no interest in academia. I'll add the reference. Next time just type something like: "<ref name="NRC 1991">John A. Swets and Robert A. Bjork (1991) Enhanncing human performance: An Evaluation of "New Age" Techniques Considered by the U.S</ref>". --Comaze 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I couldn't see anything in the chapter on modelling (Chapter 7) that sounded NLP like. It seemed to be more educational and cognitive theories and analysis of how to break down and then pass on expertise. They were very keen on 'cognitive apprenticeships'. It may be that if someone with a better understanding of NLP than me could read it and say well actually they've pinched NLP's ideas, but really it looked as if the idea of looking in detail at experts was the only thing they acknowledged from NLP. They only actually mentioned NLP by way of reference to the previous Swets/Druckman study.Fainites 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Research reviews

Comaze. Could you please add in the supportive review quotes and citations you refer to in your recent tagging of the section. We could then trim the section down to a reasonable size. I know it's already far to big in the scope of the article. 210.50.221.248 11:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quick work in progress.... I need to check it and flesh it out. But essentially this would outline some of individual studies that are more supportive studies. We could also explain some of the methdological errors in the research. I don't want to overstate this, there has been very little interest in NLP from experimental psychology since the late 1980s.

1. There are a number of individual studies that found some support for certain techniques (such as rapport, and the meta model). There is also significant criticism of research reviews (eg. Sharpley 1984, McCormick 1984) for methodological errors, lack of training in NLP and focus to much on PRS. Sharpley broadly agreed with those criticisms. Some reviews (eg. Krugman 1985) strongly argued for additional research to be conducted in NLP. Krugman found NLP was useful for treatment of anxiety, Rosa (1988) found anchoring to be methodologically sound and warranted further research. Also Schmedlen (1987) and Baddeley (1989) are more positive. Moreover Dowlen (1996) concludes that outcome meta model have some merit for management.
2. Add some detail about NLP theory and epistemology. While NLP has not been mention in linguistics literature, recent publications in related fields appear to support its theories (eg. Fauconnier & Turner, 2002).

References: Sharpley 1984, McCormick 1984, Krugman (1985), Schmedlen (1987), Rosa (1988), Baddeley (1989), Einspruch & Forman (1989), Dowlen (1996), Craft (2001), Fauconnier & Turner (2002), Mathison & Tosey (2003), Malloy, Grinder, Bostic St Clair (2005) references --Comaze 12:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Individual (somewhat supporitive) studies

• Lichtenberg, J Moffitt, W (1994) The effect of predicate matching on perceived understanding and factual recall Journal of Counseling and Development Alexandria: Vol 72(5) p.544
• Helm, David J., Ed.D. (1991). Neurolinguistic programming: establishing rapport between the school counselor and the student. Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol.18, p.255-257.
• John Andy Wood (2006) NLP Revisited: Non-verbal communications and signals of trustworthiness The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management New York: Vol.26(2.2) p.197

Individual study (rapport)

• Trickey, Keith V. (May 1, 1997) "How information gathering works for the librarian or the personal development coach: A study in the difference that makes the difference to the client or user." Journal of Managerial Psychology 12.Vol 352(5).

Individual (somewhat supporitive) studies for phobias

• "The Liebowitz Social Phobia Scale measured the effect of training on social anxiety responses of 28 adults prior to and following a 21-day residential training, and at 6 mo. follow-up. Significant reductions posttraining and at follow-up were evident in the mean self-reported global scale scores on fear and avoidance behavior in social situations. The item scores, aggregated to reflect the situational domains of formal and informal speaking, being observed by others, and assertion, showed significant and continuing reduction from posttraining through follow-up. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that this training may be associated with reduced responses to social anxiety, but as there was no formal control group, pretest scores from another study were used. Interpretation is limited." Janet Konefal and Robert C. Duncan. (Dec 1998) Social anxiety and training in neurolinguistic programming. Psychological Reports 83.3 : p. 1115(8).

Would the quote from Singer in research reviews be better placed in the critics from other disciplines section. Fainites 12:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Singer's book is written to warn people who are seeking therapy to avoid those who are not properly accredited psychologists. It can therefore go in the mental health section. It will probably need some context. --Comaze 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be more balanced to include Sharpley's conclusion ie by putting NLP "in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field." Fainites 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fainites and all. I think that would depend on the context of the quote. Do you have the quote in full? Harristweed 05:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also. As regards reviews. I think it would be helpful to list exactly who says NLP is unsupported. I know we have some already there such as the later review of Devilly 2005. But I notice Singer doesn't explicitly say NLP is unsupported. Does Singer actually state NLP has support or does not? Harristweed 05:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in addition to this, there seems to be quite a lot of consensus on pseudoscience in NLP. This seems to be a seperate issue. If we could put a set of people who think NLP is pseudoscientific then it would help. It may also help to say why they think it is pseudoscience. With both issues (Unsupported and pseudoscience) it is important to state who holds those views and why. There should be something in the above descriptions of NLP ideas from NLP authors to say why they think it is not pseudoscience if possible. In fact do any NLP authors specifically say NLP is a science? Harristweed 05:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unecessary repetition

The statement Research reviews in the late 1980s... occurs in three variations in the article, with several follow up statements also duplicated. Could the editor responsible for this duplication please tidy it up? I often do a Ctrl-F and search for phrases so you can easily avoid duplicating parts of the article in future. If you take care. 210.50.221.248 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me, but I've fixed that one. We really should have a short summary of the science in the opening. Or should the summary that was there be moved back? How do other handle this on similar articles? I've also removed the repetition of the meaning of NLP from the opening paragraph. I don't care if it is there but it shouldn't be repeated. Unfortunately the name can be confusing so I prefer where it is now. --Comaze 13:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I think a short summary on the reception of nlp would be good. Science is only a small part of that. 210.50.221.248 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge: Methods->Ecology with Reception->Ethics

Comaze. I think a merger is unwarranted. Although ethics and ecology are obviously related, we should note they appear under the headings of concepts and methods and reception which are not similar at all. A quick read of the sub-sections shows that indeed the writing alos closely follows the main headings as well as the subheadings. If we mix the sections together we will lose this distinction and it will be hard to separate the concepts and methods of NLP Ecology from reception statements about cults and whatnot. Your thoughts? 210.50.221.248 14:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts I withdraw. However, both of those sections should be more objective. --Comaze 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 210.50.221.248 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze and '210'. The article is looking very different to a few hours ago when I last looked. Lots of hard work been going on.It's looking good! Fainites 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. 210.50.221.248 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Milton Model

Had a go at the tagged section on the Milton Model. What do you think? Fainites 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work. 58.178.102.143 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Artfully less confusing :) --Comaze 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The pace of change

Hi all. I took a good look at the article and over the last few days it really has undergone a massive and bewildering amount of changes. I can only see this as being hazardous and likely to cause problems. There is very little in the way of discussion of those changes. I would suggest a cooling off period or at the very least waiting for replies for discussion. I imagine that any undiscussed reversions could be quite legitimately made, considering the undiscussed moves and alterations. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort after all. Thanks. Harristweed 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I intend to spend more time on other articles. I have to admit, this article seems to be a little off my area of expertise though I am happy to search for quotes if that will help.Harristweed 05:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been nothing but harmonious editing and teamwork in the last 24 hours, with 5 editors making supportive and collaborative edits; and no one arguing or disagreeing. It's been heaven. You can follow the collaborative discussion (and there is ample) in the page history. So, yes please, go away and cool off if that's what you desire. And please, don't play us for fools. We've been through that for 2 years here and it won't wash anymore. 58.178.102.143 05:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 58.178.102.143. I didn't call you a fool. My experience of other articles shows that rapid change leads to problems and that's also writen in WP:NPOV. You can choose to ignore my suggestion but I would like to maintain the civility that this article has been under. Thanks. Indeed now it is not my intention to return.Harristweed 06:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harris. Apology accepted. And my apologies for not taking your advice. Here's the thing; your advice opposes a founding principle of wikipedia that says edit this page right now. Furthermore, the correct place to even discuss the merits of your suggestion to "slow down" is in Wikipedia proposals. In reality, the overwhelming policy direction on wikipedia is to get busy writing an encyclopedia. Regarding civility, I apologise for my tone before. Here's my suggestion to you: be mindful that when you request users to analyse each other, it is against guidelines and there's always at least one editor that will take it as an opportunity to start throwing accusations around. 58.178.102.143 09:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodmorning folks. Harris. I don't know if you got the news on the administrator attitude to this article - but they have basically forsaken it. A little bit of investigation can tell you why exactly. We have a set of editors - most with Australian IP numbers - some as 58 claiming to be long term editors - all pushing the same point of view - conspiring with Comaze and following his POV (he is also from Australia and runs a company that promotes NLP). Any admin check will identify him and his co-workers as sockpuppets or meatpuppets. They all seem to have turned up recently and are editing only this article. The POV they push seems to be completely anti-science. They together delete verified facts on a pretty much daily basis. They seem to be attempting to present original research and they have added links to other WP articles that are full of original research. Its really not worth editing here. AlanBarnet 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Truly AlanBarnet. You are pushing the limits of civility to fit that much disinformation into one paragraph. 58.178.102.143 13:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi AlanBarnet. I don't know if you're including me in your sockpuppet accusations, but I don't agree with your fears about this article. There is absolutely one thing no-one could be left in doubt about after reading it and that is that there is absolutely no scientific support for NLP that anybody has yet managed to find and put in. I await the results of Comazes search for some with interest but I have no doubt any found will be subject to scrutiny. Fainites 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

HarrsiTweed. Sorry that you're going. Please reconsider. If not, does your offer to search for quotes (at 5.24 am) still stand? Fainites 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Research Reviews

AlanBarnet. I'm getting hold of a copy of Margaret Singers book. Meanwhile, do you have any other good, quotable evidence of major NLP proponents to date claiming NLP is scientific or based on science. I think it's quite important to establish whether mainstream current practitioners or the leading current thinkers in NLP hold it out as scientific. Fainites 09:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi AlanBarnet. I've just seen your entry on Norcross. Could you let me have the reference please. Also, see my previous entry. Presumably to be catagorised as pseudoscience it has to hold itself out as scientific, either specifically or by implication. Clearly from the existing quoted research scientists think it holds itself out as scientific by implication but we're a bit short on evidence as to what NLP proponents say on science. Fainites 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze, AlanBarnet and various Numbers. HarrisTweed has sent me the context for the Sharpley 1987 quote: 'The most conclusive sentence (about conclusions) in that section you presented is that “There are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data”

Then he (Sharpley) says “On the other hand, Einspruch and Forman (1985) implied that NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP. Perhaps this is so, and perhaps NLP procedures are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather it puts it in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field. Not every therapy has to undergo the rigorous testing that is characteristic of the more behavioural approaches to counseling to be of use to the therapeutic community, but failure to produce data that support a particular theory from controlled studies does relegate that theory to questionable status in terms of professional accountability”

Right at the end of the article the sentences read:

“Elich et al referred to NLP as a psychological fad, and they may well have been correct. Certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures.” '

It's a bit difficult to condense this. Should it all go in or it is really rather superceded by later research? Fainites 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. I think the best way will be simply to report it straight. Show me the data! - is what the scientists usually say. So the conclusion on the data looks the most quotable. But then again it will depend on what the latter reports say. I think others may place Druckman with greater weight. Either way as you say theres no evidence of NLP effectiveness or correctness of theory. I've some information by a countryman of mine called Drenth. He mentions some pseudoscientific aspects. I imagine Singer mentions some also. After a good delve of the archives I noticed a big part of it was conducted under supervision from admin. It may be a good idea to investigate what they found acceptable. AlanBarnet 08:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. The abstract for the Lichtenberg, Moffat paper reads 'Describes investigation of relationship between verbal predicate matching of modality of clients' primary representational system (PRS) and understanding of therapist by assessing participants' objective understanding and subjective understanding. Suggests weak support of enhanced accuracy of objective understanding and greater understanding and recall for visual PRS participants. (CRR). Any more references? Fainites 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is everybody dead? Fainites 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope not. People need sleep :) --Comaze 00:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is you Antipodeans and we old Europe types are working on different timescales, hence that 'the whole articles been rewritten overnight' feeling people keep getting!Fainites 10:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The follow excerpt gives a summary of the current research. It also describes Sharpley "positivist psychological tradition" which is not obvious in our current description of the research. There are different levels of criteria for evidence. moved to List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming#Meta-studies_and_similar_commentaries_on_research. --Comaze 02:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze and AlanBarnet and Numbers. I've tried putting a bit of the Sharpley quotes in the research reviews. What do you think? Is it overkill as it's from 1987 or a little messy? Fainites 14:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure Fainites. I will post the Norcross information as soon as I can. I'm in a bit of a rush now but you can Google for the basics using Norcross, Discredited therapies. AlanBarnet 05:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Norcross presents a survey of 101 experts in psychology. This is to improve upon the poineering efforts of Lilienfeld, Singer, Della Salla, Eisner, and Carroll on "pseudoscientific, unvalidated, or "quack" psychotherapies". A set of candidate discredited therapies are presented - these are all taken from the literature of the above authors and and from consultations with experts. A five point likert scale is presented (not discredited (below 1 - probably not discredited = 2, possibly discredited = 3 - probably discredited = 4 - and certainly discredited = 5. They rate NLP as 3.57 in the first round and 3.87 in the second which places it as "possibly discredited". This is not mentioned in the web version though the web version does show useful limitations of the study (its only a poll and one should rely more upon empirical results (NLP unsupported in this case). AlanBarnet 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What version of NLP did they evaluate? --Comaze 08:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Point of Clarification Regarding the Previous Editorship of this Article

I'm the person that once posted as Flavius Vanillus. I haven't looked at the NLP article in many months let alone edited it. Contrary to the unsubstantiated view being self-righteously promoted by FT2 I and Headley Down are two distinct people. I actually "met" HeadleyDown when (s)he introduced him/herself on My Page when I opened the Flavius Vanillus account. Furthermore, I do not and did not belong to any sceptics forum or society. There was/is no anti-NLP cabal. I've never posted to Wikipedia using two co-existent online identities. Certainly, HeadleyDown used many sock puppets -- and I discovered this only just before the "authorities" did so via my own stylistic comparisons (you can find my early discussion page posts where I raise my suspicion about HeadleyDown). I did correspond with HeadleyDown just as I corresponded with Comaze (to validate my identity I'll remind Comaze that in a private email I directed him to an error in the 'Contact Us' mark-up on his business site). We exchanged references and discussed our frustrations but there was no conspiracy. I feel compelled to post because FT2 is indulging in conspiratorial fantasy and is negating the value of mine and HeadleyDown's contributions to the article. My editing style was conservative in that I didn't commit anything to the article unless I could substantiate it. I was also ready to discard those edits when I could see that some of them comprised OR. For the record I'm a male IT professional based in Australia, HeadleyDown is/was a PhD student from Hong Kong. An IP address check would have shown that I am not HeadleyDown. Although I am posting through a private proxy at the moment I never did so when I was editing the article. A mod. can verify that as Flavius I consistently edited from an well-known Australian ISP address block. Instead of due dilligence FT2 merely assumed that there was only one person presenting an NLP-critical view. Excluding HeadleyDowns socks there were at least four people at one point presenting an NLP-critical view. I've noticed also that FT2 is automatically accusing everyone that offers a critical view of being HeadleyDown. I've no intention of editing the NLP article (even though I could easily do so with the abundance of closed/private HTTP proxy servers around the world) and I ask only that this post remain in the discussion page to offset the self-righteous propaganda that FT2 has been spreading.

On reflection it was a case of "too many cooks" and this did not serve the interests of producing a good article. The problem now is that in the absence of any critical opinion (or its relgation to the sidelines) the article risks becoming a promotional "puff piece" for the NLP industry. I'm not offering myself as the antidote nor am I campaigning for the return of HeadleyDown. That notwithstanding both I and HeadleyDown and his/her many personas helped to "keep the bastards honest" (to quote the late Don Chipp). In my view Comaze and GregA were the best of the pro-NLP editors even though I feel that their commercial interests in NLP are skewing some of their views (but this is normal, we all have biases). Having Comaze and GregA edit the article doesn't alarm me. In my experience both had some understanding and appreciation of the notion of evidence and were quite clear thinkers. I don't feel I can extend the same assessment to FT2. FT2 carries an idelogical stench whereever (s)he seems to go in "Wikipedia World". There is a clear advocacy and promotion in FT2s edits. Furthermore, the promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google. FT2's edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion -- the "NLP and Science" article is a particularly egregious example of this tendency, it is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage.

This is statement of the obvious (I know) but you'll only achieve stability in the article if it succeeds in carefully treading the tight-rope of neutrality. I can now see we did push too hard on some issues (eg. NLP and magick) and this was counter-productive and wasteful of time and energy. However, the pro-NLP editors were no less culpable in different ways. There was (and remains) a tendency to present disguised forms of the argument from ignorance, i.e. there is no scientific evidence against hypothesis H so we'll act as if there evidence for H else we'll argue that the conventional concept of evidence is irrelevant. This brings me to the other persistent problem about "epistemology". Grinder's idiosyncratic conception of "epistemology" should be presented as just that, namely Grinders view. Also if Grinder has an an argument to support his take on "epistemology" then it should be referenced. If he has no such argument in defence of his "epistemology" then that too should be stated. The notion that a hypothesis can be epistemologically "promoted" by arguing that it originated from a proto-science, that it is a "model", that it is a "pragmatic model" that can't be wrong or right or that is based on a pardigm shift is mere sophistry.

64.46.47.242 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC) The editor formerly known an Flavius ;-)

Send me an email formerly known an Flavius so we can discuss how to make the article critical (as in objective and neutral). Believe it or not I am a scientist at heart. --Comaze 07:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello 64. I am really getting tired of meatpuppets or sockpuppets. You really have no right to be here. You seem to have made this article unworkable. I don't care which "faction" you are from. This article is supposed to become NPOV compliant in a collaborative manner. I have already complained to admin and hopefully something will be done soon. Thank you. AlanBarnet 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet has opened an AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents --Comaze 05:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi flavius. I'm truly sorry HeadleyDown hoodwinked you, but actually I'm not FT2 (if that's what you were insinuating). FT2 hasn't even been on this page in ages. Which is a shame because most of your rant is directed at him. Yet, lets remind readers that as an Arbcom finding of fact you are listed as being an obsessive and POV editor and FT2 is not. You were permanently banned for incessant incivility and FT2 was not. 58.178.193.158 14:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

cult/misuse by cults

I have searched the Michael D Langone book on 'Recovery from Cults' which is one of the references in the cult section. It is clear the book is not saying NLP is a cult but it is used by cults. eg 'It's a tool for generating change for changes sake. We know that NLP is also used by some very aggressive cults because the NLP method can be used by such groups to instill a reliance upon the cult, and provides a conditioning method to further induce compliance.' There are similar concerns about hypnotherapy and they see NLP as 'hypnotic induction'. The only direct criticism of NLP itself is in a passage where it is linked with est, meditation (transcendental I think) and Scientology in that it teaches that the percieved world is an illusion although they then make a specific distinction between NLP and the others in that no alternative mythology (eg cult of a leader) accompanies this in NLP. In a bizarre way you could say this book almost supports NLP because it proceeds on the assumption that NLP not only 'works' but is very powerful! However, it is clearly the hypnotic side of things and probably the same complaints have been about the misuse of hypnosis many times before. In any event, inclusion of this book as a reference for the sentence that some writeers have described NLP as a cult or psychocult is not accurate. The other references need to be checked. Does anybody other than HarrisTweed have access to a copy of Eisners 'The Death of Psychotherapy' ? Fainites 10:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi 58. I was just putting in the ref. whilst you were adding 'verify source'. My concern about Langone is that he was wrongly included in a list of citations as having called NLP a cult or psychocult. Fainites 17:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

58. I have a reference for the Michael Langone book. If you look under edit it's there. Unfortunately it's not appearing in the reference section. It's name="langone93" cite book | author=Michael D Langone (Ed). | title=Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse | location=New York, NY | publisher=W W Norton & Company | Fainites 17:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody please remove reference 59 from the statement about Journalists and writers calling NLP a cult or psychocult. I've checked Langones book in the reference and he does not do this. I'd remove it myself but when I tried the whole reference disappeared even though it appears elsewhere. Obviously mystic knowledge is required.Fainites 20:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically the full reference needs to be somewhere in the document. When you add the full reference you can then use the shortened version . So in this case you need to move the full reference somewhere else so it is retained. Hope this makes sense. --Comaze 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Religiosity

The bit about Castenada is marked as dubious. I've checked the entry in the NLP Encyclopaedia and it certainly concurs with what is written here about Castenada's influence on NLP. Is this sufficient? Fainites 20:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I read it too. I seem to recall that we paraphrase the entry, and none too well. 58.178.199.62 22:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the paraphrase is accurate. I'll see if I can find a third party source for this. --Comaze 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dilts says the founders were inspired by Castenada to create the "double induction" process and to create " the possibility of completely moving attention or energy (self) to another reality. They also used his concept of "first attention" and "second attention" as a description of the relationship between the conscious and unconscious, similar to that of NLP New Coding. Presumably those who were influenced first hand have something to sya on this.Fainites 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

This is now too obscure and uses terminology and concepts from NLP that do not illuminate. It also ought to make reference to the fact that NLP as at best highly controversial and scientifically unvalidated. I also think the introduction to the history section is too onesided. Fainites 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In the history section, remember it is a history of NLP, not a history of the reception of NLP. What exactly is missing? 58.178.199.62 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just read over the intro. Can't work out what NLP specific terminology you're refering to. The second paragraph could do with some c/e, perhaps you're refering to that? I agree the intro should mention "controversial" and more about the reception of NLP generally. I would advise adding a third paragraph and I think everyone is agreed on this; though adding the phrase "highly controversial" is a tad dramatic and probably interpretable in too many ways. Since obviously this third paragraph would be based on the most contested part of the article, how are we to proceed in summarising? How will we know we aren't summarising fraudulent commentary and citations? There's still lots to clean up in the bottom section. 58.178.199.62 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi 58. Thanks for sorting out the refs. In relation to the intro, I really mean the last sentance of the second paragraph. It might be a bit conceptually indigestible for a first time reader. Is this the best way of explaining NLP in a few short sentences? In relation to the "controversial" bit I agree that this should be left until after cleanup. In relation to the introduction to the history section, whilst not untrue, the last sentance makes it sound more mainstream and accepted than it probably is. I've also noted your comment on Langone. When all the references and citations in that section are verified and cleaned up it may be that he seems unecessary, or unecessary at such length. It's just one example out of probably many false citations. At least now we know what he did actually say. I'd like to check the rest too when I can get hold of the sources. Fainites 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this. 'NLP is based on the idea that all language and behaviours (whether functional or dysfunctional) are highly structured. It seeks to uncover the structure of subjective experience and by modeling language and behaviour, change beliefs and behaviours and treat traumas. It teaches that if someone excels at something, we can learn how they do it and then teach it to others. NLP uses several ways to effect changes in the way we think, learn and communicate.' Fainites 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

All good. I'm fine with thoese sentences. Well done. 58.178.199.62 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what the others think and then put the references back in. On Langone, I've seen your edit where you put some old stuff back with a failed verification tag. I've been through the book online searching for NLP and Neuro Linguistic Programming in context and I can't find a passage like that.Fainites 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe let's remove it then. 58.178.199.62 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... So much for waiting. AlanBarnet has seen fit to put a scientific reception paragraph in the intro. Which if I'm not mistaken is the main point of contention between us editors. That should stoke the fire for another week... Anyway for what it's worth, I think the paragraph should introduce the reception of NLP generally before drilling down into science. 58.178.199.62 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten Para 2 in the Intro as per my proposal above. Nothing new, just shifting it around a bit. As for para 3, there's not much point in indulging in revert wars right now. Why don't we wait until all references are checked and then do para. 3. properly. Don't you look at the talk page before editing AlanBarnet? It's not that the scientific quotes are wrong, it's just not necessarily the right place to put such quotes. I would have thought something simple in the introduction like NLP was and continues to be controversial and after 3 decades of existance remains scientifically unvalidated.Fainites 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

All good. I've bolded the phrasing above. Let's come back to it. 58.178.98.230 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that second paragraph a couple of days ago. I was quite proud of it :) But, it reads much better now that you have rearranged it. Thank you. I'm really enjoying the collaborative efforts. I've spent alot of time trying to improve this page and its really nice to have some people work together. This is what wikipedia should be like. I know there is a lot of work, but we might be able to get a peer review soon to get some more feedback. Then feature candidate. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. --Comaze 11:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Whoa! Sit down and take a deep breath. Fainites 13:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe. What are you on Comaze? 58.178.98.230 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Modeling

I rewrote the section on modeling. Can someone please review it for me. Thanks in advance --Comaze 04:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. It's fine, except that I think it ought to have a first sentance that says what modeling is in simple terms. For non-NLPers it's a bit of a weird concept. How about ' "Modeling" is the process of adopting the behaviours, language, strategies and beliefs of another.' Fainites 09:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly needs to be easier to understand for someone outside of NLP or psychology. If you have time, insert you topic sentence. I'll come back to it with fresh eyes. --Comaze 11:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Represention

Nice condensing. I'll try re-reading in a minute from the point of view of a non-NLPer. I recall reading somewhere that the eye movement thing had definately been disproved and then dumped by practioners. I don't mean EMDR, but the bit about eye movement indicating anything.Fainites 13:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried a bit of rewriting for non-NLPers. I find this one difficult to explain. Please feel free to revert, Comaze, if you feel yours is more accurate.Fainites 15:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP claims to be a science

Following on from HarrisTweeds interest in whether NLP claimed to be scientific and in what sense, some nice bits from Dilts. Unfortunately I have to go to work tomorrow so I don't have time to put it all in. But try this "Like applied science, the core criteria of NLP methods is that they be 'useful' and 'held accountable to our sensory experiences'.In fact as the name Neuro-Linguistic Programming implies, NLP is rooted in the synthesis of three areas of modern science:neurophysiology, linguistics and cybernetics..." .......then "In considering NLP as a science however, it is important to recognise that the epistemology of NLP is more 'subjective' and 'systematically' oriented than many 'hard' sciences, which tend to be more 'objective' and 'deterministic'. That is the patterns explored and identified by NLP are often necessarily contextual and influenced by the perceptual filters of the observer." and "In fact from the NLP standpoint, "science" is a function of systematically developing and applying a particular set of perceptual filters, criteria and cause-effect beliefs." Fainites 23:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good find. Hmmm. Seems like he's saying it's a supersoft science if at all. When did he say that? 58.178.98.230 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bateson sums up this position in the introduction of structure of magic (1975), Gregory Bateson writes:

• Bandler and Grinder have "create the beginnings of an appropriate theoretical base for the describing of human interaction." ... "The behavioral sciences, and especially psychiatry, have always avoided theory, and it is easy to make a list of the various maneuvers whereby theory could be avoided" ... "Psychologists accepted all sorts of internal explanatory entities (ego, anxiety, aggression, instinct, conflict, etc.) in a way reminiscent of medieval psycho-theology. Psychiatrists" ... "searched for narratives of childhood to explain current behavior, making new data out of what was known. They attempted to create statistical samples of morbidity. They wallowed in internal and mythical entities, ids and archetypes. Above all, they borrowed the concepts of physics and mechanics - energy, tension, and the like - to create a scientism."
• "But there were a few beginnings from which to work: the "logical types" of Russell and Whitehead, the "Game theory" of Von Neumann" ... "Pattern and redundancy were beginning to be defined" ... "I treasure somewhere in my files a letter from a funding agency telling me that my work should be more clinical, more experimental, and, above all, more quantitative."
• "[Grinder and Bandler] have succeeded in making linguistics into a base for theory and simultaneously into a tool for therapy." ... "We already knew that most of the premises of individual psychology were useless, and we knew that we ought to classify modes of communicating." ... "Grinder and Bandler have succeeded in making explicit the syntax of how people avoid change and, therefore, how to assist them in changing. Here they focus on verbal communication" ... and "develop a general model of communication and change involving the other modes of communication which human beings use to represent and communicate their experience."

I think this sums up the position (1970s) of NLP, and its criticism of psychologists/ psychiatrists for engaging mythical ideas of how the mind works (id, ego, mechanistic energy, tension, resistance). It also criticses the over-reliance of quantatitive methods, rather than categorical methods for the study of behavioral science. --Comaze 03:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit like saying 'we'll redefine science first and then say we're a science'. Everything other scientists say and do then becomes subordinate to personal perception and mental map theory. Got to go now. Fainites 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, it's a bit like that. I guess what's important is that if we say in that article that NLP claims to be a science, we should be clear what we mean by that. 58.178.98.230 14:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I found it in that Encyclopaedia of NLP that Dilts wrote that the Castenada stuff comes from.Fainites 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, do you have a citation for the edit about Sharpley being in the positivist tradition?Fainites 07:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The positivist tradition should be constrasted with humanistic psychology. Scientifically, the humanistic field views the usage of quantitative methods in the study of the human mind and behaviour as misguided which would match with Bateson's introduction to that foundational book on NLP. "Sharpley (1987) details seven studies (not included in the above total) that demonstrate that the research data does not support the basic tenets of NLP. It is noteworthy that this literature is based in the positivist psychological tradition and many of the examples are in therapeutic areas, e.g. phobia cure (Einsbruch, 1988) and counselling (Helm, 1991). Interest in this area appears to fade in the early 1990s and there are few reported studies after this date." ... "The review of literature does not provide a firm base for a belief that NLP has a lasting effect. Many of the studies are arguably methodologically flawed (Einsbruch and Forman, 1985). Their "flaws" raise considerable methodological and method issues. This view is supported by the positivist stance of Baddeley (1989) that a final verdict (on NLP) is withheld until further clinical studies and experimental investigations are reported." John E Thompson, Lisa Courtney, D Dickson. (2002) The effect of neurolinguistic programming on organisational and individual performance: A case study Journal of European Industrial Training. Bradford. Vol. 26, Iss. 6/7; p. 292 (7 pages) --Comaze 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason why asked for a source on 'positivist tradition' is that I am not sure what is meant by it in this context. Is the positivist tradition in the way you're using it the same as the standard scienctific method, ie hypothesis - repeatable experiments - empirical evidence or is it something more specific? If it isn't then I would have thought that all the scientists who criticise NLP in those sections are from the 'positivist tradition' ie followers of scientific method. I'm beginning to think we need a section on the extent to which NLP claims to be a science and NLP views on what science is. If NLP has views on science which mean they think standard scientific method is innappropriate then we ought to explain that. Sharpley himself points out a similar thing in relation to psychoanalysis. Fainites 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Dilts quoting Bateson. "the 'laws' of science were more in the mental strategies for how one thought about Nature rather than in Nature herself. Since we can only know the world through the perceptions we have of it and the mental maps or models we make of it, it is as important to study the structure of those maps of the world as it is to study the world itself'. Dilts also says "From the NLP point of view, "scientific" observations frequently reveal as much about the observer as they reveal about what is being observed" and finally "As a scientific approach, then NLP tends to be more 'qualitative' than 'quantitative' and more 'structuralist' than 'materialistic' ". I suppose they're saying hard, empirical science can't assess structural theories. The problem is, 'proper' scientists may well claim there is only hard science. Anything else is not a science. 'Soft' scientists would disagree. I don't think 'hard scientists' would disagree with Bateson. It's when it gets to the idea that all science is subjective that it's a problem. At the end of the day it might just be semantics, but I think we need to address this otherwise all the arguments about the research reviews get nowhere.Fainites 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone give the context for 'unrelated to computer programming or neuroscience' in the 1970's history section. It's certainly not in the second article in the citation and it is directly contrary to Dilts in his Encyclopaedia. I would have thought Dilts was a better reference for whether the founders based NLP on neuroscience and computer programming (cybernetics), (or thought they did) than Tosey 2003. It may be unrelated in the sense that the scientific foundation was unsound.Fainites 21:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are limited references to NLP from the computer science and I don't know of any from neuroscience. The NLP epistemology borrows from the foundations of computer science (turing machine, automata, theory of types) but that is more or less imported from linguistics (transformational grammar, Noam Chomsky) (Bandler & Grinder 1975; Grinder & Bostic St Clair 2001). Grinder recommends (2001) that those interested work with the reseachers in neuroscience and cognitive linguistics to improve the relationship between those fields. I have found several papers in computer science that have used NLP as part of the modeling of subjective experience in artificially intelligent agents. There are also a number of papers that recommends NLP in teaching computer science. I don't want to overstate its importance because it is rarely cited. --Comaze 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, it looks to me from the context of the Sharpley quote that the studies Sharpley reviewed are in the positivist psychological tradition. Maybe Sharpley was aswell but I think if all the research in the research sections has been done by 'positivist' scientists it looks odd to single Sharpley out as if there was something different about him.Fainites 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to single Sharpley out. But it is necessary to characterise the type of research evidence that is being discussed. The humanistic/positivist 'tension' is a common theme in the social sciences and behavioral sciences. Even the term tension is from a mechanistic metaphor of human communication (Bateson would be turning in his grave). The author of that quote recommends longitudinal study of NLP. However the interpretation of the longitudinal study by Thompson et al is limited because of inadequate controls. --Comaze 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this is why there needs to be a section that explains NLP's view of science and where it places itself on the positivist/humanist spectrum. Dilts seems very clear NLP was based on science but I'm not so clear about Grinder and Bandler.Fainites 01:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Grinder strongly argues that NLP is an epistemology. In Whispering (2001) he makes recommendations to set the base for NLP as a scientifically based endeavor. Grinder and Delozier (1984) argue that Bateson (and NLP) attempts to synthesize the overdrawn positions of empiricists (eg. David Hume and the logical positivists) and idealists (eg. German Idealism). --Comaze 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

2001 seems a bit late to start setting a scientific base. What did Grinder and Bandler say about NLP as science back in the 70's.Fainites 21:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. If NLP is in the humanistic psychology tradition and favours qualitative research over quantative research, where is all the qualitative research? And doesn't even qualitative research build up an empirical base over time? If qualitative research is what you're in the process of producing then the difference needs to made clear.Fainites 21:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Promotional obscuring of the main facts

Despite the helpful assessment of an administrator – there is still a distinct reluctance to document the basic facts clearly or even remedy the badly promotional editing that has been presented over the past weeks. There remains a strong tendency to obscure the main facts [32]. Presenting the basic science views in the opening solves at least some of the problem of obscuring facts for the purpose of promotion as has been mentioned by the administrator [33]. Note that the term “cult” is not used there at all. It is definitely the majority view (science) and should remain open and clear for the reader to see. Its in summarized and should be documented straight and clear according to NPOV policy and of course again it will help to solve the problem of promotional editing. AlanBarnet 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you must have misread your link. That administrator actually says "fundamental fact that NLP is a cult". See for yourself. Labelling proponents of NLP cult victims isn't what I'd rate as highly helpful. Anyway, looks like you're in the minority on this issue. As fainites and I were discussing above nobody is obscuring anything. We are simply waiting until the reception section has settled down before inserting anything too tense in the introduction. Are you willing to work towards consensus on this issue? Or discuss the issues in the intro thread? 58.178.98.230 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi AlanBarnet. Can we leave how to present the science roundup in the intro until all the references and citations and whatnot have been checked? It's all a bit pointless you keep putting those quotes in because every time you do someone moves them to the research section and then it's all messy and duplicated and I have to clean it up! I agree with you that the intro needs to address this issue but if we can work towards consensus on it the final result might last longer. Have you got anything on NLP claims to be a science or what NLP means by 'science'? Fainites 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The facts are very clear. To partially deal with the promotion problem outlined by administrator Guy on the ANI article – the fundamental and incontrovertible facts were presented in the opening. Another editor (BenAveling) helped to make the passage clearly presented [34]. An anonymous IP came along for the second or third time running and (similar to other anonymous editors and user Comaze) deleted it giving a highly inconsistent excuse. How come they didn’t remove other information from the opening thats less well supported? It is all repeated in some form or other within the main body of the article. Its actually the anonymous editor who messed up the research section. How come you are suggesting to me not place the basic - and most reliable science facts in the opening when you could simply cooperate with the ANI assessment – and revert the anonymous IP – to help make sure the basic facts are not being obscured? No mention of the view that NLP is a cult – even though Guy was correct and the term cult is used even in the peer reviewed sources that scientifically review NLP. Now I may still be fairly new here - but seems to me that on this article much more than all others I have worked on - there's a lot of concerted and diametrically opposed inconsistency with the most obvious priorities of Wikipedia. There seems to be open animosity or reluctance to presenting the science facts clearly for the readers. Even when editors ask for apologies for leaning heavily on others - they still present strong resistence to NPOV facts. Its very offputting. AlanBarnet 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be overstating your case here. We're trying to establish a consensus on the recption of NLP in various disciplines. Science is one of those. It is not black and white. What's your view on the hard science v. soft science argument (see previous thread)? --Comaze 06:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Devilly

I've asked Grant User:Devilly to pop in here and comment on the article. This might be a good opportunity to get a comment from an expert on the topic. --Comaze 07:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze - I'm not overstating anything. I say it straight with no spin because the message needs emphasizing to avoid the facts being obscured. Only a few days ago - properly cited quotes were deleted (and some animosity - you called direct quotes from scientists "tabloid skepticism") and obscured and replaced them with promotional editorializing [35] Some editors have been working together to present exactly the same bias towards obscuring the facts.[36].

Reviews of the research are not at all mixed. Devilly - Singer - Druckman - Sharpley - Eisner - Lilienfeld and the others agree. They all say the same thing - that NLP is unsupported. Science is like that. Its either supported or unsupported. Avoiding black and white articles involves stating what others think of that unsupported finding. NLP authors say it doesn't matter and NLP is about "do what works!". Scientists say it doesn't work and their is concern that NLP is still promoted as a science or validated therapy. There are views on the behaviour of NLP groups also and those have not been presented in the opening - though of course they could be. I'm always open to suggestion - and the suggestion from admin was that facts have being obscured. So I'm just making sure the facts are presented clearly. AlanBarnet 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet I am unable to find a review of the literature by Lilienfeld. Neither Devilly, Singer or Einser have published a literature review on NLP. I have read Sharpley and Krugman. Sharpley has been regarded as the major review of that era. Krugman is a minor review. I think my edit was far from promotional [37]. It summarised the mixed reception, the research review and subsequent sporadic support in various disciplines. There is alot of support in the popular literature. Hopefully we can get a comment from Devilly who is a critic of NLP. Also you might be able to assist me in fleshing out an article on power therapies. --Comaze 08:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze you seem to me to be looking for the wrong thing. I just had to look again at policies on original research and its fairly clear. Above in discussion you suggested presenting all the studies - minor and major and presenting your own conclusion (that they are mixed - just as you concluded in the opening). Of course they will look mixed if you do that. The above authors (Lilienfeld .....) did their own reviews. Their reviews are published in their respective papers and books as is obvious in the article. Thats called a review. It doesn't matter which studies they mention in their literature - the fact is they're qualified to review the literature and assess it for themselves and which studies or other reviews are relevant or reliable. They will know the difference between a controlled study and a badly conducted one. You or I will not and or own original conclusions are irrelevant to the article according to the Wikipedia article on original research. The conclusions of those reviewers is that NLP is unsupported. Thats the fundamental fact. I'm learning more about NPOV policies here but its mostly just reassurance that the obvious is clear. AlanBarnet 10:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of including all of the studies and presenting my own conclusions. That would be original research. Any conclusion of systhesis must be attributed to a source. (move to other thread) --Comaze 10:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze I believe the problem will not be solved by denying its existence. Here is your presentation above only a few days ago: A whole set of selective studies above and the strategic partnership company you promote NLP with - mentioned on your Comaze company site [38]. [39]. It is obvious there have been or remain multiple lines of your own conclusion (OR) in the article and even in the opening for quite a while - saying the studies are mixed - rather than present the obvious assessment of the most independent reviews (NLP is an unvalidated therapy and has failed controlled studies). So I really do think editors and admin need to find a way somehow of stopping the persistent and promotional obscuring of the basic conclusive findings on NLP. Judging by recent (last 24 hours) edits, it seems to me that the resistence to clear presentation remains a sizeable problem. AlanBarnet 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Barnet. The citation for Lilienfield in the article gives his introduction called 'Our Raison d'etre' for Vol. 1 of the Scientific Review of Mental health Practice. The context for NLP is as follows; "A wide variety of unvalidated and sometimes harmful psychotherapeutic methods, including facilitated communication for infantile autism (see Herbert, Sharp, & Gaudiano, this issue), suggestive techniques for memory recovery (e.g., hypnotic age-regression, guided imagery, body work), energy therapies (e.g., Thought Field Therapy, Emotional Freedom Technique; see “Media Watch,” this issue), and New Age therapies of seemingly endless stripes (e.g., rebirthing, reparenting, past-life regression, Primal Scream therapy, neurolinguistic programming, alien abduction therapy, angel therapy) have either emerged or maintained their popularity in recent decades. Moreover, in a large-scale study published last year (Kessler et al., 2001), individuals in the general population with a recent history of anxiety attacks or severe depression were found to avail themselves of complementary and alternative mental health treatments (including energy healing and laughter therapy) more often than conventional treatments. Thus, largely untested treatments comprise a major proportion—in some cases a majority—of the interventions delivered by mental health professionals.

According to one recent conservative estimate (Eisner, 2000), there are now between 400 and 500 different brands of psychotherapy, and this number is increasing on a virtually weekly basis. Even many of the most vocal critics of the present state of clinical psychology (e.g., Dawes, 1994) acknowledge that psychotherapy can be helpful in many instances. Yet because most “flavors” of psychotherapy have not been subjected to rigorous empirical evaluation (e.g., randomized, controlled trials), in the majority of cases we have no way of knowing whether such treatments are effective, ineffective, or harmful."

It's a plea for more hard-nosed research and confirms there is no scientific validation of NLP but can we assume it's a literature review? Do you have anything more specific from Lilienfield? Fainites 12:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a worry about whether its a literature review or not? Does NPOV demand literature reviews? The viewpoint is clear. NLP is unvalidated and he even calls it a New Age therapy. Note the very article is in a journal called the Scientific -Review- of Mental health Practice. I had a look at Lilienfelds' book and it gives NLP the same negative assessment (unsupported). Here is a review by another reviewer of Lilienfeld who calls NLP pseudoscientific The disease of Pseudoscience and the hope for a cure Book Review - Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology Skeptical Inquirer, July-August, 2003 by Brandon A. Gaudiano. He talks about motivational guru Tony Robbins (a practitioner of the pseudoscientific Neurolinguistic Programming).AlanBarnet 07:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lilienfield in the article cited does not include the phrase 'spread myths about how the mind works' as now appears in the intro. Also the intro says 'pschologists' yet only Lilienfield is cited. I have also looked at Lilienfields paper 'Pseudoscience in Contemporary Clinical Psychology: What it is and what can we do about it.' (1998) The Clinical Psychologist 51,3. It makes no specific mention of NLP. Whilst you could argue that NLP fits the definition of pseudoscience, Lilienfield doesn't specifically say it here. Fainites 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put back the second Lilienfield reference that was removed but provided a correct extract from it.It's now in Research reviews but may be better placed under mental healthFainites 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

VK/D (NLP) is briefly mentioned in "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology". In that book they say VKD was excluded from the research review due to lack of experimental research published in the appropriate clinical psychology journals. In 2003 they more or less repeat this... "There are several novel treatments vying for the attention of clinicians treating anxiety and trauma that sometimes have been referred to as the Power Therapies. This moniker derives from the claim that such treatments work much more efficiently than extant interventions for anxiety disorders (Figley, 1997). The Power Therapies include {lists a number of psychotherapies including Visual–Kinesthetic Dissociation (VKD; Bandler & Grinder, 1979)}."[40] --Comaze 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. I have put a more accurate quote from Lilienfield et al in the science review section and restored a citation for him that was previously removed. I have also put a fuller account of his concerns about mental health practice in the Mental health section. What do you think? Fainites 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is another line from Lilienfeld from the introduction. I think this frames the problem pretty well - or at least goes some way to explaining why they are all so concerned about NLP being promoted “All a clever entrepreneur has to do is apply a formula historically guaranteed to be successful: (Quick Fix + Pseudoscientific Gloss) x Credulous Public = High Income. That is why, when TFT, FC, neurolinguistic programming, and rebirthing have traveled the route of electric sleep therapy and the Transcutaneous Electro-Neural Stimulator, new miracle therapies with different acronyms will rise to take their place.”. I think its seems pretty clear that the authors there think NLP is pseudoscientific. AlanBarnet 06:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another bit of research from Beyerstein seems fairly clear on the concern over the spread of myths by NLP. He talks of NLP as in the context of Brainscams "Though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP’s outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies. NLP basks in effusive testimonials but the NRC committee could unearth no hard evidence in its favor, or even a succinct statement of its underlying theory."

From the section on: "Potential harm?" "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. The purveyors of neurobabble urge us to equate truth with “what feels right” and to abandon the common sense insistence that those who would enlighten us provide at least much evidence as a politician or used car salesman. New Age slogans such as “you create your own reality” reinforce our deep seated longings for arcane formulae that will achieve our goals through imagination rather than perspiration. It would be nice if mental and physical limits applied only to those who concede their validity. While distorting the real accomplishments of science and raising false hopes, pseudosciences also divert personal and societal energies from valid efforts to solve life’s real problems." "Instead of deriving techniques from relevant research and subjecting them to impartial scrutiny, the gurus of self-improvement tend to rely on their own experience and alleged insights into “what works”. All we need in the article is a clear unobscured account of the concern over NLP as an unvalidated technique. AlanBarnet 07:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should expand the Beyerstein quote in the research reviews section. I think the first sentance sums it up best. It's better to stick to verifiable quotes. The use of the word myth comes from Beyerstein, not Lilienfield.Fainites 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the second Lilienfield reference makes it pretty clear that he and the others put NLP in the category of pseudoscience. It's a pity this reference disappeared from the article for so long. I still think though we need to be clearer about the extent to which the founders and the major proponents of NLP claim it is scientific. (Dilts claims it is based on established science.) For example, in 'Introducing NLP' by O'Connor & Seymour, a book which has a forward by R.Dilts and a preface by Grinder, it is stated at the outset that NLP is 'the art and science of personal excellence' but I suppose that could just be a figure of speech.Fainites 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Research in fields other than mental health and psychotherapy

There are many sources that state that there is a need for further research. There are also criticisms of the research from experimental conselling (Sharpley etc). Reviews by Dowlen (1996) and more recently by Thompson et al (2001), generally agree with Sharpley and Einspruch, but also state that there is a need for further research. Thompson suggests longitudinal studies. There are individual studies that can also be described. These studies have been summarised in reviews. Those studies may have been excluded by the phantom Lilienfeld review most likely because they were published in journals outside of counselling psychology. So we have an issue here. NLP has been adopted in any fields other than counselling. If Lilienfeld did review NLP, he would probably exclude the reviews that are not related to mental health. Devilly would do the same. So would Singer (1997) if she still alive. Eisner (2001) was also writinf about psychotherapy, so he would also exclude Dowlen, 1996 (management) and Tosey & Mathison, 2003 (Teaching theory), as well as the individual studies on NLP in marketing and sales (eg. Skinner etc.). --Comaze 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Von Bergen seems to say it all - unvalidated and inappropriate for management training (human resources). They present about the most solid review - base it on their own assessment of the studies and other reviews. Its fairly recent (1997). There is also a line that keeps getting seperated from the Druckman in the article (Druckman dropped NLP from the research stream). Devilly seems to verify this by inferring researchers havn't done any controlled studies since the "host of controlled studies of the 80s" because its not worth empirically researching pseudoscientific new age techniques. At least thats the message I'm hearing loud and clear from a collection of reliable reviews. AlanBarnet 07:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it will help to assess the impact factor and number of citations of the journals and individual papers we are relying on for the article. It would be difficult to argue against inclusion of articles that are published in peer-reviewed journals and have many citations (some examples might include: Sharpley: counselling, Einspruch and Forman: counselling, Craft, A. in education). And would exclude some minor papers and new papers that have not been cited or reviewed yet. --Comaze 08:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction and top section too vague

From reading NLP books it is fairly clear that the authors’ strategy is to write a lot and say very little. They write in a very vague way in general. But that doesn’t mean this article should be written vaguely. A lot of the upper portion of the article seems to be very vague and I don’t think its helping much. All the fancy principles are presented first but there is no description of what NLP practicers actually do. If anything - a clear description of that should be near the top so that at least the reader gets some picture to base the abstract ideas on. There seems to be quite a lot of the mind-body activities in the more common NLP books that could help show NLP more directly. AlanBarnet 07:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've ordered the "further reading list based on the number of citations. I think this is a more objective way to check which books have been referenced in the academic literature. It is not perfect but the list matched my intuitions. --Comaze 07:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC) By the way, I do agree with you that the second section could be more descriptive / objective. --Comaze 08:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC) I've just made some changes to the side bar. It now links to the major influences on NLP, and separates this from principles. --Comaze 10:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet/HeadleyDown says

"All the fancy principles are presented first but there is no description of what NLP practicers actually do. If anything - a clear description of that should be near the top so that at least the reader gets some picture to base the abstract ideas on."

Hmmm... that sounds Familiar. I think this is the part where HeadleyDown/Barnet wants to add "Swwwwwwwwishhhhhhh" , talk about magical circles, and chakras. 68.81.139.171 01:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

68.81.139.171 - I think you have your answer already: [41]. You don't seem to have an account or user page so I can only reply to you here. I'm not 100% on the rules related to anon editors - and I don't know for certain if you're a sockpuppet - a troll - or whatever. But if you are going to be uncooperative or unconstructive - then you'll probably just get ignored. AlanBarnet 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I will be a bit more specific - but really I don't see anyone doing anything constructive about this. The upper bits of the article are not written well at all and don't seem to help. There are clear accounts of NLP activities in the peer reviewed papers and some books. I'll add something myself. AlanBarnet 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you post the quotes to verify the context for Williams and Lilienfeld. --Comaze 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I've moved it to the critics section for now. It might be useful to expand the views of Lilienfeld and Williams there if you verify it. --Comaze 07:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I've now incorporated AB's contributions into the milton model (williams) and critics (Lilienfeld) section. --Comaze 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Lilienfeld's definition of NLP is a simple report of science. NLP is unvalidated. I took both those bits of information in the introduction straight from the literature. You can verify them by looking them up. I don't need to add quotation marks for you do to that. NLP being unvalidated is not a criticism. You moved that fundamental fact away from the opening of the article. You also recently today removed a lot of very relevant information from the opening and now all that remains is a tiny unsourced statement. Obscuring facts clearly involves minimising them - moving them out of the way - or crowding them out with less relevant information. It really seems to me that you are still obscuring facts daily. AlanBarnet 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually asking you to post a quote here on the talk page so we can confirm your intepretation of the sources. --Comaze 09:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The quotations from Lilienfield in the article in 'research reviews' and 'critics' as of 11.04 am , 21.12.06 are accurate. The two in the research reviews section are from Lilienfield et al as per the reference. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr (eds) (2004) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. This is in Amazon online reader. The bit in the 'views of critics' section is a paraphrase from his introduction to the new Scientific Review journal he started, also as per the reference in the article. Unfortunately somebody shifted Lilienfield around and accidently swapped the references.Fainites 11:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. The details of the science are best set out in the science section. There is a clear chronological run of views expressed by reputable scientists from Sharpley '85 through to Devilly '05 all saying basically the same thing, that NLP is unvalidated. Can anybody argue with a simple statement in the opening that NLP was and remains scientifically unvalidated? We could add every single reference from the science section if you like but putting in a couple of paraphrases and a couple of names in the introduction seems unecessary and seems to be an ongoing argument situation that won't go away. What if it said 'was and remains scientifically unvalidated (see Research Reviews below)' and then the reader could see the whole run of research reviews over 20 years. Fainites 11:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the decription of what NLP actually is and what practitioners actually do needs some work. The current sections have clearly been written by people very familiar with NLP terms and concepts but to non-NLPers it's frankly a bit indigestible in parts. Fainites 11:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, I don't see the logic in moving Williams to the Milton Model section. Surely that section should be a description of what the Milton Model is or purports to be from those who created it and use it, whether others think the whole thing is codswallop or not. My understanding of Williams is that he does think the whole thing is codswallop so clearly he should be in a views section, rather than making it look as if he's just describing the Milton Model by putting him in a description section. There's no point setting up Aunt Sally's. Can we have the whole quote and the context from Williams please.Fainites 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll move Williams to view section. I'll request a copy of that book if AB does not have it handy. --Comaze 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. By the way, lots of hard, mainly tedious work overnight on references etc. Well done you ( and No. 68). If nobody objects I'm going to redo the Salerno reference. Salerno doesn't actually attack NLP specifically like he does other alleged therapies etc. His description of NLP comes in a chapter where he's actually being very offensive about Tony Robbins. He's sarcastic about the law suits and TR's divorce, but he doesn't cover NLP as one of his SHAM subjects. He goes on to say 'Robbins made NLP his own, refining it and personalizing it into what he christened 'neuroassociative conditioning'. It's after this that you get all the stuff about unlimited power, megahertz in food, colloidals and so on. Salerno does say '...dozens of firms offer derivative programs today, if not with quite the success Tony Robbins enjoy'. His only other mention of NLP is as one of the ingredients of the 'Sedona Method' along with spiritualism, native american rituals and so forth. I'm not sure it's fair to include Salerno's quote on SHAM as if he was including NLP.Fainites 12:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

List of most cited books

I've renamed the further reading list to "List of most cited books" and have based the list on number of citations for each book. This is going to reduce the possbility of spam in that section and help us decide on how much weight to give each source. We could do the same for the journal articles using the impact factor and number of citations. Sharpley and Einspruch and Forman are by far the most cited journal articles. --Comaze 00:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze - again I'm not yet that clear on what is acceptable or not here - but yesterday it seems you added about 60 or 70 edits to the article. From looking at other articles such as Journalism - Holland - Dutch cuisine - or even commercially based articles such as Tournism in the Netherlands - no such activity occurs there. The main reason for posting my message on the ANI board was to notify those concerned about the silly amount of undiscussed edits (over 50 per day sometimes) on this article. I don't see how anyone would reasonably view that or your yesterdays edit bonanza as cooperative or constructive. AlanBarnet 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not follow your reasoning. I think the list of most cited books will ony help protect the article from spam. --Comaze 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC) There only reason why there were so many edits in one way was because they were all minor editors. I didn't make one big edit because I wanted to document each incremental change so if you disagreed you could comment on it. --Comaze 06:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Your edit count was amazingly high yesterday and there were dubious edits among lots of insignificant ones. The situation really is the same as before ANI. There's a lot of crowding out and confusion going on. It seems to me to be highly uncooperative. NPOV seems to me to be far more about relevance - and reliability. Why should anyone want to know about how many times something is cited? AlanBarnet 09:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well we need some objective way to decide what books to include and what to exclude. I just wanted to make so very clear so that there was no argument in the future. If you think there were dubious edits then make the changes to correct them. I have a few months off so I want to fix up all of these NLP articles. I've asked the ex-mediator (VoA) to return to help us write in a more objective fashion. The cleanup taskforce should be coming through soon. --Comaze 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work Comaze. I'll remind everyone that the page history allows us to compare diffs on any number of edits. And there's extra tools for tracking changes. There really is no pace that's too fast in any technical sense. Comaze. You will never reach the superfast high edit count of User:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me and the multitude of editors that have superfast editing scripts installed in their word processors. The wiki the features allow us to follow what you're doing and making any necessary amendments.

AB. If you assume good faith like you should be doing, you really don't have to worry about tracking everything Comaze does. Take care. 58.178.157.33 09:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Individual study: Eye-movements and ongoing task processing

• Burke, D. T., Meleger, A., Schneider, J. C., Snyder, J., Dorvlo, A. S., Al-Adawi, S. (2003): "Eye-movements and ongoing task processing." Perceptual and Motor Skills. June, Vol. 96(3 Pt 2) pp. 1330-8.

I just found this study published in 2003 which yielded some positiive results for Rep systems and accessing cues in NLP. I've only read the abstract. I'll get the full article shortly: [42] --Comaze 12:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Love to see it when you've got it. Seems like there's still people out there, ploughing away with bits of research. Doesn't seem to be the main proponents of NLP ever though does it? Fainites 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full paper yet. But it is not as positive as I thought...

Quote from abstract: The study tested representational systems and eye accessing cues: "...Some subjects' eye-movements reflected ongoing thought processing. Instead of a universal pattern, as suggested by the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis, this study yielded subject-specific idiosyncratic eye-movements across all modalities. Included is a discussion of the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis regarding eye-movements and its implications for the eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing theory."[43] --Comaze 12:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the abstract. From our point of view it conceals more than it reveals. Hope you can get the full paper. This is where we miss HarrisTweed. He obviously had access to an academic database.Fainites 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The finding is negative. NLP failed the test again. AlanBarnet 04:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the paper? --Comaze 04:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Salerno

I've redone Salerno with a more accurate synopsis and quotations from the book. However, now it's accurate, is it worth having under 'critics'? He pokes fun at NLP over the law suits and the divorce but doesn't seem to be particularly attacking mainstream NLP itself; more Tony Robbins spin-offs. Aso the Sedona method spin-off. It's a bit like blaming Nietzsche for the Nazi's because they were a spin-off. Can somebody else have a look and see what they think? Fainites 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts I've moved it to the manipulation section as it's really more about the abuse of NLP Fainites 18:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted the summary of Salerno over at Tony Robbins' page. It will be interesting to see what happens with it there. Is this ok? Should we shorten the version on the NLP page? --Comaze 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked at the Tony Robbins page. The words 'pigeons' and 'cat' come to mind. I'll have a shot at shortening this entry. It's longer than it's importance warrants. It's just that the previous interpretation of Salerno was unsustainable I think. He could easily have included NLP as one of his SHAM subjects if he thought it was warranted. Fainites 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened Salerno. He has a point to make about the use of NLP in SHAM but I think the bit about the lawsuit is just poking fun rather than serious commentary and the bit about Tony Robbins divorce seems to be some time after he could be considered mainstream NLP Fainites 17:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Robbins is directly related to NLP according to the views of the sources so it is relevant. Our opinions are irrelevant on this matter.AlanBarnet 04:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

'Related' is not the same as being a proponent or practitioner. You can't just quote every nutter who once did an NLP course at some time in their lives as an example of NLP.Fainites 10:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Figley (again)

I've move the summmary of Figley to the reviews section. The 'mental health practice' section needs to be revised now. Are you happy with Figley (and the critique by Wilson) where it is now? --Comaze 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Perhaps we could add a statement about its use in trauma workshops. --Comaze 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice tidying up Comaze. I've shifted Figley up a bit to keep it chronological. What is there about it's use in trauma workshops? Fainites 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've revised the Figley paragraph again. I added the actual results of the study for VK/D and hopefully made it clearer. --Comaze 13:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP and Science

Further to our previous discussions about the extent to which NLP claims to be a science and if so, what kind of science, I have put in a section on this point. I think it needs some additions from the original books of Grinder and Bandler. All other suggestions/criticisms/edits gratefully received.Fainites 14:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read Heap. It seems a pretty comprehensive review of a substantial number of studies. The quotes given are accurate.Fainites 22:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've redone Drenth from 'Prometheus Chained'. None of that stuff about Avatar or 'loathsome pursuit of gain' is in there. However, this is a 1999 article. The other citation for Denth looking back in the history is 'Drenth, J.D. (2003). [Pieter J.D. Drenth (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science in ALLEA Annual Report pp.60-72'. Has anybody got this please? Fainites 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Growing anti-intellectualism" is adapted from 'Prometheus Chained". --Comaze 11:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a bit more Drenth. By the way the Dowlem stuff is very interesting. I think there's a case for saying that whilst the scientific underpnnings are dodgy, some of NLP's techniques have been shown to be successful in some fields.Fainites 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

'Growing anti-intellectualism' by Drenth does contain 'loathsome pursuit of gain'. Here's the context "Often pseudo-scientific practices are motivated by loathsome pursuit of gain. We have already seen the economic manipulation of the credulity of NLP-quarries'Fainites 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Elich

Fainites. Comaze. Can Elich be read online? Even via email? Take care. 58.179.135.173 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is available electronically [44]. The methodology of that study was seriously flawed. They were priming for visual images. --Comaze 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. 58.179.135.173 14:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Due Weight to fundamental facts

I have to remind editors (both listed an anon) that there has been a fairly persistent removal of fundamental facts from their correct place of due weight. Considering that there seems to be editors here with a proven conflict of interest - this issue is all the more pressing. I've had to restore information to its correct place in the opening many times over and notify admin of the persistent problem. I've also had to remove more argumentative editing and there is more removal of editorializing to do. Straight reporting please. Please don't maintain the conflict of interest issue as an overwhelming problem. AlanBarnet 04:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest an objective way to determine weight? Number of citations in academic literature is one way, as this would exclude the minor studies and preference the reviews. This might be important for deciding what how much space we dedicate to each view point. There are a number of competing view points that need to be described. I think that the recent changes are beginning to do this. A recent step forward is ascription of view points to the authors. Perhaps we could do a better job at characterising their world views. We should ensure that any systhesis or conclusion is ascribed to a reliable/reputable source. Perhaps we could also do a better job at characterising and group the world views of different authors. There are some distinct view points emerging. --Comaze 05:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. Firstly you have a proven conflict of interest and that makes your last edits look really bad as has been pointed out to you already by admin Guy. There are many sources stating concern about unvalidated therapies conveying potential harm, spreading misconceptions about psychology, misleading clients to forgo effective treatments, reducing critical thought and scientific rigor, and so on. They all say NLP is one of those "pseudoscientific, unvalidated and quack" treatments. Lots of sources - very much reliable - very reputable - highly relevant. That is the main concern. That is the main issue from a science perspective. You have persistently been obscuring that main view [45] and you've been substituting sourced and verified concise statements for unsourced and mostly promotional gloss. I think thats a fairly objective assessment. AlanBarnet 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the introduction and third paragraph as per previous discussion. That evidence and point of view has already been incorporated into other parts of the document. That one-liner sums it up nicely. As previously suggested you could add a link to (see research section) if you want to link to all that evidence. --Comaze 05:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC) AB's other changes were mostly ok with me. --Comaze 06:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. As above - plus your edits are unhelpful to the reader. The reader needs some sort of description of what NLP practicers actually do. You've deleted such helpful descriptions. I will remind you again of your proven conflict of interest. It seems to me to be impossible to edit here without editors such as you - with proven conflicts of interest - coming along and persistently obscuring sourced and relevant facts. AlanBarnet 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith here. I like you are trying to find the most reputable sources and quotes to write objectively as possible. I am interested in NLP, but I am writing from the literature, not my personal experience. If you don't like my edits then edit them so that they are more objective. I'm happy to provide quotes to verify any of my sources. --Comaze 06:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. A great deal of work has gone into obtaining accurate quotes and sources from reputable scientific commentators. Comaze has not removed or obscured any of those that I am aware of. The argument is about what should be in the introduction. What NLP practitioners actually do is difficult enough to understand as it is, particularly when an NLP practitioner tries to explain it. I don't see that a couple of out of context quotes in the introduction helps. I also can't see how stating NLP was and remains scientifically unvalidated is obscuring anything, given that all the major scientific views are clearly set out and all, effectively, say the same thing. Other Wiki articles contain paraphrasing and synopses for the sake of clarification without all this fuss. You yourself do it all the time with statements like the one you put in about cults. Fainites 11:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze I am notifying the ANI about your edits because I am unhappy with them in toto. I edit your changes on a regular basis - and you revert my changes. You have a known conflict of interest and it is unhelpful. If you want to help Wikipedia - do it on articles that have nothing to do with NLP. AlanBarnet 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fainites. Your edits and arguments are supporting the unconstructive actions of an editor who has a known conflict of interest. I have also obtained a great deal of source info and it agrees with the comment from Admin. I am working forward from the advice of admin. There is far too much promotional obscuring of facts and I am simply making sure that facts are not being obscured. To do so I simply use straight reporting just as it states in NPOV policies. I seem to be up against a group of editors who are against this constructive and admin-cooperative move. AlanBarnet 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits are not supporting Comaze. I have never removed your edits of the introduction. I have made suggestions to try and achieve consensus. Nearly all of my edits have involved verifying and inserting accurate references and quotations - witness your last edit of Lilienfield where you left in a statement with an inaccurate citation and previous edits where you have reverted to older versions without cleaning up the out of place citations left hanging around. It is not 'supporting Comaze' to ask you to verify your edits. You always say they're proven fact or similar but are very slow to produce accurate quotations and context. If you have a copy of Sharpley's papers and he says NLP is a cult, give us the quote and the context and then nobody can argue with it going in. I for one have no interest in promoting NLP but if you just stick in your own paraphrase it looks like POV. It's each editors responsibility to verify their own edits and on this article it's become crucial.Fainites 12:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cult: a pejorative to avoid

On wikipedia need to be careful in describing anything as a cult. A recent edit, see recent diffs misrepresents three sources to state that NLP was a cult. We really need to be careful here. Elich et al (1985) state, "It is as if NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than another psychological fad that will go its merry way until it is replaced by the next fad." This is very different to what was implied in the context of that recent edit. Saying that something has reached cult status has different implications. --Comaze 06:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze. I quoted Eisner (2000). He uses the term - cult - he cites both Sharpley and Elich et al, it is the latest view on the subject, and that is how I used it in that context. I have to remind you again about your WP:COI. You have a known conflict of interest as has already been mentioned by user Guy [46] In this regard the policy states "we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all Wikipedia articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and a conflicts of interest significantly and negatively affects Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement impartially. Some people with a financial conflict of interest believe they truly can and do provide a neutral view, while abiding by all of the other policies; but the judge of that is other editors, hence the advice to let others actually add the material." I certainly judge you to be incapable of editing here without your known COI getting in the way. This is a big problem and the only solution is that you stop editing any article related to NLP. AlanBarnet 06:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We should try to discuss this first. I agree with WP:COI so I'm holding myself to a higher level responsibility when it comes to wikipedia policy. If you think that an edit is biased then please help us be more objective and descriptive of the any disagreements. I am trying to be more accurate with my paraphrasing and summaries. This is not always easy. Also wikipedia policy says that we should not synthesize without attributing the synthesis to a source. That is part of WP:OR policy. Something that I've only really begun to understand properly with Fainites being around. Perhaps this is what you mean by straight reporting or what Guy meant by more descriptive. I know I'm not the best writer, but I'm working on it. By the way, I've looked up Sharpley, Eisner and Elich. Eisner (2001 p.158) quotes Sharpley who has quoted Elich et al. Normal scholarly practise is to quote the original source when available and in this case it is Elich. This quote is already included in the document. Context is very important with a pejorative like cult. --Comaze 11:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Whichever way you put it - the term cult is an important point that needs including in the context of those sources. AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze you have done no improving on quality. Admin already said theres been too much promotional obscuring of facts. Most of your edits today include promotionally obscuring facts. You have a known conflict of interest according to admin and other editors keep skirting the issue and even praising you after you obscure facts. Its unacceptable. AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You're getting close to personal attacks now. Please review WP:NPA --Comaze 11:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. The bit you've cut out from Langone was not argumentative commentary or POV. It was an accurate paraphrase from the text. Might I suggest you read the text. I shall now put in the entire passage. Unfortunately lengthy but apparently necessary. Every single alleged quote from the old version of those sections on manipulation and religiosity that I have looked up so far has been grossly inaccurate. If you can find a reputable source that states NLP is a cult, then put it in and give us the context. But don't rely on old edits. Fainites 10:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We may even go further and paste in the full context of Langone. Does he actually use the term "aquits"? AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put in the full quote. Fainites 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Barnet. If you say Sharpley etc call NLP a cult please give us the full quote and context. If Eisner calls it a cult, again, full quote and context. There's not much point in quoting Eisner quoting Sharpley and Elich when we actually have Sharpley and Elich.Fainites 11:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a point. It is a point raised by Eisner. It is an important issue. The admin user Guy was not just talking out of his hat you know! AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please give us the reference for Sharpley calling NLP a cult.Fainites 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. Please can you give a quote and context for Lilienfield calling NLP a New Age Therapy. You may well be right but I can't find it in the book. The chapter on New Age Therapies is written by Singer. She doesn't mention NLP. I have already put in the bit where Lilienfield calls it pseudoscience.Fainites 11:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Its online [47]. Its blatantly clear anyway. Half the peer reviewed journal papers call NLP a new age therapy including the reviews. AlanBarnet 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Lilienfields article, not the book. I shall correct the citation.Fainites 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AlanBarnet. I now have Sharpley 1987. He says "If it is true that there are data in the clinical files of proponents of NLP that support it in a way different from the experimental data reviewed, then these need to be published and examined according to the traditional methodological yardsticks of experimental and evaluative literature. Until that time the enquirer in this field may be forgiven for accepting the conclusion of Elich et al (1985) "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". Whilst this is relevant, it does not support a bald statement that Sharpley or indeed Elich state that NLP is a cult. If you have anything else from either Sharpley or Elich saying NLP is a cult, please provide a citation, quote and context. Fainites 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the extra Elich quote to Elich. It clearly belongs with him not Sharpley, although it would be accurate to say that Sharpley said 'an enquirer'... 'may be forgiven' for accepting Elich's conclusion.Fainites 23:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Structure

Hi Fainites. Just wanted to say that though I changed the section title to "soft science" I'm still pondering a new structure and title that truly captures what that section will best be when it matures. It's seems a little lonely having that major section hang on there all by itself with relatively little content for a major heading. Then there's content in the section that actually fits neatly into all three of the other major sections. Any ideas? 58.178.152.151 17:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been giving it some thought aswell. It seemed to me that given that there is a tension between hard and soft science, NLP ought to have the opportunity to say where it stands and why. Of course people like Drenth say it posed as hard science and then tried to wriggle out when the going got tough. I think the section ought to make it clear that for some humanist sciences there is a distinction between humanist and positivist approaches to scientific validation, even though all the empiricists think that's anathema. Fainites 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think moving this material to other sections and then just calling the scientists 'positivists' or 'evidence-based' or whatever really works. Not enough readers would be sufficiently familiar with this to make it clear. Fainites 23:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded Einspruch and Forman who argue that NLP is very complex and it is difficult to test under the predominant conseling research framework. We should probably flesh out Sharpley's response to this. --Comaze 03:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Have we captured the heart of these views? --Comaze 03:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sharpley and others have pointed out that NLP is not completely useless in that alot of it is based on tried and tested methods from hypnotherapy, Gestalt therapy and so on. Also some of the stuff on learning is from more specific cognitive fields. One commentator (I shall try and find the reference) said that although none of this was original it had some merit for someone wanting a sort of round up of various techniques as an adjunct to other therapies. It's the overstated, unvalidated, pseudoscientific underpinnings that are the problem.Fainites 11:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It was Sharpley 1987.Fainites 21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a structural edit to the Concept and methods section. I've renamed it approach to communication and change, and renamed the subheadlines to make it easier to follow for the layperson. I hope this is ok. I'm sure you'd like to revise it. --Comaze 09:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Elich

Hi fainites. Thanks for contacting me. All good. Regarding that quote. There seems to be a tendency for previous editors to have used peripheral quotes from sources such as Elich to prop up their own arguments rather than to actually represent what Elich et al are actually saying. It seemed to me that Elich had far more intelligent and objective things to share other than that NLP is the latest cult fad. It is reasonable to suppose HeadleyDown originally put that quote in purely on the merit of having the word "cult" in it. Personally, I'd like to respect the heart of what authors are saying and not use them as pawns. 58.178.152.151 23:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

58.178.152.151, I believe WP:OR talks about this very issue. In an effort to prop up arguments some of the former editors were running around typing "cult+NLP" into their search engines. This can only lead to POV. One of the things I admire about Fainites is that this editor reads the literature and makes an informed contribution. Is there a policy on selecting quotes and how to appropriately use evidence on wikipedia? Surely part of this is separating naration, critique and statements of evidence. I tihnk that this is something that could be improved in the article. --Comaze 13:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we gather together a set of quotes that best represents the Elich article? And then choose perhaps. 58.178.234.128 05:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at other comparable articles and they simply don't havethe sheer number of direct quotes. The trouble is, any attempt to put in a summing up or to paraphrase is instantly accused of being POV. On the other hand, POV statements go in which are not supported by the literature cited, as in Sharpley, Langorne and Salerno all being cited as having stated NLP was a cult. Unfortunately the only defence against this kind of thing is to put in exact quotes. I think we have no choice but to use direct quotes as much as possible. I agree to 58's proposal. Fainites 11:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I think readers will rightly assume whatever quote we use is indicative of the heart of the article, so some care must be taken that we get close to that. I have faith in the editors here. Sleep now. Take care. 202.67.115.1 14:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also rather than including the full quote in the document, it could be summarised or paraphrased and the full quote could be inserted in the list of notes and reference. --Comaze 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets put full quotes in the article first Comaze and then see where we go from there. Fainites 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Comaze 04:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Craft/Tosey

I've moved the content from Craft/Tosey to the 'soft science' section. It seemed to fit nicely there. Is this ok? Does everyone have the Craft/Tosey papers? --Comaze 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC) I've also merged the principles section other sections including aphorisms into "soft science". Tosey talks about aphorisms, other authors talk about presuppositions of NLP. I'm not sure where they were initiated. --Comaze 10:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think presuppositions is more commonly understood. Fainites 18:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New headings

Hi Comaze. I'm not a fan of the new headings:

• Basics (this heading passes judgement on the "concepts and methods" of NLP as being "basic". It also isn't clear exactly what it is refering to: the basics of what? The basics of learning NLP? The basics of doing NLP? The basic theory behind NLP? Also, does it mean basic as in "this will get you started"; or basic as in "there is much more to know than this". Either way it's a bit promo-ish.)

• Exceeding the limits of the map (again, this heading implies a positive judgement of NLP. "exceeding limits" = far from NPOV).

I would prefer the more neutral "concepts and methods" and "metamodel" or something else again. Your thoughts? Feelings? Vision? ;) 58.178.133.17 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I spoke too soon. Take care. 58.178.133.17 13:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried 'Principles and Practice' but I rather like 'Concepts and Methods' though Fainites 13:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's go back to 'Concepts and Methods' - that section has remained stable for along time with that headline. Do you also want to rename "Unconscious communications" back to Milton model? --Comaze 13:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There's merit in both. I'm leaning towards Milton Model. 58.178.133.17 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sleep on it :) --Comaze 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How about 'Milton Model (Unconscious Communications)' Fainites 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's ok with me. I'm leaning back towards just 'Milton model' ... It is cleaner that way. Its a minor issue. --Comaze 08:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, how about two subheadings, one 'concepts, the other 'methods' and then put all the principles, eg maps, prs, submodalities etc in the first and all the techniques, eg goal setting, anchoring etc in the second. Ecology is probably a method rather than a concept. Fainites 12:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)