Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Neuro-linguistic programming
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DaveRight (talk | contribs) at 03:45, 23 November 2005 (→<day1> <month>). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by User:FuelWagon

There are two basic issues here:

(NPOV violation) First, the editors critical of NLP generally insert statements in the article such as "NLP is pseudoscientific (Smith)" when they need to write it in the form of "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscientific". The first version states someone's view as if it were fact (with a name in parens to downplay that it is actually just someone's view). The second version clearly reports the view from the source who says it. This wouldn't be a problem if it were a rare occurrence, but this format is used throughout the article, which gives a heavily biased slant to the article.

(verifiability issue) Second, if these same editors cite a source, they cite the source with a name in parenthesis. They are not giving enough information that an uninvolved editor could verify that the person named actually said what the editor claims they said. A name in parenthesis is not enough for someone who knows nothing about the topic to verify another editor's work. Often an editor paraphrases some source and places a name in parenthesis, requiring other editors to take on faith that the paraphrasing was an accurate representation of the source's view.

I've tried numerous times to rewrite "NLP is pseudoscientific (Smith)" to "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscientific" but these editors refuse to follow policy. I've also told them numerous times that they need to provide more than just a name for verifiability purposes. The title of a book and a page number would be acceptable. A URL would be even better. But for the most part, this requirement for verifiability has been ignored.

A more subtle issue is that critics of NLP generally take the worst of NLP and use it as an excuse to present it as if it represented the core of what NLP is. Positive sources of information have been deleted and more oddball sources have been inserted as an attempt to present NLP as "occult" and other deragaory terms. This occurred less often then the NPOV and verifiability issues mentioned above, but it is another form of NPOV violation.

23 September

06:58, 23 September 2005 HeadleyDown modifies the first sentence of the introduction to say "(NLP) is a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification technique", where the term "quasi-spiritual" is clearly POV, disputed, and biased. (Violation of WP:NPOV)

25 October

02:52, 25 October 2005 JPLogan modifies the first sentence of the entire NLP article to say "NLP is a pseudoscientific self help development", where the term "pseudoscientific" is clearly POV, disputed, and biased. (Violation of WP:NPOV)

27 October

06:31, 27 October 2005DaveRight edits opening sentence of entire article to call NLP "pseudoscientific". (violation of NPOV)

07:18, 27 October 2005 AliceDeGrey deleted successful use of NLP as "spam". Yet other critical editors have cited more oddball uses of NLP as proof that NLP is used for "witchcraft". (violation of NPOV)

07:19, 27 October 2005 deletes positive reference to research by PHD Patrick Merlevede that had a verifiable URL. (violation of NPOV)

08:01, 27 October 2005 AliceDeGrey, after deleting two positive sources above, inserts a critical source, showing editor's bias. (violation of NPOV)

14:53, 27 October 2005 HeadleyDown inserts "occult" applications of NLP. (violation of No Original Research, violation of NPOV)

17:13, 27 October 2005 HeadleyDown deletes positive reference to research by PHD Patrick Merlevede that had a verifiable URL. Edit summary says "one single dissertation is irelevant." (violation of NPOV)

28 October

02:28, 28 October 2005 HeadleyDown deletes valid reference to NLP.

05:27, 28 October 2005 AliceDeGrey adds POV terms "idiosyncratically", "charismatically or evangeliestically taught", "magic", "new age fad", "considered as pseudoscience", "charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty" (violation of NPOV)

06:12, 28 October 2005 DaveRight adds "because he could not resolve the dispute through the use of NLP", which is equivalent to "doctor, heal thyself". (violation of original research, violation of NPOV)

08:48, 28 October 2005 AliceDeGrey adds that NLP is "often promoted for the use of ... remote ESP influence" (violation of No Original Research, violation NPOV)

29 October

05:59, 29 October 2005 AliceDeGrey needs to rewrite this to "Morgan stated that ..." (violation of NPOV)

31 October

01:40, 31 October 2005 HeadleyDown adds "often promoted for the use of remote ESP" and "classed as pseudoscientific" (violation of NPOV)

03:30, 31 October 2005 DaveRight adds "inconclusive findings" with no source. (violation of No Original Research. violation NPOV)

09:53, 31 October 2005 AliceDeGrey adds that NLP is "often promoted for the use of ... remote ESP" also, later on adding "NLP has belief systems and social control methods. Certain cults use these in combination with the occult and pseudoscience" (violation No Original Research, violation NPOV)

15:11, 31 October 2005 HeadleyDown adds that NLP is "often promoted for the use of ... remote ESP" also, later on adding "NLP has belief systems and social control methods. Certain cults use these in combination with the occult and pseudoscience" (violation No Original Research, violation NPOV)

1 November

03:24, 1 November 2005 DaveRight reverts with the edit summary "I think that deserves some punishment." (violation of WP:Point)

2 November

00:04, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

00:06, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

00:07, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

00:09, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

02:06, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

04:33, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

3 November

02:31, 3 November 2005 (FuelWagon) HeadleyDown needs to rewrite "NLP is pseudoscience (Smith)" to "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". I've done it a dozen times and got reverted.

02:33, 3 November 2005 (FuelWagon) "pseudoscience" is POV, and in this diff, the word is unsourced, reported as fact, violating NPOV.

02:37, 3 November 2005 (FuelWagon) The disputed content is "The foundation for Bandler and Grinder's NLP is based in" followed by "spirituality" or "New Age". The block quote provided in the article immediately below this assertion never uses the phrase "New Age", but mentions that NLP is based on spirituality. I change the content to match what the sourced quote supports.

02:14, 3 November 2005 (FuelWagon) POV wording "NLP is an amoral, pseudoscientific psychocult (Smith)" needs to be rewritten to "Smith states that NLP is an amoral, pseudoscientific psychocult". I've done this a dozen times. it keeps getting reverted, so I deleted this one.

03:39, 3 November 2005 DaveRight does a blanket revert of a number of edits, reinserting a bunch of text including "Many such courses appear to depend more upon charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty, than actual quantifiable results, and so are often considered pure pseudoscience." as well as "Similar to other amoral pseudoscientific psychocults such as Dianetics and EST" Both sentences present as fact what is actualy disputed opinions of NLP, namely calling NLP "wish fullfillment", "pseudoscience", "amoral", and "psychocult" (Violation of WP:NPOV)

5 November

04:51, 5 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

16:41, 5 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

7 November

05:29, 7 November 2005 (FuelWagon) Edit summary: "Dianetics and Landmark Forum is off topic.". ANd it's impossible to tell if the Council Against Health Fraud mentions Dianetics and Landmark, or if "Loma" mentions them, or if HeadleyDown inserted them on his own. Unsourced and unclear assertion.

05:33, 7 November 2005 (FuelWagon) Edit summary says "This is criticism and belongs in the criticism section of intro, with plenty of sources to support use of such biased words". And HeadleyDown found a website selling witchcraft training tapes that said it used NLP techniques. That is like saying since abortion bomber Eric Rudolph is christian, then the introduction to the Christianity article should say that christianity is promoted by people who bomb abortion clinics. As far as I know, the poeple who developed NLP do not associate themselves or NLP with occult practices.

10 November

02:23, 10 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

02:24, 10 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

12 November

16:16, 12 November 2005 (FuelWagon) "quick fix or lay therapy, NLP trance seduction, and psychic or occult practices." completely unsourced, unverifiable.

16:20, 12 November 2005 (FuelWagon) The content says NLP has also been identified by the [[British Psychological Society]] as quintessential [[charlatan]]ry (Parker 1999). {{dubious}}. It was marked with a "dubious" tag and given how inflamatory a statement it is, I deleted it saying that it required some means to verify it. My edit summary ends with "please provide a URL for verification."

17:02, 12 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

17:13, 12 November 2005 HeadleyDown removes a critic of NLP's opinion from the criticism section ("Jan Damen describes NLP as occult"), rewords it to passive tense so the source (Jan Damen) is not mentioned and the opinion is presented more as fact, and then reinserts it into the pro-NLP section, making it look as if a pro-NLP source describes NLP as "occult". (Violation of WP:NPOV)

13 November

02:10, 13 November 2005 JPLogan inserts "occult practices". Edit summary says "needs no references whatsoever" (violation of NPOV)

02:25, 13 November 2005 JPLogan use of "some say" should be rewritten to directly attribute source. (violation of NPOV)

03:18, 13 November 2005 HeadleyDown iserts "promotion of these dubious therapies" (violation NPOV)

03:43, 13 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts therapies "have been found to be pseudoscientific." Should rewrite "(name) found therapies to be pseudoscientific" (Violation NPOV)

03:52, 13 November 2005 HeadleyDown removes one quote from Druckman that says studies of NLP are limited and insert a different quote more critical. Should at least report both views from Druckman.

14 November

02:47, 14 November 2005 DaveRight adds "However, as with other pseudoscientific subjects," (violation of NPOV)

03:05, 14 November 2005 DaveRight calls those supporting NLP "supporters" and those who are critical of NLP to be "scientists". No source. (violation NPOV, violation original research)

09:58, 14 November 2005 Bookmain adds "Although NLP is has been found to be largely ineffective" (violation of NPOV)

10:04, 14 November 2005 Bookmain adds weasel words "attempt" and "claims"

10:11, 14 November 2005 Bookmain adds "However, as with other pseudoscientific subjects," (violation of NPOV)

11:37, 14 November 2005 HeadleyDown needs to rewrite this to "Singer states that NLP is..." (Violation of NPOV)

11:11, 14 November 2005 HeadleyDown needs to rewrite this to "Drenth, Levelt consider NLP to be pseudoscientific" (violation NPOV)

15 November

03:09, 15 November 2005 DaveRight adds "NLP's pseudoscientific misconceptions" (violation NPOV)

03:18, 15 November 2005 DaveRight inserts text including "NLP, in addition to other pseudoscientific therapies, is criticised for..." (violation NPOV)

06:35, 15 November 2005 AliceDeGrey edit summary "Scientific view will prevail."

15:12, 15 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

16 November

01:23, 16 November 2005 HeadleyDown again reports in the pro-NLP section of introduction that NLP is used for "occult" purposes, where "occult" is POV, biased, and disputed. (violation NPOV)

03:27, 16 November 2005 DaveRight "NLP is dubious" (violation NPOV)

03:35, 16 November 2005 DaveRight reports in the pro-NLP section of introduction that NLP is "fringe", where the term "fringe" is POV, biased, and disputed. (violation NPOV)

17 November

01:55, 17 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts statement that NLP is used for "fringe therapy", "psychic activities", "covert seduction", and the "occult". (violation NPOV)

02:33, 17 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts statement that NLP is "Similar to other amoral pseudoscientific psychocults such as Dianetics and EST" (violation NPOV)

05:18, 17 November 2005 Mysekurity locks page.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

<day1> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.

Look up there, FuelWagon just accused me of writing "NLP, just like other pseudoscientific subjects" as if it is a hanging offence. ITS NOT FAIR! The evidence is all over the place article. FuelWagon is clearly trolling!:) Banish him into the wilderness! Cheers DaveRight 03:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

<day2> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming/Evidence&oldid=29030682"