Jump to content

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doc pato (talk | contribs) at 19:20, 26 January 2007 (→Re-Structuring: Consolidating Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

Special Rules for this discussion

To keep this article on track this discussion has strict rules.

  1. All posts must be on-topic. One thread per topic. Please strive to work with other editors to improve the article.
  2. New threads should be avoided while we are working on resolving issues in one thread.
  3. There should be a maximum of 3 active threads. Any other threads will be moved to personal space.
  4. Any posts that address people on a personal level will be moved to the associated talk page. Any personal comments can be refactored, archived or moved to the associated personal talk page.
  5. Anything off-topic will be refactored or moved to a personal space
  6. Any posts from banned editors will be archived immediately
WikiProject iconPsychology B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
[[]] This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. Remember to always assume good faith.
Archive
Archives
  1. Pre-Oct 2005
  2. Oct 2005 Disputes
  3. Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 1
  4. Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 2
  5. Nov 3 - 13, 2005 (Mediated)
  6. Nov 13 - 25, 2005 (Mediated ) 2005
  7. Nov 25 - Dec 22, 2005 (Mediated) 2005
  8. Dec 22, 2005 - Jan 14, 2006 (Mediated) 2006
  9. Jan 14, 2006
  10. To ArbCom decision Feb 6 2006
  11. Mentorship begins
  12. Mentorship ends, HeadleyDown and many socks blocked
  13. The Swish discussion (March 6th - March 9th, 2006)
  14. General Workshop discussion (Feb 12th to May 10th, 2006)
  15. June 6 2006 to December 31 2006
  16. Longterm abuser trolling/disinformation discussion (December 17 2006 to Present)
  17. Late December to January 19 2007

Re-Structuring

I noticed the 'Research reviews' has been moved into the 'Classifying NLP' section. Rationale? Doc Pato 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I thought they fitted better after the science section. However, I have no strong views on the subject if you think they would be better suited elsewhere.Fainites 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the new position. 58.179.173.84 05:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What new position? DocPatos comment or the position of research reviews? They were moved on 11th jan. Fainites 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze, have you contacted Cleanup yet? I couldn't work out how to get in touch with the same person, or isn't it supposed to be the same person?Fainites 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the person who did the cleanup report was not a regular member of that taskforce so I could not get in contact. I've ask peer-review to comment on our progress. --Comaze 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks Fainites 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about putting the Research reviews before 'Classifying NLP'? Previously it was between Mental Health Practice and Human Resources which didn't seem appropriate. It's too far down and not specifically related to either. 'Research reviews' cover broader aspects than MH practice. They mostly undermine the underlying principles and theories of NLP. There is scientific criticism and specific research relating to MH practice in the MH section itself. The research reviews need to be near the science issues. Fainites 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I didn't understand research reviews as a subsection of science and pseudoscience. I'd prefer it be a sub-section of reception as it has little to do with classification (to my mind). Perhaps move the whole Reception section above the Classifying NLP section. 58.179.182.216 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think on reflection you're probably right. It could go above Mental health, then move the whole thing up. Then the 'classifying' section. Try it and see how it looks.Fainites 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a contribution from an unknown editor added today near the top when we were discussing classification last time. I've copied it down here in case it's missed.Fainites 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I have 3+ years experience with NLP and I will give you my opinion to help you make a better categorization. NLP is not a science, nor is it an art nor a religion. NLP is the study of the place where science, art, and religion overlap, also known as 'subjective experience.' The original subtitle of NLP was 'the study of the structure of subjective experience.' The structure of some NLP organizations may sometimes resemble that of a cult, but NLP itself is not a cult, though it can be used by cults. Subjective experience is not always directly measurable. This is why science has a hard time with NLP. The primary way to understand subjective experience is not by measuring it - that is comparing it to something else like a yardstick - but rather by observing the structure of subjective processes that occur in all manner of human experiences - from experiences in science, art, religion, etc. Think of it in the same way that quantum physics is not an exact science, and is sometimes paradoxical. I offer this explanation to you only as a guide to help you find the right way to categorize NLP correctly. The dispute over this article comes directly from misunderstanding and miscommunication - something that NLP itself does alot to rectify when used correctly.67.174.224.210 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tried the re-order as discussed. Overall I think it's an improvement but feel free to revert if you disagree. I think perhaps your tags ought to go though Comaze. They haven't achieved anything yet.Fainites 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What tags are you referring to? --Comaze 13:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow my suggestion got waylayed with the archiving... but how does the idea of a specific 'Criticism' section of NLP sound? This is something that's been discussed in the past, but always opposed by the sock army. The research reviews could be re-headed (unless someone wants to add the reviews suggesting some efficacy as well) and integrated within a general 'Criticism' section, which can even be possibly be followed with a brief counter criticism section? Thoughts? Doc Pato 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=103438771"