Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

statement about teaching scientific literacy in ledge

The following statement ""NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level" appears in the lead but is not cited and does not appear to be supported by the references. It is written as if it is more common that it is in. Please provide a source for this to establish its notability. There are several questions with this statement. Who said this? Did they have a particular bias? What is the evidence? What university or professional courses used NLP in this way? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede summarises the article. References for that statement are given in the main body of the article and do not need to be cited again in the lede. If they are reliable sources then what you think about their evidence or bias is neither here or there per WP:RS. Please also see comments on your talk page, this disruptive editing has gone on long enough. --Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, show me the evidence! Provide a quote and page number from a WP:RS that makes that sort of statement. Maybe you use NLP as an example in your teaching to makes this distinction between science and pseudoscience. Your personal experience is not a reliable form of evidence. Even if the sources are reliable then we still need to make a decisions regarding relative weight and parity of sources. It is certainly not black and white. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I ever talk about NLP in any of my teaching - why would I. Nothing in the above statements says anything about my or anyone else's personal experience. You are attempting to create a smoke screen. The sources are quoted in the main body as you well know. Those support the factual statement. You may not like it, but that is not relevant. --Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You have avoided the question again. I asked for a source to establish the notability of that statement. You are supporting the statement so the onus of proof is on you. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources are in the Scientific Criticism section, lede summarises the article. Mind you, an editor who adds citation needed tags right by a citation is unlikely to understand something that simple. --Snowded ^TALK 09:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When I claimed that LKK was being purposefully obtuse (search for the word, and judge for yourself), Snowded deleted my comment and wrote this in the changelog: "Delete personal attack - please focus on content issues". I fail to see how calling someone stupid is focusing on content issues. I simply see a double standard being applied, which is surely important to highlight. Willyfreddy (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty in Maintaining an NPOV

One needn't spend all their time here to see the pattern of how the article repeatedly moves away from an NPOV. After the last fruitless debate, NicholasTurnbull came along and greatly improved the article. Since then however, Snowded and Lam Kin Keung, who are perhaps the most consistently active users on the page, have slowly moved the article back to its 'coat rack' status (as first mentioned by NicholasTurnbull). Accordingly, to ensure that an NPOV is kept after the next outside improvement (which is surely on its way), there would need to be two objective users (or even NLP zealots - thus cancelling out the extreme on the other side) who are willing to spend as much time on the page as those two previously mentioned. Of course, since two such users do not appear to exist, the page will simply find itself being edited back to a 'coat rack' article. As I am ignorant of Wikipedia's administrative policies, is there anyone who can suggest a solution to this problem? Thanks. Willyfreddy (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe instead of making personal attacks you should read wikipedia policy on reliable sources. As far as I can see both myself and LKK are working with sources, you on the other hand just seem to be sounding off. --Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Characterize it however you like, but I do believe it's clear that outside intervention is necessary to move the article forward. I am well aware that you are (and have been) displeased with my approach to the article - as I, and many others, have been with yours. Of course, given your admitted extreme bias towards the subject, this is to be expected. Regardless, the wikipedia policy on reliable sources has no relevance to this comment of mine, as I am attempting to address a broader issue. Willyfreddy (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes again Willyfreddy, a good suggestion. This article needs more eyeballs on the subject. The NLP community is more than able to work constructively with non-sockpuppet Wikipedia administrators. Looking at the timing of the earliest edit of Snowden and the recognition of his sockmaster status in the NLP community an intervention is a good idea. Brenda Lo88 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you suspect any sockpuppetting file a sockpuppet investigation WP:SPI. Please use the WP usernames on the talkpage. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Brenda Lo88, would you care to explain this statement: "the recognition of his sockmaster status in the NLP community" --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Willtfreddy, WP:RS has every relevance to this, you are not using sources you are expressing personal opinions, and substituting personal attacks for reasoned argument using sources --Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. As I said, you can characterize it however you like. I am appealing to other, more senior and experienced users, such as NicholasTurnbull, and it certainly comes as no surprise that you disagree with my approach. Willyfreddy (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that any experienced editor will tell you same thing - use sources. --Snowded ^TALK 08:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it would be clear that they had not actually read my question/concern, or my related comments. I am going to stop running around in circles with you now. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockmaster Snowded. Cut it out. You know precisely what I am talking about. Go google yourself. Or I can out you in your own threatened investigation. You turned up on wikipedia just after HeadleyDown was banned. So where is the boomerang now? Brenda Lo88 (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

lol, please please make the report with that accusation, please --Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Go and play with your boomerang HeadleyDown/Snowden. Brenda Lo88 (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately HeadleyDown will keep coming back under different names. Sometimes he or she even pretends to be proponent of NLP. It would be useful to do another survey of the current literature on NLP and revise the entire article. Snowded is a good editor who I disagree with but is a reasonable person. We definitely need those NPOV tags to get some more editors. I think Snowded is worried that an NPOV tag will attract more NLP proponents rather than skeptics. What we really need is neutral or impartial editors. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has to be justified, it is not a way of bringing in more editors. If you list the issues you have then they can be handled. However you have not done that, and its evident you have been canvassing. If you reinsert the tags without justification then I will make a request for arbitration enforcement against you. Your persistent refusal to comply with this most basic of requirements would justify doing it now but I have a flight to the US today and will not have time to do this until tomorrow. Remember you were also named in the HeadleyDown case in a previous incarnation.

You would be better employed seeking to improve the main body of the article. The criticism section does exactly what it says, it summarises the criticism. The way to "balance" that is to find properly cited material to support the other sections. --Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See the edit comments and diffs for justification. The suspicion alone that HeadleyDown has returned under a new alias is enough to jusify the need for NPOV tagging. You almost blindly accepted all of HeadleyDown's edits even the most biased ones and then reverted attempts to NPOVize them.. Canvassing for experienced neutral editors, not skeptics or adherents, would be a very good idea. -122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been through your edit summaries and none provide reasons, they either make statements or accusations. If you think another editor is a sock puppet then file an SPI. You evidently don;t want to follow proper process here so you leave me with little alternative but to make a formal report on you for canvassing, running at least two meat puppets and possibly sock puppetry given your changing names over time. Remember that under a former ID you are also subject to Arbcom injunctions. --Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not bound by any arbcom rulings and never have been. I am editing anonymously and have no plan on creating account at this stage. I will tag statements in the article itself because your plans seems to be endless discussion that goes in circles - it just does not work. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Someone has to keep you honest. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

However you edit you are required to say WHY you think something is wrong. You are failing to do that. There cannot be a discussion if you don't state your objections. Failure to do so is disruptive. What is going in circles is your daily tagging of the article without justifying those tags on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 09:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summaries are quite sufficient. Its clear what the edits are about as long as edit summaries are given. There is a lot going round here and its a bit confusing. Perhaps we should all assume good faith at least until we get more information to expose the main problems. ANJPL (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then please provide a diff to the edit summaries which say anything about the content, objections have to be specific not just general statements. They should also be laid out here --Snowded ^TALK 09:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The only case made for the tag is WP:JDLI - that is, there is no case for the tag. There is no discussion - other than back and forth between editors - on the merits of having the tag. --Karbinski (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I've been waiting for weeks for someone to list what they think is wrong so we can deal with it. Other than not liking it, and several accusations against editors not backed up by SPI reports I see nothing. --Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll tag more the of POV statements directly in the article. Here are some examples of things missing:

1. Basic Techniques and models - rapport, anchoring, submodalities, etc.
2. Typical interaction in NLP
3. NLP in the popular media - movies, television, etc.
4. Notable people in NLP
5. Popular applications: e.g. seduction community is not even mentioned but is probably most popular application based on the media attention and popular books like The Game and dedicated televisions programs in the USA (e.g. The Pickup Artist on VH1).
6. ...

The omission of a section describing a typical techniques and interactions in NLP along may just justify an NPOV tag. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't see that any of those justify a NPOV tag - all that has happened after all is an improvement to and proper citation of one section, that on criticism. If you think material on the above subjects is relevant, and can be added with proper references then please do so. I see the above as, for the first time in weeks, a positive move on your part. If you agree not to insert tags without full justification here and to stop removing properly sourced material without discussion then I will hold off making ANI report and/or requesting enforcement of Arbitration Rulings --Snowded ^TALK 10:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a to-do list, not evidence that the article isn't NPOV. If there is verifiable, reliably sourced content to be included in the article, it is welcome subject to all usual wikipedia editing practices. --Karbinski (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we agreed on the expansion tag, I think it addresses the stated concern - ? --Karbinski (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Concur (and its not often we agree twice in a row if at all). I've tagged the appropriate section as needing improvement. 122, your best strategy is to work on improving the article overall, getting the balance right between describing what it is, representing the controversies and criticism and generally creating an article which will inform the reader. --Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll leave main NPOV tag out for now will just tag specific statements that violate NPOV. Expansion might just work

1. For the section on techniques, let's only include techniques that have been published in peer-reviewed journals
2. Requirements for sources that sources the seduction community or claims that Derren Brown uses NLP in his television series is going to be different than those use for applications of NLP to psychotherapy or coaching. What sources would be acceptable for that sort of section? It was covered by mainstream newspapers and magazines - are these acceptable sources?

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, remember its not POV because you disagree with the RS, unless that disagreement is in comparative RD. As to the techniques agreed that third party sources are needed for those. For the use in a television series I suggest you open a section on this page with an outline of what you say and sources that support it. If its notable then the primary source (ie the web site of the television programme) might suffice. --Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be POV if the source is misrepresented, taken out of context or made to appear more strongly, or more widely, supported than it actually is. POV can creep in in the way the information is paraphrased or synthesized. This occurs for both skeptics and adherents. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's my two cents: I believe the criticisms should be completely removed from the lede. I do not accept Snowded's constant claim that the "lede summarizes the article". For example, the articles for Eliminative Materialism and Psychoanalysis (two subjects with which I am familiar) do not contain any criticisms in the lede, although they do contain a significant number within the article itself. Even Dianetics does not contain any criticisms in the lede (although Scientology does). Willyfreddy (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Willyfreddy. Or at least the summary should be toned down? ANJPL (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of you should read the welcome notices on your talk page. You might also want to broaden the scope of your editing to other articles. One of the dangers of being an SPA is an over narrow perspective. The criticism of NLP is notable and some aspect of that therefore belongs in the lede. Feel free to propose changes --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your advice is well-intentioned, but let's just focus on the issue at hand please. "The criticism of NLP is notable and some aspect of that therefore belongs in the lede. Feel free to propose changes." I have proposed a change, and given my reasoning behind it. Your claim that the criticism of NLP belongs in the lede because it is "notable" is simply your opinion, and does nothing to undercut my stated reasoning for why it should be removed. Due to their controversial nature, surely the criticisms of any of the three articles I mentioned are also "notable", and yet they do not appear in their respective ledes. Willyfreddy (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead use to imply that NLP was discredited and this was a widely held view. This might be true for evidence-based practice but even in this field it is only discredited for specific interventions namely treatment for drug addictions. The proponents of evidence-based practice are fairly strict on the type of evidence they accept and often preference CBT. This criticism only applies to the application of NLP to therapy, specifically as an intervention for drug addiction. So if this was put back into the lead, it would need to be more specific. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone can produce some reliable sources that support NLP as a scientific discipline to balance those which say it is not, then the notability argument might stand. However at the moment we have a body of sources that say it is discredited and/or a pseudo-science. That criticism is not confined to therapy for drug addictions. By any wikipedia standard this is notable. --Snowded ^TALK 01:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not concur. NLP may have "SOME" criticism in therapy but it is booming in management. Authentic NLP is about modeling not therapy. You cannot make discredit in therapy stretch to business, communication, goal setting, or others. ANJPL (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to see specialist editors. NLP is a very complicated subject. Editing broadly obviously does not equal reading broadly.ANJPL (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want support for inclusion of your first statement, then find some sources that back you. As to your second statement I'll repeat my earlier advise to read the welcome notice. I also find it interesting that an editor with fewer than ten contributions moves to make accusations of sock puppetry against another. You should read up on meat puppetry as that particular accusation is pretty clear evidence that you are linked to a couple of other newly created SP accounts. I thought things had calmed down, but it looks like I may have to make that ANI report anyway --Snowded ^TALK 07:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'd love to see how that turns out. ANJPL (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if you can help out with some more evidence like the San Francisco question which links you to this you will make my job easier --Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your job easier as a sockmaster? I don't think so. ANJPL (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets try not to make this personal. Just act as if everyone is a sockpuppet and then make your decisions based on the strength of the evidence presented. That way it does not matter how much sockpuppets someone does or does not have. Everyone seems ok at the moment. --203.206.230.207 (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know how you can be so tolerant, IP. You are probably right though for the sake of stability. ANJPL (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to polarize the views of editors here but skeptics and NLPers alike should respond to demands for evidence. It would nice to have some impartial editors here. So let's create a warm welcoming place for new (impartial) editors. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Separating Theory From Practice

I believe the lede (and perhaps some other parts of the article) need to be completely re-written. The Oxford dictionary definition highlights two aspects to NLP: (a) "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and (b) "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour". The lede, and the article, deal almost exclusively with (b), as IP:122 has highlighted. I believe we need to separate these two aspects more clearly within the article, as a criticism against one is not necessarily applicable to the other (e.g., an individual NLPer making ridiculous claims about its effectiveness.) In my opinion, the lede should focus mostly on (a), rather than the claims of its founders about (b) and general criticisms. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying, although the lede does already start with those quotes from Oxford dictionary, however it would be good to remove the leading words of psychotherapy and organisational change (that can come later) - it is intended firstly as a mechanism for us to understand how we process stimuli and react, understanding that we can create choices in this (i.e. change our conditioning), and modelling those choices on those who have had outstanding success in different fields - hence its widespread use in sports, sales, management, etc. etc. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  18:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lede summarises the article so you need to start with changes to that text then we can look at the Lede. If you want to privaledge a over b then you need a source which says this is the case. Similarly claims of widespread use need to be supported. as with the criticism section, text should be proposed and discussed here first. --Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the 'NPOV Tag' section, I reject your constant claim that "the lede summarizes the article" (reasons given there). As for your statement "If you want to privaledge a over b then you need a source which says this is the case.": On its face this sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps it's just not clear what you mean. What would such a source look like? Could you give a hypothetical example? And if b is currently privileged over a, what source do you have that "says this is the case"? Willyfreddy (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve been watching with some interest for a while and though I don’t have much time, I have some suggestions. Popularity and popular applications are not mentioned enough in the article. The Paul Mckenna Derren Brown information should certainly get some prominence. The empirical research shows mixed results and the jury is still out. We need to represent the balance much better. Direct quotes are given too much attention. I think we need to focus on a few very well written articles about NLP from high quality sources. The opening summary is far too judgmental. We need to be more careful with judgmental words there. A good review and exposure of biases is a productive way forward. ANJPL (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you suggest that it is a move to promote a over b -- by it's very nature, a comes before b, which grants it a natural precedence, some might say. The point is not that one is naturally more important than the other, but more that the disputes tend to be more over the latter, so if we introduce the topic on the personal development aspect first (the initial definition in the Oxford dictionary) without colouring it with the early comments about psychotherapy and organisational change then we can better position it, to then later explore those aspects -- or is that totally hairbrained? Greyskinnedboy  Talk  08:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The initial statement in this section says that the lede should focus mostly on "a", I'm simply responding to that pending any actual proposal being made. --Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

While there is currently too much focus on b at the moment, I see what you mean in that the initial suggestion says it should focus mostly on a. A more balanced approach would be to have a more even focus on both. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  10:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you look through the early books on NLP. NLP is a pragmatic approach. Theorizing is not the game at all. If it works use it. There are really no theories to test in NLP because its just a practical art. Some mistakenly call it a science, and thats why some call it pseudoscience but its working from a false base. Librazee (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

proposed techniques section

• According to Steinbach (1984), a classic interaction in NLP can be understood in terms of several major stages including establishing rapport, gathering information about a problem state and desired goals, using specific tools and techniques to make interventions, and integrating proposed changes into the client's life. The entire process is guided by the non-verbal responses of the client. The first is the act of establishing and maintaining rapport between the practitioner and the client which is achieved through pacing and leading the verbal (e.g. sensory predicates and keywords) and non-verbal behaviour (e.g. matching and mirroring non-verbal behavior) of the client. A common method involves the focus on eye movements or eye accessing cues, for example in the diagram shown:

  

  The most common arrangement for eye accessing cues in a right-handed person according to the NLP model.
  
  

• Once rapport is established, the practitioner may gather information (e.g. using the meta model questions) about the client's present state as well help the client define a desired state or goal for the interaction. The practitioner pays particular attention to the verbal and non-verbal responses as the client defines the present state and desired state and any resources that may be required to bridge the gap. The client is typically encouraged to consider the consequences of the desired outcome may have on his or her personal or professional life and relationships taking into account any positive intentions of any problems that may arise (i.e. ecological check). Fourth, assisting the client in achieving the desired outcomes by using certain tools and techniques to change internal representations and responses to stimuli in the world. Other tools and techniques include indirect suggestion from the Milton model, reframing, and submodalities. Finally, the changes are "future paced" by helping the client to mentally rehearse and integrate the changes into the his or her life. For example, the client may be asked to "step into the future" and represent (mentally see, hear and feel) what it is like having already achieved the outcome.

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As you are saying, NLP has not changed much [1]. That is common with pseudosciences. The eye accessing chart is common in NLP books today as the old ones. That should be included. It shows what is unique from NLP. The section is unacceptable without other overviews being present. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could include eye accessing cues in the discussion of preferred representation systems but its not necessarily part of the "present-state (DS) -> desired (DS)" state model. Eye accessing cues and predicate matching is still part of NLP even today. But its more attention on calibration of the person's state and thought process as well as building rapport. What I described there is really just the classic code intervention. ie. establish rapport, define present state and desired state then find resources to get some present state to desired outcome. If we start describing all the possible variations there's going to be too much detail. Most new code practitioners would reject such a rigid step-by-step procedure. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"establish rapport, define present state & future state and close gap" is very very generic and common to many approaches. The section needs to bring out what is unique to NLP as originally described/practiced and then look at any modern variations. --Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, not that you would know, but the eye accessing cues recommendation is seen as passe in the field of NLP. The process described above may seem generic, but remember that many organizations and consultants have had time to integrate the basics of this NLP model into their own training and management consulting. Perhaps more could be mentioned about ecology, but apart from that its spot on. ANJPL (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent books are showing eye accessing cues in diagrams. This is a common theme. The research also covered the eye accessing cues. The diagrams are simple and clear. It would give a clear impression of NLP on the section. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is to show basic baby steps. Misinformed managers and novice NLPers who use them continually are often referred to as zombies. The quality of the section above is already far above that. ANJPL (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The section is to present what is unique about NLP. Now it is too obscured. The reader needs to easily see what NLP is about. Sensory predicates and specific body movements could be made more specific to the NLP. Submodalities look specific too. But there is need to make distinction from neuroscience concept. The eye diagram is easy to find. But the section also needs a comment or view about what the techniques are or can be categorized as. I will look through the sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for a start it should be presented in clear English. I think the suggestion above does that quite well. New code is important here because there have been significant developments since the beginning of NLP. Its a systematic approach. Submodalities could get more coverage in that section though. Perhaps balance Grinder's with Bandler's developments. Librazee (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Librazee. I agree. New code is the latest development that is recognized in the field. The eye accessing cues information is just too outdated. ANJPL (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to support your opinion? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I added Stollznow and the diagram. It needs more such information to make it clear for readers. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check your sources before using them. Did you read the Fala NC, Norcross JC, Koocher GP, & Wexler HK, 2008 source? On what basis did they make their claim that NLP was certainly discredited in the treatment of addictions? The onus is on you to check your sources before referencing them. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion by Lam Kin Keung for summary of techniques in NLP:"According to Stollznow (2010), "NLP involves fringe discourse analysis and “practical” guidelines for “improved” communication. One text asserts “when you adopt the “but” word, people will remember what you said afterwards. With the “and” word, people remember what you said before and after”. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you add this information? It does not make any sense to me. Do you think we should define the techniques in term of skeptics? Wouldn't it be simpler to just present the basic techniques descriptively and then criticise them later? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It would help to give an expert overview of what NLP is about. Stollznow is a PhD in linguistics. NLP makes the claims about linguistics. An expert linguist view is relevant. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So what? Grinder has a PhD in linguists too. The point is your source does not support the statement you added. It is a passing comment and does not discuss NLP at all. You are not using references correctly. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Stollznow is currently a researcher in linguistics. Grinder is not. He is the proponent of NLP. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, the linguists in my group are generally hostile towards NLP. I imagine some of that is jealousy of Grinder's financial success at leaving the ivory tower but that is just rumor. In the source you cited, Stollznow says nothing substantial about NLP and it certainly did not support the statement that you added. It was nothing more than a passing comment. Do you have any better sources for Stollznow's (or other linguists) opinion about the approach used in NLP? Do you really think that is the place to have the opinion of a skeptical linguist? Shouldn't we define the techniques in the terms of its practitioners or someone a bit more neutral before criticizing it? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

History section

This section requires expansion with: updates to bring it up from 1970s->90s to present. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Methodology, concepts and theory

Comments

This section requires expansion with: describe methodology and set of practices used in NLP from the perspective of developers, researchers and critics. descriptions of the typical methods used in NLP. E.g. Rapport, pacing and leading, anchoring, submodalities, language patterns, reframing, well-formed outcomes, future pacing, etc. We don't need too much detail.. Use sources from practitioner, researcher and skeptic literature. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Applications expansion

Comments

This section requires expansion with: More detail is need on the applications outside of psychotherapy. For example, the game, life coaching, popular books, etc.. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Experimental and psychological research section expansion

Comments

This section requires expansion with: include description of supportive and non-supportive studies. Also include a description of current research. Make clearer distinction between evidence and commentary and different perspectives on research.. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Associations and Practitioner standards

This section should not be in the criticism section. It should both describe the current state of affairs with respect to certification from different perspectives including criticism. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

the seduction community

We should incorporate some of this material into the article somewhere:

• The seduction community's origins date back to Ross Jeffries, who promotes a collection of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) techniques called speed seduction (SS). Other gurus established themselves, but lacked contacts with each other. In 1994, Lewis De Payne, then a student of Jeffries, founded the newsgroup alt.seduction.fast (ASF). This then spawned a network of other Internet discussion forums, email lists, blogs, and sites where seduction techniques could be exchanged.

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 122.108.140.210. These are all very constructive suggestions. Its nice to see there is somebody making sensible moves here.Brenda Lo88 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You think we should include some reference to the seduction community? What about other popular NLPers such as Paul McKenna, Derren Brown and Anthony Robbins? How would we cover this material within wikipedia policies? Most of this is covered in newspapers and books. How would we establish notability? It is not covered by peer-reviewed sources as far as I know. Can it still be covered here? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Any objections? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Techniques or set of practices

Proposed Text

According to one study by Steinbach (1984), a classic interaction in NLP can be understood in terms of several major stages including establishing rapport, gathering information about a problem state and desired goals, using specific tools and techniques to make interventions, and integrating proposed changes into the client's life. The entire process is guided by the non-verbal responses of the client. The first is the act of establishing and maintaining rapport between the practitioner and the client which is achieved through pacing and leading the verbal (e.g. sensory predicates and keywords) and non-verbal behaviour (e.g. matching and mirroring non-verbal behavior, or responding to eye movements - see chart) of the client.

An "eye accessing cue chart" as it appears in Bandler & Grinder's Frog into Princes (1979)

Once rapport is established, the practitioner may gather information (e.g. using the meta model questions) about the client's present state as well help the client define a desired state or goal for the interaction. The practitioner pays particular attention to the verbal and non-verbal responses as the client defines the present state and desired state and any resources that may be required to bridge the gap. The client is typically encouraged to consider the consequences of the desired outcome may have on his or her personal or professional life and relationships taking into account any positive intentions of any problems that may arise (i.e. ecological check). Fourth, assisting the client in achieving the desired outcomes by using certain tools and techniques to change internal representations and responses to stimuli in the world. Other tools and techniques include indirect suggestion from the Milton model, reframing, and submodalities. Finally, the changes are "future paced" by helping the client to mentally rehearse and integrate the changes into the his or her life. For example, the client may be asked to "step into the future" and represent (mentally see, hear and feel) what it is like having already achieved the outcome.

Comments

A large part of this summarises primary sources which is dubious we need reliable third party sources --Snowded ^TALK 07:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain everything there is also available from third party sources. Otherwise we make it clear when it is primary source (ie. this is how the method is self-described). A description of the same technique from critics would provide balance. This is better than having the criticism isolated to the criticism section. I think it needs to be integrated into the rest of the article. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Then lets see the material from those sources. Primary sources are problematic. Disagree on integration of criticism section but I'm not totally closed to it. Lets get the rest of the text correct then we can look at it. --Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Integrating criticism throughout article will lead to more disruption. What it can have is explanation from experts (linguist, neuroscientist, psychologist) throughout. NLP is an obscurantic subject on its own. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to integrate criticism in a NPOV way. Have a look how fringe "alternative medicine" article is handled. You have a mixture of self-description and criticism from experts from different points of view. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously misleading direction [2]. History of extreme disruption: "As you know, this article has been a war zone many times". Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right its going to be difficult but it has to be done if we're going to achieve NPOV. But its not war. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

watch out for misrepresented sources

• The reference to Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) just cited a conference paper by Fala NC, Norcross JC, Koocher GP, Wexler HK (2008). Just watch out for misrepresentation of sources. Attempting to give a claim more weight than it has. I don't have the Fala et al paper but this should be checked to see what evidence was used to make this claim. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So? Citation trails are common in academic papers. --Snowded ^TALK 06:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears Lam Kin Keung is using misrepresentation to push POV. That (dishonesty) can be a reason to stop assuming good faith. You are constantly defending this potentially dishonest activity. What are your affiliations with Lam Kin Keung? ANJPL (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop making accusations and provide some evidence. --Snowded ^TALK 01:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are providing evidence for us. Thanks. ANJPL (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not "us" versus "them". We all have to be impartial here. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, So? The way the information was presented was made to appear to be more general than the source justifies. Please check carefully any sources used in this article because some of them just don't check out. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well any summary is going to be general. We have references that say it is discredited for addiction treatment and for mental/behavioral disorders. We can't impute from that a generic discredited in all fields, but neither can we assume it has been validated in others. The current wording says that is has appeared on a number of lists which seems OK to me, but we can look at changing the summary sentence. Maybe something like "NLP has appeared on lists of discredited approaches in two application areas" or similar? --Snowded ^TALK 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a controversial statement so even the summary needs to be supported by a reference. I think you'd need to specify the context of evidence-based practice (EBP) and the specific treatments. No inference was justified level of discredit of NLP for the treatment of mental/behavioral disorders. It does appear in the raw results but there was no statistical inference made. The standard deviation was large so there may have been too much variation in the data to make an inference. Can you provide a reference with page numbers in case I missed something? --203.206.230.207 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 203... The context of EBP is not relevant to this the NLP article. It has its own [3]. It could link to the article. The 2006 Norcross et al article page is 518. The 2008 reference is p198. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also interesting that this has been discussed on EBP article [4].Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And more [5] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell me how the page numbers you provided support the statement you wish to add. What statistical inference is made by Norcross: regarding NLP within evidence based practice? Is this inference specific to a certain type of treatment? If so, what type of treatment? If no inference was justified then we cannot make any such inference here. There may have been too much variation in the data. We just do not know. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

They provide sources for direct reporting. Your objection is both the nonsense and selective. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Direct reporting of what? You tell me. No statistical test means no inference is justified. No conclusion was drawn. So you tell me why you think it is justified in the absence of a statistical test. Also, could you provide full citations for those two papers you reference. Do you have read the full text of the original Fala, Norcross et al (2008) conference paper cited by Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) where NLP is meant to be "certainly discredited" for the treatment of addications? Its a section on scientific criticism, we must base our criticism of NLP on solid evidence. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are commenting on the paper itself, rather like Andy before you. If you want we can restore the other approaches which scored the same as NLP to provide context --Snowded ^TALK 01:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What source are you referring to? I was commenting about whether the statement attributed the various sources was accurate or not. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Then propose a different statement. Further you should use a failed verification tag not a citation needed tag if you can substantiate the statement. That means you should lay our here for each case why you think it does so fail. Please do that promptly otherwise your tagging is clear evidence of disruptive editing. --Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just asking for inline citations so the evidence can be verified quickly and easily by others. If it is verifiable it adds weight to the criticism too. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, you said that "If you want we can restore the other approaches which scored the same as NLP to provide context". You cannot just look at averages and say that it looks similar without a test statistic. That would be horribly post-hoc and we could not control the error rate. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You are commenting on the text again, that is not our place. Critically I see not justification above for the failed verification tags. If this is not forthcoming in the next 24 hours I will remove them. --Snowded ^TALK 12:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I had issue with what you said here: "other approaches which scored the same". How do you know they "scored the same" without appropriate analysis? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If they have the same score in the source its not our place to challenge the method --Snowded ^TALK 07:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

But how do you know if they got the same score if there was no test? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the source we simply report those which got the same score, commenting on the tests etc. is not our place --Snowded ^TALK 14:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the shoddy methodology. I'm asking you how do you know if it got two or more treatments same average? What was 95% confidence interval or equivalent for that set of comparisons? If the paper did not make a comparison we cannot make a comparison even if you feel they are the same. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

{od}Let me ask a different way... tell me what treatments scored the "same" as NLP for the treatment of behavioral and mental disorders in the Norcross paper. That way we know what we're referring to and I can verify it. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And let me remind you that I was happy to remove the comparisons until you decided to challenge the statement. One or the other really --Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

proposed new sections

I created a few new sections including a section for definitions where we can provide definitions from supportive and dismissive literature. Its clear that different authors have wildly different ideas about what NLP is so lets not pretend that there is a single definitive definition. The other sections I added include a stub for techniques and a section for current research and criticism. We probably also need a section on popular literature and media but I'm not sure where that would fit. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Draft them in here. Please stop mixing lots of the minor, major and controversial changes. Please edit from a single IP. Your recent edits are confusing, disruptive and unhelpful. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You can easy see my edit comments and diffs and notes in the expand tags. I do have one question though, rather than a section on "Notable practitioners" do you think we should have a section on Notable people in NLP then we can include notable skeptics and researchers too. What do you think of that proposal? Did you see the Skeptic's dictionary definition I put in the definitions section? Is that a good definition for a skeptic's point of view? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

They are major and controversial changes. Please draft them here. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The NLM is a fairly reliable source, don't you think? I gave you the benefit of the doubt and worked with you when you added your section on scientific criticism so I'd appreciate the same. Do you have any specific objections or suggestions? I made notes in my edit comments and in the section expansion tags. I added views of both skeptics, neutral and practitioner sources so you cannot say its biased. Do you think the definitions section is promising? Its interesting to see the different points of view next to each other clearly. Contrast the skeptic's dictionary with NLM Mesh Controlled vocabulary for instance. Perhaps we could have a sort of overview of the definitions that states there is no definitive agreed upon definition of NLP and then just list a number of different definitions. We could even link to a sub-article where we could have a definitive list of definitions from different authors from different perspectives: practitioners, researchers, skeptics, pseudo-skeptics, etc.--122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined the move the text from the article to this talk page for all the new sections. Its how we developed the criticism section after all. Anyone see any reason why these should be different? --Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the recent edits of IP.. are likely to cause disruption in current circumstance. IP.. should draft them here on talk page, and stop making veiled innuendo attacks, and stop using multiple IPs and groundless tagging...... Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. My intention is not to cause disruption at all but I am not creating an account unless it is necessary. I'll try to make my proposed changes more clear so you can collaborate. I'd welcome your input especially given your apparent PhD in linguistics. Are you able to confirm that somehow, perhaps to Snowded? I trust his word. My knowledge of linguistics is somewhat limited but I did take linguistics as part of a second major. I also took an electives in psycholinguistics in my psychology major. I do have access to the linguistics full-text databases if you want me to check any sources for you. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get off on the right foot then you should withdraw some of the sillier accusations you have made and stop implying connections between editors that do not exist. Neither your qualifications or those of Lam Kin Keung are of any relevance here. --Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The sillier accusations were made by someone else who I have nothing to do with. Its difficult to assume good faith when it looks like editors have an agenda to either disparage or promote NLP. From now on I will only comment on evidence and things relevant to proposed changes to the article. I will ignore everything else. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you keep to that promise things will improve considerably --Snowded ^TALK 05:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a deal. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't last long did you? I have deleted the accusation on my talk page, either report your suspicion via an SPI or shut up, continued accusations are disruptive and constitute a personal attack if you aren't prepared to back them up. --Snowded ^TALK 04:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

propsed new subpage: list of definitions of neuro-linguistic programming

Proposed Text

"A set of models of how communication impacts and is impacted by subjective experience. Techniques are generated from these models by sequencing of various aspects of the models in order to change someone's internal representations. Neurolinguistic programming is concerned with the patterns or programming created by the interactions among the brain, language, and the body, that produce both effective and ineffective behavior."

— United States National Library of Medicine (NLM)

"We concur with Dilts and DeLozier’s assertion (2000:849) that NLP can be seen as involving three layers; an epistemology, a methodology, and a technology or set of practices. NLP was originally claimed (Bandler & Grinder 1975:6) to be a methodology known as `modelling’. Bandler and Grinder’s earliest published work (Bandler and Grinder 1975, Grinder and Bandler 1976) was based on `modelling’ Fritz Perls, the founder of Gestalt therapy, Virginia Satir, the family therapist, and Milton Erickson, the hypnotherapist (Grinder et al 1977)."

— University of Surrey Neuro-linguistic programming and research group[6]

"It is a difficult to define NLP because those who started it and those involved in it use such vague and ambiguous language that NLP means different things to different people. While it is difficult to find a consistent description of NLP among those who claim to be experts at it, one metaphor keeps recurring. NLP claims to help people change by teaching them to program their brains. We were given brains, we are told, but no instruction manual. NLP offers you a user-manual for the brain. The brain-manual seems to be a metaphor for NLP training, which is sometimes referred to as 'software for the brain.'"

— The Skeptic's Dictionary[7]

Comments

I propose we create a sub-page with various definitions of NLP from different authors. I started with quotes from different source but we should carefully paraphrase keeping the original meaning them rather then quote them verbatim. Here's a start:

Personally I can't see any value in this and its not common practice. We have one reliable third party source that is enough --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you think its preferable to paraphrase than quote verbatim? I'm just not willing to paraphrase many definitions if its going to end up being used. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I simply don't think we need to either quote or paraphrase multiple definitions. We have one from a third party reliable source that is enough. --Snowded ^TALK 05:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As you have said previously, there are no impartial sources so how the hell can we arrive at an acceptable third party definition? Just contrast the definition from the NLM and skeptic's dictionary. Then contrast that with self-characterizations, popular press and scientific community definitions. No single definition can capture this. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, DO NOT RESTORE TEXT WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED PER WP:BRD, wait for an agreement on the talk page. Revert agains and its another example of a growing body of evidence of petty long term disruptive editing. Otherwise you see to be under some misconception that Wikipedia should be balanced between pro and anti-NLP positions. That is not the case. What we have to do is to accurately report what is contained in the reliable sources. For those purposes the current definition is more than adequate. If we have multiple definitions then its original research or synthesis. --Snowded ^TALK 14:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not accept your reasons for not having multiple definitions. What's the problem? As you said earlier unfortunately there is no impartial third party source so how could we ever have a definitive definition? Having multiple definitions highlights this disparity and frames the rest of the article. I'm having trouble accepting that you and LKK are unbiased impartial editors. But I'll assume good faith for now. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The OED is impartial in wikipedia terms and we are using that. Selecting which definitions to use is either synthesis or original research. Please stop the personal attacks, innuendo included and focus on wikipedia policy in respect of content. --Snowded ^TALK 16:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OED is fine for now. Glad I did not waste my time on paraphrasing those definitions! I never said that this article needed to be balanced between pro and anti-NLP positions. That would be painting a black and white view of the subject. I am suggesting it needs to be neutral according to parity of sources. But that comes from selecting appropriate sources - there is just no other way. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We use third party sources not primary ones (your definitions). That means you can find something like the OED and we can consider it as an option. --Snowded ^TALK 17:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think the definitions I suggested are primary sources? They are all third sources.--122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Only the first really counts as a potential source and the OED is better anyway. Selecting multiple quotes inevitably leads to OR, which are chosen, which are excluded. If someone has written an article comparing quotations then material from that might be included --Snowded ^TALK 04:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not consistent. When we were working on the scientific criticism section I raised the same concern. How do you select what to include and what to exclude there? You and LKK keeps inserting statements from skeptics - is that OR too? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In a section on criticism you would expect to find material from skeptics and scientists which is summarised. If there is material we have missed then add it in, just follow WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT ideally proposing changes here first as we did. Definitions are a different thing, the article needs to lede with what it is talking about - the OED does that.--Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable people or practitioners section

Proposed list (work in progress)=

List should include notable practitioners, researchers and critics established by sources

• Richard Bandler
• John Grinder
• Paul McKenna[8]
• Ross Jeffries[9]
• Anthony Robbinsdoi:10.1080/00050060108259660
• Stephen Gilligan
• Charles Faulkner
• Steve Andreas
• Connirae Andreas

Critics (inclusions under discussion)

• Barry Beyerstein

Comments

I stated a section listing "Notable practitioners" but I think we make this a list and just put the most notable people in NLP including developers, practitioners, researchers and skeptics. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a citation is needed for each individual listed that has not warranted mention elsewhere in the article. Currently Anthony Robbins falls into this category. --Karbinski (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur that each entry would need a citation to a reputable source for each to verify notability. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a critical source for Robbins doi:10.1080/00050060108259660 from a third party researcher[10] here at USyd coaching psychology.[11] --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this list should be a end of page template like on the psychology page. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is likely that the list will be another trap for disagreement and disruption. Notable people will appear in citations and the links already. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the list does bring attention to some articles which seem to be written as puff pieces. If there is a list then no one without an article counts I think, and then there needs to be some third party source to demonstrate notibility. I can't see any reason to include critics --Snowded ^TALK 05:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you include critics? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If a critic devoted their work to being anti-NLP it might be notable, however in the cases you propose its simply one of a number of targets. Listing them together is also misleading --Snowded ^TALK 04:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all names that either do not have articles here or where there is no mention of NLP in the article --Snowded ^TALK 04:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit premature to remove notable entries that have not yet made it into the article. If they are notable then they might need to mentioned in the article. Neil Strauss (journalist) for example wrote a best selling book and got a lot of media attention. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If they are notable then create articles for them, or amend the existing articles with the NLP links --Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time but someone else might. The red link will encourage others to write the missing articles. As long there are two or more independent sources which indicate notability then we can still list the person. The link will be red until the linked article is created. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious argument, but lets look at the evidence. Remember NLP sites are not third party to establish this --Snowded ^TALK 06:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge of New code of NLP

I've suggested that New code of NLP be merged into this article --Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is a good idea. It could take up a few lines possibly in the IP disputes section or the methods section. Many of other associated NLP articles could be merged the same. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Then please support the proposal on the article page --Snowded ^TALK 04:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we need more third party sources for that to be an independent article anyway. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Nav box

Is is a sample template for a Nav box for the NLP-related pages... Template:Psychology. This well help navigate the associated pages more easily: concepts, models, people, organisations, etc. The side nav should use the new format too. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The place to discuss that is on the talk page of the template --Snowded ^TALK 04:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The template does not exist yet. I'm talking about a horizontal nav box at the bottom of the page. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresented citations

This seems to be a huge problem on this page. The citations often don't match the text they are citing. Often the citation will be valid for half of a sentence, but not the other half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.30.80 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Provide some examples then they can discussed. General statements here on in the edit summary really don't help--Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science" is not reflected in the text's cited. Indeed, one of the cited texts is a discussion of numerous studies by 'conventional science' in relation to NLP, which directly contradicts this statement. If you believe I am wrong, please show where this statement is reflected in the text. --Jpjans (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Lack of professional credibility" -- I read both of the cited texts, and did not find anything that backed this up. If I missed something, please put a snippet here showing what I missed. --Jpjans (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote by Corballis isn't in the book cited. In fact, there is no reference to "Corballis" in the book at all. Maybe there is a different book with a similar title?--Jpjans (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations are optional in the lede section. Its preferable to have none. The lede is a summary of the main article. The Corballis statement is as it is written in the citation. It is on the page 41: The book is edited by Sala, the chapter is written by Corballis.

“NLP has been ignored” refers to statements by researchers such as Devilly, who’s statement can be seen in the main text. The “lack of professional credibility” statement comes from Sharpley 1987 and it is a reasonable summary of the empirical validity and scientific criticism sections. It could be expanded more in proportion though. Von Bergen et al. (1997) state that "the most telling commentary on NLP may be that in the latest revision of his text on enhancing human performance, Druckman (Druckman & Bjork 1991) omitted all reference to Neurolinguistic Programming."[55] These studies, in particular Sharpley's literature review, marked a decline in empirical research of NLP, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology.

I read the entire Devily article. There are no statements in it about NLP being ignored. It does, however, discuss issues related to the credibility of NLP. This statement could be modified to reflect the Bergen quote, keeping in mind that it was Druckman who ignored NLP, according to that quote. I don't have access to the Sharpley paper, so I can't comment on that. Alas, my time is limited. --Jpjans (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We summarise material here and as far as I can see you have only made a case for one of the tags. If no case is made I will revert them tomorrow --Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHESIS. The use of "due to" seems to fit with this. Does one of the sources specifically state that the "ignoring" is "due to" the reasons specified?--Jpjans (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you tag the line “and is characterized by its critics, mainly psychologists, as a fringe psychotherapy or as having pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts, and terminology?”Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It implies that all critics of NLP characterize it in one of the specified ways, which is not supported by the cited texts.--Jpjans (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The line is accurate. More could be said concerning discredit though. The line could end; "and for appearing on lists of discredited interventions". Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The line may be accurate, however accuracy does not mean it should be included in the article. Statements need to be supported. I know my criticism of the line is a subtle one, but I think it is important. The article it is summarizes does not state that every critic criticizes NLP in the ways specified. To say "its critics" is to imply all of the critics. It would be more accurate to say "some of its critics" or, to change the verb "is" to "has been." I suggest one of the follow phrasings.."NLP has been criticized as a fringe...." Or "NLP has been characterized by critics as a..." Or, some variation where either the tense of "is" is changed, or the specificity of the "critics" is somehow adjusted, or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpjans (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, the statement could stay the same if you can find a citation that proves that ALL critics either characterize nlp as a "fringe psychotherapy," or as having "pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts, and terminology." --Jpjans (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

“Some” is also not supported. It could be argued that it is most, many, some, a few, the majority etc. It is better to be straightforward. “Characterized by critics” would be straight and accurate. It refers to the criticism section and the following words cover the issues that the various critics present.

Here is a straightforward representative paragraph:

Research in NLP has declined since the 1980s and 1990s where empirical testing showed that NLP contains numerous exaggerated claims and conceptual errors, and failed to produce reliable results for the claims made by its originators and proponents. NLP is characterized by critics as having pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology. NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited therapies.

Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...you solved one problem, but added many more. 1. What is the source for research in NLP declining? 2. What is the source for "failed to produce reliable results for the claims..." ? Note that "the claims" is an inclusive statement implying all claims, and not specific ones addressed by research. 3. I'm also curious about the empirical research related to "conceptual errors". What is your source for that? 4. Additionally, if this paragraph is to be a summary of the Criticism/controversy section, it should reflect both 'sides' of the controversy, at least to some extent, in order to maintain a NPOV. 5.) I would be careful about the use of the word "is". It is generally more accurate to use "has been," when referring to events that have happened and statements that have been made and papers that have been written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpjans (talk • contribs) 02:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the lines have gone missing due to prolonged slow edit warring and misleading edit summaries. Here they are Devilly states

”However, by the late 1980s, a host of controlled trials had shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory (Sharpley 1987)

Witkowski states: “Most of the research was carried out in the eighties and partially in the nineties of the 20th century. In the subsequent years, the number of such research studies decreased and they concerned secondary aspects of the concept or were performed based on the assumption that the fundamental principles of NLP are true. It looks as if the world of science was losing its interest in the concept of Bandler and Grinder, having confronted it with the research findings, and the concept proponents lack motivation to undertake any type of research into, for instance, the effectiveness of methods offered by the concept.”

There is also Efran and Lukens (1990) "the original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy"[35]. Efran, J S. Lukens M.D. (1990) Language, structure, and change: frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy, Published by W.W. Norton, New York. p.122

Revised version including accurate wording etc:

Research in NLP has declined since the 1980s where empirical testing showed that NLP contains numerous exaggerated claims and conceptual errors, and failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by its originators and proponents. NLP is characterized by critics as having pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology. NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.

“Numerous factual errors” is from Von Bergen 1997.

Reflecting both sides of the controversy is already covered. NLP claims are made in the preceding paragraphs. Context is important though. Some of the context information was removed and should be reinstated, so I have started to do so:[12] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you you have addressed point #1 effectively in my post above. Quite effectively actually. Points 2 and 3 still need to be addressed. Where is the empirical research on conceptual errors? What paper claims that the empirical research failed to produce reliable results for all of the claims made by NLP proponents? From my beginning reading, it seems like certain ideas around tracking eye movement patterns and matching predicates where not supported by research. In addition, research showed NLP to be ineffective in treating drug abuse. Does this mean "the claims" by NLP proponents where not supported? No. Some claims where studied, some where not. To say "the claims" leads to ambiguity about which claims. A reader will then be left to assume they were the claims mentioned in the preceding paragraph, many of which have not been studied empirically, as the revised paragraph suggests. Additionally, in regards to point 4, there have been responses to the research and criticism by NLP proponents, and a NPOV summary of the criticism/controversy should including at least reference to those responses. --Jpjans (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is to represent the existing body of criticisms in the lede. That has been satisfied with the multiple citations above. If you want to re-write the main empirical and criticisms section, then we should start another talk section after the lede section has been updated. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Empirical and criticisms sections

Further to Jpjan's objections above:

• Empirical research on conceptual errors
• What paper claims that the empirical research failed to produce reliable results for all of the claims made by NLP proponents?
• Eye movement patterns and matching predicates where not supported by research.
• Treatment of drug abuse.
• Practitioner responses to these issues
• Views of subject experts on these attitudes and responses

From discussions of previous months these issues have been covered already. Jpjans, you said there were no such the statements of NLP being fake title in Corballis et al. In fact the citations were perfectly correct. You say you cannot see Von Bergen's statement of conceptual errors in NLP. Your objections seem unrealistic. Please explain. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Stollznow

This has been tagged as dubious: “According to Stollznow (2010), "NLP also involves fringe discourse analysis and “practical” guidelines for “improved” communication. For example, one text asserts “when you adopt the “but” word, people will remember what you said afterwards. With the “and” word, people remember what you said before and after”

This could be placed in clearer context. Stollznow also states “NLP is simply another pseudoscience with a pretence to science in its name, terminology, and alleged lineage.”

“Bandler and Grinder’s infamous Frogs into Princes and other books boast that NLP is a cure-all that treats a broad range of physical and mental conditions and learning difficulties, including epilepsy, myopia and dyslexia. With its promises to cure schizophrenia, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder, NLP shares similarities with Scientology and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR.” Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to cite opinion then provide balance or identify bias. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Find reliable sources that support that view, then we can look at incorporating it --Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph quoted above has another problem: the opening and closing quotation marks do not match, so the reader cannot tell whether the For example is a continuation of the same quotation from Stollznow, or is another quotation from one Stollznow text. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sample audio clips

I think this article and subarticles would benefit from some sample audio clips selected under fair use. For example, we may include some samples of Grinder and/or Bandler imitating Fritz Perls, Milton Erickson and Virginia Satir. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide any links I'm sure some people here would be happy to evaluate them. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

paragraph moved from lede

• Reviews of empirical research on NLP showed that NLP contains numerous factual errors, and failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents.

This is a selective summary of the research. If you want to summarize the positivist literature then make that clear. Don't pretend that this is an objective summary of the academic literature --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• According to Devilly, NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 70s and 80s; “controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further”.

That's just Devilly's skeptical opinion. There are many studies that followed Sharpley. How does Devilly know what researchers were thinking? Cite the evidence, not opinion. If you want to cite opinion, then characterize the bias or provide alternative views for balance. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology .

These authors are writing for skeptics type publications. The bias should be identified clearly. Opinions should not be presented as fact. This is extremely selective given that you do not provide balance. Skeptic's publications are meant to be NPOV. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level .

On what evidence does Lum, Lilienfeld and Dunn make their claims? Do not present opinions as facts. I checked this before, the sources do not support these summary statements. Cite evidence, not opinion. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.

On what basis does Witkowski make this claim? Cite the evidence rather than the commentary. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited

Norcross et al (2006) does not make any inference regarding level of discredit. Where does the paper make the inference that we can be 95% confident that NLP may be "possibly or probably discredited"? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al (2008) list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited,

Cite the evidence! On what basis is this claim made? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”.

Glasner-Edwards and Rawson cite an old Norcross paper. You are trying to give undue weight to this claim. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User 122... your objections have been answered before. Your last blanking edit constitutes vandalism. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some of my objections:

• "Reviews of empirical research on NLP showed that NLP contains numerous factual errors" citing Von Bergen (1997) in Human Resource Development Quarterly. Why choose Von Bergen here and ignore all the positive literature in HRD?
• "and failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents." Cites Sharpley (1987) review without any reservation or reply.
• Cites Witkowski (2010), a skeptical linguist publishing in a skeptic's magazine? Clearly not an impartial source and bias needs to be identified if used.
• Devilly is self-described a skeptic and his opinion is not impartial. If you include this opinion you need to balance it out.
• Cites Corballis 1999. A skeptic's book is a partisan source. These books are intentionally biased to try to counter the overly positive literature by proponents.
• Cites Stollznow, a linguist publishing in a skeptics magazine is cited as s critique of NLP "concepts and terminology".
• Cites Lum 2001 for this statement: "NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy" - what exactly is your Lum's here? Is this mere opinion? On what evidence is this statement made?
• "expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions". Is this code for EBP? Don't try to give it more weight than it deserves.
• "possibly or probably discredited"? What is this based on? Where is this inference made? This error has been repeated without checking the facts.
• "“top ten” most discredited", this is misleading without context.
• Why quote Devilly stating that "researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further" without noting the researchers who have continued studying NLP?

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User 122..., there is nothing new in your objections, and considering the discussion of issues, your partial blanking of the lede constitutes vandalism. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Its persistent vandalism. Theses issues have been resolved, but the IP simply waits some weeks then tries again --Snowded ^TALK 03:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede para length

I suggest that it is too long for the article's length. ISTB351 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

When I first starting commenting on this discussion page Snowded told me that, ideally, there should not be any references in the lede. Currently there are 26. Willyfreddy (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the recent history of the page. Among the edit warring and paragraph blanking some editors stated a need for citations for the summary information that was there. So they were provided. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This does not divert from the fact that the lede is far too long. ISTB351 (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The length of the lede looks fine to me. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. My point is that if the text in the lede is so controversial that it needs to be referenced, then perhaps it should not be there at all. In my opinion, the second and third paragraphs of the lede should simply be removed. Willyfreddy (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

NLP is a controversial subject/intervention/field, that includes controversial statements and scientific claims. That can be mentioned in the opening line. I will have a look for the relevant sources stating that NLP is controversial. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You will try to find another reference to add to the lede?! You have clearly not understood my point at all. Nevertheless, there has been no resolution of this issue within the discussion page and so I am going to revert your removal of the tag in question. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Without substantial suggestions the tag is not necessary. It cannot stay there indefinitely. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There is still an open discussion about it and so I do not think it is appropriate for you to just assume the discussion is closed and revert the tag yourself. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Despite your reversion, you made no discussion or suggestion relating to the lede section guidelines. So the tag is inappropriate. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. However, as I stated before, this is an open discussion and therefore it is not appropriate for you to single-handedly decide that it's closed. Please do not remove it again until a joint resolution has been found. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You have offered no guideline-based justification for the tag. The onus is on you. Tags cannot be left on articles indefinitely. This article has suffered a lot of drive-by tagging in the past. When challenged they require justification from those wishing to present them. If you do not discuss relating to the lede guidelines, the tag will be removed. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This started because you unilaterally removed a tag that was involved in an open discussion, without even mentioning it in the discussion itself. It does not follow that, since I reverted your change, I believe the tag should be left on indefinitely - that is a horrendously obvious non sequitur. Nevertheless, I do agree that if a more substantive argument/suggestion cannot be made shortly (let's give it few more days) then it should be removed. Willyfreddy (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You have still not presented any guidelines-based reason. So the tag can go. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You're just like talking to a broken record. I will not repeat myself again: I agree to take it down in 3 days, after other readers (including the user that started the discussion) have had a chance to see that this is happening and can weigh in. Do not remove it before then, any attempts to do so will be reverted. Willyfreddy (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, it's been a few days and there has been no argument presented in favour of keeping the tag, so as promised it will be removed. As stated below in the next discussion, I agree with LKK that (at first glance) the tag seemed inappropriate based upon the guidelines. However, in this case, I also thought LKK's behaviour was inappropriate and that has lead to the "tennis match" that others have commented on here. For the future, I'd like to suggest how this topic SHOULD have been handled: (A) ISTB351 should have opened a discussion on the topic without actually placing the tag on the article; (B) LKK should have stated his opinion immediately that because there was no grounds given for the tag's addition, especially in relation to the guidelines, then he believes it should be taken down. If, after a given amount of time passes without rebuttal, the tag would be removed and LKK would say so in the discussion page; (C) LKK should have immediately reverted the change, stating why by citing the guidelines on the talk page, and asked for arguments in support of the tag's addition. Anyhow, that's just my two cents. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD seems reasonable to me. [13]. You can argue for nuances to it here: [14].Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK's automatic reversion(s)

LKK, could you please point out the Wikipedia policy which states that all changes to an article must first be discussed on the talk page? You reverted Encyclotadd's changes without any reason given except for: "Please discuss such changes on talkpage". I'm guessing this isn't the first time you've done this. Thank you. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User Willyfreddy. I have no automatic editing function in this regard. Please assume good faith. [15][16]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright. If there is no Wikipedia policy that states all changes must be discussed on the talk page first, then your reversion of Encyclotadd's changes should itself be reverted unless you have specific grounds for removing his changes. Willyfreddy (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Willyfreddy. I suggest you read the link I supplied again:[17]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you also need to assume faith. This is one of the most recurring problems on WP - that of editors who expect others to assume good faith but fail to do so themselves. Afterwriting (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Afterwriting. I have heard of this problem, but I do not see it in this case. Could you please explain. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read it. There is no policy that states all changes must be approved. In fact it even states that BRD itself is explicitly NOT a policy that you can force other editors to adhere to. Additionally, BRD is for 'bold' changes, and I see nothing in his content that represents a 'bold' change. Finally, it states that BRD "is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes". So, on behalf of the changes that were made by Encyclotadd, I'm starting a discussion here (if that wasn't obvious already). If you have specific objections to the content, based upon Wikipedia policies, then please present them here. Otherwise, I believe the content should be re-added. Willyfreddy (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The change to the Von Bergen line from numerous to some is factually incorrect. [18]

It is uncited commentary to conclude “some critics mischaracterize it as an intervention.”

Adding “Devilly criticisms” is both factually and grammatically incorrect.

There are further illogical arguments and commentaries about NLP not being a school, therefore not an intervention.

There is also a weasel argumentative phrase such as “Yet the title of NLP is singled out as pseudo-scientific” If any editor wants to argue for the inclusion of these points, then go ahead with reference to sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK's re-addition of 'controversial'

LKK has unilaterally changed the first sentence to be: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a controversial [1][2] approach to psychotherapy..." There was no discussion of this in the talk page, except for the following: "I can add more citations regarding NLP as a controversial subject if requested." It was not requested. More importantly however, that particular opening sentence (with citations) was previously the catalyst for a massive debate that resulted in an arbitration ruling, whereby the term 'controversial' was removed. Such behaviour surely makes it VERY difficult for anyone to assume 'good faith' on his part. Based upon the earlier debate, and subsequent arbitration ruling, I believe the term 'controversial' should be removed immediately. Willyfreddy (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Willyfreddy. I am unaware of any such arbitration ruling against the inclusion of "controversial". Could you please provide a link. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you were present, and involved in, the debate that I am referring to, so I can only assume that my use of the term 'arbitration ruling' is incorrect. If that's the case, it's my mistake. Nevertheless, you are well aware of the fact that this topic was debated to death, and the outcome of that debate included the word being removed (seems like Mar 6/2011 was its last appearance: [19]) My understanding was that an external and objective outsider was called in to evaluate the debate and the article itself. That might be mistaken too. Regardless, the use of the word 'controversial' has already been debated and resolved. Accordingly, I believe it should be removed immediately. Willyfreddy (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The term was removed by a single purpose account: User Jeanmb[20]. No reason at all was given in the edit summary. The reason given in by the SPA in the talk page was that a majority wanted it removed. Concerning your assertion that I am aware of the issue being debated to death, I see no evidence of it, and I do not think what you say I think. I added the phrase in good faith. According to WP:AGF you really should assume that good faith.

From the evidence of the talk page on that date [21], there appears to be no agreement or consensus and I was not a part of that discussion.

Judging by following discussion [22] the term controversial seems to have been removed despite there being no guideline based reasoning for the removal. The main reasons for removal seem to be 1. those wanting the term are not trained in NLP, 2. NLP is not about what is true, but just useful 3. its appropriate for the lede, but not the lede opening line (no lede guideline cited).

The lede guidelines WP:LEAD show the need for controversy to be included. Controversial is not inherently good or bad. It is just a description that both NLPers and NLP critics give to NLP (according to the citations). The lede should stand alone as a concise overview. “Controversial” is a useful concise word for the lede opening line. It helps the reader understand straight away that views from multiple perspectives consider NLP to be controversial. Therefore it should be included. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that was my mistake in stating that you took part in the debate. I had you confused with Snowded. Apologies. Nevertheless, I do not believe the guidelines offer any support for labeling NLP as a controversial therapy. It states that "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies". Establishing the controversies within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself as controversial. That is a judgement call. If one follows the logic that you are using here, the opening sentence of psychiatry, psychoanalysis, astrology, dianetics, etc. would all require the term 'controversial'. If anything, I believe that those guidelines support removal of several of the criticisms currently present in the lede, as it is questionable how many of them would be considered 'notable'. Are any of the criticisms from Tier 1 journals? If the referenced books contain original research, has it been peer reviewed? If the books reference published results, then those results should be linked to directly. Of course, whether or not these references are 'notable' is also a judgement call. Willyfreddy (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Accepted. This can be resolved with reference to sources. There may be no sources stating that psychiatry, psychoanalysis etc are controversial subjects. There may also be sources stating they are uncontroversial. Are there any sources that state NLP is uncontroversial? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Well, this conversation is certainly indicative of why there has been so little progress made on the article. Nevertheless, I'll address it. As mentioned, establishing a controversy within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself controversial. And whether or not an individual author believes a subject to be controversial is of itself not notable, as it is a judgement call. Similarly, an individual author stating that he believes a topic is NOT controversial would be no more notable. There is no standard way to quantify such judgements empirically across a range of subjects. Even if, for example, 75% of all the registered Psychoanalysists in the world expressed a belief that Psychoanalysis was controversial, that would not support an introductory sentence of "Psychoanalysis is a controversial psychological theory...". It would merely support a separate statement of "75% of all registered Psychoanalysists in the world believe the topic to be controversial". I believe that clearly separating subjective and objective facts is one of the most important steps to ensuring a quality article. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Willyfreddy. I believe there is progress. Here is the line in question:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to psychotherapy and organizational change based on "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour".

Could you indicate which parts of this sentence are objective and which subjective? How would they differ from the term “controversial”?

Also, do you think all relevant scientific views of the definition of NLP captured in the line? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are no further replies, I will reinstate the edit. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do, it will be immediately reverted. I have made my case and you have made yours. It's clear that we will have to agree to disagree. Please feel free to raise this as an issue requiring arbitration. Willyfreddy (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support the restoration of the word "controversial", as it reflects what good sources say and is surely important enough to appear in the lede. bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversial was there for a long period of time and is fully supported by the references so I am restoring it. Willyfreddy I suggest you don't revert as you are in a clear minority here. Content issues not resolved by arbitration. --Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not "important enough" to be in the very first sentence as a defining description. This is entirely inappropriate and I will also continue to remove it if is restored for this reason alone. No editor has the right to insist on including a contentious term in this way regardless of what some "good sources say". Afterwriting (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As promised I have removed it again and will continue to do so until a more appropriate and actually consensual opening sentence is agreed to. Content issues are not resolved by bloody-minded insistence on including a contentious term in this way. You can either continue this dispute until hell freezes over or you can develop a common sense solution instead. Afterwriting (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Afterwriting. Many points above have not been answered. I gave editors time to answer (several weeks). As such it is very reasonable to add the term now. The term is quite neutral and sources pro and critical show it to be a fact. The article itself shows it to be factual. Please this not intended to antagonize. It is not intended to be a criticism. Consider that some interesting subjects are controversial. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I vote no. So where is your consensus now, socky? Colemchange (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote and Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, consensus is based on arguments appealing to policy. I am new to this page and have no affiliation with NLP. My reading of the arguments and of the sources leads me to conclude that it would be a POV violation to omit controversy from the lead. The sources that make the claim are reliable, and thus we must report what they say. As was stated above, if there are better sources that claim that NLP is not controversial then we can do some tweaking, but insofar as our reliable sources claim it to be controversial, we claim it to be controversial. Yes, it is the author's opinion that it is controversial, and there is nothing wrong with us quoting an expert's opinion as an expert opinion outweighs the opinion of any wikipedia editor. On that note, something that all editors need to keep in mind is that your opinion means zero, the only thing that matters is the sources. N^oformation ^Talk 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: on the contrary, the only thing that matters is what good sources say. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant - that's the entire point of our WP:NPOV policy N^oformation ^Talk 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Its clearly controversial, just look at the body of the article and the evidence. Also its been in the article for some considerable period of time. Its neutral as a term --Snowded ^TALK 03:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that there is citations to show that some people have described NLP as controversial does not mean that it is necessary to use it as the fourth word of the lead. I could provide similar sources for half of the US' presidents' being controversial, still we don't write "Andrew Jackson was a controversial president of the US". Describing something as controversial does not add information or make the reader more knowledgeable about the topic (both Gandhi, Jesus and Hitler could be labelled controversial). The lead should not define the topic as controversial it should describe what NLP is including what it controversial about it and how. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion Maunus. From the point of view of the clarity the task seems to be to write the first paragraph in a clearer way that captures the controversy. For example:

NLP is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and organizational change. Bandler and Grinder state NLP to be "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour". NLP is considered to be controversial in that it is largely unsupported by reliable independent evidence, and its concepts, terms and claims are considered to be pseudoscientific (refs).

That would help the reader see the main purpose of NLP up front, with the more obscure NLP line coming second, and the clarifying science view last in the para. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a better approach, I would caution about using the passive for "is considered" - do let the reader know which groups consider it to be this. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Maunus. Attribute to the group is better. I will propose an updated one in below section [23]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Voluntary Timeout for LKK and Willyfreddy?

Yo, Editors. May I suggest LKK and WF have an Ownership problem WP:OWN with this article, and it might be a good idea for them to, together, take a time-out from editing this article? Say, until October 23rd? This might allow some room for other editors to make an appearance, if there are any that have not yet been elbowed out of the way. Boys? Ratagonia (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If users could be 'voluntarily' suspended by consensus, then I do believe that Snowded and LKK's editing privileges would have ended a long time ago. But I digress. As for the statement "This might allow some room for other editors to make an appearance, if there are any that have not yet been elbowed out of the way." I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion that a lively debate is likely to drive away editors, rather than attract them. Regardless, I do believe that both LKK and Snowded have demonstrated Ownership problems with the article and that has driven my behaviour. Although I believe your assessment to be wrong, I do understand how you could have concluded that I too have that problem. That was certainly not my intention. Willyfreddy (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OAS Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

- I'm not an alcoholic - THEY go to meetings. Denial is not just a river in Africa. Ratagonia (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

- My REQUEST has not yet been answered. Children? Ratagonia (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ratagonia. I have answered your request [24]. Also, please see: WP:CIV. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Hello LKK and Willyfreddy. I am not suggested you two be suspended by consensus. I am REQUESTING that you together take a timeout to gain some perspective. Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • My argument that you have elbowed other potential contributors out of the way is based on a review of the talk page, which consists of contributions from IP User 122.108.140.210, a few comments from me (mostly in the meta-conversation domain), and a dynamic childish back and forth between LKK and WF. ipso facto. Denying the plain facts is "Denial", nothing more. Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • LKK: a passive-aggressive claim that your "Ownership" is better characterized as "Stewardship" is noted, though not agreed with by me. It is also not a reply to my REQUEST.Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • LKK: a passive-aggressive to the article on Civility, while itself rather civil, is not a reply to my REQUEST. My request is made in a civil manner (well, at least in my opinion). Perhaps your opinion is different, but I find your directing me to the CIV article to be uncivil. Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • LKK and WF: I make this request because I think it in the best interest of the Article, and the Wiki. I also think you will find it better for BOTH of you, as the beating your heads against the immovable wall that is the divide between you cannot be good for your mental healths. In the past when I have acted much the same, a Timeout was what I needed. I offer this opportunity as a (small-m) mediator. I look for an answer to my REQUEST in the form of "Yes", "no", or "I will if (s)he will". Very simple. Ratagonia (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ratagonia. No. Also, I suggest you propose such requests on user talk pages. The talk page here shows evidence of constructive discussion when it focuses on article content. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK's behavior is consisted with prior HeadleyDown/David Snowden sockpuppets. Remove this comment again, Snowded, and I'll put every waking moment of effort into getting you booted once AGAIN. 76.243.106.37 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is obvious the information on the sockmasterouting site is accurate. It is only a matter of time before they get banned again. Colemchange (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP and Colemchange. If you have the genuine reason to suspect an editor of sockpuppetry, then make a proper investigation: WP:SPI. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, making SP accusations without evidence can be construed as a personal attack. N^oformation ^Talk 04:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They and others have been doing it on and off wiki for months. Colemchange's language above is familiar as well, will look back over conversations when I have time--Snowded ^TALK 04:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Encyclotadds Edits

Dear Lam Kin Keung,

There have been advancements in our understanding of neurology over the past few years that corroborate a view long articulated by the co-creators of NLP documented in some of their earliest writing.

You can easily learn about the advancements in our understanding from the Discovery Channel video located here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSu9HGnlMV0&feature=player_embedded

Please pay attention 4 minutes into the video about the empirical research indicating both hemisphere of the brain can handle 100% of the tasks of the other hemisphere. That's a profound claim by modern neurologists.

Please also note that Dr. Droidge of Columbia University, who is one of the most well respected people psychoanalysts in the APA, wrote about the same advancements in his book "The Brain That Changes Itself." But you do not have to read that book to learn about those advancements. Those ideas are also reflected in this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3TQopnNXBU

You will hear the term neuro plasticity, which refers to the changing nature of the brain in the aforementioned videos and text. This is precisely what Bandler and Grinder have been saying in seminars and writing for several decades.

The earliest example I could find of Bandler and Grinder predicting science would show this was in "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson." Please search in that book for the words "plasticity" and "equipotentiality." Please notice the authors were saying exactly the same thing about the hemispheres of the brain 36 years ago. In fact, equi (meaning equal) and potentiality (meaning, obviously, potential) is the very word they use to describe the two hemispheres.

That's a very profound finding that should obviously be reflected on the Wikipedia page.

All of the edits that I made over the past few days were to reflect this information.

This is the way that I added the information in the body of the article, which was sadly deleted repeatedly without explanation or reference for the deletion. I hope it can be accepted as is or in an edited form that communicates the point well.

In "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1," Bandler and Grinder pointed to evidence that the generative capacity of the brain (plasticity) far exceeds what was understood at the time. Specifically, they argued that language can change brain physiology, writing that, "This equipotentiality or plasticity of the human nervous system is another piece of evidence pointing to great human potential so far largely unexplored."[58] This view that thinking directly affects physiology is now supported by empirical research. Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst Dr. Norman Doidge, who is on the faculty of the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research in New York, said that, "What you think and imagine can [indeed] change the structure of your brain."[59][60]

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 06:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Your edit comes under the category of original research WP:NOR. That is, your inclusion concludes or indicates that Bandler and Grinder were highly insightful. In fact, plasticity was known at that time in neuroscience. Your sources (Videos) do not support your conclusion of NLP or BnG in forecasting plasticity. Also, it would help if you do not force your edits into the article during discussion. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, I am commenting here rather than forcing the edit to be respectful of your request.

You are absolutely right that the term neuropalasticity existed at the time of Bandler and Grinder's writings. They were not the only people to predict that neuroplasticity would be born out by additional research. But the prevalent view, as documented in two sources in the article and two sources in this discussion at the time of their writing about it was that neuroplasticity was nowhere nearly as important as it's understood to be today. This is a profound fact in context of NLP because the founders have been arguing in favor of neuroplasticity repeatedly for decades, which has also been documented in the article itself including with direct quotes and page references. But for additional information, consider the name of the field "neuro-hypnotic repatterning" created by one of the founders. That name itself, which predates the research highlighted in this article reflected their strong and repeated view that neurology can be re patterned through activating and leading the imagination. (In my opinion, at their core, NLP and hypnosis are both imagination exercises. It's fascinating to consider how imagination impacts us physically. I would add more about this in the article but to do so would require moving away from easily referenced factual statements into more of a speculative realm. So I have not done so.)

You have stated that the inclusion comes under the category of original research. According to Wikipedia, "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." You have suggested this might apply. However, I've heavily referenced every single sentence in the inclusion, and my references are both to the original writings of the founders and to the most respected psychologists alive today. Wikiepdia goes on to say about original research that, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." The perspective I have edited is totally and completely advanced by the sources.

I would welcome a direct conversation with you LKK about this. Maybe we can talk by phone or on Skype. I believe your intentions are outstanding.

Hello again Encyclotadd. Unfortunately, none of your sources explicitly mentions the conclusion you give. The conclusion seems to be yours. It is your synthesis. That makes it original research, which is not allowed WP:NOR. Also, it is not empirical research on NLP. The author, Doidge, does not seem to mention NLP at all. You also changed "research reviews" to "research". In fact it is important to focus on reviews of the research, rather than present all the individual pieces of research here (there are too many). It is the reliable independent reviewers who's conclusions can be presented. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, Any choice to include or exclude a referenced fact represents opinion. Your criticism of my addition of referenced facts is therefore invalid, because it can be applied to virtually any addition or subtraction in Wikipedia. You incorrectly condemn the entire wikipedia with that approach. Please focus on the facts I've added and comment on the validity of the facts, or contribute your own additional ones. Thanks, Encyclotadd

No Encyclotadd, if a view comes from a sufficiently reliable source then it can be included, as per WP:NPOV. If the source does not make a clear reference to NLP, then it is not relevant. In the case in question your inclusion is original researchWP:OR. Please stop forcing edits. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Here are Encyclotadds edits:

In "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1," Bandler and Grinder pointed to evidence that the generative capacity of the brain (plasticity) far exceeds what was understood at the time. Specifically, they argued that language can change brain physiology, writing that, "This equipotentiality or plasticity of the human nervous system is another piece of evidence pointing to great human potential so far largely unexplored."[58] This view that thinking directly affects physiology is now supported by empirical research. Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst Dr. Norman Doidge, who is on the faculty of the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research in New York, said that, "What you think and imagine can [indeed] change the structure of your brain."[59][60]

“Empirical research on NLP has shown that NLP contains factual errors,[9][10] and failed to produce reliable results for some of the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents” etc: [25]

Encyclotadd. Please offer a justification for the inclusion of these edits and discuss. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, I see that you have been active on Wikipedia today, including commenting in this discussion, and I can tell that you are someone interested in scientific truth. That's why I was hoping for some kind of response or invitation to speak with you directly. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Thanks. Feel free to contact me or open discussion on my talk page. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, I've attempted to contact you outside of Wikipedia but I'm not sure if it's the same LKK. I have more information to share and am interested to learn your views.

If there is another way to add the information from the noted psychoanalyst from Columbia University and the quote from the founders of NLP, please do let me know. I'm open to adding the information in any way that's accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 20:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, Please let me know if you have received my request to connect outside of Wikipedia or if I attempted to contact the wrong LKK. Thanks, Encyclotadd

Encyclotadd. I respond to Wikipedia related issues here: [26]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Locked after 'controversial' re-added

Well, I must admit, their tactics are impressive. This is now the second time we're having this debate, and while people attempt to convince Snowded and LKK (who will never be convinced: they are pushing an agenda, not a particular point) 'controversial' has been re-added and the page is now locked. We need someone of a higher authority than either Snowded or LKK to come in and rule on this issue. The arguments have been made for both sides already, so there is little point in us going in circles. Willyfreddy (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Willyfreddy. The good news: FT2 [27] banned them last time. He was the admin on the case and he expertly compiled this [28]. That makes the sockmasterouting site highly credible. It is really just a matter of time. Snowden, LKK (and possibly Aerobicfox) are hardly worth responding to. Just wait till the boot comes again, the pagelock is off and then balance the article. Colemchange (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the next steps are either WP:DRN or an RfC, no one has any authority to step in here and force a change, all we can do is widen the discussion to achieve a greater consensus. N^oformation ^Talk 03:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be more than that. We clearly have some strong NLP advocates who are organising their edits here. The South Australian NLP web site was clearly engaged in meat puppetry at one stage and editors such as Willyfreddy are simply repeating arguments and rather silly accusations from that and other sites. It probably needs a proper investigation. --Snowded ^TALK 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not totally familiar with the background of this page, I came here earlier today from AN/I. Anything else I should know? N^oformation ^Talk 03:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to get on a flight from LAX to Sydney, but I started to assemble some of the evidence here if that is any use. --Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, this was expected. I do believe that Snowded, and LKK, are clearly pushing an agenda here (as I have said for a while), and so it makes sense that they would then suggest the same of me. I'll let our previous arguments/edits speak for themselves. As for the suggestion that I'm stealing my arguments from some Australian website... well... uhm... everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess :) Nevertheless, you might want to watch the non-sequiturs there, Snowded. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I am a "strong NLP advocate". You have demonstrated this sort of blackwhite thinking before on this page (our first discussion, if I'm not mistaken), and it can make it very difficult to have fruitful discussions. Willyfreddy (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, I think it would be great if we could start a dispute resolution for the matter. Willyfreddy (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

It looks as though at least one NLP organization lables NLP as controversial, along with the skeptical sources already used.

Here is a news source refers to NLP as controversial and quotes the head of the department of linguistics of UAE University as saying "NLP has been heavily criticised by serious psychological scientists because the creators and practitioners … have provided no evidence for the effectiveness of it."

The Lance Armstrong Foundation also refers to a controversy surrounding NLP.

That makes 5 (4 if you don't want to count LAF, I'm not sure on their status as an RS) sources that call NLP controversial, and I'm sure there are many many more. WP:WEIGHT dictates that we should publish any and all significant views and unless we can find some equivalent sources that say it's not controversial then it should probably be included. N^oformation ^Talk 03:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, this was discussed above. I will simply repeat my arguments here, as your point was already covered by LKK. Initially, LKK stated that the Wikipedia guidelines supported the inclusion of the word 'controversial' in the opening sentence. My response was: I do not believe the guidelines offer any support for labeling NLP as a controversial therapy. It states that "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies". Establishing the controversies within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself as controversial. That is a judgement call. If one follows the logic that you are using here, the opening sentence of psychiatry, psychoanalysis, astrology, dianetics, etc. would all require the term 'controversial' [ed note: global warming as well, for that matter]. If anything, I believe that those guidelines support removal of several of the criticisms currently present in the lede, as it is questionable how many of them would be considered 'notable'. Are any of the criticisms from Tier 1 journals? If the referenced books contain original research, has it been peer reviewed? If the books reference published results, then those results should be linked to directly. Of course, whether or not these references are 'notable' is also a judgement call. LKK then dropped that point and instead suggested that the case can made based upon the number of references found that stated it was controversial. To this I responded: Establishing a controversy within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself controversial. And whether or not an individual author believes a subject to be controversial is of itself not notable, as it is a judgement call. Similarly, an individual author stating that he believes a topic is NOT controversial would be no more notable. There is no standard way to quantify such judgements empirically across a range of subjects. Even if, for example, 75% of all the registered Psychoanalysts in the world expressed a belief that Psychoanalysis was controversial, that would not support an introductory sentence of "Psychoanalysis is a controversial psychological theory...". It would merely support a separate statement of "75% of all registered Psychoanalysts in the world believe the topic to be controversial". Willyfreddy (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Willyfreddy. You failed to respond to this: [29]. Could you offer a suggestion now? Which is subjective judgement call, and which objective? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello LKK. Indeed, I did not respond to that question. I believe it sidetracks, rather than focuses, the discussion. You may judge my argument as it stands, and respond to it accordingly. Willyfreddy (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. In that case, your the first point “Establishing the controversies within a topic does not equal labeling the topic itself as controversial.”: The first line is not a label. Clearly according to lede guidelines it CAN include the term controversial. Controversies SHOULD be represented in the lede, and the term CAN be placed in the opening line.

In subsequent points you mention notability of certain other elements in the lede. That is not relevant to this discussion.

You then state “And whether or not an individual author believes a subject to be controversial is of itself not notable, as it is a judgement call. Similarly, an individual author stating that he believes a topic is NOT controversial would be no more notable”

This is not a notability issue WP:NOTE. It is related more to due weight and how to sift facts from opinion:[30]. There is no controversy over the fact that NLP is controversial. People from a variety of sources state that it is controversial, and none take the opposing position. This is where it is differing from some other subjects where there is the view that the theory is uncontroversial (significantly well accepted).

There are good sources from multiple views stating that NLP is controversial, none opposing. So it is appropriate for the sentence. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. Yes, I should have removed the bit about whether or not the specific criticisms in the lede were notable (Tier-1 journals, peer-reviewed, etc), as that is not pertinent to the present discussion. Nevertheless, as mentioned, we clearly disagree on everything else. Now that our arguments have been presented, we can wait for other authors to weigh in or (fingers crossed) for a dispute resolution to commence. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've given my uninvolved assessment above[31].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• But to comment on the sources: "Some experts are sceptical. Dr Steven Bird, chairman of the department of linguistics at UAE University, said 'NLP has been heavily criticised by serious psychological scientists because the creators and practitioners … have provided no evidence for the effectiveness of it.'" I find this rather a weak source: 1. Notice he does not say HE considers it controversial, he says others (un-named) do; 2. This is not stated in a careful academic journal, where scientists communicate, it is quoted in a newspaper article as balance to the enthusiasm expressed by proponents; 3. I cannot find much info on Dr. Bird - is he an expert in the field? UAE University does not have a long history of academic excellence; 4. Overall, I would say that a couple obscure references from non-notable individuals, even if they technically meet Wikipedia RS requirements, does not make a strong case for giving prominence to the label "Controversial". I realize finding good scientific sources is difficult as it is advanced as a "process" rather than as a "science". Ratagonia (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeadleyDown

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeadleyDown William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial" comments from other editors

• My take is that calling it "controversial" as the fifth word in the article is perhaps over-the-top. I think it would serve our readers better to say what NLP IS first (the first two paragraphs), then introduce the controversy in the third paragraph of the lede, perhaps with a sentence that says "NLP is controversial". Consider this as a proposed compromise. Ratagonia (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That is also my general view. I do think that it is more important to note who finds it to be controversial and why.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ratagonia: "I think it would serve our readers better to say what NLP IS first (the first two paragraphs), then introduce the controversy in the third paragraph of the lede" I emphatically agree with this, and am very glad to see more objective editors present on the talk page. However, I am iffy about including the sentence "NLP is controversial" in the third paragraph. I tend to side with Maunus, as he states: "The lead should not define the topic as controversial it should describe what NLP is including what is controversial about it and how." As an alternative, for example, one could state something like this to start off the third paragraph: "There are a number of controversies regarding the empirical validity of certain aspects of NLP, as well as claims made by particular practitioners." To be honest, I'm not sure that the term 'controversial' adds anything to such a statement, but I offer it as a compromise to those so intent on seeing it appear. Willyfreddy (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember something along these lines being offered and rejected before. Saying "NLP is ..." in 1/2 sentences followed by "It is a controversial ....." is fine by me. --Snowded ^TALK 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me too, I have no attachment to the lead saying "NLP is controversial;" so long as it's mentioned that there is controversy in the lead then I'm happy. Someone brought up Astrology before as an example of something that isn't called controversial in the first sentence, and this is true (that's also because it's not controversial scientifically), but it is clearly defined as a pseudoscience later in the lead. The same would work well for NLP except that my understanding is that it's not a pseudoscience, it's just not firmly established yet and hence controversial. N^oformation ^Talk 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement, so far, that the first one or two paragraphs should describe what NLP IS and then the third paragraph can cover the controversies. However, as for that paragraph, we have two suggestions so far: a) Leading with "NLP is controversial..." (or "It is controversial..."); b) Leading with something like "There are a number of controversies regarding the empirical validity of certain aspects of NLP..." Personally, I support option (b), as it enables us to avoid labeling (which just seems intellectually lazy), and provides the reader with more specific information. Willyfreddy (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a body of citations that do describe it as a pseudo-science but I don't think we need that in the lede. Willfreddy I think we are agreed on controversial in the second or third sentence of the first paragraph. --Snowded ^TALK 23:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to label it intellectually lazy but I think either solution is acceptable and I like the way you've worded (B). N^oformation ^Talk 23:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion developed from the comments in above section[32]:

NLP is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and organizational change (cite). Bandler and Grinder state NLP to be "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour"(cite). There are a number of controversies concerning NLP in that according to neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence, and its concepts, terms and claims are considered to be pseudoscientific and discredited (cite).

I am wondering what are your comments on the first line? NLP seems to be used for many things in a lot of different areas. What would a comprehensive range look like? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I say we do one thing at a time. At the moment we are discussing what to do with the re-added term 'controversial' - which was the cause of the article being locked. Let's resolve that first (and get the article unlocked) and then, in another discussion, deal with the full text of each of the three lede paragraphs. To review, there are two issues being debated currently. The first is mentioned above, choosing between (a) or (b), regarding the language used to introduce the controversies. The second issue is related to which paragraph in the lede the controversy stuff should appear: c) first paragraph; d) third paragraph. As mentioned, I support (b) and (d). Willyfreddy (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Willyfreddy, do you wanna do the honors and build a paragraph off of (b)? Also, I'm fine with (b) and (d) as well in theory, though I would like to see what the whole lead is going to look like. N^oformation ^Talk 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for now, if we can agree that the term 'controversy' (or one of its derivatives) should only appear in the third paragraph, then I'd suggest that we remove 'controversial' from the opening sentence and simply tack on "There are a number of controversies regarding the empirical validity of certain aspects of NLP, as well as claims made by particular practitioners." to the front of the third paragraph. This achieves two things: 1) It allows us to remove the lock on the article; 2) It solidifies the format for the lede by dividing it into two chunks - what NLP IS and what the controversies are (as Ratagonia suggested) - which enables editors to work on either aspect of the lede independently, allowing discussions to be more focused. New sections can then be created on the talk page in order to discuss changes to any of the three paragraphs. Willyfreddy (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That would avoid solving the main issue here. Neuro-linguistic programming makes pseudo-scientific and misleading claims according to the significant mainstream science view. It helps to show in the first paragraph that there is a controversy, and or what is the controversy. The scientist viewpoints should be shown to clarify the main controversies of the NLP claim in the first paragraph. Then in the second paragraph NLP view can get a full hearing. In the third paragraph the scientific skepticism views can get full hearing. That solves the main issue in a structural balanced and clear way. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it would avoid solving it in the way that you want (an important clarification). LKK: "It helps to show in the first paragraph that there is a controversy, and or what is the controversy. The scientist viewpoints should be shown to clarify the main controversies of the NLP claim in the first paragraph." Okay, that's your opinion, and I comprehensively disagree. I think Ratagonia's suggestion, detailed above, is much cleaner. And again, as a comparison, Dianetics doesn't have a single criticism listed in the lede, while Astrology relegates its criticisms to the final paragraph of the lede. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree in part with Ratagonia's comment: The first paragraph should state what NLP is. NLP is controversial. That can be kept out of the first line (as suggested). It is appropriate as a scientific clarifying sentence after the main NLP view of what NLP is. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a strange way to look at it. In Spite of being an adjective the word controversial does not describe an inherent quality of anything - it describes what people think about it and that is contingent on historical and social context. Saying it is "controversial" provides no information. Providing information would be writing "scientists have criticized NLP for being ..."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Maunus, I meant to say "NLP is controversial due to....". I have suggested a further compromise though:[33]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to some mention of NLP being "controversial" in the first paragraph. But I strongly object to doing this in the very first sentence in the way some editors are insisting on. I consider this completely indefensible. As I've said before - and I'll keep on saying it - just about every subject or person with a WP article has some associated controversy. Unless that controversy is especially notable it should not be mentioned in the first sentence. We don't start the article on psychoanalysis by saying that it's "controversial" - but we could find all sorts of apparently reliable references to say that it is. The NLP article should be no different in this regard. Therefore any reference to it being controversial needs to be moved out of the first sentence. Afterwriting (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Afterwriting. Here is one solution to that (shown also above in this section)[34]. The first sentence has been kept to the direct point and clear without adjectives. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it, it is interesting to note that psychoanalysis does not have any controversies in the lede whatsoever (let alone in the first paragraph). Willyfreddy (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

They were recently removed from the psychoanalysis article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please clarify Willyfreddy. Are you now suggesting to remove all controversies from the lede altogether? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that. Willyfreddy (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Resolution may be helped with closer reference to the suggestions made from the broader community. Users Noformation and Maunus have helped since the ANI notice. Clearly the term controversial still can be added to the first line according to guidelines. But the compromise is to add the specific term controversial to the third line of the second paragraph. Here is the suggestion:

"There are a number of controversies concerning NLP in that according to neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence, and its concepts, terms and claims are considered to be pseudoscientific and discredited (cite)".

Would you suggest a candidate alternative clarifying 3rd line from science viewpoints? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK: "Clearly the term controversial still can be added to the first line according to guidelines." I already addressed this point, with reference to the actual guidelines, but rather than respond to my specific arguments you simply continue to stipulate that your opinion should be considered an obvious fact. I, for one, do not agree with your conclusion. Furthermore, as I've already suggested, I think we should just focus on the issue at hand: getting the article unlocked, which occurred because you unilaterally added the word 'controversial' to the opening sentence. Before your edit, there was no appearance of the word 'controversy' (or its derivatives) in the lede at all. Now it is in the first sentence. As a compromise, I and Ratagonia are suggesting that it be moved to the start of the third paragraph, rather than removed from the lede completely. As mentioned, this allows the lede to be separated into two discrete sections, and prevents us from having to agree on an even more complex issue (how to phrase the controversies themselves in the lede) in order to get the article unlocked. If other (visiting) editors could please weigh in on these points, that would be excellent. Willyfreddy (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Willyfreddy. Here are the lede guidelines WP:LEAD. Could you provide diffs or clarify to the points you say I not respond to? The term “controversial” existed before and was removed by an SPA User Jeanmb[35].

However, for resolution I would be willing to step the compromise further. The term controversial can be removed from the lede completely, provided the main issue be solved: The first paragraph should balance the NLP view and have the controversy described with the reference to clarifying science viewpoints:

"NLP is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and organizational change (cite). Bandler and Grinder state NLP to be "a model of interpersonal communication and "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour"(cite). The term "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence, and its concepts, terms and claims are considered to be pseudoscientific and discredited (cite)."

That improves the paragraph for readability and includes the majority science viewpoints. NLP viewpoints still get more coverage than the science viewpoints. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is basically ok, I would suggest to change the phrasing "considered to be pseudoscientific and discredited" to "are considered not to be compatible with the scientific understanding of the relation between language, brain and behavior." or something like that. Whether it is "pseudoscientific and discredited" depends a lot on whether NLP aims to be a science or a form of therapy - and I thionk that is an open question. In my view NLP doesn't necessarily claim to be a science, but to be an effective form of therapy. The therapy can of course work even if it is incompatible with the scientific view - just like some people feel better through psychoanalysis, or visiting an astrologer. We should make sure to show that the scientificness critique impinges primarily on the way that NLP approaches concepts in the scientific realm, not on whether NLP is an effective therapy. If there are studies criticizing its therapeutic qualities those should be kept separately from the critiques of its use of scientific concepts. I think it is best to reserve the term pseudoscientific to those frameworks that claim scientific goals and scientific validity, while flaunting basic scientific principles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist (nor do I have any other such training.) It's interesting to read that NLP is "controversial", when those who make that claim seem not to be doing what Blander and Grinder describe as correct practice of their method in Frogs into Princes, and in ReFraming. Whether either method "works" I don't know; experimentation on human subjects is always difficult. htom (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Maunus and Htom. Neuro-linguistic programming is criticized for both being pseudo-scientific and ineffective. A concern is its status as a method that promotes many of the pseudo-scientific neuro-myths. Both are part of the controversy. However, I can move compromise further:

“……specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence and involves the use of discredited concepts and misleading terminology (cite)."

Though it is explicitly stated in scientific views the term pseudo-scientific is often not liked by some editors here and has been very often removed out of the article. But the term "misleading" could be an alternative in this the case. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Surprising to me, it seems like progress is being made. Thank you. I don't like the term pseudo-science for NLP because I have not seen any reliable source that labels it as such. Maybe they showed up and then were vanquished, so I did not see them. So... I am unclear that the statements are supported by Reliable Sources. In addition, I find the language very convoluted - just bad Englishing- Weasely. Assuming the citations hold up, how about:

"...specific goals in life(cite). According to some neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is unsupported by scientific evidence." To me, this sounds like a lede. More detail below. I don't know what "involves the use of discredited concepts and misleading terminology" means. Ratagonia (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Many reliable references in the article state that neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific: Roderique Davies, Devilly, Drenth, Witkowski and others for eg. Misleading terminology refers to, for example, Roderique Davies’s use of the term pseudo-scientific (saying even the term neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific). Pseudo-sciences often make misleading use of terminology, for example the comparison of scientology and neuro-linguistic programming: [36][37]. Pseudo-scientific is the specific criticism and can still be applied. “Misleading” is the term I could live with as a substitute for pseudo-scientific in this case.

“……specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, evidence based psychologists, and linguists (cite), NLP is largely unsupported by scientific evidence, involves the use of misleading terminology, and appears on lists of discredited therapies (cite)."

That clarifies the line for “discredited” also with the reference to the quotable sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Postscript: There may be acceptable alternatives to the "misleading". Feel free to suggest. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a logical fallacy in going from "NLP uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly" and "pseudo-science uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly" to "NLP is a pseudo-science". What was presented as a six or seven step (the difference being an additional final test) seems to be being done by the NLP critics (in the little I've read of what they did) as a shortened four step process -- which Blander and Grinder warned against doing, as it would be ineffective -- and the critics then claim NLP doesn't work. It almost seems to me that the critics are confirming the original work in NLP; "if you do it this way, it won't work", the critics did it that way, and it didn't work. htom (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Htom. I am not sure how much of the sources you have read. If you have reliable sources saying neuro-linguistic programming critics are using logical fallacy then that could help. The term the critics use to describe neuro-linguistic programming use is “pseudo-scientific”. They do also describe the claims and use of neuroscience terms as misleading. Your suggestion “incorrect” is similar in some way to “misleading”. According to the slides here[38]it could also be “distorted” or “conceptually distorted” terms. With those choices I would choose with either pseudo-scientific or misleading or distorted. They are likely clearer for the readability. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read Frogs into Princes, and ReFraming. In the current Wikipedia article, the statement is made "It assumes that by tracking another's eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person's thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983[63]). There is no scientific support for these assumptions."; but that mis-states why Blander and Grinder taught reading body language (not just eyes); by observing body language, you can then mirror it, pace it, lead it, which may induce a more trusting attitude in the client. Then the client is more influenced by what you say. I'd say that Dilts misunderstood the method, or was taught something other than what was in those books. Complaints that those not in your field are misusing the jargon of your field ... that's why it's jargon. Experts separated by a "common" jargon (or language) is something I've dealt with for decades. Make them speak English -- or American -- rather than jargon and they can find solutions rather than name-calling and blaming. In this case, both sides have vested financial interests in preserving their unique understandings; I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to abandon their golden eggs. htom (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OK that could be true but the reliable sources would be needed to present the argument in the main part of the article. The sources you mention are written before the criticisms were made. Especially recent criticisms that NLP has been discredited. The main concern the critics refer to is that neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific: It is a pseudo-scientific name: It is written in obscure way: The neuro like concepts are applied in a misleading way just for commercial promotion: Neuro-linguistic programming promotes common neuro-mythologies. Those are the key criticisms beyond its lack of results. “Pseudo-scientific”, “incorrect and misleading”, “distorted conceptions” are appropriate according to the sources. Could you suggest any other terms for the line in question? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Recap: Suggestions for the third line of the first paragraph: User Bobrayner (support for Controversial in first sentence) [39]; User Colemchange (against the term Controversial) [40]. User Noformation (use Controversial rather than Pseudoscientific [41]); User Snowded (use controversial in the second or third sentences)[42]; User Afterwriting (Controversial in first paragraph is ok, not in first sentence) [43]; User Maunus (Pseudo-science term can be added to first paragraph if neuro-linguistic programming fakes science) [44]; User Willyfreddy (Don’t allow Controversy or description of controversy in first paragraph at all) [45]User Ratagonia (use Scientifically Unsupported rather than pseudo-scientific in third sentence of first paragraph)[46].

I agree with Ratagonia’s progressive suggestion for "...specific goals in life(cite). According to some neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is unsupported by scientific evidence.". However, a non-support by science on its own is too close to a non-controversy. The sentence would need more concerning either: Misleading/distorted/incorrect terms, pseudo-scientific, or discredited. I suggest a compromise:

"...specific goals in life(cite). According to some neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is not supported by scientific evidence, and promotes incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd use "unsupported by current scientific" rather than "not supported by scientific", and "uses terms and concepts with different than customary meanings" rather than "promotes incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." Lack of evidence is not evidence of disproof, and projection of intent is unencyclopedic, even if reliably sourced. htom (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I left you off the recap, Htom. Yes the change to the part "unsupported by current scientific" is acceptable. But to address the controversy it would need some form of the final part suggested. The suggestions for Misleading and Incorrect are compromises to the reliably sourced science based views explicitly describing neuro-linguistic programming as Pseudo-scientific. I now suggest resolution to: "...specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and promotes incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. How about "uses" rather than "promotes"? htom (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for purpose of resolution I think that is acceptable. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then if there are no further suggestions, I suggest we should add this version to the article:

"NLP is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and organizational change (cite). Bandler and Grinder say that NLP is be a model of interpersonal communication and a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour(cite). The term "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life(cite). According to certain neuroscientists, (cite), psychologists (cite) and linguists (cite), NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The logical fallacy is between our article and a RS. "There seems to me to be a logical fallacy in going from '"NLP uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly"' and '"pseudo-science uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly"' to '"NLP is a pseudo-science"'. I suppose I should call it SYN or OR but what struck me was the structure of the paragraph. Horses have four legs, tables have four legs, horses are tables. htom (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Htom. If you can find reliable sources to support your view on logical fallacies of the criticisms then it could be appropriate for the main part of the article. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, LKK. The article should say ONLY and EXACTLY what the sources say. If the sources say "NLP uses terminology incorrectly or misleadingly" then WE cannot interpret that as "NLP is a pseudo-science" - because that is NOT what the source says. May I suggest you owe Htom an apology for your incivil response to his quite-valid suggestion. Ratagonia (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ratagonia. I am sorry, but I appreciate the suggestions of Htom. However, they will require reliable sources for inclusion WP:RS. Here is the page on civility WP:CIV. Concerning what sources say; they say that neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific. Incorrect and Misleading have been proposed as alternatives for clarity and resolution. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mesh infobox

I added the mesh info box with the unique id for NLP. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ninja'd

I was in the middle of copyediting when I got ninja'd by the protecting admin. Anyone oppose these changes?

• Current

In "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1," Bandler and Grinder pointed to evidence of the generative capacity of the brain (plasticity). "[The] equipotentiality or plasticity of the human nervous system is another piece of evidence pointing to great human potential so far largely unexplored."[57] Today their view is supported by empirical research. Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst Dr. Norman Doidge, who is on the faculty of the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research in New York, said that, "What you think and imagine can [indeed] change the structure of your brain."[58][59]

Other arguments by Bandler and Grinder have not been supported by subsequent empirical research, however. In the early 1980s, NLP was hailed as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling,[15] and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology. In the mid-1980s, reviews in The Journal of Counseling Psychology[13] and by the National Research Council (1988; NRC) committee[53] found little or no empirical basis for the claims about preferred representational systems (PRS) or assumptions of NLP.

• Revision

In "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1," Bandler and Grinder wrote that the brain's capacity to change and adapt(neuroplasticity) was further evidence of unexplored human potential, "[the] equipotentiality or plasticity of the human nervous system is another piece of evidence pointing to great human potential so far largely unexplored." That the brain possesses the faculties for significant adaptation and change are well supported by modern cognitive sciences. Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst Dr. Norman Doidge, who is on the faculty of the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research in New York, said that, "What you think and imagine can [indeed] change the structure of your brain."

Other arguments by Bandler and Grinder, however, have not been supported by subsequent empirical research. In the early 1980s, NLP was hailed as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling, and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology.

• Changes

1. "pointed to" --> "wrote" per WP:SAY
2. rmv "Today" per WP:RELTIME
3. rmv "generative"(not sure if this is being used correctly)
4. move however to middle of sentence
5. delete extra space before "in the early 1980s"

I believe there are more issues with this paragraph and others, but haven't gotten to those yet.AerobicFox (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello AerobicFox. Thank you for your efforts. Though the main problem with the information is that it is original research WP:OR. It appears Doidge does not mention neuro-linguistic programming. Neuroscience views tend to understand NLP to be pseudoscientific. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

References to plasticity are far from original research. The subject has been exhaustively considered empirically by many of the top people in neuroscience and psychoanalysis, including the work referenced. Additional references and explanation have been provided on discussion/talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.22.187 (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK's comment about a negative perception of NLP existing in the neuro scientific community is not accurate. There is virtually no attention given to NLP in that community. In my opinion, to the extent a perception exists (positive or negative) about the subject matter in the scientific community, it has been created by this Wikipedia article rather than being reflected in it, which is precisely the reason to include well documented facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.22.187 (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP 78... The edits are not appropriate. They are what some of the majority science viewpoints describe as neuro-babble or neuro-myth. The neuroscientist views require explicit, meaningful and significant mention of neuro-linguistic programming. Otherwise it is just editors creating their own research conclusions: WP:NOR. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's simply inaccurate and unsubstantiated. -Encyclotadd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 23:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. It is unclear what you are referring to. If you are writing of the previous address to IP 78...., the neurobabble term in the reference to NLP is actually substantiated (Beyerstein). But the Doige reference does not appear to refer to NLP at all. So it is inappropriate for the article. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK, Let me be more specific. You falsely claim that a negative majority view of NLP exists in neurscience today. You wrote that "Neuroscience views tend to understand NLP to be pseudoscientific" and then provide a quote from Beyerstein. That is simply untruthful and unsubstantiated. The Beyerstein reference is FROM 22 YEARS AGO. Beyerstein is deceased and was well known for expressing skeptical view points. Wikipedia described Beyerstein as a "leading skeptic" about most of the subject matters he covered! To suggest that somehow represents a common view today is terribly misleading. Meanwhile you delete references to leading (ivy league) members of the psychological community today. That's a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Could you provide any quotes that show Doige mentioning neuro-linguistic programming at all? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK, The quote about plasticity is so commonly accepted that they filmed television documentaries about it. Meanwhile your position in this discussion hangs on a quote from 20 years ago by a now deceased "skeptic," who you have suggested represented modern main stream scientific views. You are being very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Encyclotadd. Sorry but if the neuroscience related sources you show have no direct statements about neuro-linguistic programming then they are not relevant to this article. I suggest you look at the neuroscience or plasticity related articles instead. As regards Bandler and Grinder talking about plasticity, that may be relevant here, but it needs to adhere to due weight recommendations WP:DUE Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK, That's like saying a well documented reference to Miami has no place in an article about Florida. It's simply not true. In fact, there is obviously no other way to consider Florida without discussion and referencing places in the state. If you are unaware of the component parts of NLP, I urge you to refer to the sources that I referenced, and others sited in the Wikipedia. The facts are right there in front of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Encyclotadd please (i) read WP:INDENT it would make your comments easier to follow. (ii) Please also read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you are in several sections arguing a case rather than reflecting sources --Snowded ^TALK 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. You seem focused on plasticity issue. If you can find a significant number of sources mentioning NLP that also cover plasticity, it could be relevant to this article. Please read the article on original research WP:NOR. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, a Google search reveals a million search results for Plasticity and NLP. There is no way to discuss NLP without discussing it's components, which includes plasticity. This is clear to anyone who reads about the subject, and is clear in the references provided to you. Your deletion of that reference and to a leading psychoanalyst at Columbia University who wrote a book about Plasticity was vandalism and your only argument for otherwise is that the psychoanalyst referred to something that shows up a million times in search results for NLP and not to NLP itself. That argument is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. I would be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt except that you once again forced the edit AFTER the Wikipedia admin locked the page for several days to prevent you from doing so! Shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Concerning your edits [47]. Pagelocks do not favour or endorse a particular edit or piece of content. Your edit is OR. You need to provide substantial evidence otherwise including citations from specific reliable sources. You also need to gain some consensus on this talk page. Please work towards satisfying the suggestions and policy pages above. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

LKK, You are forcing edits that were previously marked as vandalism that attracted Wikipedia administrator intervention. In doing so, and without regard for progress on this talk page, you both violated the spirit of cooperation and the rules of this community.

Your comment about WP:OR is very misleading. Your claim is similar to saying that an article about Hong Kong by a leading expert on the city cannot be referenced in an article about China. Do a Google search for the terms we are discussing and you will see there are over a million results online (a million!) showing them in context of NLP. I have provided references both to original work by the founders of the subject matter dating back forty years, and to current faculty of ivy league institutions.

You have offered no comment on the facts, which are entirely supported by the references.

You repeatedly try to include references to books with bias expressed in the titles. Many of your inclusions are references to books like the "Skeptics Guide" and the "Skeptics Perspective" Etc. Do enough studying to instead include comments by noted faculty of leading ivy league educational institutions, as the other members of the Wikipedia community have been trying (apparently for years?) to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly adding material based on your own conclusions Encyclotadd, that is WP:OR. The fact that something has" Skeptic" does not imply bias per se, if you do not like the material you have to explain why on the talk page. You should also stop making patronising ramparts to other editors as evidenced by the above comment. Combined with edit warring you appear to be walking yourself down a path which will sooner or later result in you being blocked. I suggest you spend some time reading up policy, then use the talk page rather than editing the article direct. --Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)