Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about Neuro-linguistic programming. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

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...

The study is not published in an American Psychological Association peer reviewed journal.
The study is published in the peer reviewed journal Counselling and Psychotherapy Research by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.
The study is indexed in the American Psychological Association's PsycINFO database.
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[1], 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[2] 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). [3]. Here is a more recent case study by professor Gray that also suggests further research[4] 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[5]. 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)[6]. --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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 [7][8] 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[9]) have also argued research is ongoing. There is currently research ongoing in field of astrology [10][11] 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 [12] and here [13] 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" [14]. 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

Edit request on 21 December 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The entry starts with a highly objective statement "NLP is largely discredited" without any references that back this up. As a student studying counselling, hypnotherapy and NLP, I find this biased opening statement should be deleted unless the view can be substantiated with reputable references.

Redmarti (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For other editors - this is the ninth new account created in the last six weeks on this subject, all making similar requests. A meat farm is obviously in operation ----Snowded ^TALK 10:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No snowded as I have said above "Snowded, when I first started looking for an NLP school to commence training I did read that there had been over 500,000 people with formal training in NLP at that time. The likelihood that you are going to experience resistance on this article because of the POV tone is and always will be very high." Enemesis. The fact that there are many people involved with NLP training and stand by it's paradigm you will have people come to view one of their favourite topics and decide that is not written correctly. They will want to be involved in clarifying the article. This is as you would expect. Enemesis (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny how they only come in clusters around when Comaze attempts to edit again isn't it? ----Snowded ^TALK 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well snowded, since you agree that the norcross is representative of the whole article and you believe you can use it's phrase to summarize it, maybe we can find a more amenable solution by using "possibly or probably discredited" or something similar to it. By the way, I was just waiting till some one else came along to comment again so I can have some consensus with others on the page as well (incase you were wondering why i am commenting now). It certainly seemed to be a ghost town for a while there. An adaptive system (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

":

Not done: The information is well-sourced in the body of the article; the lead does not need to repeat the sources in the body, and since it's a broad summary of many sources, trying to put sources there would just be cumbersome. Plus, of course, all of the article's history. Qwyrxian (talk)

That may be the case Qwyrxian, however the article is written in such a way that people will come away with the feeling of "well ok, lets stay away from NLP then." and really be none the wiser about the subject. Wikipedia is a place of learning and fun to come away feeling like we know a little more about the world because of what we have read. because of the serious and dour tone of the article and the reluctance to represent NLP in a NPOV light. I feel there is a severe manipulation of wikipedia policy and beauracracy to get what you want. This article is not a review. It is a description of NLP and all its components. Please write it in a non pov style to satisfy the needs of the reader. Enemesis (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As you have been told a hundred times Enemesis, its neutral as to the sources. You solution has always been to find other sources, not to repeat Ad Nauseam your opinions and rather foolish accusations. All independent editors who have looked at it are happy with largely discredited. The compromise is to move it to the second paragraph, but only if you will agree that ends the matter until you have new sources ----Snowded ^TALK 07:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I dont mind you saying what you have to say in the article but you must listen. The format is wrong it is not descriptive. The information is used to create judgement from the reader. Now please can I ask and instruct you nicely to please reformat the article to something that is both informative and educational as well being descriptive of your views? Enemesis (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No editor can instruct another Enemesis, neither should be article be representative of either my or your views. Both those comments reveal your level of ignorance about WIkipedia. You really need to read up on WP:NPOV and WP:RS. When you have something other than your opinion to offer present it here, otherwise you will just be ignored. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSCOI have you followed this? Enemesis (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and two previous reviews by the community have confirmed that I have. Try addressing the need for references, although I suspect you constant opining and now your attempt to undermine other editors indicates you can't. You might also like to read up on how to format your comments if you are finally starting to look up wikipedia process; a trend I would like to encourage. I did it for you this time to help out ----Snowded ^TALK 09:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

sample article of npov or COI

NPOV article

These are known as good npov examples from the COI page. Can you use some of these ideas and model them into the the articles formatting so that it is more clear for the readers what the subject is about? Enemesis (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"The compromise is to move it to the second paragraph, but only if you will agree that ends the matter until you have new sources" What gives you the authority to make that claim? I don't see how you could guarantee the out come of such a negotiation. An adaptive system (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

This is my proposal for the first paragraph: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, USA in the 1970s. The title refers to an asserted connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic"), and behavioural patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") that its proponents say can be changed to achieve specific goals in life.^[1]^[2] Among certain neuroscientists,^[3] psychologists,^[4]^[5] and linguists,^[6]^[7] it is considered discredited due to a lack of empirical support for its claimed effectiveness, methods, concepts and terminology." --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Making a proposal is good, making the changes directly when you know there is disagreement is wrong but you know that only too well as its a pattern repeated over your different identities. Your wording compromises the criticism too much and there is not a clear agreement yet on if discredited should be removed to the second paragraph. I'm prepared to support that if it ends the dispute, but not if it is just the first stage in a series of changes you plan to make. At the moment we still do not have citations that say it is credible. The qualification of "certain neuroscientists, psychologists" etc. is thus misleading as it implies there are sources in those academic fields or others which say differently. Todate when challenged on this you have simply listed the results of google searches without critical consideration of sources so please don't do that again. Find some comparative studies that seek to evaluate NLP, not self reports or material that requires original research or synthesis to support your view.----Snowded ^TALK 13:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"certain" is also ambiguous: are we referring to "certain" as in specific professionals or are they "certain" as in confident in their view? I'll wait for others to comment on your other points because I've been away. --Reconsolidation (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo are as ever avoiding the question as to other sources. I suspect we need to revert to the last stable version before you continued your slow edit war ----Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm on holidays at the moment. When I return I can review the sources for you. I think we need to put together a working group for this article. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The introduction needs to say that NLP consists of step-by-step techniques for achieving change for self and others. That is a crucial aspect of NLP that has been omitted from the opening section. For example, Professor Wiseman says "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) consists of a diverse collection of psychological techniques that aim to enhance peoples’ lives [3]." doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040259. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing changes?

As we are all editors here of equal value, I do not understand why we are looking for approval from Snowded when editing this page in total. I would like to suggest that other editors here would be free to edit the page within the bounds of wiki policy without such approval from one editor but as a colaboration of opinion as to what changes should be made toward the article. The way this could work is for someone to suggest an editing decision those that are against can provide reasoning those for can also provide reasoning for the proposed edit and only one submission from each editor. perhaps at this time any tweaks could also be suggested. Then a vote system of either aye or nay on both the edit and the tweak's to the edit to reach some mediation on the subject. Enemesis (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Open up a Rfc & send out 'neutral' requests to random editors, to particpate. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And the changes you have made have been reversed by multiple editors Enemesis not just me. Wikipedia is not a democracy, they have been reversed because they are not founded in reliable third party sources but represent a personal opinion of the editors making the changes. If you suggest a change here it will be discussed based on wikipedia policy which is to summarise the reliable sources. RfC (as GoodDay suggests) and also dispute resolution can be invoked. However Wikipedia will look with suspicion when every time discussion on this article arises we can a spate (5 so far) of SPA accounts freshly created. That suggests meat puppetry and probably needs investigation (something else that Wikipedia allows for) ----Snowded ^TALK 08:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, when I first started looking for an NLP school to commence training I did read that there had been over 500,000 people with formal training in NLP at that time. The likelihood that you are going to experience resistance on this article because of the POV tone is and always will be very high. Enemesis (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This WP:IDHT approach, is quite frustrating & to be blunt disruptive. Why are you avoiding the advise given to you? OPEN A RFC, in the manner I suggested. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

@ GoodDay, I thought you had no interest in this article. Snowded made a comment mentioning spas and meat puppets that claim is easily defendable by saying the truth. There is an absolutely huge community of NLP practitioners you can expect with the current state of the page that there will always be people who will want an NPOV article. Now whilst you have had a little tirade at me, had you noticed snowded's little rant to scare people from the idea of an RfC? of which I would have to research to know what that means.

OPEN A RFC, What are you afraid of? Right now, you & the other editors who want to make the intro NPoV, are only repeating yourselves. I have little interest in the article, but I do get annoyed with SPAs when they continue on a tentative course. IF you feel there's no way to get the changes you want? then just leave. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The internal motivations of other editors are not available for your perusal; this is an inappropriate comment. Please keep the discussion to the article itself. siafu (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Enemesis, I am sure that there are many people who are trained in NLP, it really doesn't matter. What does matter is what third party reliable sources say. Until you address that issue you are wasting people's time. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

COI, all around?

FWIW, I suspect there's COI on both sides in this dispute. However, I've neither the time 'nor' ability to handle the headaches that would accompany me, should I investigate those suspicions. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The accusation has been made before GoodDay, twice, and rejected by the community each time. It comes from external NLP sites which contain some crazy conspiracy theories about sock puppets as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who levied the charge and was rebuked by the Wikipedia administration. That was a waste of time. The only way to move this article forward is by respecting the editors and building a true consensus.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Probability of finding a source saying "NLP is not a discredited method"

Any one want to start a pool on there ever being such a statement in a reliable source? htom (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather we work together and put a post on the reliable source noticeboard to get comments from uninvolved editors. Have you read this book: The Clinical Effectiveness of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Critical Appraisal (Advances in Mental Health Research) Lisa Wake (Editor), Richard Gray (Editor), Frank Bourke (Editor). Routledge (October 24, 2012). It is published by Routledge, a reputable academic press. The editors include an assistant professor (Gray) and two PhDs (Wake and Bourke). They present a discussion of the evidence base including a discussion of its credibility as a mental health practice. They have also published in peer-reviewed journals. I think that book might be acceptable as a source to present another point of view. Gray has been investigating NLP in the treatment of PTSD. Wake has been involved in the UKCP. Bourke has a background in psychiatry. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of so many noticeboards that some admins are surely already exhausted. But regardless we can still build consensus for reliable sources among the editors on this talk page. For example, I've spent a great deal of time studying the peer reviewed journals in the American Psychological Association's psych info database. That is a fantastic resource. Some of the results of that research are visible on my talk page and are similar to the one you mention. But what I think we need is a review of these articles from a reliable source (since there are several highly regarded reviews that span the latest literature expressing the current POV in the article). That would move the ball forward and encourage the other editors to reflect what I would feel would be a more balanced perspective. In the meantime I would caution against edit warring again. --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation in his current and previous guises has a long history of periods of inactivity followed by slow edit warring. Hopefully that will stop. Otherwise if there are sources then we need to see what edits are proposed based on them, and the text which is being used to support those edits; BEFORE changes are made to the article----Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

And just while we are at it Lisa Wake runs an NLP Consultancy and Training group, again this is the Surrey link that has been discussed before.----Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Wake was chair of UKCP so she is notable. Will you admit that Routledge is a reputable academic publisher for this topic (per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE) compared to some of the others sources used in the current article? This source goes into the issue of credibility in more depth than many of the other research papers. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

the value of a source depends on what it is intended to support. If you are seeking to third party sources with a review written by someone whose main business is now an NLP consultancy and training business it's dubious. To be honest you keep referencing the Sussex group which again while in an academic environment a also running an NLP consultancy business. I suggest you try and find some third party material. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Routledge is a reputable academic publishing house ("Commercial Academic Press" ) and is acceptable according to the verifiability policy. It is listed [15] here] as reputable. "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas."WP:FRINGE, See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources Can you please quote the relevant policy you are referring to? --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, You can't answer peer reviewed sources with non-peer reviewed ones with COI and expect there to be a consensus. I'm in favor of your POV and yet you're even testing my patience at this point.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the section below where I ask about majority, minority and tiny minority view points per WP:UNDUE. A reputable commercial academic publishing house like Routledge is not as strong as an university press or peer-review journal article but it is still acceptable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes its good you found a source but my experience tells me you will run into a lot of trouble with other editors making vague statements that don't involve a specific edit request. Start with an edit obviously correct and then defend it with peer reviewed journals. My concern is that if snowded brings an arbcom request against you that your edit history will fully support his assertion. That would take us away from the POV you are supporting.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For the very last time Reconsolidation, I am making no comment on any source you propose until you say what edit you want it to support. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we agree that Routledge is a reputable commercial academic source? -Reconsolidation (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

See my last answer ----Snowded ^TALK 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I will assume that Routledge is a reputable commercial academic press. It has less weight than a university press or a high ranking peer-review journal but more weight than other publishing houses, industry magazines and low-rank journals. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just remember to propose changes here first, or if you must edit direct then respect WP:BRD rather than just edit warring (making minor changes still makes it edit warring). Your Arbcom restriction enjoins you to use the talk page remember. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

eye lie detection myth

There is a recent article which tested the myth that eye movements can detect lies: "The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming". The authors established that this lie detection myth is still quite prevalent on the internet (based on youtube and google searches). They found that eye movements failed to predict lies. Can this be covered in the current article or should it be covered in the representation system subarticle under the subtitle "lie detection myth" or something like that? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

lol, who in the NLP commounity is making that claim? as far as I know the teachings are that there are habits formed from eye accessing cues. http://www.nlp-practitioners.com/interactive/nlp-eye-access-cues-game.php . as in this example or there is another which refutes the lie detection myth. Lie detection myth as explained by Nlpers in England In essence you are writing about fringe claims. Please tackle the mainstream. Enemesis (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll just quote the article I cited above: "Although the originators of NLP didn’t view ‘constructed’ thoughts as lies, this notion has become commonplace, leading many NLP practitioners to claim that it is possible to gain a useful insight into whether someone is lying from their eye-movements". --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

http://coachingleaders.emotional-climate.com/another-nlp-claim-debunked-but-was-anyone-claiming-it/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system11:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

tbh mate I have never read that, infact the literature is usually the same summary of eye accessing cues. The idea that you could detect lies with NLP is considerred bad practice and is not existent in mainstream NLP literature. common ideas on eye accessing cues . The idea that you can detect lies seems more like a weak hook to gain clientelle by fringe Practitioners an opinion on eye accessing cues not found in mainstream or the creators intent. infact it further states in the first article and in regards to mind reading abilities or being psychic as referred to by article reference 10,12 it states "Learning to read eye-accessing cues will not make you a mind reader but will give you a clue to the way the other person is thinking." This directly debunks those articles claims of what the creators have said NLP can do in terms of developing "psychic" powers or and I have to ask. What is sleep learning? I've never heard of this tbh. Visually constructed eye accessing cues are primarily to see someone become imaginitive usually with outcomes in mind this is a very pleasurable experience of viewing and constructing a future or seeing how they would feel with new emotional resources. You would then layer it with audio constructed resources that will build congruency in the feeling and the momentum of the new action and mindset that will take place with the client. This is never really explained however it becomes part of the outcome of learning eye accessing cues. the reason it is not highlighted as the outcome I guess is because you take the tools and make the connections between each part yourself that is making the neural connections within your mind takes a deeper hold and a great reference point for putting a system of parts together in which the world is full of systems to be explored found and improved upon. That is just my opinion. Enemesis (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Using eye movements, state shifts and calibration to allegedly detect lies is often traced to NLP. It was not a claim made by the originators but it has been claimed by other proponents of NLP according to the study. I really think it should be included in this article supported by the study by professor Wiseman and other points of view if covered by reputable sources. "Proponents of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) have long claimed that it is possible to tell whether a person is lying from their eye movements. Research published July 11 in the journal PLoS ONE reveals that this claim is unfounded, with the authors calling on the public and organisations to abandon this approach to lie detection."[17] --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

While it may be traced to NLP, as early as 1986 Richard Bandler said in front of a US Government enquiry that using eye accessing cues as a lie detector has nothing to do with NLP. Most serious NLP trainers and practitioners also reject the concept. To blame NLP for something a few misguided practitioners and writers support would be akin to me calling car drivers killers because a few drivers have killed others with their cars. Both are ludicrous generalisations and examples of flawed logic. NBOliver (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this point being made by the SPA accounts is more or less right. Would be helpful to have a more reliable third party secondary source than doubtfulnews.com because the sources in the article were deemed reliable after substantial discussion. Perhaps a new source can be found that clarifies.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

statement not supported by references

The following statement appears in the lead: "NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level." None of the references (Lum 2001; Lilienfeld et al 2001; Dunn et al 2008) directly support the statement. Please provide additional references that actually support the reference or remove it from the article. I think this was intentionally to see how long it would take for someone to check it. --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In one of your various previous identities you might recall the conversation about this one ----Snowded ^TALK 07:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're attempting synthesis. If you are supporting the statement as it stands, can you provide quotes from those references or provide alternate references that directly support the statement? --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As a serial editor you have some responsibility to remember previous conversations, mind you constantly changing your ID is not very responsible in the first place so maybe its asking too much? ----Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We can wait for someone else to check it then. Its just not in the reference as far as I can see. I think it was deliberate joke to test if people actually check the sources. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

False memory syndrome? It was a MIT professor as you well know. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember the professor's name? That does not explain why it is not supported by the current references. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes Scott I do, and if you check your previous ID's edit history you will probably find the discussion. As I recall there were several but Pentland was the MIT one. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Alex Pentland at MIT? Do you have a reference for that or any of the others? I cannot find it in my database. Seems like double standards. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, look thorough your previous IDs editing history and you will find the material. You have only ever edited on one subject so it shouldn't be difficult. Just to be clear, what you are doing is highly disruptive. You periodically change IDs in order to be able to raise again issues which have previously been resolved. Its not technically sock puppetry as you only, briefly had an overlap but it is disruptive. How to deal with it awaits advise. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I've already answered the sockpuppet case. Please don't harp on about it which I feel is a kind of harassment. As you know a vital aspect of wikipedia is wp:verifiability: verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. If the issue had been previously resolved as you claim, then the references would be correct. If you have evidence that Alex Pentland at MIT said something about NLP then it should be verifiable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've not accused you of sock puppetry, but of using different IDs to allow you to raise resolved issues and of meat puppetry. I'm waiting for advise as to where to raise that behaviour issue. If you want to fact tag that section feel free. I am more concerned at this stage at the long term disruption that is associated with you. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation was closed because I was unrelated to the accounts you accused me of. The clerk cannot comment on IP addresses for privacy reasons anyway. My door is open if you want to engage in dispute resolution. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, I have never accused you of sock puppetry but of serial name changes, and on at least once occasion meat puppetry. The last time you backed off when the community was about to investigate and stopped editing for an extended period, then returned with yet another name change and a cluster of new SPAs. If you want to make a clean breast of your past names then it might be possible to work with you ----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If snowded is right this is the most disruptive behavior since the Headley Down fiasco in '06. Guys, it would be a much better use of everyone's time if we could just focus on sources again.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

obscure sources

"[6][15] NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level."

6 is a bunch of reboots to the NLP page with no other links, how does it qualify to be a source? 15 has a short blurb about a study into bad psychology practices. The full text costs 11.95 and the rss feed does not mention NLP. Neither seem to be related to the subject matter "facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level" unless I'm missing something. Enemesis (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"[20] However, Noam Chomsky does not himself practice or recommend NLP. His original work provides theory and terminology for analyzing language, but was never intended for therapeutic purposes." [20] has only a reference to a book which may or may not have the information that you have described. Please use sources that can be validated and confirmed by all editors without paying exorbitant fees on books, sites etc... Enemesis (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"According to Clancy and Yorkshire (1989), Bandler and Grinder say that they studied Perls's utterances on tape and observed a second therapist, Virginia Satir, to produce what they termed the meta model, a model for gathering information and challenging a client's language and underlying thinking."

Who are Clancy and yorkshire? are they prominent? featured on wikipedia even? There is no link therefore no way to say that the correct terminology is "challenging a clients language" or that these people exist much less the dialogue. The source is erroneous and the wording and motive is deeply questionable. challenging would not be the word to describe. Enemesis (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

scientific criticism a whole section of the article practically devoid of any source citations. Enemesis (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is more. I will get to it in time. Enemesis (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

When raising an objection about specific part of the article here please refer first to archives for relevant issue. It has usually been dealt with already often many times before by possibly same editors. Present those links here to make discussion productive.[18][19][20]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. which parts would you like me to look at? It's all garbled nonsense to me about past edits unless you can spell it out for everyone. much like the obscure sources section I have just started. No I do not think it has been handled as the wiki article has been edited since then and also has a different tone since that time. If your attempt is to daze and confuse you have succeeded if it is to clarify it has failed. Enemesis (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read carefully those archives.

The links of the present article go direct to Lum.C (2001), Lilienfeld.S, Mohr.J., Morier.D.. (2001), and Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008) clearly stated in the references section. Those are references that teach scientific literacy at the professional and university level.

The Chomsky reference is Stollznow.K (2010). "Bad language: Not-so Linguistic Programming". Skeptic 15 (4): 7. Clancy and Yorkshire appear to be reasonable sources.

The Scientific Criticism section does not necessarily need to include statements by founders or promoters of the neuro-linguistic programming. The existing citations of the section appear to be fine. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry maybe you dont understand, I dont want (and from now on) I do not want subtle sources or nought concrete definitions. in case you do not understand I want it explained to me in full and in this context. right here or I feel when you leave links I am in a totally different conversation. leave your stuff here please so I and others may understand please . Enemesis (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You would of course have to givre notice of where this takes place to be clear ---> The links of the present article go direct to Lum.C (2001), Lilienfeld.S, Mohr.J., Morier.D.. (2001), and Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008) clearly stated in the references section. Those are references that teach scientific literacy at the professional and university level.

"Bad language: Not-so Linguistic Programming". Skeptic 15 (4): 7. Clancy and Yorkshire appear to be reasonable sources. clear but to whom? according to ur links it does not exist and is not accesable but only on your say so. please give reliable links to your sources or as far as I know it does not exist. Enemesis (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you need to clarify on which sources exactly you think do not exist and why you do not think they exist? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

About 10 seconds of research is all that is requried to determine that the source is, in fact, real: [21][22]. siafu siafu (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Siafu, 1. If editors want me to chase down all their sources when editting wikipedia every time thats going to be a hell of a lot of 10 seconds adding up. 2. I can't read that source to validate it. Enemesis (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1. If you are going to claim that a source "does not exist", it would be entirely appropriate to take ten seconds to see if that statement could be plausibly true first. 2. WP:OFFLINE. siafu (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And there is no reason why you should be exempt from the duties on any editor to do basic research and to read the archives if necessary. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Which source is more reliable as a source for the early history and origins of NLP: Clancy and Yorkshire (1989) "Bandler Method" or Robert Spitzer's "Virginia Satir & Origins of NLP". --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You have told before that asking general questions outside the context of proposals for change is inappropriate ----Snowded ^TALK 06:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The context would be the section on the history and origins of NLP and the collaboration between Bandler and Grinder and the three psychotherapists they studied. It could also cover how they met Bateson through Spitzer who introduced them to Erickson. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to propose text for a judgement to be made about sources. I am pretty sure both your Action Potential, and the last IP identity were told this. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You lost your sockpuppet investigation because the accounts and IP addresses were unrelated and on separate convenient with different behaviour. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for improving the sources, but this is a pretty source-rich article. We'd be better off prioritizing and targeting our work. The first question I'd ask is if there are any sources that are promoting obvious falsehoods or fringe POVs. If there are none, and it's just a matter of having decent information with obscure sources, we can try to find additional sources for each point one by one. But we're better off going a section at a time, or a few points at a time. Vcessayist (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody seems to agree on content changes. That's why I'm suggesting we work on improving the sourcing method in the meantime. I will do it if nobody else wants to. It will be much easier for new editors to check existing sources and collaborate. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A big part of the reason for content disagreement has been the persistent category mistake of new editors. You can have a more reliable third party primary source that is inadequate to defeat a third party secondary source if the review of the available literature by the latter includes the former. THAT has been the very successful basis for creating the negstive POV in the article. What's needed is sources of the same category that are newer and more reliable. Otherwise experienced editors will be right to dismiss this and accuse the SPA accounts of edit warring. We'll just go in circles.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"a largely discredited approach"

In the lead sentence of the lead paragraph of the lead in the article ... such a POV statement needs a citation, not SYN. htom (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

lede summarises the article, it not normal for there to be citations. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The leading paragraph has seven citations. Add another for that phrase, or I'll have to remove it as SYN. htom (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Might be better to remove the other references, they don't belong in a lede. Lets see what other editors think, so far attempts to remove it have been reverted by several different editors so you are in a minority and would be edit warring abainst consensus (again) ----Snowded ^TALK 06:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The current version looks representative. Htom, I can have a search through the newer literature on the subject. Did you have the particular request?

The current citation at the end of the lede states neuro-linguistic programming to be "certainly discredited". An alternative could just be simply; discredited. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone actually saying "largely discredited approach" would be appropriate. Another alternative would be to leave the name-calling adjectives for later in the paragraph. htom (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"a largely discredited approach" This statement is vague and unquantifiable. I believe this falls under the weasel words category. I am shocked no one has questioned the neutrality of this article maybe some one can help me I'm new to this side of Wikipedia.

I questioned it and consequently read it. Its fine. "a largely discredited approach" might be inferior to "discredited" though. Karbinski (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the best response would be to name the number of qualified academics who claim nlp to be discredited. something along the lines of "according to..." An adaptive system (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the sentence wouldn't have to open with "according to".

There is no requirement to do that, unless and until you can produce some real sources to support a contrary view. Todate you and the latest cluster are all making the same general statements with no supporting evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with "htom"s original point that "discredited" in the beginning of the article, all by itself with no explanation, is a very strong and mysterious statement. I am brand new to NLP and came here first, and it immediately struck me when reading the opening. On the one hand I really appreciate the fact that scientists are trying to protect people like me from being gullable, but the term "discredited" alone seems too direct and even attacking. It would be like having an article about UFO chasers, and starting said article "UFO chasers are a delusional group of people who try to find...." I think it might sound better if it said, "NLP is a technique that has been officially discredited in university studies but is still practiced by a smaller group of believers...." Not to be more lenient on NLP, but simply to explain. Then again what do I know, I'm just a browser and new to NLP as well. edit -- on further thought I see that the third paragraph does a better job of deeper explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.21.146.241 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK - show me one expert who discredits the core of NLP, which is about modelling excellence. Modelling is used in systems analysis, high level sports coaching etc. As a start, consider this quote by John Grinder, one of the co-founders of NLP: "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." You and many of the "experts" have fallen into the same trap, which leads me to question their legitimacy as "experts" and your credibility for editing this article. NBOliver (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This really needs to go to the POV noticeboard to get an independent opinion. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the most important thing one should know about NLP is that it is largely discredited. The most important thing should be in the opening definition. Probably we should also say up front that it was part of the human potential movement. Saying that it's a pseudoscience might be going to far. It's not a POV statement if it's what the experts say. Treating NLP as a legitimate discipline would be POV because the experts say the opposite. Leadwind (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That depends upon what you consider to be "NLP". "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." John Grinder, Co-Developer of NLP. Most of the so-called "experts" make this same mistake, usually focusing on one small NLP application, eye accessing cues. In doing so they demonstrate a very narrow view of what constitutes NLP. I have yet to find any "expert" who discredits the core of NLP, the modelling of excellence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBOliver (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You've inserted exactly the same comment in multiple sections so I will respond once. Find a reliable third party source which says that and we can look at it. Otherwise its just the opinion of the eleventh SPA account created in the last six weeks ----Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Had you considered that if 11 people created accounts to complain about the poor editorial approach to this article, then perhaps there may be some value in taking their views into account?

The United States National Research Council, stated in it's investigation of NLP led by Daniel Druckman that they""were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors... This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modelling in the second phase of its work." There are several places where you can find details of this research. Would you accept Wikipedia as a reputable source?

The Grindler quote can be found at http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/5/1/Symbolic-Modelling-an-overview/Page1.html, 78.145.240.107 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment regarding 11 people creating accounts is off the mark: wikipedia does not poll the entire world, but rather a self-selecting subset of people who are interested and able to edit wikipedia. This is why simple majority is the governing principle. Consider if we were to initiate an RfC on this question-- I don't doubt that we could canvass significantly more than 11 "people" (keep in mind that we have no proof that any two accounts are separate individuals) to complain about giving NLP too much credibility. Additionally, "Rapport, the journal of The Association for NLP (UK)" may be a good source on what NLP is, as described by NLP professionals, but is not a reliable source on whether NLP is considered a valid technique amongst psychological professionals, as it represents the community of those who already accept and support NLP, rather than a dispassionate or disinterested investigator. I would similarly not accept the Journal of Astrology for sources about the validity of astrology as a science. Lastly, wikipedia is not a source for itself, ever; see WP:OSE and WP:RS for explanations of why this is the case. siafu (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that I have got to snark about. Do you find the Skeptics Society to be an unbiased source of invalidity of psychological methods? htom (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Snarking seems to be the entirety of your contribution here, so I suppose I should not be surprised at the tenor of this comment. But, to address the question directly, I would say yes, the Skeptics Society would be a better source for the validity of a psychological method, assuming they have investigated it. Contrary to your apparent belief, skeptical organizations do not exist for the purpose of simply denying everything, but rather separating those claims that are supported by evidence from those which aren't. I'm sorry if it upsets you that NLP fails to pass that test, but this is not a matter of a fringe group pushing their POV. Also, for the record, organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA) would be more fruitful sources since their specialization means that they are more likely to have treated the issue in greater depth than the Skeptics Society, but there is in fact no a priori reason to suppose that the latter is somehow biased in this regard.siafu (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I think this page has become an attack page targeted at NLP, and the owning consensus is that it has no POV problem and insists on third party peer reviewed articles that explicitly refute the data points they've found before allowing changes or rewordings ... snark is what there is, just so that other editors who happen along can see that someone's objecting. Your opinion, obviously, varies. So it goes. htom (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Snarking will not advance the discussion in any direction, except to make other editors disinclined to hear out your views. If that's all you intend to do, you would be much better off not bothering, as wikipedia talk pages are about finding ways to improve their respective articles, not winning battles. siafu (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

first line

Maybe someone could change it to something along the lines of: "a small amount of evidence purports NLP to be possibly discredited". This is very rough and you would have to put the " NLP is" part at the beginning. Also, I think the Drug interventions, including alcohol, might belong somewhere else as they intent seems to be that they are commenting on NLP as a field on a whole which, they are not. This of course, is not a comprehensive solution but maybe it could reduce some conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Good ideas in part. The small amount of research on discredit is just not valid for the first line. It should be kicked totally from the article as its fringe, and certainly from the first line. Actually research by Tosey and co at the University of Surrey is still going on. The research is often positive and that is just not given any space here on the article. Of course the pseudoskeptics here are going to disagree, but HD and team may be gone before long especially if they keep pushing for arbitration. LTMem (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking it could be there short term, as a compromise. I'm glad more research is being conducted, but to my mind it'll take a lot for NLP's efficacy one way or another. That's just the nature of Fields that involve the human mind and or human behavior. I'm surprised that no one has written a response to the secondary research that is on the page. I seem to recall that someone criticised Sharpley though, maybe some one could source that. An adaptive system (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Yes the Einspruch research was never properly answered and some subsequent reviewers really still don't understand what NLP is about. The criticisms in the article are basically criticising the wrong thing. Thats not what most people learn about NLP proper. When Wikipedians have learned to deal properly with HD and co the article may get a proper re-writing that takes into account its real nature. LTMem (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why can't the Einspruch research be put on the page if it's a valid source? I'm guessing that the research in surrey is primary research. Either way could you provide a link for curiosity's sake? An adaptive system (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Remember that Tosey et al at Sussex are also an NLP Consultancy Group and are arguing that only phenomenological evidence is available. If there are proposals then raise them here as proposed edits in the main body of the article - remember the lede summarises that.----Snowded ^TALK 09:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, That Tosey thing is a whole other ball of wax and wouldn't be allowed on the page, though at the same time I think some of other research here may be suspect for competitive bias, but that's getting off topic. Are we not allowed to solicit suggestions here? If so, maybe someone could draft a lead that contains the idea suggested in the beginning of this section. Snowded, I'm not sure where you're going with the lede body issue. An adaptive system (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

The lede summarises the article. So if you want something there it has to be in the main body of the article. Your opening paragraph is your opinion of the literature. To include that in any way you need to find a reliable third part source which makes the same point. Read up on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and you should be able to see the issue. Also be aware that community is likely to be suspicious of eight new SPA accounts (at the last count) appearing on a controversial article. Especially when some (like LTMem) repeat accusations from sites which have been known to recruit meat puppets and have obviously edited or engaged before. On controversial articles, and this is one, its very important to focus not on the opinion of editors but on what is said in reliable third party sources. Speculations about what is or is not NLP by editors are a waste of time, what matters is what the sources say it is----Snowded ^TALK 11:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"largely discredited" is equally a matter of opinion. How can you prove that the small amount of secondary research = largely discredited? If you put the research in this field at parity at parity with other fields It is on the fringe level (of research). Furthermore, I deserve the same amount of respect as anyone else. It sounds like everyone here is suspected of something by someone. It's too bad we can't be innocent until proven guilty. Why is that so? p.s. most of the research on the page doesn't even talk about NLP as a field and a lot of it is just opinion, professional or not. That hardly justifies the synthesis already being made in the opening paragraphs. How do you suggest I proceed to avoid suspicion? An adaptive system (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

You proceed by finding some sources that support your opinion. The lede currently reflects referenced material in the body of the article. As to opinion, I am afraid "profession or not" is hardly the point. Wikipedia reflects published "professional" opinion, not the opinions of individual editors. Respect our need for sources and you will gain respect, continue to simply state your opinion and you won't ----Snowded ^TALK 02:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The "largely discredited" wording should indeed be deleted from the intro, per NPoV. BTW, I noticed 'yet' another newbie in the mix. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Same comment applies to you GoodDay, find some sources, don't opine! Otherwise yes and there will be more, the meat farm/network is obviously in full operation ----Snowded ^TALK 11:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A source isn't needed to remove a blatant Pov from an intro, anymore then excluding something like "evil, terrible human being" from the Adolf Hitler article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede reflects the main article, and the sources there support largely discredited (possibly wholly discredited). That is a fairly common form of words for a pseudo science. It's not the same thing as the sort of invective you reference. As ever you are simply providing us all with the benefits of your opinion rathr than focusing on content.----Snowded ^TALK 16:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose "largely accepted" in the intro aswell. Anyways, I'm in agreement with the meatpuppets, concerning the anti-NLP slant to the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidence GoodDay please. Are there third party sources which counter those already referenced? ----Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any sources linked to the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be acceptable naïveté from a newbie but not from someone with your experience. You know the lede summarises the article and is not usually referenced. I suggest you read the article and the sources there and then see if there is anything in the referenced material there which would support your opinion. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I must depart the intro discussion, for Wiki-personal reasons. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is not naive at all. Yes, the default is that the lead needn't be referenced, but keep in mind what WPWHYCITE says: "...although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead". It is clear that this is controversial. -Rrius (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead includes no fewer than 19 citations. Number 18 is for the Norcross study, of which the "largely discredited" is a fair paraphrase; you can see the abstract without any special access here. Is this just a matter of the placement of the reference? siafu (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Then make add a name= and put it after the claim we're talking about. It is not enough that some ref somewhere backs up the claim. It is a controversial comment, in that it looks like a POV comment. -Rrius (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur, as far as I can tell only one study actually says "discredited" in context to NLP as a whole, the rest is synthesis if I'm using the right term. Does not the burden of evidence rely on the editor to prove that one study = largely discredited? Isn't This undue weight? An adaptive system (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Siafu, in fact I think there are far too many citations in the lede as it is, so removing some of them would be a good idea! However if its really needed then the Norcross one would do. Adaptive system, I and others have been asking you and your compatriots for citations to reliable sources that say other than Norcross. Many of them have harsher words than "discredited". One might say "unsupported by scientific evidence" or any number of similar phrases (open to that sort of change). However the lede needs to summarise the article, and the overwhelming evidence is against NLP as any type of science. Now it is probably correct to say that NLP has more or less given up on its early claims and has fallen back to being a self-help cult like practice. The only papers any one has ever been able to find supporting its claims relay on self-reported events rather than any repeatable experiment - something that it a characteristic of all cults. However we don't have sources which describe that transition, if we did we could include it.----Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"unsupported by scientific evidence" is probobly more accurate. NLP is not broadly supported or disconfirmed by scientific evidence. I think more accurately you could say "currently unproven". As far as I can tell none of the founders considered NLP to be a hard science. How can you prove that not being science equates to being largely discredited. where is the research to support these claims. An adaptive system (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Per multiple previous requests please list the research that supports the claims, only then can your comments be taken into account ----Snowded ^TALK 12:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been a question mark at the end of my last statement. I was questioning your synthesis of the evidence. maybe someone here can provide a citation about NLP not claiming to be a hard science. I do understand that is hard on Wikipedia to prove a lack of some thing in terms of lack of claims and/or lack of evidence. It seems that a "factual" statement could be obtained based on one piece of research (or a very small amount) if there were none to the contrary. Is there not a mechanism win Wikipedia to address this this? An adaptive system (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

You need a comparative study and one that identifies a change from the general claims made when it all started. It needs to be from a reliable source, not an NLP one and must not be original research (ie you cannot take it from a statement by one of the NLP founders). When you have that please come back with proposals, until them this is just wasting people's time.----Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I will look into the rules and evidence. I still see a lot of varying subtle claims but only one that says discredited. It appears that you believe all these other statements equate to being "largely discredited", but that is your claim and not explicitly stated in any research. You still haven't shown me where it actually says or talks about NLP as a field being discredited other than one source. "Largely" is a measure of comparison. What are we comparing it to the one research piece that says that? How many pieces of research do the wikipedia standards require to satisfy the generalization of a field with respect to this? As far as I can tell one source is undue weight. You can think that being characterized as unscientific can lead to being summarized as discredited but it's not up to us to make those conceptual distinctions. It must be in the research. To say that being unscientific is akin to being, or contributing to being discredited, is a synthesis and a matter of opinion. If you want to replace the first statement with "scientifically unsupported" I would recommend using quotes) An adaptive system (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Using a phrase from one source which summarises the rest is common. Please point to one of the existing sources which contradicts that. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to use the phrase form the source to summarize the lead then do that, but you'll notice that even that uses a caveat as the actual phrase is "possibly or probably discredited". An adaptive system (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

It is not defensible in any article to make such claims about the subject of the article at the very beginning of the opening sentence even if there are reliable sources to support such claims. It is a blatant misuse of the purpose of the principles of an encyclopaedia article and a manipulation of the policies. Of course you can state that NLP has been largely discredited in research but this belongs in a subsequent place. The opening sentence should only summarise what the subject of the article is ~ NOT any assesments of its validity. Afterwriting (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article and the material there supports the statement. That said I think your suggestion that we should say it has been largely discredited in research is a good one as its more accurate. I'd also be open to moving that to the second paragraph of the lede if it would silence this controversy. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Largely discredited in research" is fine and clarifying according to the sources. The first line is fine. However, I suggest the last line of the first paragraph is also a fitting alternative for integration. e.g. "NLP has been largely discredited in research, and according to certain neuroscientists,[3] psychologists,[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts" Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What about largely unsupported by scientific research? An adaptive system (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

With respect I suggest you read those sources. Or maybe look again at the titles of the sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a new one, Argument by Title. htom (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Would this then be an example of argument from ignorance, or just misdirection? siafu (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what am I missing from the titles that state NLP isn't unsupported by scientific research? An adaptive system (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Also, originally I meant to say "largely unsupported by current scientific evidence" as I think that's more accurate.

The suggestion was that you read the source material and that if you were not happy to do that then the titles of the papers themselves would make the point. Otherwise you continue to state and restate, then state again the same opinion without offering evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The only situation in which "unsupported by current scientific evidence" and "discredited" are NOT synonymous is when a scientific investigation hasn't been conducted. Otherwise, as with NLP, these statements are completely synonymous. siafu (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Let's not mince words while kicking a dead horse forever guys. We have to agree that what's written is supported by reliable sources since those sources have even been vetted by editors including in notice boards by administrators. What's needed is NEW sources and specific dialogue about text changes that can be made to reflect them.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the tardy reply. I read all the titles at the bottom and if I were to draw a conclusion based only on what the titles say there would be one, as far as I can tell, negative statement directly on NLP. So some people are misreading things. Why shouldn't I question editors conclusions when they make statements like these? AS far as the "only situation in which" statement If you think really hard I'm sure you'l realize at least one exception to that. These inductive mis-leaps are exactly why we have to be careful about the language on the page. An adaptive system (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

It's a bad strategy to waste everyone's time. Focus on suggesting edits supported by reliable sources because the whole meat farm and off topic opining could set back a serious effort to improve the POV in the article. You've got to play by the rules because the admin have dealt with countless years of drama.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In this section, I did make suggestions supported by evidence on the page. As for my last statement I was just responding to the off topic suggestion made to me. I am NOT part of a meat farm please stop accusing me of that (if that's what you are implying). An adaptive system (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Norcross et al. (2006) This ref is used to label NLP as globally "discredited". Reading the paper shows that the subject is not about "treatment of behavioural problems" but about "treatments for addictions" as everyone can read in the paper and in the abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21769032?report=abstract&format=text). I suggest finding another reference and modifying the article, rewriting "treatment of behavioural problems" -> "treatment for addictions". About addiction, there are numerous papers showing (moderate) efficiency of NLP. As an example showing reality is not so clear cut, I suggest reading "Gray, R. M. (2010). The Brooklyn Program: Applying NLP to Addictions. Current Research in NLP: Proceedings of 2008 Conference, 1(1): 88-98 (2010)." which demonstrates a positive effect, which is exactly the contrary. There is a free draft here http://home.comcast.net/~richardmgray/NLP2ADprepub.pdf.

how popular widespread exactly?

Even the critics have noted how widespread or popular NLP but it is difficult to say firmly. There are some estimates on how many people have been trained in NLP to "practitioner" level but there are no firm figures. We could also get some indication from book sales. The introduction currently states "NLP has been adopted by private therapists, including hypnotherapists, and in management workshops and seminars marketed to business and government.[5][6]" but we give no evidence and do not say in what countries people engage in NLP training. We could also comment about the structure (or lack of it) within the NLP community of practitioners. Could we please add some more detail to the body of the article with some estimations. Heap[23] gives some estimations of NLP uptake in the UK but it is now dated. How many people have attended training in NLP? Witkowski (2009) comments on its prevalence in Polish universities - is that a reliable source? --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add something like this: "The study and practice of NLP grew rapidly both in the United States and globally, and there are now NLP training providers in many areas of the world. It is estimated that over 100,000 participants have attended NLP training courses in the UK" -- doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2010.02.003 --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source we can't and I don't see how you will get them given the number of training agencies and lack of any central authority. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any figures other than the estimations given by sources that you've previously accepted as reliable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And as you say they are out of date. your edit makes no sense as it is not supported ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any better sources for this information? The widespread use, and growing popularity of NLP, is often repeated even in the pseudo-skeptical literature. --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Review: NLP and phobias

Is the following review of research into NLP treatment of phobias acceptable as a source here?

Karunaratne, M. (2010). "Neuro-linguistic programming and application in treatment of phobias". Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. 16 (4): 203–207. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2010.02.003. PMID 20920803.

Another older review (of VK/D, the NLP rewind technique) is here:

Dietrich, A. (2000). A review of visual/kinesthetic disassociation in the treatment of posttraumatic disorders: Theory, efficacy and practice recommendations. Traumatology, 6(2), 85-107.

Edit request on 28 December 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to remove the word " a discredited" and replaced with "an" in the first line. Discredited implies that there is absolutely no merit in an idea. Whilst there is legitimate commentary in the article about the weaknessess of the NLP approach in the article, the inclusion of this word in the first line is unhelpful since it is presented before the evidence.

Whilst there is doubt about its effectiveness therapeutically (as are other brief therapeutic techniques such as SFBT and EMDR) its use in sport and increasingly in education is the subjce of positive research output: reference: paper given at an internaitonal conference in 2003:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003319.htm

Granville60 (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Sorry, but I'm not convinced a single paper presented only at a conference carries sufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify the change, given the multiple higher quality sources cited in the lede. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

15th brand new SPA account created in the period since Comaze started editing again with a new ID. All making the same points ....

And for the information of editors unfamiliar with the field, the authors of the paper referenced also run an NLP consultancy and training business ----Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You guys don't realize the damage you are doing to the pro-NLP perspective in this article by violating Wikipedia rules. Whoever is orchestrating this meat farm please stop-- you're just perpetuating the myth that NLP is a cult. We can make improvements based on honesty and reliable sources instead. --Encyclotadd (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well there is some evidence of meat puppets being run from Sydney so I can see why you would make that reference. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any real difference between them and you to be honest, but happy to be proved wrong. They are simply saying they don't like some of the words. Given you have already edit warred on those words with no more grounds than they, you have you have little case to insult them. Are you really suggesting that editors opposed to your changes are organising multiple new IDs to discredit you? Why bother? ----Snowded ^TALK 23:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably Grinder's trainers selling new code or something. Huge mistake... will just end up circling back-- dishonesty always does. It never made sense that Grinder disavowed old code anyway. How was that a good idea? Conflicts of interest have needlessly cost the model credibility. The uphill battle on Wklipedia is absurd when it doesn't have to be. Honest people playing it straight is what we need coming together around reliable sources. That's what Wikipedia admin need to see.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont mind the sources as long as they are legit and properly referenced. It's just written horribly, from an outsiders perspective I would come away from the article being none the wiser about the subject matter. I believe it needs a reformat to give clarity. since the sources are ok and wikipedia relies on a consensus by the editors can we agree that it does need to be rewritten to provide a clearer understanding of the subject matter, rather than being a seemingly opined piece. also it appears snowded or someone has deleted my last request and discussion. why would they do that? Enemesis (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

diff for the deletion you are accusing me of please. Otherwise please feel free to draft a rewrite and post here or in a sandpit. I don't think it needs rewriting but happy to look at something concrete. But just repeating you opinions is not wheat the talk page is for - jousts wastes everyone's time----Snowded ^TALK 07:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

yes it is snowded, it is a place to discuss the article and gain consensus for edits. A consensus by definition is a decision made by the majority of the populace not ALL of the populace. if you are outnumbered then a new status quo for the article may take place and that will be regardless of your opinion. Enemesis (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:Consensus. Simple majority is not at all what consensus is about on wikipedia, and particularly the bulldozing of legitimate concerns and opinions by numbers alone that you are threatening is not acceptable. siafu (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you just say legitimate concerns? snowded the point is the decision is not up to you exclusively. That link that siafu left sort of backs up what I was saying in a few ways as well. siafu it is not a threat, it is more a reminder of how multiple editors work on a wiki page. Enemesis (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing the article Enemesis, and then for discussing changes in accordance with wikipedia policy. Your "outnumbered" threat is interesting given the number of new editors who have suddenly appeared. The community does not take kindly to meat or sock puppetry or canvassing so be careful. Otherwise, when you have specific changes supported by references bring them here. Until then stop wasting other editors time. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And please provide the requested diff or strike that accusation ----Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Even though you may all be a bunch of snarking meat puppets arguing about the application of calculus to language in violation of just about every Wikipedia rule in every iteration each have existed (you know who you are), I want to wish you guys an awesome New Year. Cheers everyone. --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If ANI does not go anywhere, may I suggest the Dispute resolution noticeboard next? That helped with the dispute over whether or not to use the OED definition of NLP. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you guys should come clean about the SPA/meat puppet thing first because as long as that's transparent to admin they are unlikely to take your edit requests seriously. Also there has to be an acceptance of past sources deemed reliable since most of the sources have already been vetted by admin in a variety of notice board disputes in the past. Then the POV can be made more balanced to reflect your perspective with new sources provided.--Encyclotadd (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI will not go anywhere as its not the place for content issues and your refuse to come clean about your previous IDs will not help. I really don't see the point of dispute resolution as you have not really done anything here to work with other editors. You have not addressed the issue of the fact you main source runs an NLP business and you have not responded to suggestions that you draft a one/two sentence amendment for us to look at. Until you do the basics I suggest you stop forum shopping. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I really cannot do anything about your meatpuppetry. I cannot see any way forward other than by using forums to resolve content disputes one by one. That is what is suggested by the policies. Anyway, I will come back with renewed focus after skiing. I'll try to come up with a way that we can find a way to work together to improve the article. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's too many new SPA accounts. Obviously some kind of recruiting going on. It would be better Reconsolidation if you guys would play by the rules so that we can get the article POV corrected. It's a drag going in circles on this.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NPA --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When you come back (assuming you keep the same ID) try starting with some basic honesty ----Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

change to lead - expert-consensus lists

I made the following change based to simplify the text in lead and I think it is clearer. It is a bit of a compromise too because it maintains all the sources including Witkowski which has been pushed here for a while. If this is reject then I'll take it to a content dispute resolution noticeboard.

From: "NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.[8] In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [13] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al. (2010)[17] list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as "certainly discredited".[18]"
To: In research designed to establish expert-consensus[8] of "what does not work" in mental health evidence based practice (EBP), Norcross et al. (2006) [13] rated NLP for treatment of behavioural problems as possibly or probably discredited, and Norcross et al. (2010)[17] rated NLP for addiction treatment as certainly discredited.[18]"

--Reconsolidation (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your proposals should be ignored, until you come clean on your past IDs & the meat-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The accusation that I was abusing multiple accounts is a distraction to allow others to contintue to push their more extreme POV. Note that this change was reverted and again without reasoned discussion. Note that my change includes multiple comprimises including keeping the Witkowski reference which has been pushed for some time. --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, you have previously used different IDs to make an edit that removes and marginalizes the evidence based view that neuro-linguistic programming appears on lists of discredited interventions [25]. That is an abuse of accounts. This has been dealt with before [26] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've offered a compromise here. I think it captures the findings of the two studies. At least you sneakily reinserted the qualifier, "In research on discredited addiction treatments" which was a gross misrepresentation. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your recommendation is an improvement, Reconsolidation. htom (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I will second that. Its a better version. But considering the skeptic soc POV pushers its hard to know how this is going to go. LTMem (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, we are not required to have multiple discussions on the same issue with an editor just because they change their ID. As far as I can see you are changing accounts simply to allow you to raise the same issues again and again. If you have new evidence then raise it. bit it has otherwise (as Lam Kin Keung has pointed out) been answered before. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Reconsolidation suddenly decides to go on holiday, then a dormant account LTMem shows up & supports his position. How long are administrations going to let this charade continue? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Grinder's work or Chomsky's?

According to Grinder, the linguistic aspects of neuro-linguistic programming were based in part on previous work by Grinder using Chomsky's transformational grammar.

vs.

According to Grinder, the linguistic aspects of neuro-linguistic programming were based in part on techniques developed by Chomsky.

To me, the "simplification" has changed the work from Grinder to Chomsky. I think it's an over simplification that is not edit-warring.htom (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Either way, referring to Chomsky's transformational grammar as a "technique" is quite misleading. Chomsky is a linguist not a clinical or applied scientist by any means, and his descriptions of grammar are just that, descriptions, not techniques for anything. siafu (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to either version of this sentence.

BUT, please understand first that Siafu is right that Transformational Grammar is not a technique. It's a field taught at MIT (among other top universities) developed over well over seventy years that has become quite vast and comprises a wide array of both theories and techniques.

No Transformational Grammar theories were applied that I can find mentioned in any reliable sources. Only one technique seems to have been applied. To suggest a larger connection between transformational grammar and NLP would be very misleading.

Furthermore, in the forty years since NLP was created, Chomsky has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to associate himself with it. He has managed to shun the subject completely. That should also give us pause when considering how much weight Chomsky's field should receive in this article. Transformational Grammar has to be mentioned but in my view only as concisely as possible.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is the claim by Grindler and the desire to exonerate Chomsky from any responsibility for NLP. I suggest we simply note the claim and reference the lack of any endorsement ----Snowded ^TALK 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, clear thinking.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How about :

"According to Grinder, the linguistic aspects of neuro-linguistic programming were based in part on previous work by Grinder using Transformational grammar."

With the link, there's no need, really, to mention Chomsky at all; people are not responsible for what is done with their published works. The other, repeated references saying Chomsky is not involved are not needed; there are many many uses and users of transformational grammar (including me) who are not endorsed by Chomsky. I doubt he's ever even heard of me. htom (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky is not an applied scientist by any means? Huh? What do you think applied science is? Computational linguistics. Machine translation. Artificial Intellegence. Some of his political stuff seems a bit wacky ... but that's a different corner of his mind. htom (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing Chomsky might be a better way to approach it. Whatever consensus forms on this is fine with me. --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any RS for Chomsky's not endorsing? Is there a RS for his even having been asked to endorse NLP? Has he just ignored it, like so many other shoots from the tree he planted? Why reference him at all?htom (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The view is from the linguistics perspective. The linguistics researcher Stollznow explains that NLP authors are doing the namedropping and that Chomsky's theories and research have no authentic relation to the neuro-linguistic programming. I will look for related sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Its just another straw man. Grinder no longer works with any of the so-called discredited aspects of NLP. LTMem (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Grinder still teaches the discredited alcoholism treatment aspect of neuro-linguistic programming [27]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can almost guarantee that is not the method that the researchers tested. Plus there are no sources that I can see which say that New code should or can be lumped in with the same research of classic NLP. I think that we are getting off topic though. An adaptive system (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system.

ANI

For those editors not following the original posting by Reconsolidation at ANI you may wish to read this in particular the warning about a low tolerance for SPAs. Very happy to work with editors to address concerns now we have got the disruption out of the way ----Snowded ^TALK 22:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It really is a shame for the pro-NLP perspective.

To change the POV, clearly everyone has to respect the sources and play by the Wikipedia rules. There is waaay too much history with this article to overcome otherwise.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Its not about pro or anti NLP, that has been the issue. Its about a NPOV based on third party sources! ----Snowded ^TALK 00:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, NPOV is the goal ... but that doesn't mean editors can't research something they believe to be true and present sources for consideration. Certainly that's consistent with NPOV. But the recent SPA and edit warring clearly has to stop- regardless of POV. Disruptions really took us away from improving the article. People should know better. --Encyclotadd (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think there will be the cases where the adherents believe in the effectiveness of NLP and want to show sources here for that. That relates partly to the cult nature of NLP. But now with the recent ANI notice it can be easier to identify the difference between good faith suggestions and the long term disruption. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but isn't there some kind of guideline against characterizing people and their actions in such a manner? An adaptive system (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

Wikipedia is managed through behaviour not through content (that is to editors on articles to sort out). There is no reason not to call NLP a cult it is not a personal attack and in any case there are third party sources that say exactly that. In addition long term disruptive behaviour has been established and various sanctions applied, so again its a reasonable term to use. Encylotadd my point was that as long as we talk about pro and anti NLP we get into this idea that the article has to be balanced between those two positions, which is not the case. It has to balanced across the sources.----Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

please site the specific passage that says NLP is proven to be a cult. It is not disruptive behavior to want to show a legitimate sources (which I believe Lam was talking about rather than disruptive behavior). further more disruptive behaviour has been committed on both sides of the fence at various times does that make the other people part of a "skeptic cult". Lam is not just addressing content but implying personal motive to potential editors on this page who may want to show legitimate sources for NLP. Snowded, since you have made similar comments about NLP I think A third party should judge and resolve this matter. An adaptive system (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." Also I'm not sure about the rules have to say regarding the religious overtones of the word cult. --An adaptive system (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

Neuro-linguistic programming is considered to be a pseudo-science and a cult. These often go together. This is a sourced fact and probably needs the clarification. Barrett (1998) covers neuro-linguistic programming in Sects, `Cults' & Alternative Religions: A World Survey and Sourcebook. Hunt (2003) classes neuro-linguistic programming as a self development development aspect of new alternative religions, in Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction. He states that it is an alternative to Scientology within that category. There is also the classification of cargo cult (Roderique Davies) already within the article, and the related characterization by the linguist Stolznow as "NLP is an Amway for the mind". I will look for more sources on this matter.

Barrett (1998). Sects, `Cults' & Alternative Religions: A World Survey and Sourcebook

Hunt, Stephen J. (2003) Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction, London: Ashgate

Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's borderline information I see no references actually calling NLP a cult. Although, it's pretty bad to file it under Those sections. The cargo cult term is used out of context It was used as a metaphor by Richard Feynman describing certain members of a scientific community. That metaphor was then applied to members of NLP in the article you're referring to. Regardless,one can't use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. I'm assuming it gets even worse if you involve religion. An adaptive system (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

The sources to an extent explain why there may be the such long term disruption on this article and related articles. That information and today's ANI conclusion on SPAs will likely help to make disruption here easier to deal with. It can also help clarify explanations in the article. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Adaptive System I have no idea what you are asking a third party judge (not that any such thing exists on wikipedia) to engage with. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lam,disruptive activity aside, what about NLP practitioners who "believe in the effectiveness of NLP and want to show sources here for that" is that partly due to the "cult nature of NLP"? Snowded, who regulates personal attacks. are notice boards involved? An adaptive system (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)AN adaptive system

Its not a personal attack, stop wasting people's time ----Snowded ^TALK 05:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Quit the wikibullying Snowded. An adaptive system made a fair comment and Keung should be far more careful to avoid accusing NLPers of being a cult. Abide by civil discussion please and drop the cult smear tactics. LTMem (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cult aspects of neuro-linguistic programming

I made an edit to suggest how best to reflect the sources provided by LKK. If that approach meets with everyone's approval, we can footnote it to the sources and consider the change permanent.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would just add that in the edit I was careful not to say "NLP is a cult" because I don't believe that to be true, and such a change might be resisted by some who would require a higher standard of proof. But saying "NLP has been characterized as a cult" is undeniably true and reflected in the sources. It's a compromise position. --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If others believe it is a cult and they can verify the sources why don't they put NLP is a cult in the lede? An adaptive system (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

One could make an argument for doing so; are you suggesting that this would be a helpful addition? It seems to me that this issue is sufficiently captured in the "discredited" claim as it is, without unduly cluttering the lead. siafu (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest it would need more coverage and explanation in the main part of article before summarizing in the lede. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

FTR, I'm not suggesting at all that this belongs in the lead, not least because it seems to violate WP:UNDUE, but merely pressing An adaptive system as to why they would be suggesting such a change, as it seems rather pointy. siafu (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It needs well referenced material in the main body before its even considered for the lede and I agree with Siafu, even then its overkill. I think this is tied up with one part of the article which is not adequate at the moment, but for which there are few third party sources, namely the move of NLP into the self-help/management training markets where it is very cult like in its manifestation. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be one of the most significant facts regarding NLP and it's identity making it lede worthy It could be explained in the body in more detail of course. I don't know how legitimate academics managed to characterize it that way though, If it can be demonstrated through reliable sources. The difference between being classified as discredited vs cult would of huge qualitative and factual significance to most readers on the page. Snowded I thougt you implied there was enough factual evidence to state unequivocly that NLP is a cult. An adaptive system (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

I thought it was clear - my point is that there are insufficient sources for the shift of NLP into self-help and (to be more explicit) the cult end of management training where its quasi religious at times. Now I say insufficient, but that means I have not found material despite looking. I half thought about writing something myself for one of the journals I am associated with but there was little interest. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well Then it sounds like explicitly calling or presuming NLP,to be a cult is more a matter of opinion and best left off the talk pages. I don't see the connection with self help and being an actual cult though. If you want to have aserious discussion about your management training on my talk page I'm all ears An adaptive system (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

its sourced but not enough I think for the article. Self-help and cult are not mutually dependent. Why would I want to have a serious discussion on your talk page? ----Snowded ^TALK 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cult is really a subjective description like pornography. it's the kind of thing you know when you see it.

As long as cool-aid isn't served at Grinder's events, I agree leaving aside the new sources LKK presented makes sense for now.

An Adaptive System, it's wrong and bordering on a personal attack for you to have brought up snowded's computer consulting in this context. Not a swift move after there has recently been so much bad behavior from SPAs requiring admin intervention. Be a team player and follow what the sources say, always assuming good faith.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in general, is it that (a) NLP is a cult, or (b) is considered to be a cult, or (c) is it that NLP techniques are abused by cults on their members (which would seem to indicate NLP's effectiveness!) htom (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean it in a hostile manner, Snowded was the one who brought up his consulting. Believe it or not I am actually curious about it If you don't want to talk about it that's fine, I'm sorry if that came across as sarcastic. If NLP is characterized as cult like that's one thing but taking that to conclusions outside of what is relevant to the page may not be appropriate, especially when referring to editors. I made the mistake of not being clear as I was referring to earlier comments like "There is no reason not to call NLP a cult". Not your last comment That seemed to be a professional offering of information which was interesting to me obviously you don't have to discuss that if you don't want to, I was just saying that If you wanted to talk more about it you were welcome to do it on my talk page.An adaptive system (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)AN adaptive system

I think we're beating a dead horse. We seem to have a rare consensus (cherish this moment). We are all agreed not to refer to NLP/Grinder as a cult in the article unless additional sources are uncovered suggesting as much. Also, AnAdaptiveSystem, I stand corrected about your intentions with respect to conversations on your talk page. (He has a link to his website on his own Wikipedia page-- might be a better way for you to ask him about his consulting.)--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I would not right now add a section on cult characteristics of neuro-linguistic programming. Concur with Snowded, sources say neuro-linguistic programming has cult like characteristics and that can help clarify parts of the current article.

Htom, b is more correct. c is also correct. Cults use pseudo-scientific concepts and rituals. But they are effective for recruitment not really for the purpose advertised [28]. Eye contact rituals, copying movements, group jargon use, pseudo-scientific distortions of terms are common [29]. The distinction can be made more clear in the article Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The author of that lecture uses a clear fallacy of equivocation when discussing submodalities and probably does not understand the etymology of the term. His own use of the term seems very obscure I doubt that the person who coined the NLP homonym would be aware of it little loan the people learning NLP. Do you consider this a credible source for the Wikipedia article? An adaptive system (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

No, Lum (2001) Lilienfeld et al (2001) and Dunn and Smith (2008) already in the article show that neuro-linguistic programming is used as an example of pseudo-science for teaching professionals the difference. The links are for clarifying discussion here. It is not equivocation just comparison. Engram originated in neuroscience not scientology. Same with submodality. The cult aspect of this is more related to the other link (How to sell a pseudoscience). The points there are similar to that of Devilly (2005). Just so you can read them online. Point 4 "Establish a Granfalloon" is particular relevant. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The author claims that NLP used the term submodality to sound scientific to increase it's credibility. How can the author prove both awareness (of the preceding term) and intent? most Homonyms or coincidental terms have one that came before the other. I fear that this discussion and the links are better suited for a forum though An adaptive system (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

Adaptive system, please read more carefully. My point was that NLP is more used in management, self-help, coaching etc. these days as its credibility has been lost. In those respects it manifests as a cult (think fire pit walking). However there seems little material in the literature about those changes. I haven't raised anything about my own work here and have no intention of doing so. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that first conclusion is a little ethereal but I will not get into the possible logical and taxonomic implications here.

I never thought you intended to raise your work o this page. What I meant is that you made an offering of information within the context of this discussion, about writing for journals (potentially or otherwise) -related to management training I assume-, like one would offer an anecdote in a conversation. Not that you were intending to offer information regarding your work for the Wikipedia article. An adaptive system (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

AnAdaptiveSystem, You're wasting everyone's time on non-content issues. It's tiresome to read your off topic comments on Aristotle. LKK, if you want to include a paragraph outlining how the cult aspect is more related to how to sell a pseudoscience (ex. group jargon), that works for me. But we would have to convince snowded who believes addressing the cult aspects of Grinders training is not yet needed, and the article makes plain the discredited pseudoscience nature. So perhaps this edit can be tabled for now.--Encyclotadd (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

you're right Aristotle was off topic sorry, I was hopeful for a James source though An adaptive system (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

AnAdaptiveSystem, I believe James is mentioned by Grinder in an anecdote in the opening of Turtles All The Way down. But he didn't make explicitly clear his reasons for referencing him, and I think we would be unwise to include it anyway because that would violate the spirit of Wikipedia's rules about synthesis and original research. Even without those rules it would be a huge stretch to reference Aristotle in this article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

^ Tosey, P. & Mathison, J., (2006) "Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Programming Centre for Management Learning & Development, School of Management, University of Surrey.
^ Dilts, R., Grinder, J., Delozier, J., and Bandler, R. (1980). Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I: The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0-916990-07-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Cite error: The named reference Corballis 1999 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Drenth, P. J. D. (1999). "Prometheus Chained". European Psychologist. 4 (4): 233–239. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.4.4.233.
^ Cite error: The named reference Witkowski 2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Stollznow was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Lum 2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Tosey_&_Mathison_2006-1] Tosey, P. & Mathison, J., (2006) "Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Programming Centre for Management Learning & Development, School of Management, University of Surrey.

[2] Dilts, R., Grinder, J., Delozier, J., and Bandler, R. (1980). Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I: The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0-916990-07-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[Corballis_1999-3] Cite error: The named reference Corballis 1999 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[4] Drenth, P. J. D. (1999). "Prometheus Chained". European Psychologist. 4 (4): 233–239. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.4.4.233.

[Witkowski_2010-5] Cite error: The named reference Witkowski 2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Stollznow-6] Cite error: The named reference Stollznow was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Lum_2001-7] Cite error: The named reference Lum 2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Resolving six years of controversy quickly and easily

Broken sentence

AfD of Anchoring (NLP)

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

AfD, four, no twelve NLP associated pages

mistake in nlp

Writing the history section

What a hornet's nest!

Opening section

Sock puppetry case

Proper methodology

Semi-protection

influences on NLP

cite isbn or cite doi templates

Edit request on 30 November 2012

Edit request on 5 December 2012

Credibility

Side page

Rfc in future?

This article doesn't help me as an ordinary user

first line

Edit request on 21 December 2012

Editing changes?

COI, all around?

Probability of finding a source saying "NLP is not a discredited method"

further reading section

eye lie detection myth

statement not supported by references

obscure sources

"a largely discredited approach"

first line

how popular widespread exactly?

Review: NLP and phobias

Edit request on 28 December 2012

change to lead - expert-consensus lists

Grinder's work or Chomsky's?

ANI

Cult aspects of neuro-linguistic programming