Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neuro-linguistic programming

[edit]

"Everything can be dealt with on this article. NLP is not rocket science. The principles are explained very well on this article already. HeadleyDown 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)"

The editors of this article has spent 8 months collecting evidence and have been compiling an exhautive list of references from scientists' opinion on the subject. The time has come to nominate this article. --Dejakitty 13:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ObjectComment: A Feature Article with a cleanup tag on it? AndyZ 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, if a featured article candidate has a cleanup tag on it, it needs much more work to become a Featured Article. The "inline citations" are literally tons of books and years published dates strung throughout the article as well as tons of external links, harming the articles readibility. It all has to be converted into Inline Citations, probably using Wikipedia:Footnotes, to provide an organization to the article. The lead itself is clutterred with tons of author names and publishing dates that are useless to a reader. There are a couple of useless, random bullets that are in the article. At 58kb, the article can also benefit from employing Wikipedia:Summary style and by dividing the article into subpages. AndyZ 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object and Remove nomination. This was put up in severe violation of WP:POINT, just to challenge an editor [1].Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I do support removing the nomination though. This is clearly not going to be a featured article without a lot of work, and will probably also require some more mediation. Fieari 04:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article is neither neutral nor stable. In fact it exemplifies POV and instability. If you'd like to know more, here's why... NPOV is disputed at least weekly on this article by many editors. Many editors are accused of being sockpuppets. Facts and citations are debated and deleted daily, and revert wars are common. Even the opening sentence is contested lately. A 6 month or longer uncivil edit war is still raging. Four or more mediators have failed to bring lasting results. The latest mediator is achieving results but at a painfully slow rate towards consensus. There is a current arbitration case addressing several users (including the one who made this nomination) who are still active and inserting contested information into the article. Cleaning up the article has been agreed by many editors to be a large process. Many editors have stated they will wait for the arbitration case to finish to undertake cleanup. The arbitratiuon case seems like it will continue for at least another month and perhaps longer. Daughter articles linked from the main are only just now appearing and also need a lot of work before they would make sense linked from the feature. The article has a long way to go before it is even close to feature presentable. To actually nominate this article is misguided. The motives of the nominator might well be questioned. Peace. Metta Bubble 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This article badly needs attention but deserves no commendations. However, I'd welcome and be glad to participate in an RfC or some other forum which would bring new voices to the table. (Please, no more "new voices" that edit no other articles.) -- Shunpiker 00:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article is biased. While well referenced, the quality of some references is questionable, while others are not represented fairly. I've been away 2 months but the disagreements appear to still be there. GregA 10:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. A very very biased article <-- Please sign flavius 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I too object on the grounds that it needs much more work. There remain some unattributed statements and claims and the prose in many places remains poor. I disagree strongly that the article is biased. I have spent much time gathering and reading cited articles and books (pro and con) and they are (thus far) accurately represented in the article. The balance of opinion presented in the article regarding NLP does not adequately represent the actual balance of opinion amongst psychologists, neurologists, psychiatrists and linguists. NLP is akin to phrenology, blood-letting, Silva Mind Control Method and Dianetics. It is a "loony-tunes" fringe concern so far out on the margins it poised to fall off the edge. The article should reflect this. The four or so (unremarkable) academics that Comaze has been promoting are insufficient to offset the broad consensus against NLP. Similarly, most clinicians (medical, psychological and psychiatric) do not use NLP. Also most professionals (lawyers, accountants, etc.) do not use NLP. We would be able to find as many professionals that claim to use CoS "Tech" as we can professionals that claim to use NLP (if necessary I will write the CoS public relations branch to obtain figures). The vital point is that NLP is fringe pop-psych/self-help/quasi-religion, naming two universities in the world that teach NLP or three academics that have written sycophantic essays to Grinder, reporting that some organ of the UN once employed an NLP practitioner or listing even hundreds of professionals that claim enrichment from NLP doesn't change NLPs status. It in fact affirms its status as marginal. I can easily parallel most -- if not all -- pieces of alleged evidence that NLP is something other than "marginalia" offered by Comaze, FT2 and GregA with cases drawn from the CoS. The CoS has amongst its membership not only doctors, lawyers, accountants, computer programmers, pilots and academics but members of the North American cultural elite. Again, the point is proportion. The proportion of lawyers that are Scientologists like the proportion of lawyers that are NLPers is tiny (<1%). It is so tiny it becomes incidental, insignificant and thus incapable of forming a basis for generalisation about lawyers vis-a-vis Scientology and similarly lawyers vis-a-vis NLP. In response to GregA's comment above, the questionable references (eg. Crabtree, Watchman Expositor) have been excised. Would you care to point out which you deem questionable on the discussion page? flavius 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article editors has specifically attempted to put NLP in a bad light using guilt-by-association (see New Age references and dianetics references in the main summary to start with), and when challenged and asked for a Yes/No statement on whether they were doing so refused to provide one and handwaved instead. There is plenty to critique NLP for, yet this article goes way beyond that, misrepresenting what NLP is and using guilt-by-association. I consider this article to shame Wikipedia. --EivindEklund
Nonsense. NLP is "in a bad light" and it's defects stand on their own merit, no guilt-by-association is or need be resorted to. NLP is connected to Dianetics via (a) influence of General Semntics; (b) Frtiz Perls; (c)modus operandi namely "reprogramming" and submodality attenuation; and (d) common assumptions about origin of pathology; (e) common notions of perfect memory and infinite subconscious repository (reactive mind vs. unconscious mind), Time Line Therapy is even more like Dianetics. If the article mis-represents NLP what then is the proper representation? NLP is a science? NLP is an art? NLP is an epistemology? What? Put up or shut-up, that's what the discussion section is for. Argue your case. flavius 12:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Neuro-linguistic_programming/archive1&oldid=1210511284"