Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/FT2

This is a temporary page to thrash out core principles and differences on the NLP article, and give it either a consensus direction, or a summary for a mediator.

The talk page is not doing very well. Like other articles with deep conflict of views, it degenerates into rants, nitpicking, and the people who actually want to work on it get pissed off at the inability of others to focus and the need to engage what they see as tangents and ignorance. So this is a separate page. Here are some draft rules:

If you want to contribute, you can. If you can't, don't. This is not the formal talk page, conciseness and focus are likely to be looked for. This page is for those who can work collaboratively and would otherwise get annoyed at how nothing's being resolved elsewhere.
So... this page is to identify first, and thrash out second, the big issues. Not the small stuff or personal disagreement.
The ideal end product of this page is a schemata for how we will approach the article, which can then be thrashed out for detail in the normal way once we have more consensus on the major "blocking issues".
Posts on this page should be short and focussed. Long or multiple will get reverted. Again thats not democratic. But long and rambling doesn't achieve much. If it can't be said in summary, it's likely that it isn't being said well. Go away and reword it briefly.
To make it easy to follow, please add all posts at the end, and not "point by point" broken up. Use bullets liberally and keep it short. It helps improve the flow on complex discussion.

I find it incredible that a dozen reasonable and educated people cannot even agree whether NLP is pseudoscience hype crap, or a learning method suitable for olympic teams and top therapists. That to me is incredible.

For example, whether or not engrams are a "part of NLP", they are not core NLP - that is, they are not recognised across the board as part of the field in the same way that (say) meta-model or anchoring are. The question there is, with NLP being open by design, what variations and imports should be mentioned? And my answer is, we mention that it is open, give examples of things that are not core or are controversial, that some include, some don't... and thats that. Thats how wikipedia works, it's an encyclopedia not a pro/anti platform.

Before we discuss or go further, I know this is a very bold step. I've seen similar unsolvable disputes on other pages. Can we check if a focussed approach like this would be acceptable to anyone else? Would it be okay if this page was moderated if necessary, in case of excess verbal? In traditional wikipedia fashion, votes below please....?

Yes FT2 23:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes --Comaze 05:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes == GregA 05:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other (brief!) comments

I think to work, this needs to have the involvement of most editors. GregA 05:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep it concise & accurate within NPOV, cite your sources and verifiability, other editors will weigh in to reach consensus. --Comaze 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]