Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

RfC request

Closing per WP:NOTAFORUM - please take COI issues to COIN]]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I started a Third Opinion request, have been told that RfC is more appropriate. The question is "Whether or not NLP is a pseudo-science or a psychological method?" htom (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC) The tool doesn't have an option to put this into a group like Medicine or Psychology. :( If someone knows how to do that, it would help. htom (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Pseudoscience. I believe there are references for this somewhere in Neuro-linguistic programming and science and Neuro-linguistic programming#Criticism and controversy. For further explanation I'll refer you to this comment (from this article's failed FAC), which I agree with wholeheartedly. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC) And by the way, categorizing this RFC under Language and Linguistics is not really appropriate; neuro-linguistic programming has nothing to do with linguistics other than the fact that they unfortunately share part of the name. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I was not especially happy with the choices given in the tool; that was closest. Linguistics used to be the study of communication through symbols, and in that old-fashioned sense there is a stronger association than the use of the letter string "linguistic". Can you add it to lists I think more appropriate, medicine or psychology or psychotherapy, please? Thank you. htom (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC) References to pseudo-science are clearly given in the article. --Snowded TALK 08:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Hasn't this been discussed already? What exactly is the question here? Does someone have a problem with the Pseudoscience category? Or any cited and attributed mentions of "pseudoscience" in this article in general? What's the problem? We're not having a debate amongst us whether NLP is this or that, our own opinions are irrelevant. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC) We have a small group of SPAs who would like it removed, or so qualified as to be meaningless. We have been asking them to come up with sources for months but they have failed to do so. There have been various slow edit wars trying to remove referenced material. All the sort of thing you get on articles like this. --Snowded TALK 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Oh deer. I requested semi-protection earlier, just for the IP(s), but no one's reacted yet. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I do not see how something should be labeled a "pseudo-science" when it does not claim to be scientific. Some (I have not looked at all, or even most) of the citations seem to be attributing the failure of new teachings several generations removed from NLP to NLP, rather than to those new teachings. Some of those new teachings do claim to be scientific, and are properly so labeled. NLP did not make that claim, and should not be tarred with the sins of its errant grandchildren. Snowded seems to think I'm a SPA; why, I don't know. I think it's name-calling and wish s/he'd stop. It makes it hard to AGF. htom (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC) (I think they were referring to the other ones, not you.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC) When my objections are swept up as if that's what I am, then it's easy to make that mistake. I mostly think the article here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&action=historysubmit&diff=97563191&oldid=97548346 )(the first pair compared when I asked for 2006) is far, far better, and does a much more balanced discussion of the pseudo-science flavors of some of NLP's descendants. The current article approaches being an anti-NLP screed. htom (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC) You can't argue against sources. You say that NLP does not claim to be scientific. That is your opinion, but it means nothing here (the same goes for my view that it does ). The very very simply point is that a body of reliable sources say it is. Therefore that is reflected properly in the article. No you are not an SPA, but you are about the only NLP advocate here who isn't. --Snowded TALK 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC) When the sources are misused, I can and have. Here, that's ignored. I am trying to be an NPOV advocate, but it appears that's not desired here, if the current article is really considered to be better than the version I linked to just above. htom (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC) If you can provide diffs to your points you say got missed or ignored and they relate to this RFC then we can address them in here. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Just to give an alternative viewpoint. I don't believe in NLP as a personal opinion, but as previously stated personal opinions do not matter. However the label pseudo-science implies judgement made by the author/s of the article. The scientific method does not have an outcome of "pseudo-scientific". Science is the acquisition of knowledge through gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. It maybe both that NLP has been scientifically discredited, and can be criticised for using pseudo-scientific terms - but labelling NLP as pseudoscientific applies a judgement on behalf of the reader that does not need to be made. Suggest the way forward is to remove the judgement statement, and enhancing both the techniques section and measurable evidence/critique (Tiiischiii (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)) I wonder how much of this criticism from linguists is driven by jealousy of Grinder's success and turf wars? Wosow (1985) provided some insight: "Linguistic theorists who leave the ivory tower are eyed with suspicion and treated as tainted. Consider, for example, what is undoubtedly the greatest commercial success to have descended (in one sense, at least) from generative grammar, namely Neurolinguistic Programming. One might think that the fact that Grinder is no longer a poor boy like his former colleagues in academia would have made him a hero to them. Far from it. Obviously, linguists don't know what side their bread is buttered on. Perhaps this is a sign of the integrity of our discipline. However, the fact that we have no more respectable applications to offer in its place raises questions about our status as a science" - Wasow, T. (1985). Comment: The wizards of Ling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3(3), 485-492. Wosow is now a professor of linguistics at Stanford.[1] --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC) It already seems tendentious. Criticisms from Corballis, Drenth, Stollznow and others answer this point and come decades after the Wazow comment. Since 1985 practical application of linguistics and neurolinguistics have multiplied. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) LKK, You missed the point. To date there are still no respectable applications of generative grammar. Ask any linguist, especially a Chomskyan, before answering that question. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I completely agree with 122.108.140.21 and Wasow, Professor of Linguistics at Stanford University, in the view NLP is a psychological and communication model. I'm not going to call anyone out individually, because this decision can be made based on ideas alone. But 122.108 is right to mention turf war. The most active Editor smearing NLP in this article runs a competing seminar business that is conflated with NLP, meaning considered absolutely identical in the marketplace. (Conflated was his own word on his website, and he deleted it from his talk page when it was pointed out there, because it exposed his dishonesty about declaring "no COI.") That Editor is very similar to HeadleyDown, who the administrators banned in 2006 when this page was cleaned up. He advocates for the same references as banned HeadleyDown. He was born near the town of HeadleyDown. His family owned a home in HeadleyDown. He is affiliated with the same University in Hong Kong as Headley Down. Yet amazingly he slipped by all these years without anyone connecting those dots, or those who connected the dots took no action on it. Again, it's not necessary to call anyone out individually because the ideas alone make the argument successfully. One of the best selling books by NLP founders Bandler and Grinder is "Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson." That book was endorsed by Ernest Rossi, one of the leading psychoanalysts in the world. By endorsed, I mean that Rossi edited it. The argument of pseudoscience fails completely when you consider Rossi's credentials: The American Psychotherapy Association (which publishes the peer reviewed journal "The Annals"), describes Rossi this way: "He received the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy from the Erickson Foundation in 1980 and from the American Psychotherapy Association in 2003. He also received the 2004 Thomas P. Wall Award for Excellence in Teaching Clinical Hypnosis. Today he conducts training workshops sponsored by his nonprofit organization, the Ernest Lawrence Rossi Foundation for Psychosocial Genomic Research." Here is the source for that reference: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/American+Psychotherapy+Association%27s+2005+National+Conference.-a0134955718 Obviously Bandler and Grinder's book is academically credible. Rossi was also involved in substantial neuroscientific research. Here is a list of a dozen academic studies and papers on neuroscientific subjects: http://www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Neuroscienceresearchgroup.html One of those studies about the language models described in Bandler & Grinder's book was co-authored by David Atkinson, President of Grant MacEwan University, and former president of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and two Ontario universities, Brock University in St. Catharines and Carleton University in Ottawa. We are talking about academic heavy weights who support Bandler and Grinder. You wouldn't know that from this article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC) That is all entirely irrelevant. An appeal to authority doesn't prove anything about the status of the field, especially one so tenuous as you describe above. (Rossi's name does not even appear on the Google Books entry.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC) And the personal attacks, based on an off wiki website which seems to co-ordinate the SPAs who plague this page, are getting very very tedious. None of those accusations have survived any formal investigation its just a juvenile smear campaign which reflects badly on Encyclotadd and his many predecessors. --Snowded TALK 09:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I would appreciate, Snowded, if you would not insinuate personal attacks against me such as SPA or meat puppet. You have provided no evidence and the attacks are baseless. Also you are distracting from the important ideas by bringing up formal allegations against you that were made by other Editors, and your " surviving " them. That's hardly a credential and has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. If this subject is found to be a psychological model, ideas will be the solitary basis for the decision. Towards that end, note Editor 122.108.140 comments two paragraphs below in which he points out that Google scholar returns 900 "scholarly" articles that cite Bandler and Grinder's 1979 "Frogs into Princes." You wouldn't know so many academics are citing NLP founders work from reading this Wikipedia article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC) You are an SPA Encyclotadd, a simple examination of your edit history shows it; its a factual statement unlike your nonsense about HedleyDown. It is also factually true that you are the latest in a long series of SPA accounts that have taken a pro-NLP stance on these articles over the year and it is also factually true that you are repeating material here from NLP web sites relating to Wikipedia. I haven't at this stage made an accusation of meat puppetry although I am thinking about it. If I do I will make the case at ANI and notify you accordingly. Otherwise your last paragraph is, shall we say surprising unless you are unfamiliar with the way references are made in academic articles. If I wrote a hostile article about NLP I would cite Bandler and Grinder; citation is not the same thing as endorsement. Also as has been pointed out to you time and time and time again, we try and avoid primary sources when we edit Wikipedia. --Snowded TALK 19:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC) That's factually inaccurate. I'm a newbie, and that's very different from an SPA. I've edited more articles on Wikipedia than most people who joined the community just a few months ago. All of my edits have been well referenced. Snowded, I would remind you that you were not called out in the Headley Down comment above. You just jumped right out in front of it like it was a moving train, and then reacted emotionally. Sorry for touching a nerve. I promise not to make any more Headley Down comments that hit so close to "home." Now, let's focus again on the 900 academic papers citing NLP. I will start going through them because rather than talking about academic findings in abstract terms, we would be much better off being specific.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) (sigh) You have just repeated accusations here that you have made directly elsewhere Encyclotadd, Your "I didn't call you out directly" will fool no one. You are simply trying to get around the fact you have been warned twice for making personal attacks. Not aware of any emotion in my response but if that is how you see it c'est la vie. Otherwise your resolution to start going through academic sources is a welcome one I look forward to the results. --Snowded TALK 08:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Pseudoscience Looking through the extensive list of citations, most are media reports, books, and self-published articles. I can find only few papers that appear to be from peer-reviewed journals the field, and I can find abstracts of only two of them online. And they both say the same thing.[2] [3] And unless I'm missing something, in favor of the notion in the above discussion I see a whole lot of appeals to authority a little bit of ad hominem, and really nothing else. --Quintucket (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC) You can have the last word on this so that we can discuss the well referenced facts about this article again. Towards that end, please comment on this statement from a peer reviewed source written just a few months ago (see APA's psychinfo): "The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained." --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC) What search terms did you use? What databases did you search? Psychinfo has a whole category dedicated to "Neurolinguistic programming". You can also use "Bandler+Grinder" as a search term in psychinfo for a broader result. And Google scholar returns 900 "scholarly" articles that cite Bandler and Grinder's 1979 "Frogs into Princes". --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Yes Quintucket. Its not enough that you make such a sweeping statement. You are under the burden here to demonstrate how neuro-linguistic programming (a modeling technique that is explicitly stated to be not a science) can be pseudoscience. I am sure we all eagerly await your attempt. Congru (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) REAL, doesn't always work, is used by cults or cult-like organizations such as NXIVM, is potentially a very dangerous form of mind control. Not unlike hypnosis. Some are more suggestable than others and depends on many factors. Chrisrus (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC) The journal Counseling and Psychotherapy Research found in 2010 that, "Neuro-linguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on par with other well established psycho therapeutic techniques." http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240?journalCode=rcpr20#preview According to the peer-reviewed American Journal of Forensic Psychology, "[NLP has] the capability to enhance the listeners' ability to relate to the subject of the testimony, to maintain their attention, and to increase their interest in the material presented." http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-35734-001 According to the peer-reviewed The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, "One NLP technique to help individuals reflect deeply on situations and relationships, and that has yielded promising results, is called ‘Perceptual Positions’. This approach has been adapted and piloted for use in individual and group workshops to help participants access personal beliefs and values in relation to sustainability." http://ijs.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.41/prod.244 According to Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, which appears in the American Psychological Association's psychinfo, "A basic NLP technique, enhanced by hypnotic language patterns, worked effectively to bring about successful outcomes." http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_record&files=214_rdb.dat&f_count=1 Dissertation Abstracts International writes that, "The study focused on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), the model or tool utilized in gathering and reporting of data. This communication-based interviewing model was selected because its clinical approach offered a replicable model in addition to having sound theoretical principles." http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/Dissert&CISOPTR=6237&CISOBOX=1&REC=9 According to Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, "NLP's major contributions involve understanding new models of human experience." http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_record&files=219_rdb.dat&f_count=1 The journal of Academic Therapy writes that, "Anchoring, a neuro-linguistic programing technique, was successful in helping a sixth grader with learning disabilities reduce his anxiety reaction to math tasks. " http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ331480&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ331480 This was thirty minutes of research-- imagine how many supportive academic documents can be found in a week or a month.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I'm indenting this because I'm adding this information out of chronological order. But I think it's important that this be understood clearly by every new Editor who reads this section. A professor of psychology at New Dehli University expresses the following view: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) as an effective interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy is used quite frequently in corporate, health and education sectors. Practitioners of NLP provide intervention in the fields of relaxation, phobia, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), allergy as well as in peak performance training. While it seems quite fascinating to see a wide range of practitioners in the field, the trend also warrants possible misuse of the concept. The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained. Till date, NLP is applied without a theory. The scientific community seems not serious, when its practitioners claim that "NLP is heavily pragmatic: if a tool works, it's included in the model, even i f there is no theory to back it up….. ", thus, discouraging a scientific inquiry. The title neurolinguistic programming implies a basis in neurology (lacks evidence), computer science, and linguistics, but marketed as a new science or new age form of psychotherapy, judged simply pseudoscientific by the skeptics. These views made scientific research in this field less appealing among researchers. A review on the current trends and practices in NLP is presented here with a direction for future research in the field. Not how he disagree specifically with the Skeptics. This is a reliable source because it appears in the American Psychological Association's database of peer reviewed articles and journals, and this quote is recent (summer 2011).--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Encyclotadd, your use of external references is rather irresponsible. Half of the quotes you just presented you didn't provide references for, so I have nothing to say about them. Of the ones you did provide references for, some are primary research studies (Stipancic 2010, Mayers 2003, Cureen 1995, Thalgott 1986), which do not provide evidence about the scientific community's perception of NLP (which is what this RFC was supposed to be about); they only provide results about a specific sample using a specific methodology, and without looking at other studies (or even looking beyond the abstracts of the studies you cite) you won't be aware of limitations of these primary studies. Some of the papers are far too old to be of any relevance now (Thalgott 1986, Davis & Davis 1983, Davis 1984)--they don't show anything about the current perception of NLP. Appropriate references would be more recent review or meta-analysis articles. Where you did cite those, you did so irresponsibly; at the top of this section you cited the Biswal (2011) paper as if it supports the idea that NLP is a real science, but nowhere in the abstract does the author say that, and in the full text the author specifically refutes that notion (note particularly pp. 50 and on, including the sections "Review of NLP literature research" and "Lack of scientific validity", where he explains that empirical data do not support the claims of NLP and clearly states that there is no justification for calling NLP a 'science'). The Murray et al. (2002) abstract, as well, doesn't say anything about NLP's status is a science, it just apparently says that one NLP technique was useful for something (and note that this article is not a scientific article or in a science journal, it's an applied journal); I wasn't able to access the full text so I can't say more. This brings me to my next point, which is that you appear to only have read (and not even understood) the abstracts of all these studies, but not the actual text, and thus totally missed the point of what these articles are saying, particularly with the Biswal (2011) paper (which you bafflingly call "Pro-NLP Paper"). You also don't seem to understand that articles reflect the views of their authors, not the journals publishing them (and even less so the database in which you found the article), given that you are saying ridiculous things like "Dissertation Abstracts argues that....". Sorry, but the articles you've dug up don't support whatever you seem to be trying to say and they don't address the numerous references already in the article that show NLP is a pseudoscience, and I have no confidence in your ability to responsibly read and use external sources. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Rjanag, It's ironic you claim to have read the sources when it's apparent you didn't read my messages referencing them. I said (twice) those quotes were found in under thirty minutes. It was disclosed twice they were dug up in haste. You also fail in your response to consider the reliability of new sources in context of ones appearing in the article. It's true the ones brought up newly on this talk page are of varying weight-- we're even referencing dissertations. But the vast number of Skeptic Society references (debated extensively elsewhere on this talk page) are generally not peer reviewed at all. The ones that are peer reviewed are strongly opposed in other journals. (Sharpley, for example, appears without qualification in the lede. But several articles in psyhcinfo say he failed to note major problems with the studies he as reviewing.) In order for Wikipedia to claim NPOV in this article, balance and factual accuracy must be restored. I hope you will join me in calling for it.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I fail to see why saying twice that you dug these up in haste (your words) justifies the behaviour. Also you appear to be making claims on your reading of the abstracts alone. None of them are comparative studies, many of them just argue for more research. I really can't see what you are suggesting. None of these challenge the current referenced material (unless you plan some original research), some of them might support edits to the text outside of the criticism section but you have made no proposals. --Snowded TALK 08:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC) What I was saying is that it was obvious from 30 minutes of research that there are peer reviewed perspectives not finding voice in this article. I have every intention of doing more research because this article is in need of balancing. I hope other Editors will join me in the effort.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC) When you do that research I suggest you do more than skim the abstracts for what you think are favourable statements. Reading sources is generally commended to researchers, thinking about them in context a real bonus. You also need to address Rjang's points. --Snowded TALK 10:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) It appears that other editors here (you know who I am referring to) have been skimming articles for less favorable statements to suit their own point of view. There needs to be a balance of different perspectives according to weight. Its not easy but can be done. --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I don't know who. If you're referring to me and the Biswal article--I did not skim that article, I read it, and it's not just a few unfavorable statements here and there. One of the article's main points is that NLP lacks scientific rigor, that is not open to debate, that's simply the fact of what the article is. I'm not going to try to argue over what an article is about with people who haven't even read it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry. I was saying it is real, and therefore not psudoscience. But I was also saying that I'm concerned or alarmed by its potential for use by cult-like organizations or such to mind-control people. I did not speak of it's potential for good. You have established that it seems to have real benefits for great good based on these citations. However, are there no citations that express any alarm or concern for its potential as a mind-control tool for suseptable individuals? Chrisrus (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry I'm late to the party but it doesn't seem to be sufficient that a few published psychotherapists label something as a pseudoscience. In order to be classed as a pseudoscience on WP, it must be "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" WP:FRINGE/PS. Is anyone claiming that and if so, where are your sources? --Mindjuicer (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC) A quick search of the Letters archive at The Psychologist should convince you that most members of the British Psychological Society hold NLP in distain. However, this doesn't satisfy WP:RS. One of the problems with determining that something is "generally considered pseudoscience" is that nobody wants to lend it credibility by dissing it. Famousdog (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC) A quick search showed nothing of what you mentioned. Not only is it not a RS, the BPS is not representative of the scientific community and disdain <> pseudoscience. I suspect that there are NLP practitioners who promote themselves using pseudoscience -- but this does not qualify NLP as a pseudoscience according to WP categorisation. Nor does it justify the perjorative usage of "pseudoscience" in the lead. --Mindjuicer (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC) The lede summarises the article. There are more than enough references in the article to pseudoscience to justify its use in the lede. ----Snowded TALK 22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC) I'd be surprised if a supposedly neutral editor would want such a pejorative word in the lead. Basic WP policy is "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." WP:NPOV. That means that pejorative language must not be used, especially in the lead. --Mindjuicer (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Mindjuicer, we don't make our own rules here. There is no policy against using pejoratives in articles. We do it all the time. If the sources use pejoratives, we use pejoratives. We follow the sources. (Quack and fraud are two that come to mind.) If we added pejoratives when the sources did not do so, that would be wrong, but that's not what's happening here. "Neutral" and "without bias" does not refer to content, but to editorial motivations that are revealed by using words and meanings not found in the sources, IOW OR and SYNTH violations. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I am looking for precedent on pejoratives. I've yet to see anyone but you say it's OK. Your last sentence is not policy. Also, stop stalking me. That goes for Famousdog too. --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Try and avoid making silly remarks on other editors and focus on content issues. Wikipedia policy is clear, we reflect reliable sources we do not balance between pro and anti NLP positions. A significant amount of those sources say it is a pseudoscience so the content, and then the lede reflect that fact. ----Snowded TALK 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) If the cap fits, wear it. I'm looking to see why this article is such a mess and you're putting yourself forwards as the first POV-pushing suspect. The word "pseudoscience" is highly pejorative. What part of "fairly and without bias" do you not understand? --Mindjuicer (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC) For the second time, please focus on content issues not your opinion of other editors. Reliable third party sources say it is a pseudoscience. We reflect those sources fairly and without bias. We are not required to balance between the views of NLP advocates and those they call skeptics. If you think the balance is wrong, then the onus is on you to provide counter sources to those already identified. ----Snowded TALK 02:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC) And how does including highly pejorative language allow other viewpoints backed by reliable sources to be represented fairly? Your assertions contradict core WP policy. --Mindjuicer (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC) it se the language used by the sources so it's what we use. That is Wikipedia core policy. We do balance across all reliable sources so please provide some which say it is not a pseudoscience (and that does not include OR or synthesis and we can look at if the balance is correct or not. Pit. Your energy into that, rather than attacking other editors. ----Snowded TALK 04:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I strongly recommend adopting a policy of WP:SILENCE toward Mindjuicer. What you are witnessing, I both suspect and hope, are the death throes of an editor about to be blocked for outrageous behaviour. Famousdog (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I agree with Mindjuicer. The article is an indictment that's not even remotely encyclopedic. He's right to call out the perpetrators. If the Wikipedia community understood the obfuscation that has taken place, there would be an uproar.--Encyclotadd (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Please stop making implications and accusations without providing evidence and assume good faith, Encyclotadd. Obfuscation? Please. NLP is obfuscation exemplified. Which parts of the article are not "remotely encyclopedic"? Which editors are "perpetrators" of this "obfuscation"? If you have evidence to show to the Wikipedia community, please do so and we'll see if there is any "uproar". Back up your accusations with diffs or don't bother responding - I've had enough evidence-free editorialising and empty words from Mindjuicer in the last week to last me a lifetime. Famousdog (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Famousdog, The model cannot be understood without an explanation of Anchoring. Anchoring appears in every single original text almost without exception. All attempts at adding information about anchoring are met with rule based objections. That is what I mean by obfuscation. The editor who rejects adding information about anchoring has an acknowledged conflicts of interest. This article is hopeless in it's current form--- it's like an article about Pavlov and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy that doesn't explain Classical Conditioning. There's no way to make sense of the model from this article. Hope that clarifies my use of the word "obfuscation" adequately. If you don't believe me, call any hypnosis school or any NLP school in the world, or grab any original text on NLP and read about anchoring for yourself. Totally unexplainable move.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Good point, when I looked at the ANI example and other edits its obvious there is a more generic issue here linked to pseudoscience in general. Encyclotadd is already under a warning for personal attacks and could end up in a similar place. ----Snowded TALK 13:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC) The phrase "please focus on content issues not your opinion of other editors" springs to mind. "NLP is obfuscation exemplified" is noted as evidence of CoI. --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC) On what planet is that evidence of a conflict-of-interest??? Famousdog (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC) If a COI is alleged, take it to WP:COIN. In the meantime, this thread has descended into general discussion and is closed per WP:NOTAFORUM. ISTB351 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC) References		[[{{{link}}}|{{{tab}}}]]

istb351, would it be fair to rollback the article?

Closing per WP:NOTAFORUM. ISTB351 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello istb351, can I please ask? Would it be more appropriate to revert the article to a time before this dispute? There are a couple of editors who are in contention as to their identity on wikipedia. As the evidence mounts against these editors I find it hard to give them the reward of editorial priviledges of displaying a version of NLP that is similar in content to headlydowns version so many years ago. Headlydown has lost his right to edit wikipedia as you know and should not be rewarded in any reincarnation or suspected reincarnation. This would only give him every encouragement to continue as thinking he will have some success at doing it. Also I would like to add that any of Headly's edits should be recorded to identify recurring themes research writing style etc if you are not already doing this so that a reincarnation is easy to identify. I have I think rememberred my correct user name. If you could direct me on how to find it then I will. Juzzyfet was an old nick and one that I had used years ago on other sites, however I think this one will be correct and identify me from that time. I will not display it here as it has personal identifying information. instead I will ask FT2 to verify it. regards. Enemesis (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC) The only grounds for reverting the article to an earlier version would be if that earlier version better reflected the sources. As you have failed to indicate (a) an earlier version that the article should be restored to, or (b) why that version better reflects the sources than the current version, there are no grounds for reversion at the present time. If you believe that specific content does not reflect the sources, then post it here. These general requests will do you no good at all. As for the HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) issue, unless you are prepared to submit an ANI/SPI report on the matter, I would advise that you strikeout your comments above. It is simply not acceptable, given WP:AGF & WP:NPA to make insinuations or accusations of sockpuppetry without supporting material, especially when these accusations have been made by socks and SPAs before and have been thus far found to be groundless. In any case, given the spam recently posted at my talk page, I was under the impression that you believed that I was a sock or meat puppet of Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As for your previous identity, it seems appropriate to wait until the administrator that you have contacted has made their views known. This thread is liable to be closed if you continue to fail to abide by WP:NOTAFORUM and the aforementioned policies. ISTB351 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) in regards to a) The predominant sources are anti NLP making a biased article I have recently come in if you could direct me then I could find previous edits as examples. In regards to b)I believe from the posts I have left before that it is quite clear that this article expresses the problems with NLP and does not have enough historical value to repressent the subject resepctively. I will not comment on headleydown for now, I will take your advice and upon me being a witness at that time I would hope that it would hold some weight. Enemesis (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC) .

Lawsuit Paragraph

ISTB351, Regarding your recent revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=476983224&oldid=474420508

I agree the existing sources are not adequate. Perhaps the solution is adding references rather than removing the copy.

My reason for my feeling this way is based on the following:

The Independent, mentions the lawsuit. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/healthy-living/messing-with-your-head-does-the-man-behind-neurolinguistic-programming-want-to-change-your-life-ndash-or-control-your-mind-1774383.html?action=Popup

A university professor writes about the lawsuit here. http://www.neurosemantics.com/nlp/the-history-of-nlp/the-lawsuit-that-almost-killed-nlp

The Skeptic Dictionary even covers it. http://www.skepdic.com/neurolin.html

None of these are perfect sources. But they're an indication that the perfect sources are out there-- for example the court documents themselves.--Encyclotadd (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection at all to the inclusion of the material, and even if I did it wouldn't matter. What counts is whether there are third party reliable verifiable sources that indicate its notability. Given the sensitivity of legal matters in relation to BLP issues, we have to be even more vigilant than usual. The Independent article above mentions the lawsuit in passing, the The International Society Neuro-Semantics is not a reliable source on this matter, and the Skeptic Dictionary reference is unclear and hardly appears reliable under the circumstances. If reliable sources are found, the material can go back in, but under the circumstances as you accept "[n]one of these are perfect sources". Court documents would be primary sources and so would not be "perfect sources" as you imply. ISTB351 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm persuaded by that argument and particularly your assessment of the Skeptic Dictionary as unreliable here. I would just add that, if it fails the standard of reliability here, then you may want to consider whether the Skeptic's Dictionary fails the standard of reliability of "Scientific Criticism," which it's held out as in the NLP article itself. But good luck removing it. --Encyclotadd (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a third party source (it was a review of Lisa Wake's book) that sums up the lawsuit and malaise quite well in one paragraph, "Unfortunately Bandler and Grinder fell out and there was a lawsuit that was eventually resolved in 2001 with both agreeing to be recognized as co-founders of NLP. This dispute resulted in the establishment of a number of bodies to represent NLP and, in addition, various approaches have been developed and numerous strategies have been incorporated within NLP. The result of all of this trauma and change has been that NLP has grown in many directions without a clear and universally recognized unifying content. The end result has been a “discipline” which has no clear agreed definition of purpose and some external commentators question its credibility and evidence of success."(Wilson 2011 p.1) If you want to use it, the citation is: John P. Wilson, (2011) "NLP: Principles in Practice", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 43 Iss: 2. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

reliable sources and basic structure for article revision

I'm working on a revision based on current reliable sources, see User:122.x.x.x/NLP_reliable_sources. I'm starting with just a bare bones structure. If anyone else is keen to help let me know. I will be starting with a search of the literature for "Bandler+Grinder" OR "NLP" OR "Neuro-linguistic programming" OR "Neurolinguistic programming". I will use google scholar, psychinfo, pubmed and proquest. Any suggestions? --122.x.x.x (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you focus on improving individual sections rather than attempting a whole scale rewrite from scratch. Those on current practice etc. are weak and provided you can avoid promotion could easily be improved. Attempting to rewrite the whole thing to remove criticism, per your edit waring over four persona is unlikely to gain consensus. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

When you said "current practice etc" - are you referring to the service that NLP practitioners provide in terms of consulting coaching, and/or psychotherapy, or as a practical communications model? Or both? What other areas do you think are lacking in the current article? I just want to add the Emerald database which has a business focus to the list of databases I mentioned above. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Side note: I'm still working on the outline here: User:122.x.x.x/NLP_reliable_sources. I'd really appreciate your help with creating headings to cover the main topics as per the reliable sources. --122.x.x.x (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

consultancy method in business

The use as a consultancy method in business, although we need proper references. That has always been weak, less sure that there are any other major gaps ----Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunaetly, there are not many proper references if you mean high quality peer-reviewed papers and there is no formal NLP-oriented "consultancy method in business". There are some books from academic press like FT Prentice Hall. I'll let you comment on "Open University Press" as a publisher. Those books give hints to how NLP is used as a consultancy method.

Most of the papers related to NLP indexed by business databases like Emerald are not very good quality. There are a number of business oriented papers (e.g. Yemm, 2006; Dowlen, 1996) that summarize its methods emphasizing outcome-oriented thinking with sensory acuity, flexibility in behavior and communication, rapport, and state management. There are also a low quality case studies and other mainly promotional pieces.

• Graham Yemm, (2006) "Can NLP help or harm your business?", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 38 Iss: 1, pp.12 - 17
• Ashley Dowlen, (1996) "NLP - help or hype? Investigating the uses of neuro-linguistic programming in management learning", Career Development International, Vol. 1 Iss: 1, pp.27 - 34 doi:10.1108/13620439610111408

I think Tosey and Mathison (2010) are close to the mark when they say that, "[NLP] is used in organizational contexts as a method of executive coaching (Linder-Pelz and Hall, 2007; Hayes, 2006); and its techniques and frameworks have a wide variety of applications in business (Knight, 2002) and management development (Molden, 2001)." doi:10.1108/17465641011042035

• Molden, D. (2001), NLP Business Masterclass, FT Prentice Hall, London.
• Knight, S. (2002), NLP at Work: The Difference that Makes a Difference in Business, Nicholas Brealey, London.
• Hayes, P. (2006), NLP Coaching, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
• Linder-Pelz, S., Hall, L.M. (2007), "The theoretical roots of NLP-based coaching", The Coaching Psychologist, 3, 1, pp.12-17.

--122.x.x.x (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few more case studies and viewpoint articles related to the method used in business consulting:

• Case study: Ian Lavan, (2002) "NLP in business – or more than a trip to the zoo", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 34 Iss: 5, pp.182 - 187
• Case study: Lisa Wake, (2011) "Applying NLP tools and techniques in an FMCG environment", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 43 Iss: 2, pp.121 - 125doi:10.1108/00197851111108953
• Viewpoint: Lisa Wake, (2011) "Neurolinguistic programming: does it have a role in supporting learning or OD interventions?", Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 25 Iss: 1, pp.19 - 21
• Case study: Lindsey Agness, (2011) "Changing the rules of the game", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 10 Iss: 5, pp.11 - 16
• Sara Nolan (2011) says that "In “Changing the rules of the game”, Lindsey Agness proposes that successful change can be achieved by identifying and changing the unconscious rules within an organization’s culture...She draws on NLP to identify ways of breaking down those rules so that they become identifiable and therefore manageable and pliable, helping culture shifts to be achieved in a short space of time. For example, the NLP concept of pattern breaks – abrupt interruptions that break a habit or state – can be applied in business as a way of shaking up the status quo..." - Sara Nolan, (2011) "Change management", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 10 Iss: 5, pp. -

--122.x.x.x (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you are providing these lists - they exist outside of any context. The journals are OK in the main, but it depends what you are using them to support. Please (and you have been asked this many many times before) proposed specific amendments with sources then other editors can engage. If you want to have a general discussion area use a sandbox. I would add that some of the quotes here appear to be specific cases, you really need a third party review to make a general statement about use without falling foul of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH ----Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You just stated that the coverage on the use of NLP as a consulting method was lacking and that we need proper sources. WP:OR states:"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." And WP:SYNTH states that: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Please elaborate on this statement: "you really need a third party review to make a general statement about use". --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been editing on wikipedia for many years, you know the principles and you have stated them. What you need to do is to make a sourced proposal for comment while avoiding synthesis. The means that an article which reviews the cases is going to be better than trying to string something together from cases. The time I have for this article is going on preparing the meat puppetry/disruptive editing case for ANI as we need a long term fix. Once that is out of the way I'll happily take on looking at some content issues. Otherwise I am happy to comment if another editor makes proposals for changes, but I am not going to waste any more time on general discussions. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, you ducked the question. When you said, "You really need a third party review to make a general statement about use," what do you mean by "third party review?" Third party review of what exactly? Is that a requirement for statements about use in all articles? It seems like a completely unrealistic request to be making of another Editor and obfuscating as a result.--Encyclotadd (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've spend far too much time trying to explain wikipedia process to you, despite the various insults and accusations. You have now been around here long enough that you can look it up in WP:RS for yourself . About 90% of your talk page edits are either accusations or statements of your opinion. I suggest a brief sabbatical on the five pillars before you sound off again. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Snowded was referring to statements that directly state or imply academic consensus. I think Snowded is trying to warn against "original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material" which is related to academic consensusWP:RS/AC. So we should use third party reviews to make general statements about academic consensus. But the key to reliable sources is: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."[Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources] So there is no reason why we cannot use the abovementioned case studies and viewpoint articles related to NLP in business (as indexed by Emerald) if they have undergone reliable publication process by Industrial and Commercial Training, Development and Learning in Organizations, or Strategic HR Review. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The claims made for use in business are so weak I'm not sure it's even needed to include sources. Aside from that, I concur with 122. --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Case studies are low quality evidence for efficacy but they can be used as examples of use in business. If the case studies are reviewed or cited by others that gives them more weight. But it is not that simple. I'll quote the policy again, 'The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work' ...for example, FT Prentice Hall or Open University Press, Industrial and Commercial Training, Development and Learning in Organizations, or Strategic HR Review ...'All three can affect reliability.' We need to make judgements about the relative reliability of different sources. It appears Snowded is trying to apply this rule about medical claims to NLP: "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals". Snowded is arguing something like "Ideal sources for assertions about use of NLP in business include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable business journals". Is that correct an accurate reflection of your position snowded? --122.x.x.x (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

An example of original research was an earlier attempt to include material from that guy who ran an education business. The danger with gathering cases, no matter what the journals, is what conclusions you draw from those and what statements are made - indeed why a particular example is selected in the first place. WP:RS is pretty clear on this and your formulation is not one I would disagree with. However until we have proposed content linked to sources it is difficult to make any judgement. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We could start with a summary of the sources on NLP in use published in Industrial and Commercial Training, see a profile of the journal here: [4]. We need to be very careful to stick to the sources and adhere to the policies highlighted by Snowded, especially WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. No conclusions should be made or implied unless they are directly supported by the sources. We could propose the summary here and then incorporate it into the article under a section titled "organization development and employee education and training"[5] or something more relevant. We would give more more weight to any review papers in that journal (e.g. Yemm 2006) and less weight to individual case studies or promotional pieces. The editorial board should not be allowing the later. If we find additional papers and criticism it can be incorporated later. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As it reads I think you are in danger of failing both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, selection is a form of evaluation. As I said before you really need something which takes a wider view. But I'll wait to see what you propose. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to bang on about this, but Wikipedia is not a forum. You need to propose specific edits here, rather than this general approach. There is nothing wrong per se with the work that you have done on gathering sources, but it is not really aiding the article at the present time. Can I suggest that you do the following: either (a) make changes to the article, and a BRD cycle can begin, or (b) propose specific changes here first. Unless you conform to this approach, the article cannot be improved. Certainly, this long and discursive thread has as yet resulted in no improvement and has merely taken up a lot of editors' time and patience. I am minded to close it, if what has thus far gone on continues much longer. ISTB351 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from you there is a WP:CONSENSUS on taking a general approach. Whilst making a big edit might get there faster, it's more likely to lead to frustration, a weaker section and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

A general, consensus approach can build trust as it highlights the more general aims of each editor -- and it divides up the work better. --Mindjuicer (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Too much time has been spent on this talk page in these highly general discussions, especially with 122 in both this and his previous identities. This is not a forum. Consensus based approaches are linked to proposals for actual changes. I agree with ISTB, there has been more than enough abstract discussion. When 122 is ready to make a source based proposal, then it should come back here. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll paraphrase those sources I mentioned earlier in my own words and make a change based on that. Then the discussion will be more concrete. I won't have time until next week to do it properly. Sorry, I'm going to have to put this off for another couple of weeks until I get some more time. I am getting more familiar with current research in management training and development. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolving six years of controversy quickly and easily

I believe the reason this article has been the center of controversy for the past six years is that it's inaccurate.

The article's flaws are obvious to anyone who has studied this model in any depth. Don't believe me? Do five minutes of independent research... contact any hypnosis or NLP school in the world.

Why is this the case? Traditional Wikipedia rules have failed us.

Virtually everyone who has attended a lecture on NLP has received a "license." I submit that one can only learn communication techniques by hearing words and tonality while watching body language, in addition to reading books. When a source is "licensed," it means he took the time to attend a lecture and figure out what NLP is actually about.

Yet "licensed" sources have been regularly rejected on the grounds they have a conflict of interest.

It's time for us to view licensed sources for what they are-- significantly more knowledgeable than unlicensed sources about NLP. --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:RS and WP:COI, and come to think of it WP:SOAP, oh but they are "traditional wikipedia rules", pity really, this is the Wikipedia. If you want to change policy then propose it on the policy pages, please don't waste people's time here. The talk page is to discuss changes to the article, in accordance with policy. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, this problem cannot be solved unless we agree on a general structure or all players from one side of the fence leave the article to the others to decide holistically what should be written. I think some common sense beyond what the current policies are should prevail. There is a voting system yes? Could we propose a structure and vote on it. Enemesis (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, which portions of this article are "inaccurate"? Please tag them and provide proof of their inaccuracy. The article's "flaws" are not obvious. Please tag them and provide proof of any flaws. Don't just say "do five minutes of independent research..." and leave all the work to other editors. Do it yourself then provide proof of the independence of your research. You say Wikipedia's traditional rules have "failed us". They haven't failed me recently. They have been a great help in getting disruptive, non-collaborative and unhelpful editors banned from editing certain topics. If "virtually everyone who has attended a lecture on NLP has received a license" I think you would be on firmer ground arguing that there is something wrong with NLP not Wikipedia. Within WP:COI guidelines, there is nothing to restrict licensed practitioners from editing this article, as long as they conform to rules regarding verifiability of statements, reliability of sources and do not promote the subject or indulge their own opinions. I would welcome some input from experienced NLPers, but if you can't back up your edits, back off.

Enemesis, Wikipedia is not a democracy. One editor can easily overturn the edits of several others providing they can back up their edits with reliable sources. Famousdog (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, well that could go on forever or until some one gives up. Perhaps wikipedia should consider that not everyone has that kind of time up their sleeves Enemesis (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" doesn't "consider" anything - it is an encyclopedia, and if you can't be bothered to spend a little time finding reliable sources for any material you want to change/add, then I can't help you. Famousdog (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Snowded has an industry affiliation that a Wikipedia administrator recently described as a conflict of interest, though he has not been banned from the article on the basis that his edits have been within guidelines. However, I believe his response above reflected that conflcit and was not particularly cooperative or helpful. Snowded, we can cooperate and you can defend your point of view-- what I'm suggesting change is factual accuracy not perspective. Everyone can agree on supporting accuracy.

Famousdog, There are two important areas of inaccuracy, and they defy tagging in the article because they are more complicated than changing a single sentence or even paragraph, and they're important to understanding this model. The first is "anchoring." For the sake of simplicity, you can just think of anchoring as being the same thing as classical conditioning. It's not the same thing. But it's clsoe enough that for the sake of this conversation you can think of them that way. (You can do a Google search for "Pavlov" and "classical conditioning" to easily understand what I'm saying.) Anchoring develops the ideas of classical conditioning further in a variety of important ways. It's taught at every reputable hypnosis and NLP school in the world as a 101 subject.

There is no way to understand the NLP model without a substantial amount of information about anchoring. It's presently a glaring omission in this article to anyone who has received any training in hypnosis or NLP. But there is no way to defend this perspective using so called "reliable sources" because not enough work has been done yet within a peer reviewed context, so the subject doesn't appear. But it's all over the hypnosis and NLP texts and in every school.

A big second issue with the article is that it suggests NLP is said to magically change things. The word "magic" appears in a lot of NLP literature, and the suggestion that things can magically change can influence someone powerfully, so is useful in NLP. But anyone who has read the literature understands, NLP is a model. The founders of the subject say over and over again that "the map is not the territory," meaning the model is not a human brain. NLP is always put forward as just a model. The word magical is used as a language pattern. This is very much confused in the article. Bandler is quoted as saying the common cold can be cured with words. A great deal of additional context should be given to that statement for the article to be understood to be accurate.

The way to solve this is to rely on sources that are licensed and highly trained in NLP because they are the ones who understand how to factually express the article.

Again, this is not about point of view. We can leave point of view in the article to so called psychological experts. But in expressing the model factually and accurately, we need to rely on the people writing about and teaching the subject matter sometimes professionally. It's the only way Wikipedia is going to get this right.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is just an implicit attack on WP:RS. If you want to change WP policy, then take it up at the appropriate policy article. You cannot do so here. As for your claim that "Snowded has an industry affiliation that a Wikipedia administrator recently described as a conflict of interest", please provide some evidence. ISTB351 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Enemesis launched some even more nonsensical accusations on my talk page so its obvious that WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are policies s/he wants to abandon along with WP:RS. I think Encyclotadd is referencing a diff I gave him when I was adjudged not be a sock puppet (another accusation made) and not to have a COI, but not to worry he is following in a path, with identical accusations, to that trodden by several other SPAs in the past along with Enemesis ----Snowded ^TALK 08:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Encyclotadd and Enemesis need to provide some evidence for their assertions or changes that they want to make and stop treating Wikipedia as a forum. This will go nowhere until they either a) provide reliable sources or b) succeed in changing (several) WP policy/ies. Ranting here will not move things forward and, if pursued, will simply lead to a topic ban for them both. From this point onwards I will be observing WP:SILENCE until they suggest some concrete, constructive changes to the article. Famousdog (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
it will go nowhere anyway, until all of one side leaves we are at a a stale mate. You can talk wiki stuff all you like but those are the facts. IT was the way it was when headly was here. we were lucky he screwed up so obviously. If you would like to discuss changes we cannot agree until we know a common format, then we have a guide, other wise we have hot air breezing this way and that. You all know this is true and we are just playing the game until it comes to it. Snowdd maybe those accusations are true and thats why you get accused so many times... Famousdog the evidnce is over 5 years old and there does not seem to be a database that has those resources anymore, I think it's foolish given headlydown was such a violator in the domain of wikipedia to discard it. I can nonly rely on people who were there at the time now, and they have not been on for a hile. I will wait until they log in and respond ...Enemesis (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Famousdog, my proof is that every single hypnosis and NLP school in the world agrees that anchoring is a central concept. Like I said before, peer reviewed journals have virtually nothing on anchoring, and the term anchoring has meanings that exist outside the framework of NLP, so even identifying the term in peer reviewed journals is not enough. But the importance of anchoring to NLP is undeniable. Some editors would have you believe that rules on original research must be observed here, and that calling a school and asking a teacher about it is a violation. But that rule is getting in the way of TRUTH. We have a choice between a dishonest article that follows the rules, and an honest one that doesn't. I vote for honesty. And I think the five pillars supports this perspective.--Encyclotadd (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been much posting about this topic in the past month. Who else would support our changing the rules if I make that argument in the appropriate area as suggested by others on this talk page?

I would not. I am all in favor of changing rules that are not working for a living community. However, I do not believe this is the case here and your arguments to the contrary are not very convincing. First and foremost, you are supporting (I believe; your own language on the subject is a bit confusing) accreditation as a sole standard, which I cannot in good conscience agree with. You've said yourself how easy it is to get "licensed". Wikipedia already has some guidelines for determining whether a source is reliable that are much more useful than your overly simplified ones. Second, if you are changing a general rule for the benefit of a single article - in other words, if your rule change mentions NLP licensing, even as an example - then I again cannot agree in good conscience. It is obvious in this instance that the rule is premature and the impact on Wikipedia itself has not been considered. Of course, I may reconsider my position if you had a more formal proposal (preferably linked; I fear I'm only adding to the problems with this talk page drifting well away from the content itself by posting this) that I could read that gave both evidence that you understand, an explanation I can easily understand regarding, and careful consideration to the problems specifically with, wikipedia's standards of reliability.

What I WOULD support would be you writing an independent, well researched article on the two concepts you've mentioned, and then linking them in. You seem to be very passionate about this topic and I have some confidence in your ability to be rigorous and diligent in your research. Providing links of the quality you've elsewhere specified on this talk page (e.g. court documents) would be a real treat. From a purely aesthetic point of view, this would also result in an article that is easy to learn from. I'm primarily an engineering student and use this encyclopedia as a starting point in my investigation of several difficult topics, and the articles that work best for me are the ones that keep the supporting information needed to understand the presented topics close at hand, but absent from the article itself. When things are neatly compartmentalized like that, I can read the supporting information one time for context, and then refer to the "general" (general, only relative to my own understanding; someone else may consider a well written related topic the general article and link to the one I'm reading for context of course) article directly from then on as a reference. If you had such an article written about, at the very least, "anchoring", then I would enjoy reading it.

"The I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant." Martin Luther King, Jr.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Broken sentence

The technique section says

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).

There are several problems with this sentence, not all of them being grammatical. AxelBoldt (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD of Anchoring (NLP)

There are many extremely weak articles on WP that are part of the "NLP project". They should, in my opinion, be deleted for a variety of reasons, starting with this one. Famousdog (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You might as well reach into the chest of NLP and pull out its still beating heart. Anchoring appears in virtually every single book by the NLP founders.

Improvements to that article would be appreciated, however. You may want to read the original work Frogs Into Princes to understand the concept before researching third party reliable sources.--Encyclotadd (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As much as I wish I could "reach into the chest of NLP and pull out its still beating heart", I'll just have to make do with a few AFDs of deeply substandard articles. By all means have a go at improving the article. Lord knows, interested parties have had long enough to do so. Famousdog (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You tempt me to believe that you don't AGF about NLP. htom (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies to other editors (like me, for example), not to the topics of articles. Famousdog (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, Vol 10(1), Mar 2010, 39-49

This is from a peer reviewed American Psychological Association journal, and is available in the psychinfo database.

Effects of neuro-linguistic psychotherapy on psychological difficulties and perceived quality of life.

"Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy on psychological difficulties and perceived quality of life of clients who came for psychotherapy during free practice. Method: A total of 106 psychotherapy clients were randomly assigned to a therapy group or a control group. The outcome was assessed by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (SCID II) with respect to clinical symptoms and by the Croatian Scale of Quality of Life (KVZ) with respect to Quality of Life. The therapy group received the measures at pre-, post- and five-months follow-up occasions, whereas the control group received them initially and after a period of three months. Results: In the therapy group, as compared to the control group, there was a significant decrease of clinical symptoms and increase in the quality of life. With respect to clinical symptoms, effect sizes were 0.65 at post-measurement and 1.09 at follow-up, indicating a substantial reduction of symptom strain, which is comparable to the well established effects of Cognitive Behavior Therapy. We also found a significant increase in perceived quality of life after therapy, as compared to the wait-list control group, with effect sizes between 0.51 and 0.73. Therapeutic improvements were still present five months after the end of therapy, showing further development in the same direction. Conclusions: Neurolinguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)"

I recommend we remove the claim that NLP has been discredited from the introduction in deference to reliable sources suggesting it's highly effective.

Also this type of current research means that either the American Psychological Association is engaging in pseudo scientific research, or Wikipedia's classification of NLP as pseudoscience is wrong. Who else thinks it's the latter? --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We've been through this before. You've got a single paper there that references two approaches based on reported results. You really need those incorporated into an overall review of the field before you can start making amendments. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted four references. How many more are needed? Then you failed to respond even to this one.

You resort to vague notions such of "overall review of the field" because you cannot comment on specifics. You are aware that the specifics are highly contrary to your agenda.

What's also interesting is that you have patented an approach (US 8,031,201) to eliciting information using vagueness. In doing so you relied upon the very same ideas that have been discussed in NLP for 40 years regarding how vague versus specific communication impacts. You recommend ideas in one context and that you are subverting in another.

Snowded, this isn't just about your personal academic integrity. These ideas can help a lot of people.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH, you are drawing conclusions from source material. You need to find a source that uses that material to come to a conclusion you cannot come to that conclusion yourself. This has been pointed out to you many times - last time in respect of the anchoring edits you have added back in despite the fact they were previously rejected. You have also been warned about personal attacks and edit warring before. Please use the talk page to discuss changes and focus on content issues, do not comment on other editors (especially when you get it badly wrong) ----Snowded ^TALK 22:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The intention of WP:SYNTH is to avoid expressing conclusions that represent a synthesis of multiple sources. That rule is absolutely NOT about replacing an unreliable source with three references to American Psychological Association peer reviewed journals.

Also you have still neglected to speak specifically about the source provided above. According to an American Psychological Association peer reviewed journal two short years ago, "Neurolinguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques." That represents some of the most current research on the subject.

Snowded, Does a major discrepancy exists between your attitudes towards these ideas off Wiki and what you have been expressing herein? For example, according to Wikipedia, "The [neuro-linguistic programming] Milton Model lists the key parts of speech and key patterns that are useful in directing another person's line of thinking by being 'artfully vague'." Your patent US 8,031,201 is principally concerned with "deliberate ambiguation," or being artfully vague. You subvert an approach to vagueness in this Wikipedia NLP article that you take credit for and support in another context.

How many dots have to be connected for NLP to finally receive an honest expression on this website?--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You need a third party reliable source that links your "dots", thats the way Wikipedia works. Please address content issues ----Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL, that's exactly what we're discussing... a third party reliable source that said: Conclusions: Neurolinguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)" You have yet to comment on it specifically.--Encyclotadd (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

not sure why your failure to understand policy causes you to laugh but never mind. The article compares NLP with cognitive behaviour therapy based on self reported outcomes. Fine, you may want to make a case that it is a notable point to place somewhere in the description of NLP. However to use it to modify the criticism section or the current wording on pseudoscience you need to find a source that reviews that material and others and comes to a conclusion that NLP is not a pseudo-science. If you can find that they we can balance the existing statements. Again, the need for THIRD PARTY sources has been explained to you before ----Snowded ^TALK 18:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thought you guys would like that metaphor. :)

Snowded, once again you are speaking in generalities. The APA peer reviewed study (more recent than any appearing in the article, I believe) states that, "Neurolinguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques." Please be specific this time about how best to reflect this view in the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Except it's not an "APA peer reviewed study". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. The study itself wasn't peer reviewed. Rather, the study concluding that "Neurolinguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques" appears in one of the most highly regarded American Psychological peer reviewed journal. (Some of you may be aware from searching the pscyhinfo database that the APA has several categorizations of journals, and will be pleased to learn that this appears in the strongest category. Obviously the APA takes the subject and conclusion seriously.) Now the Wikipedia article would be improved to reflect this finding and others like it. The question is specifically how. Snowded?--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

See comments on original research and synthesis. You also really don't understand the way peer review takes place; you cannot use that paper to make a statement about the APA's position. For the article itself, its a comparison with an another controversial technique, and based on self-reported results. Any paper or book which included it in an overall assessment of NLP would probably qualify the conclusion accordingly. Whatever, to use this to counter the criticism you need a comparative study, not your interpretation of a single paper. You might want to make a proposal to reference the paper elsewhere in the article but I can't see any particular value.----Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, repeating the same incorrect statements...

"This is from a peer reviewed American Psychological Association journal, and is available in the psychinfo database. ...snip... Also this type of current research means that either the American Psychological Association is engaging in pseudo scientific research, or Wikipedia's classification of NLP as pseudoscience is wrong. Who else thinks it's the latter?"

—17:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"According to an American Psychological Association peer reviewed journal two short years ago, "Neurolinguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques." That represents some of the most current research on the subject."

—00:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"... a third party reliable source that said: Conclusions: Neurolinguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)"

—13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"The APA peer reviewed study (more recent than any appearing in the article, I believe) states that, "Neurolinguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques."

—03:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Rather, the study concluding that "Neurolinguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on a par with other, well-established psychotherapeutic techniques" appears in one of the most highly regarded American Psychological peer reviewed journal. ...snip... Obviously the APA takes the subject and conclusion seriously."

—18:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

...will not make them correct.

The full citation for the study in question:

• Stipancica, Melita; Renner, Walter; Schütz, Peter; Dond, Renata (2010). "Effects of Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy on psychological difficulties and perceived quality of life". Counselling and Psychotherapy Research. 10 (1). United Kingdom: British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy: 39–49. doi:10.1080/14733140903225240. ISSN 1473-3145.

As you might notice...

1. The study is not published in an American Psychological Association peer reviewed journal.
2. The study is published in the peer reviewed journal Counselling and Psychotherapy Research by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.
3. The study is indexed in the American Psychological Association's PsycINFO database.
4. That study is indexed in PsycINFO does not infer that "Obviously the APA takes the subject and conclusion seriously." in any way, shape or form.

That being said, the study is a primary source...

Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. —WP:PRIMARY

A conclusion that is reinforced by the associations of the study's authors...

• Melita Stipancica, Renata Donda : Croatian-Austrian Training Center for NLPt, Rusanova 10, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
• Walter Rennerb : UMIT-Private University of Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Department of Psychology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
• Peter Schützc : Oesterreichisches Training Zentrum fuer NLP&NLPt, Widerhofergasse 4, A-1090, Vienna, Austria.

Using this study as justification to "...remove the claim that NLP has been discredited from the introduction in deference to reliable sources suggesting it's highly effective." would be an example of according the source undue weight and is not supportable. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add another .02. Even if the study were peer reviewed and published, it does not justify changing the article's comments very much. In essence, there are many studies demonstrating that many NLP claims are wholly unsupported or false. This one study, would be a single study that provides support for only one of NLPs many many claims. Many studies against and one (non-peer reviewed) study "for" raise another statistical issue. The entire meaning of statistical significance is that the probably of something happening by chance when there is no actual relationship is only likely to occur with a low probability <.05. This means that by definition, when there is no relationship, 5 times out of a 100, one will "find" a relationship when it doesn't even exist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD, four, no twelve NLP associated pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anchoring_%28NLP%29

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchoring (NLP)

Surprised no one else has commented. htom (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. Famousdog (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A few more have been added, bringing the total to twelve. Is this the correct process? htom (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunno, really. This is the first time I've suggested purging so many poorly sourced articles at once. No-one seems to have raised an objection on the grounds of procedure yet. Famousdog (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable approach to me; we don't have any other better process for multiple-article deletion discussions. I've done similar things with this &c. What's the alternative? bobrayner (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the NLP template to remove the redlinks and now-dead lists. 3 subtopic articles now remain: Neuro-linguistic programming and science, Methods of neuro-linguistic programming, Representational systems (NLP). Was that intentional or should we AfD them as well? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't include them in the AFD because they have a lot more sources than the deleted ones and I thought there might be some useful stuff that could be salvaged and merged with this article. I also think the "lists" need looking at. Famous_dog 08:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

They can be merged and redirected by talk page discussion (merge templates) rather than AfD if their titles are useful for search; if that happens then the list(s) should be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Already deleted two of the "lists" as they were pretty meaningless and context-less anyway... Famous_dog 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

mistake in nlp

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-18812072 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.223.249 (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Writing the history section

Hi. Was surprised to find huge gaps in the history of NLP in this article. I'm sure that various editors have considered doing it, but I probably see a few conflicting impulses:

• If the only allowable history of NLP comes from its critics, we might not be able to describe in ordinary terms who is "important", and how the NLP community has actually evolved.
• If the only allowable history of NLP comes from its critics, we largely duplicate the "criticism" section.
• If we add a variety of "developments" by NLP practitioners and theorists, we risk promoting those developments, or making them sound verifiably true.

The status quo has been "well, let's not add anything at all". As much as I think this is the safest and most NPOV approach, it goes against our fundamental WP:GA and WP:FA goals of being comprehensive and complete. I expanded the history section with developments since the 1980s. Does anyone have any concerns either way, that the section is either too harsh on NLP, or too supportive? Rather than deleting or removing big hunks of the section, let's try as much as possible to rephrase or re-verify the material. I'll try to check in again when I can, hopefully within the next week or two. Vcessayist (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think removing one paragraph that largely replicated an earlier one is "removing big chunks". Overall I think your changes improve it. However there is an over reliance on internal NLP sources which makes its problematic, especially given some of the internal NLP politics that is reflected in those sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my only goal was to try to establish a clearer timeline, so there isn't this huge black hole where the 1990s should be. I've tried to be careful about the use of NLP sources, only using them to verify what they're claiming or promoting, while staying silent (or adding context) about whether those claims and promotions are verifiably true. If you want to flag any sources or statements that could use a better source, I'll see what I can dig up.

In addition, something about internal NLP politics should probably be here. I'm only somewhat familiar with this NLP stuff from the self help angle. Are there any facts about the politics as you understand them that maybe I could find sources for? It might be easier to build and improve the section if I knew what I was looking for. Vcessayist (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)f

I've never found any third party sources so I think the most we can say is that the "New Code" was introduced, but we would need a source to say why. I know that a lot of the SPAs here in the past have been New Code advocates. My experience is that it is more or less now a part of the self-help and pseudo-scientific management consultancy although there are some (University of Surrey for example) who take it more seriously. I think the changes you have made are fine, but its about all we can say without a third party source. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What a hornet's nest!

I know nothing about NLP. Only came to the page because someone in China wrote to say they just completed the first NLP course and found it of value. Knowing nothing about the course, I came here to learn. After reading this page, I still do not understand what NLP is about, only that the people who wrote the Wikipedia page are quite convinced that it is a discredited course that does not deliver on what it promises (or something to that effect).

Accordingly, this page reads more like a Medieval religious debate than an encyclopaedic article, with a clear bias that NLP is bad.

I recommend that it be completely rewritten:

1) Present a neutral description of what NLP is so that people who do not understand anything get a good overall understanding of what it is about.
2) Create a criticism section that flips back and forth from positive claim to negative rebuttal, but write both sides in a neutral, dispassionate way
3) Do not presume just because someone has written a debunking article that can be quoted that this is The Truth. Rather present the gist of the debunking article in a neutral way so readers can form their own opinion

Historia Errorem (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC) - - - -

Wikipedia works from reliable sources and the article reflects what those sources say. We are not required to be neutral between pro and anti-NLP groups, but to reflect those sources. Please read up on the five pillars of WIkipedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

- - - - I am familiar with the five pillars, including this one:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

The article is not neutral. As a neutral person coming to it to learn about something someone has attended, all I learn is that it has been discredited by people. I did not learn much about the subject, but only its opposition. Also, while I won't take the time to check it out, "authoritative" probably needs more support than in this article. Just because it is quoted, does not mean the sources are authoritative. Indeed even academics with degrees and prestigious chairs does not mean their work is authoritative; especially when they become judgemental.

Like Scientology, it obviously is a subject that has both believers and opponents, and it appears the opponents are vociferous and well represented on Wikipedia. But what if I was an anthropologist seeking to understand the belief systems? I would suspend judgement about the validity of those belief systems but this would not mean that I would not document them.

When an anthropologist is told "witches fly to the full moon on a broomstick", do they begin by saying "what utter nonsense, don't be absurd. No one flies on broomsticks?" Well, actually the bad anthropologists do say exactly that, but the best ones don't. Instead they say "OK, I accept what you say, now let me work out how they do that since it is outside my scope of reality." That anthropologist sees that before the witch flies she has a big cauldron with a witches brew that she stirs with a broomstick. The anthropologist observes the witch putting in deadly nightshade into the pot, which on chemical analysis shows bella donna, a powerful mind altering drug. Then the witch puts the broomstick between her legs (not wearing underpants) where the drug penetrates the skin at the right rate... enough to induce hallucinations, but not enough to poison the body. Now curious, and being a bold scientist, the anthropologist tries the drug and has a mind-blowing "trip" where everything seems absolutely real, except their assistant video taping shows the anthropologist never left the room. It all was in the mind, but the drug set the mind on a dream as real as daily life. So the answer comes clear. Yes, the witch does fly, but not in the physical world, but the world inside her mind. Of course the next step is to ask if that other world is real, but the anthropologist steps back, because in academia, there is a clear line over which one steps into religion. That is dispassionate science. It explains rather than judges.

So I would like to have a dispassionate explanation of NLP first, before it is trashed with scholarly quoted judgement.

However, I won't do it, because frankly, I have more important things to do in my life. I added this comment just to help save Wikipedia from bad reporting. Historia Errorem (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a common mistake to thing that NPOV means balanced between all points of view. It does't, it means neutral in representing what reliable sources say. As to the example, may be the anthropologist should leap off a cliff with the broom to be authentic? The Anthropologist is in an event carrying out primary research. That is not our task here, we summarise in an encyclopaedic way what the sources say, and they says its discredited. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening section

I'm sorry but this whole first section hardly says anything on what NLP actually is. It seems like it was written only by people who are trying to prove that it is discredited. If people want to use Proper unbiased evidence that's fine but not at the expense of understanding of what NLP is or is supposed to be. If you look at pages related to Freudian subjects they don't seem to have the same burden. What is going on in those pages that prevents them looking like this page? If anybody can provide me with a specific answer I'd be much obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/An adaptive system] (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate that NLP contains numerous factual errors,[10][12] where in these 2 articles does it say that there are factual errors? Facts are what is, NLP deals with outcomes and ideas to help attain them The only facts you will need are the distinctions that you could make by using NLP skills, otherwise you are dealing with a sophisticated linguistics device. either way the claim that there are "factual errors" is not demonstrated here and if it is an offshoot from that link you should provide the correct link or change the article to 'articulate' more closely the authors opinion. Enemesis (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Its not for editors to evaluate a reliable source but to summarise what it says. If you think that has not been done give examples. If you have other reliable sources then raise them. Your comments on "the only facts you need" fail to understand the nature of editing for an encyclopaedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I read those 2 articles and they in no way reflect factual errors. maybe you misunderstand fair interpretation of an article. read those links again there is no such allusion to "factual errors" 10 refers to the fact that they have not researched the topic enough, "paucity of data". the other does not mention NLP and if it does refer to NLP it does allude to the fact that the content is unbalanced but that will depend on the institutions you go to learn and what applications you would like to learn it for. "Concentrating primarily on techniques with strong claims for enhancing performance, the committee found little support for some (e.g., sleep learning, meditation, parapsychological techniques, hypnosis, total quality management)" who made these claims? are they relevant to this article? what is total quality management? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychological "The Parapsychological Association regards the results of parapsychologists' experiments as having demonstrated the existence of some forms of psychic abilities,[12] and proponents of parapsychology have seen it as an "embryo science",[13] a "frontier science of the mind",[14] and a "frontier discipline for advancing knowledge".[15] NLP to me has never said that there was an element of being psychic (that is reading someones thoughts from thinking about someone or seemingly from thin air), The founders do claim that your senses can become so attuned to distinctions ie. micro muscle and facial color changes that this is a pattern to observe and note to gauge the clients mood and his /her emotional associations from these distinctions and that from these distinctions that you may appear as if psychic but being "Psychic" is not the claim. other wise provide the link that says the founders have said that NLP is a way to become psychic otherwise either you or your source may have been confused as to what the claim actually means. Enemesis (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems you aren't reading the full articles. Ref 10 states quite directly, "NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors." (p 290) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Further: "Where controlled studies have been performed attempting to test NLP hypothese...they consistently have failed to do so.... NLP is limited by a lack of supportive empirical evidence and is too simplistic to account for verbal behavior adequately....'ther is little or no evidence to date to support either NLP assumptions or NLP effectiveness.'" - SummerPhD (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowded said : "Its not for editors to evaluate a reliable source but to summarise what it says." what? the whole process is evaluating what the article says. What the subject matter is about and how it relates to the NLP article. You will now have to provide samples of claims about Parapsychology in NLP, sleep learning in NLP, meditation and total quality management to qualify the article as being a reliable resource. and by saying that you are saying what you have said it is not a reliable resource.Enemesis (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Once we have determined that a source is a "reliable source", we do not evaluate whether or not the source is "correct". Rather, we work on the basis of verifiability: We report what reliable sources say. We are not in the business of arguing that this, that or the other source is correct. How could we? There are people in this world who believe that we live on the inner surface of a hollow Earth, with the Sun and stars in the center, others believe most U.S. presidents were/are actually lizardmen from the Draco star system, some believe humans are meant to eat only fruit (as vegetables are "murdered" for vegetarian diets), etc. If we are to say X is true and Y is false, we will never be able to write anything. Rather, we report that "X says..." or, in this case, "Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate..." If X is a reliable source, we report what it says. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you would live on the planet Draco? How do you know what a reliable source is if you cannot even debate if it is reliable source? You will need to provide much more here to show that 1. claim x is the common consensus on the topic by the community 2. the professionals have gotten a common consensus on the topic on claim x with some form of scientific research. 3. They are in a position to comment on the general consensus on topic x 4. It is worthy of being a resource on wikipedia if all its counter claims are shown against community claims and not individual claims. x could be absolutely anybody and the source could be from anywhere and totally incohere the total article toward an NPOV result. Also if your article tackles an entirely different result or any subject matter not expressed by the community that you can argue, you can consider it void. also Use ur tilds for chris sakes. you look amatuer. Enemesis (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You can argue that a source is not reliable, but that is about the journal itself, not your opinion as to the content of an article in a journal. If you want to change the editing rules for Wikipedia then raise it elsewhere, not an individual article. If you have reliable sources which make counter claims then list them. For the moment you are simply opining, which will get you no where.----Snowded ^TALK 05:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You would also need to show that the research was emirical as was noted by me to be word that headleydown would use when editing the article. Enemesis (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do not need to show anything about the research. That would be us evaluating the source's conclusions. We must show that the peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source. Please see WP:MEDRS. "Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." - SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec):And you made all sorts of silly accusations about headleydown back in February when you arrived from no where as a SPA parroting material on NLP web sites which are obvious examples of soliciting meat puppets. You promised then to report your evidence of various wild accusations about sock puppets to the appropriate authorities (along with other bluster) but did nothing. You've had the rules explained to you before; you are wasting people's time. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do not need to show anything about the research. That would be us evaluating the source's conclusions. We must show that the peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source. Please see WP:MEDRS. "Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." For this particular claim, the sources being cited are Human Resource Development Quarterly and Journal of Applied Social Psychology. The first is a good source. The second is, IMO, an excellent academic journal, published by a widely respected publisher (Wiley-Blackwell). I cannot say I can see a way that this would be supplanted. If other reliable sources say something contrary to JASPs conclusions, I would expect that both would be discussed. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, it's simple. Tell me where anyone said NLP made people psychic. Enemesis (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

NLP makes testable claims about human functioning. It falls under WP:MEDRS. Reliable sources say point blank that it's bunk, but a small number of people continue to claim it damned-near makes people psychic. This is a fringe claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because of wikis no reveals you're protected snowded. Other than that you are wasting peoples time here including mine which was resolved some 7 years ago. get the hell out, this subject is not neutral territory for you. provide the source Summer or it's nothing. Enemesis (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make a sock puppet report Enemesis please do. I'll happily co-operate and a checkuser can investigate your claim. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not sock puppetry I'm interested in Snowded, It's a conflict of interest that concerns me. provide the source Summer or it's not much at all, the community does not support this and neither do I . It's rather a niche opinion and has very little relevance to mainstream unless you would like to describe it as so in the NLP article on wikipedia. Enemesis (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Given up on that have you Enemesis? Then why mention headleydown? Your predecessors tried the COI claim as well without success. Try and focus on understanding how wikipedia works, and then suggest edits within those constraints please. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Enemesis is claiming. Am I supposed to be Snowed, i.e. a sockpuppet? Or is one of us supposedly editing on the other's behalf (a "meatpuppet")? It can't just be that we agree... Snowed started editing Wikipedia in August 2006 and I got here just a few months earlier. If we are socks, we're really, really, really patient, waiting around 6 years before striking. (I'm guessing we must have run across each other at some point over the years, but I can't say I recall.) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Me or Snowed? Who am I supposed to be now? (I am and "academic", but my field is very distantly related (at best) to psychology. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because its part of the whole sordid story with you and it makes sense to me. You are going to get all sorts of crazy claims from various NLPer's whether you chose the mainstream will depict this article. if you chose one or two and decide to have a general opinon and then let that be the general consensus then Im going to step in. make sure your opinions are consolidated upon the NLPer's consolidated opinions and claims or you are just being horribly manipulative. Enemesis (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can honestly say I have no idea what you are trying to say here. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It can't just be that we agree... Snowed started editing Wikipedia in August 2006 and I got here just a few months earlier. If we are socks, we're really, really, really patient, waiting around 6 years before striking. (I'm guessing we must have run across each other at some point over the years, but I can't say I recall.)

I have got to say you guys are rather paranoid and for no real reason. Enemesis (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Paranoid? I don't particularly feel persecuted, so I don't know what you mean. You mentioned a conflict of interest. Was that me or Snowed who you feel has a COI? Can you elaborate: who or what do you think one/both of us has a close connection to? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I have not given up on the idea. You are a sockpuppet of headleydown who was run out of here in disgrace seeing as he could not be taken seriously on wikipedia altho had much fun with the damage that he had caused he could not stay away, you have returned on a more beuraucratic level . There are things that give it away your tone is very similar as is your content, links and bulldog attitude to doing things. I do understand now, the motives seem to be the same otherwise I would not understand the persistence on the article. Summer it is and always has been snowded who has a COI. I could provide documentation of proof but it would go against wikipedia policy which sucks. Now while I go on about this stuff you guys have managed to avoid the obvious questions above please address them accordingly or it is an admittance that you are not doing the right thing. Enemesis (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Read up on NPA. That repeated false accusation pretty much links you to the meat puppet farm. Put up or shut up on your claims for evidence. Continue like this and it's probably time to treat you as a disruptive SPA ----Snowded ^TALK 10:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's more than enough talking about other editors. If you have concerns about the sources provided, which I have quoted above, please explain. Do you believe they are not reliable sources? We can certainly take them to the noticeboard. If you do not believe it says what I have quoted it as saying, please explain how this is possible. If you have other concerns, please explain. In my opinion, the sources very clearly support the statement in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What kind of evidence do you need to describe a topic as "largely discredited"? It seems that there are academics who would disagree with that. In this book chapter[6], under "What is NLP?", Tosey describes it as "an emergent, contested approach". Is it clear that a debate about its credibility continues? --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And Tosey is also an NLP Practitioner and even his summary is qualified. There is an argument that NLP has largely withdrawn from the arena it originally sought to contest and is now focused on its management coaching and training programmes. Some of that could be reflected. However Tosey (and others) have fallen back to arguing that any NLP claim has to be phenomenological and that is itself problematic. Oh, and the usual question to yet another IP emerging from Sydney - have you edited under another ID before? Linked to Scott? ----Snowded ^TALK 15:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they argued that NLP contributes to phenomenological research, for exploring inner subjective experience. They encouraged researches to pursue multiple methodologies to investigate NLP further. The important point is that the debate continues about its credibility and that research continues into the efficacy of NLP (in therapy). Richard Gray, who is Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, Fairleigh Dickinson University is currently running studies into NLP and PTSD. In a recent comparison study by Simpson and Dryden (2011), there was no difference between NLP technique (VKD) and REBT in the treatment of PTSD[7] Dryden is very well respected in the field of CBT. Research continues.[http ://nlprandr.org/projects/nlp-and-ptsd-the-visual-kinesthetic-dissociation-protocol/] --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing, as you (or someone very like you) has argued before from individual research projects to general conclusions. We've been through this one so many times, in so many guises. Now please answer the question. There is a long term pattern of IP addresses linked to two past editors all emanating from Sydney. Have you edited before either under another IP or as a named editor. No problem if you have but you need to declare it. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean about general conclusions - .we need strong sources for the opening section. The ongoing research would be mention briefly in the opening. But my IP address or location has nothing to do with this discussion. There was a review paper cited by Simpson and Dryden (2011): Dietrich, A.M. (2000). A review of visual/kinesthetic disassociation in the treatment of posttraumatic disorders: Theory, efficacy and practice recommendations. Traumatology. VI(2), Article 3 (August). [8]. Here is a more recent case study by professor Gray that also suggests further research[9] You could justify a subsection on NLP techniques including VKD. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue. Have you edited under other IPs and/or names? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely asking for my name and IP addresses is against wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Harassment. --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Same line you took last time Scott (I assume its you again) and a similar patter of response. Its serial name changes. I'll pull the references together and put them at check user. Also the meat puppetry evidence ----Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a line of studies on NLP/VKD that I cited above including a review[10]. That research is not cited in this article at present. You might not like that but please don't shoot the messenger. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that said messenger keeps coming back periodically, supporting or supported by a small flock of newly created SPAs and using a new ID each time. On the content issue you are still attempting synthesis ----Snowded ^TALK 23:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it only a synthesis when you imply something not supported by the sources? What new conclusions did I imply? See WP:SYN - I don't think I am suggesting anything against this policy - can you give an example? I'm just saying that this particular research into NLP's rewind technique (VK/D) is missing from the current article and may be a notable addition. As I understand it, it is not a synthesis if the sources are closely paraphrased and you don't combine them to imply new conclusions not supported by the sources. I'll just write up a brief summary for discussion which could be included in this article, the methods subarticle or a separate topic article. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppetry case

A sock puppetry case has been opened concerning some of the editing in this article. Interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enemesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Proper methodology

Have all the cited studies been done double blind, placebo controlled ,and with exact methodological reproducibility? If not i suggest you remove them or mention this lack of credibility. An adaptive system (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

if you think any of the sources fail WP:RS then raise it. It's not our place to criticise the methodologies used. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually " neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." There is a definitive lack of "all significant views" that are published by "reliable" sources in this article. Mike00764 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Then come up with some sources that you think should be represented and we can look at it. But use the talk page first please, your edit warring is going to get you blocked if you carry on ----Snowded ^TALK 14:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you agree that a proper methodology should be free from distortion, then the methodology of this article is not proper. Firstly, it does not define NLP, instead beginning with a huge and unsupported generalisation. Secondly, it ignores the area of NLP that has the greatest amount of reliable sources: the scientific reviews of the work of Milton Erickson. Thirdly, it is extremely selective in its choice of so-called "Reliable Sources". "Reliable" seems to mean those that support the editor's preconceptions. What are the editor's credentials in this area that give you the expertise to decide what is a "reliable source?" Cliftonconsulting (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article should be permanently semi-protected, so that IPs can't edit it. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record I have not yet tried to Edit the Wikipedia page itself I have tried to go through the suggested process of a discussion first. I may have been a little bold in my very first statement as i didn't realize Wikipedia's policy on evidence. If I were any sort of puppet I probably would have had the wherewithal not to make such a statement in the first place.02:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system 01:13, 24 November 2012

Why can't you IPs create an account? It's not that difficult. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There I created an account. I am 99.249.47.79 or whatever similar ips showed up (my service has variable ips) An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 November 2012

Do I need to retro actively change my signings some how so It doesn't make me look like a sock puppet? An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 08:12, 25 November 2012

You use copy and paste into a text editor to change your previous signatures. My IP was 58.*. --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

influences on NLP

The article currently says "NLP finds its therapeutic roots by drawing influences from Gestalt therapy" citing Wake 2008. However, Wake states that "It is important to consider the historical background of the development of NLP, as NLP itself is not a psychotherapy, but has developed through Bandler and Grinder's modelling of the world of three therapists: Milton Erickson, a psychiatrist and hypnotherapist; Virginia Satir, a family therapy and Fritz Perls, a gestalt therapy."(p.14)[11]. --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC) I've made the adjustment to the article based on this quote. I think early history should be renamed to "Historical roots". Then we can focus on what the originators of NLP claim as their influences and what the various commentators have stated. Lisa Wake's book is mainly concerned with neuro-linguistic psychotherapy (NLPt) but also covers NLP in detail. The publisher Taylor & Francis is a respectable publisher. --Reconsolidation (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is more true to the sources, and is more precise than the loose statement from before. Vcessayist (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

cite isbn or cite doi templates

I've started migrating to the new cite isbn and cite doi formats so it is easier to manage the citations in this article. Could you please help me out by filling in the isbn references that need completing. Also, please try to use these formats as you work on this and related articles. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2012

I would like to formally request the changing of the referring to the field of Neuro Linguistic Programming as "largely discredited" on the grounds that it not only is it untrue but arguably contentious, NLP is only discredited by those individuals who stand to lose by the field becoming prevalent, for instance those in the fields of applied psychology and counselors who charge patients vast sums of money, having them attend weekly sessions often costing what amounts to thousands of dollars, without any fundamental improvements taking place. NLP threatens because it treats people effectively and rapidly and does these professionals out of work, it is far more preferable for them to write in peer reviewed papers that is is discredited than admit that they are losing business to a field that treats patients far more effectively, NLP is prevalent in all areas of business and it's techniques are seen in fields ranging from sports to politics. To say that is is largely discredited is just an absolute fallacy and speaking to anyone in business or politics will confirm not only is it highly credited but the most effective method for personal enhancement

Savannahcharles (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, but wikipedia reflects what is found in the reliable sources. The lede summarises the article. So you have to either challenge the sources and/or find equally reliable sources to challenge them. Oh and "speaking to anyone in business or politics will confirm ...." is hardly an objective statement. You will find a lot agree with the sources. I note by the way this is your first edit, and on a subject about which you obviously care. Might I ask what brought you to the article? ----Snowded ^TALK 17:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

. Why exactly do we need to put it as "largely discredited" in the first sentence? That is something that could go to an request for comment (RfC). We need to reflect what the sources say according to their weight, and aim for a neutral point of view. There is a good guideline for writing about fringe topics which might help you better understand how this topic is to be handled. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

tbh this to me has always been a very acceptable format/template for describing a film on wikipedia. ----> a typical article about a film on Wikipedia/Dark City . Notice the article Describes the film, it's different components (dispassionate of any outside views)it also has its own section on both its detractors and it's successes. This to me is a reliable wikipedian article and gives the audience freedom of choice. Enemesis (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the article on Psychoanalysis is probably closer to the mark. --Reconsolidation (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What we need is a complete format/template change that is both educational and enlightening for the audience for this article to work. Otherwise we could find people using this article and any of the source material attached as the total ideas for NLP, The audience may feel discouraged from and feel encouraged to be totally none the wiser on the subject matter. Enemesis (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"If there are reliable sources that say "NLP is only discredited by those individuals who stand to lose by the field becoming prevalent" then they may be appropriate for the article. Looking at current sources, those who stand to lose in the context of the neuro-linguistic programming are said to be 1. unsuspecting and vulnerable consumers/clients , 2, people buying NLP certification, and 3 the public in the general who believe mistakenly NLP claims and concepts are scientific ones: For example, Stollznow, 2010, Corballis 1999, Beyerstein 1990, Drenth 1999.

Regarding the "largely discredited" issue; the repeat removal of sources on the discredit of neuro-linguistic programming (e.g. Witkowski [12][13] is quite unconstructive specially if you are arguing here for removal of same material from the opening line.

On the inspection of the literature on this issue, "largely discredited" is in respect of conceptually and empirically discredited. So a clarifying alternative could be: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a conceptually and empirically discredited approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the topic should first be introduced in a neutral way then deal with empirical validity and credibility. So, you could say, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s." then you could put: "Among psychologists,[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is considered largely discredited because it is unsupported by empirical evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that neuro-linguistic programming is discredited is well supported. It is also pseudoscientific. You (I assume this was you[14]) have also argued research is ongoing. There is currently research ongoing in field of astrology [15][16] which is also stated by Wikipedia and other sources to be the pseudoscientific field. I propose:

"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a conceptually and empirically discredited approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s"

The final line on that paragraph can be "According to certain neuroscientists,[3] psychologists,[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect, pseudoscientific and misleading terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that rephrasing if others are. It reflects the article as a whole, which is the purpose of the lede. We are not meant to be neutral between pro and anti NLP factions, we are meant to be neutral in reflecting the reliable sources. Reconsolidation, your previous habits were to make lots of small changes after you had been asked to discuss them first. I see that is continuing. Please use the talk page, for proposing edits (not general discussion), thanks. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think psychoanalysis is a better comparison than your astrology analogy. The wikipedia manual of style states: "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific."Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph We need to be careful not to push your point of view too hard or go into too much detail. I looked at a few other approaches to psychotherapy: "Psychoanalysis is a psychological and psychotherapeutic theory conceived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud.", "Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a psychotherapeutic approach that addresses dysfunctional emotions, maladaptive behaviors and cognitive processes and contents through a number of goal-oriented, explicit systematic procedures. ", "Family therapy is a branch of psychotherapy that works with families and couples in intimate relationships to nurture change and development.". Notice that they do not go into the empirical validity, credibility or controversies in the first sentence or first paragraph. That is generally given later in the lead. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not a good example. Psychoanalysis has both conceptual and empirical support. There are controversies over the evidence base for CBT and so on, but overall nothing like the issues with NLP which is in the pseudo-science box on the basis of the evidence, so Astrology (which also relies on self-reported impact) is a closer match. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is that most articles which have three or four paragraphs in the lead will start with a neutral description in the first sentence and even first paragraph. The empirical validity, credibility and notable controversies should also be covered but later in the lead. We should also look at the current second paragraph which does not really accurately define it. Its like we're setting up straw man. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

TBH, this article should be deleted, as it's not worth the fuss it apparently causes. How difficult can it be to 'balance' an intro? Jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Savannahcharles: "NLP is only discredited by those individuals who stand to lose by the field becoming prevalent, for instance those in the fields of applied psychology and counselors who charge patients vast sums of money, having them attend weekly sessions often costing what amounts to thousands of dollars, without any fundamental improvements taking place." Enemesis (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Intriguing - Who would be on such a list? GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, NLP was initially debunked by word of mouth to first spread a vastly shared and openly accepted opinion to the community. Enemesis (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Lim Kan keung: "If there are reliable sources that say "NLP is only discredited by those individuals who stand to lose by the field becoming prevalent" then they may be appropriate for the article. Looking at current sources, those who stand to lose in the context of the neuro-linguistic programming are said to be 1. unsuspecting and vulnerable consumers/clients , 2, people buying NLP certification, and 3 the public in the general who believe mistakenly NLP claims and concepts are scientific ones."

The top quote by Savannahcharles is actually true, In fact the common story was that when NLP was introduced to psychotherapists it was widely rejected almost instantaneously. These guys had spent thousands of dollars on an education for a science that does not create any fundamental changes or guarantee any client the skill to do so for themselves. Psychotherapy was an industry with a lot of money and infrustructure already involved. There's a lot to say about current systems that are in place and have been under threat of change. The Billion dollar oil industry that seems loathe to change toward any ecological future is driven by a corporate body and government who feel that the current system is adequate enough comes down to protecting an industry from Uninterrupted growth with minimal loss of time, money and resources. The governments will have wars to protect their interests and then what will the governement do? control media? Information? knowledge and truth? <---- as an example. In essence who is the majority trying to control the information about NLP? Who has the most to lose? Who prevents NLP from being considerred becoming a science? Then Snowded says that a psychotherapist can not be used as a resource because he was trained in NLP? Enemesis (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim that NLP (as taught in the early 1970s) is not scientific ... is correct. That was the very claim made by Bandler and Grinder; that they were not presenting a science or scientific anything. The modern claim that NLP is a pseudo-science is silly, since NLP did not claim to be scientific. The claim made by Bandler and Grinder was that it was magical, not that their method was scientific. It's as if someone looking for strawberries was whining that apple pie, claimed to be an apple pie, did not contain any strawberries, and that it therefore was not strawberry pie. D'oh. htom (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in respect of the sources Reconsolidation not the subject, as to Enemesis and OtterSmith, you are not allowed (here) to form your own conclusions as to what the sources means or the background beliefs or attitudes of those who wrote them. You have to find sources that draw such conclusions. OtterSmith, my point on the Surrey Source is that group also run a NLP consultancy business. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, you should read up on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view especially [and undue weight]. I think we need an RfC or third party opinion on whether NLP is: "2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." or "3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." It is not clear. That is really going to help us move forward and better apply the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guidelines to this article. --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Fully aware of both policies Reconsolidation, as you know from previous discussions. What you have to do is to find some scientific sources which substantially counter those which the lede summarises. Your 'repeated' attempt to shift to general discussion and Enemesis and OtterSmith opining about the claims of Brandler and Grinder and speculating as to the motives of those who reject NLP are not evidence in WIkipedia (or most other) terms. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The ArbCom rules that NLP should not be described as described as "unambiguously pseudoscientific". This is point of view and must be ascribed to a source. "Ascribing points of view 3) The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact. Passed 9-0"Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming The same could be said to the opinion that NLP is "largely discredited". It needs to be ascribed to a source or at very least there needs to be a inline citation. Can we say there is "reasonable amount of academic debate"? A 5 minute search of Google Scholar reveals quite a few papers published in academic journals in the last few years...

• Kong, Eric, and Mark Farrell. "Facilitating knowledge and learning capabilities through neuro-linguistic programming." The International Journal of Learning 18.3 (2012): 253-265.
• Tosey, Paul, and Jane Mathison. Neuro-linguistic programming: a critical appreciation for managers and developers. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
• Linder-Pelz, Susie, and L. Michael Hall. "The theoretical roots of NLP-based coaching." The Coaching Psychologist 3.1 (2007): 12-17.
• Mathison, Jane, and Paul Tosey. "Exploring Moments of Knowing: NLP and Enquiry Into Inner Landscapes." Journal of Consciousness Studies 16.10-12 (2009): 10-12.
• Tosey, Paul, and Jane Mathison. "Exploring inner landscapes through psychophenomenology: The contribution of neuro-linguistic programming to innovations in researching first person experience." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 5.1 (2010): 63-82.
• Carey, John, et al. Neuro-linguistic programming and learning: teacher case studies on the impact of NLP in education. CfBT Education Trust, 2010.
• Mathison, J., and P. Tosey. "Innovations in constructivist research: NLP, phenomenology and the exploration of inner landscapes." The Psychotherapist 37 (2008): 5-8.
• Kong, Eric, and Mark Farrell. "Facilitating knowledge and learning capabilities through neuro-linguistic programming." The International Journal of Learning 18.3 (2012): 253-265.
• Day, Trevor, and Paul Tosey. "Beyond SMART? A new framework for goal setting." Curriculum Journal 22.4 (2011): 515-534.
• Kudliskis, Voldis, and Robert Burden. "Applying ‘what works’ in psychology to enhancing examination success in schools: The potential contribution of NLP." Thinking skills and creativity Traumatology4.3 (2009): 170-177.
• Wake, Lisa. "Neurolinguistic programming: does it have a role in supporting learning or OD interventions?." Development and Learning in Organizations 25.1 (2011): 19-21.
• Angell, G. Brent. "Neurolinguistic Programming Theory and Social Work Treatment." Social Work Treatment: Interlocking Theoretical Approaches: Interlocking Theoretical Approaches (2011): 327.
• Bashir, Ahsan, and Mamuna Ghani. "Effective Communication and Neurolinguistic Programming." Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 6 (2012).
• Lee, Young Ju. "Consumer Preference for Smart-Phones Based on NLP Primary Senses." Computer Applications for Security, Control and System Engineering (2012): 322-327.
• Kong, Eric. "The potential of neuro-linguistic programming in human capital development." Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 10.2 (2012): 131-141.
• Jeon, Jaeho, InGeol Chun, and WonTae Kim. "Metamodel-Based CPS Modeling Tool." Embedded and Multimedia Computing Technology and Service (2012): 285-291.
• Gray, Richard M., and Richard F. Liotta. "PTSD Extinction, Reconsolidation, and the Visual-Kinesthetic Dissociation Protocol." Traumatology 18.2 (2012): 3-16.

Empirical studies

• Pishghadam, Reza, Shaghayegh Shayesteh, and Mitra Shapoori. "Validation of an NLP scale and its relationship with teacher success in high schools." Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2.4 (2011): 909-917.
• Savardelavar, Meisam, and Amir Hooshang Bagheri. "Using NLP in Sport Psychology; Neuro-Linguistic Programming affects on boxer State-Sport Confidence by using Meta-Models Method." European Journal of Experimental Biology 2.5 (2012): 1922-1927.

Empirical studies of lie detection

• Mann, Samantha, et al. "The direction of deception: neuro-linguistic programming as a lie detection tool." Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology (2012): 1-7.
• Wiseman R, Watt C, ten Brinke L, Porter S, Couper S-L, et al. (2012) The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. PLoS ONE 7(7): e40259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040259

Criticism (briefly mentions NLP)

• Corballis, Michael C. "Educational double-think." Neuroscience in Education: The good, the bad, and the ugly (2012): 222.

How do we decide whether this is reasonable academic debate? This literature shows that it is being taken seriously by some academics. The focus certainly has not been empirical research but can we still say there is reasonable academic debate on the subject of NLP for the purposes of this article? --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue has already been covered here [17] and here [18] including explanation to IP 122...Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The unqualified Google Scholar listing being a tactic adopted by both the IP 122 IDs and Action Potential to my memory. Case for disruptive behaviour is hardening. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded: "Case for disruptive behaviour is hardening." what the hell are you talking about. both you and Lam are very vague about these matters. You send pages that are longer than a short story and say its been coverred here here and here. In what section for bejebus? and to what extent is it coverred. It's just a quick conversation closer to move things in your direction. Please put a bit more thought into your answers so that we people can at least think your trying to work with the editors and so co-editors can give reasonable feedback to your answers. what kind of fools do you think are here? Enemesis (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Enemesis, search for the phrase "we do not evaluate sources independently of the statements they support" [19]. See also WP:NOTFORUM. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The case is hardening Enemesis because Reconsolidation is repeating more or less the same points that he previously raised in two previous incarnations. That is disruptive and given his first identity is under Arbcom restrictions may well be a way to avoid said restrictions. Otherwise there is a duty on new editors (assuming you are one) to read up on how things work around here and also on past history. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I did a search on Google Scholar for "Bandler and Grinder" today. There seems to be quite a few papers published in academic journals in different fields. The majority of these papers not empirical and discuss different aspects of it. There has been little support for NLP in the empirical literature. How do we decide on how much weight is given to the non-empirical literature. Is this list evidence of "reasonable debate" per WP:FRINGE on the topic? This is article dedicate to a non-mainstream topic so you cannot expect sources to meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) as was suggested earlier by Snowded and LKK. Sources dedicated to fringe topics are more relaxed to represent significant points of view. --Reconsolidation (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No one can judge the value of your lists and references until you give some indication of what edits you want to make in consequence. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

While it is relevant to the requested edit above, it is relevant to due and undue weight. It was suggested earlier that this article needs to adhere to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) but that would exclude the majority of academic literature and debate about NLP which is in the journals that are outside of the science of psychology or medicine. I'm saying it needs to adhere to WP:FRINGE guidelines and cover those points of view as well. This discussion is exactly for working on the article together to improve it. It is precisely about discussing sources and relevant policies. That is why we need to go to ArbCom or the administrator noticeboards to help us get some clarity. I'm not going to waste my time summarizing articles if there is no agreement on sources and weight. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources can only be judged in the context of proposed edits which it is claimed they support. This is not a forum or a discussion group so please don't waste your time, or that of other editors. And FYI arbcom deals with behaviour issues not content ones. Ditto the Administrator notice boards. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've gotten that backwards, Snowded. Sources are reliable, regardless of what they say or do or do not support, or they are unreliable, ..., it is the source, not the content, that is reliable. Is ownership a behavior issue? htom (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A source can be reliable htom but what it is reliable for is the issue. Ownership is a behavioural issue, if you think you have a case feel free to raise it at ANI ----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Its not a good example. Psychoanalysis has both conceptual and empirical support. There are controversies over the evidence base for CBT and so on, but overall nothing like the issues with NLP which is in the pseudo-science box on the basis of the evidence, so Astrology (which also relies on self-reported impact) is a closer match."

There are many academics who would claim the opposite. It just goes to show how easily one can become entrenched on one side of a contested topic that has no real clear decision. As far as I can tell, for a while, psychoanalysts were struggling with their position regarding evidence. Now recently, it seems as if they are pushing back against CBT. A lot of CBT practitioners turned away from psychoanalysis because the field was becoming too exclusive and they felt (the psychoanalysts that is) they didn't even need to produce evidence to support their claims. Of course, there was a backlash and CBT came into favor... and so on. It just goes to show how volatile the whole field is. Can anyone honestly say there weren't claims within psychoanalysis that couldn't be characterized as pseudoscience, especially within it's infancy? It all depends which way the pendulum sways and a statement like the one quoted above is isomorphic of the partisan bias which runs through the field of psychology, to NLP, right down to the editors responsible for this current incarnation of the NLP Wikipedia page. NLP has a scant amount of research compared to these other two fields. On what basis can we draw large the conclusions made on the page? Just because a piece of research says something does not mean it has the weight to be a conclusive fact in an article, other than the fact that it is making a claim only. This is far form conclusive proof especially in the field of psychology. The only thing anyone can Prove is that's what the study says . — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2012

I am a new account holder so I hope my request is appropriate! May I request that both the title and the first paragraph be edited in order to appropriately introduce the nature of the article? As it is not a description of NLP or it's approach as a methodology per say, might it be reasonable to suggest that the title and at the least the first paragraph be more of a lead in to the nature and purpose of the article? That way it would be less confusing and more informative to those researching NLP for the first time. It is clear to me that the author's purpose is to promote and advertise critiques against the subject, as opposed to offering a general reference article for the benefit of all readers, regardless of their opinion on the subject. Thanks. Affableparts (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please have a look at the policy linked here WP:GOODFAITH. If you have a valid suggestion, please make it clear here so it can be discussed. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have set this edit request to answered per the above response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

hi there wikipedia! I joined wikipedia to edit the page on neuro linguistic progamming due to its lack of information and bias. It puts NLP up in the spotlight in a very negative manner. Seeing as wikipedia is the ultimate encyclopedia on the internet I feel that this is a disservice to human knowledge. i am a professional that utilises NLP and would like to provide many other sources to balance it out. as you know it is semi protected. it also seems that this page has not been changed in a while yet from what i see on this talkpage is a lot of change wanted. could you may be let me know what is what with regards to no change being made etc? thank you for your time. Thomdez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomdez (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC) ok, i just saw why there is a problem with this page being fixed. took a lot of reading. hopefully this will be sorted. i have sources and recommendations if you want them but i will leave that until all the other disputes resolved. may be the page should be taken down until the disputes are dealt with. i think that would be the right thing to do in this situation. words are power after all. thank you for your time. please let me know. all the best. thomdez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomdez (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Credibility

I added a new reference to a new poll by Norcross et al. The Fala et al (2007/2008) poster or manuscript cited by in Glasner-Edwards et al 2010's list for addition treatment was eventually published by Norcross et al. in the Journal of Addiction Medicine - I put the doi in the page. We should move this to a section in the article on credibility and discuss it more broadly. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Norcross' delphi polls: "In research designed to establish expert-consensus of discredited treatments in evidence based practice (EBP), Norcross et al. (2006) [15] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems, and Norcross et al. (2010)[18] for the treatment of drug and alcohol dependence it was rated as certainly discredited which was eighth in the list.[19]" --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

An argument you made in a previous guise. This confirms your disruptive intent. Creating a series of new IDs to raise the same issues again and again ----Snowded ^TALK 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to get RfC how best to cover norcross' polls? Why did you delete the reference to EBP? What were your reasons for reverting it? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You have previously attempted (in another guise) to qualify those statements and the matter was extensively discussed. If you want to propose a change again then outline your reasons here, but please reference what has changed since the last time. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:03, 30 November 2012)

I can have a look at what was proposed in the archives. I assume your just trying to save time but accusing everyone of sockpuppetry is not on. --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, I have not accused you of sock puppetry. Stating the fact that you use serial identities to allow you to raise issues again and again is a different matter. I'm not sure that has a name on wikipedia but it is disruptive.----Snowded ^TALK 10:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I raised the issue here is because what is in the article is not what is in the source. I'm not trying to waste your time or mine. I only have 4 months long service leave. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You waste everyone's time when you change your name (for the third time) and raise more of less the same issues as you raised in a previous guise without bothering to say what is different. If its just the same argument you are being disruptive. I have no idea how any long service leave you may have acquired is relevant. I don;t know why you do it as your style is pretty obvious and the constant changes and the lack of honest in owning up to them just damages your case ----Snowded ^TALK 07:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please keep your discussion about improving the article. Please review the policies regarding civility and no personal attacks. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Those policies allow comment on disruptive behaviour such as yours User:Comaze/User:Action potential/User:122.108.140.210/User:122.x.x.x. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I did not give you my real information when you asked. I'd rather remain anonymous on this controversial topic. Disruption is certainly not my intention. But I'm open to dispute resolution or even mediation if that will help us collaborate more effectively. That is what was suggested to a friend of mine who is very experienced with this sort of conflict resolution. --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well you have to suggest some other motivation that explains serial name changes for your assertion of intent to stand up to any inspection. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to engage in dispute resolution or mediation? I can provide sensitive information to a trusted third party that can clear up your queries about my motivations and purposes for using a single purpose account. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Its obvious who you are to anyone with familiarity with this article and as I say I can't see any reason for you to keep it a big secret, other than to allow you to constantly repeat the same edits. However if you want I'm happy to approach one of the Arbcom members to ask if they are prepared to listen to your case. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to get clarification from arbcom on a few things but it is mainly to do with article content and relevant policies. Things have changed since ArbCom looked at the article. At least we don't have the sort of biased, disruptive and abusive editors that ArbCom had. If you look at the documentation of blocks and the article remedies from 6 year ago, all the banned and blocked editors were extremely biased, disruptive and abusive. I just don't fit the pattern but I am willing to engage in mediation or RfCs if you want. There are many avenues in wikipedia to work out your differences and move on. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So you don't want to use a trusted third party to validate your identity changes? if not there is little alternative to seeing this as a matter for enforcement of the original Arbcom sanction on your first known persona----Snowded ^TALK 23:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already confirmed my details to admin via email. The ArbCom remedies do apply to me, you and anyone else who edits this article or related articles. Because of the use of sockpuppet and meatpuppet abuse by the anti-NLP side (the skeptics club/society), the sanctions/remedies apply to anyone who edits this article. Read more about it here. The remedies are actually quite good suggestions for collaboration: ascribing controversial viewpoints to sources, discussing any edits/reverts, being civil, avoiding obsessive editing, etc. That ArbCom case was designed to protect the article from the largest sockpuppet/meatpuppet ring that wikipedia has ever known. It would be good to get some more clarity on some content issues. That's what I'd ask ArbCom about if I had the opportunity. --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

When I see said admin post a notice that they are happy with your identity changes I may accept it depending on what they say, or I may ask for review. I consider your serial editing disruptive. Otherwise in your first ID you are named in the Arbcom resolution. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It was discovered that the disruption was from a group (from Hong Kong?) who were acting in concert to promote their POV of this topic. I'm definitely not one of the blocked or banned editors. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree your are however one of the editors subject to arb com ruling on the case and changing your ID is a way of trying to avoid that. Whenever you appear we also get a crop of new SPAs. Four this time round todate. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is no longer under arbcom probation that ended about 6 years ago! But the remedies are still good ones that we all should encourage. Some of the SPA could be legitimate users so give them a chance. Just point them to the appropriate policies and encourage them to find evidence to suggest appropriate changes to the article. Really the only way forward would b to encourage participation from the broader wikipedia community not just the rational skepticism group. --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Side page

It seems that there are several people holding similar Ideas and proposals. Is there any way to create a side page where we can workshop and refine these Ideas in an appropriate space, as there are rules about the scope of discussion on the talk page itself. An adaptive system (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

You mean three brand new SPAs who arrive at the same time as Comaze adopts one of his new IDs? lol

You use a sandbox ----Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A slightly less snarky version of the above would probably include an actual link to the wikipedia sandbox. siafu (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly but I suspect we are dealing with experienced editor(s) here ----Snowded ^TALK 14:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are unable to assume good faith, I would suggest recusing yourself from the discussion rather than being snarky. There's nothing to be gained for the article or yourself from denigrating other editors, and at the very least you can prevent minor issues from blowing up into major arguments. siafu (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but I afraid years of Comaze creating new IDs and the sudden crop of new IPs and SPAs who join in, means that good faith has been stretched to the limits. AGF does not require us to be fools. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ya can't blame Snowy for being suspicious. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, if you have a concern I'd wish for you explain it fully and in a civil manner. No wonder your'e always getting new people if every one gets bullied away. Other potential editors will see the talk page and be scared away. After the comments die down you'll get a new group of people. Is this how all new Wikipedians are treated on this talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So, the sandbox Is for test editng what about mor of an informal talk page? Is there A page that can be created (or that already exists) just for the purpose of talking about the article in a more extensive manner? An adaptive system (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

You can draft some changes here and get input from more dispassionate wikipedians through the noticeboards. I really think that's the best way forward. There is a wikiproject but it is inactive: Wikipedia:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods - that is for improving the NLP and related articles. Any project would need to involve skeptics, more wikipedians and dispassionate topic experts. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded and Lam and anyone else editting the article should take a look at this for clarification purposes of the article and NPOV. It could save us a lot of trouble and time. WP:WEASEL

I know the Policy as I am sure do the many other editors who have got involved here. If you want to save trouble and time prepare specific proposals supported by reliable third party sources and make them here on the talk page. If you feel you are not getting a fair heraing at that point raise an RfC. Now we have been down that route before if you check, and the consensus of many editors has been that the article reflects said sources. So I suggest that you check that material and see if you have some new evidence to bringinto play. You might also want to check out the style guide. The lede summarises the article it is not normal for it to be referenced and the material is in the main body. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I typed this above in the section labelled "Openning section".

"I'm sorry I read those 2 articles and they in no way reflect factual errors. maybe you misunderstand fair interpretation of an article. read those links again there is no such allusion to "factual errors" 10 refers to the fact that they have not researched the topic enough, "paucity of data". the other does not mention NLP and if it does refer to NLP it does allude to the fact that the content is unbalanced but that will depend on the institutions you go to learn and what applications you would like to learn it for. "Concentrating primarily on techniques with strong claims for enhancing performance, the committee found little support for some (e.g., sleep learning, meditation, parapsychological techniques, hypnosis, total quality management)" who made these claims? are they relevant to this article? what is total quality management? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychological "The Parapsychological Association regards the results of parapsychologists' experiments as having demonstrated the existence of some forms of psychic abilities,[12] and proponents of parapsychology have seen it as an "embryo science",[13] a "frontier science of the mind",[14] and a "frontier discipline for advancing knowledge".[15] NLP to me has never said that there was an element of being psychic (that is reading someones thoughts from thinking about someone or seemingly from thin air), The founders do claim that your senses can become so attuned to distinctions ie. micro muscle and facial color changes that this is a pattern to observe and note to gauge the clients mood and his /her emotional associations from these distinctions and that from these distinctions that you may appear as if psychic but being "Psychic" is not the claim. other wise provide the link that says the founders have said that NLP is a way to become psychic otherwise either you or your source may have been confused as to what the claim actually means. Enemesis (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)"

wow do I really have to repeat myself as above. The article explicitly says that there are weaknesses and strengths in the NLP model. The weaknesses aren't common teachings and the strengths are the applications it is designed for. So for one the article is not properly represented and two the claims you are making are not supported in the mainstream of NLP literature, teaching or leading Mentors in the field. Factual errors is also vague what are the factual errors? I think we can now begin to edit this part of the article for clarity and NPOV. We will get to other sections as time goes on Enemesis (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I also suspect meat-puppetry among these many editors pushing for changing the intro; I do agree that largely discredited should be removed from the intro. I would feel the same if largely accepted were there. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rfc in future?

The pro-change editors should open up a Rfc on this article, instead of carrying out a slow edit-war? Otherwise, blocks should be considered for them. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more but think we should wait until after the peer review. The only way forward is to engage broader wikipedian community to resolve this content dispute such as through the request for comment or the dispute resolution noticeboard. The editors here seem dug into their position deeply! The request for peer review is already under way which will be a step in the right direction. We also need to get some comments about reliable sources and NPOV. You could also get some input from the fringe theory noticeboard. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could let the rest of us know how the 'request for peer review is already underway"? I see nothing in your edit history. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

People can search in my history for dispute resolution about the OED definiton and an attempt at an RfC. htom (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly worth reading as an example of the wider community view of this issue. Reconsolidation - still waiting for a response on this peer review which is underway ----Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This article doesn't help me as an ordinary user

I wanted to find out about NLP. I can't see what it is for the criticism of it. I hope this article can be made more helpful and more well-rounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.90.169 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to find out about something, you need to see the whole picture. Otherwise please read the material on your talk page. That tells you how wikipedia works ----Snowded ^TALK 03:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have rarely if ever felt the need to post to a talk page, and am completely unfamiliar with the protocol for doing so. Just wanted to add that I also didn't really find what I was looking for on the page, and would appreciate some content contribution by people with knowledge of NLP. I know nothing about NLP, and after reading the article I don't know much more. I appreciate the well-researched criticism, but it's hard to get a grip on what is being criticized. Keith Campbell - www.pathstoknowledge.com (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You may find this older version of the page useful -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=33400304 htom (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes its better but still infected by the omnipresent skeptic society. The nonsense about new age is just propaganda. NLP is about as new age as CBT. What this article needs more than anything is to get rid of the pseudoskeptics again. LTMem (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I should have looked even further back. There must be a descent one, after all, Wikipedia itself is a new-agey thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=9035096 Not sure that's good, either. Ah well. htom (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

first line

I work on leads a lot, and I edited the first sentence to make it describe the subject better. It's NPOV to say that NLP is "largely discredited" because our reliable sources say exactly that. NPOV means reporting what the RS's say without a POV distortion. The RSs say that it's largely discredited, if not entirely. Leadwind (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that 90% of reliable sources are not an experts in NLP, They are experts in other fields that are commenting on what they believe is NLP. Would you ask a farmer to fix your truck or would you ask a mechanic?

Has anyone noticed, that there is nothing about what NLP actually is in this article?

I am an expert in NLP and yet I'm getting stonewalled at every corner even though I'm following wikipedia protocal to best of my newbie knowledge. All I'm wanting to do is include what nlp is..not what people claim it can or can't do. Things like NLP well formed goal setting, eye accessing cues, rapport building and maybe a quick explanation of the NLP decision making process(meta model). I just want to say what it is.... nothing else. let people decide if it's useful or not. Instead I get NLP is a largely dicredited approach to..... let's forget about an explanation of what nlp is and just jump into the biased sources of non-nlp experts. The sources in the article are not porportionately balanced and represent only those 'anti nlp' views and from what I have experienced, every effort is being used to keep any positive nlp information from being included. Even most of the reliable sources in this article are from people who haven't even taken an NLP course.

The article is called 'Neuro Linguistic Programming' not Anti- Neuro Linguistic Programming. I'm a Christian and I can tell you I'm scared to death to look anything to do with my faith on wiki because of how totally biased and plagued with opinions wiki really is. Just an idea how about we all go old school and make 'neutral' neutral again. not just in this article but all of them and that would include making sure all sources are neutral or well balanced. Mike00764 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use colons to format your comments. You are understand a NLP practitioner? That means to a degree you have already taken a position. No attempt is being made to keep properly referenced material out, if you have some list it here and we can look at it. Otherwise the sources come from reputable sources, academics who have reviewed cases and the literature and formed conclusions. You don't have to take an NLP course to form an opinion on it, any more than you have to experience full emersion baptism to form an opinion on the validity of the Baptist Church. At the moment you keep arguing your opinion. That will get you nowhere. Sources please and argument based on those sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a horribly written article, especially the lead. Someone (Leadwind?) who does not like NLP has taken ownership of the article and has twisted the whole thing into an attack. To say that many of the critical readings of NLP are critical is as an obvious tautology as you can get. They are not neutral, so claiming that repeating them is NPOV is absurd. This kind of behaviour undermines Wikipedia and shows a very weak understanding of what an encyclopaedia article should be. Sleeping Turtle (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OMG this article is an example of why Wikipedia is going to go down hill. People with an opinion who absolutely will not accept that their opinion might not be correct, just because they can find lots of other 'reliable' sources who agree with their opinion. I'm neither for or against NLP. I am against people who cannot writereasonable, impartial articles. I'll edit the first line to remove the subjective bit, but I'm sure the people who have set themselves up as 'guardians' of Wikipedia will accuse me of vandalism. Actually I don't know why I bother. Jimjamjom —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Which part exactly is the "subjective" bit? siafu (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who knows nothing about the subject, and came here only by curiosity, I can say I read most of the article, and still don't know what NLP is. Shame on thy who wrote the article, it's supposed to tell people what NLP is and what is it used for, not tell us what other people think about it as central topic (Excuse my poor english please). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.162.202 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Leadwind, what is NPOV? What are the "Reliable Sources" which say that NLP is 'Largely discredited'? Where are those studies which show that NLP sources are 'credible'? What does "RS" mean? Umesh Soman (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a trainer, consultant by profession, and I study a lot of different areas that can affect human performance. NLP is one of them. And so far, I have come acroos different research projects, which are also available online, which neither conclusively prove that NLP is totally credible, and neither conclusively prove that NLP is "largely discreditable". Umesh Soman (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that there are so many research based sources out there which are providing evidence both for and against, isn't there an unneccesary negative bias thats added here to this article by starting with "Largely Discredited" ? Umesh Soman (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The better way is to list sources which discredit NLP, if you feel so strongly. So, what are those sources? And would you be open to changing your approach if we list reliable studies which support the credibility of NLP ? Umesh Soman (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources are all in the main body of the article. If you have third party sources then propose them linked to suggested changes in the wording. For other editors - this is the tenth new SPA account making these points in the last six weeks. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with the first sentence is that the editor has confused applications of NLP with the core of NLP. This is akin to evaluating a motor car by the number of road traffic accidents and is very poor logic. One of the founders of NLP, John Grinder, eluded to this when he warned people: "The inability to distinguish either behaviourally or cognitively the consequences and applications of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) from core NLP itself (modelling of excellence) is extremely commonplace." It appears the editor of this page has made that same mistake.

Please correct the result of your confusion! NBOliver (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)