Talk:Paul McKenna

Style note

AFAIK, neither NLP practitioners nor hypnotists like to refer to their services as "therapy," in that they will often try to help people improve, rather than fix a problem. Yakuman 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

censorship

Winston Smith you should call it what it is. Not 'edit wars'. The question is. Unwitting dupe or? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.206.174 (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars

This article is constantly in edit wars with anonymous user(s). I ask that this page be semi-protected, so that editing by unregistered or newly registered users is disabled. Can anyone help with this? Yakuman 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To Admins

The 209.218.163.2 IP address may to belong to a hotel -- the Sunset Marquis Hotel in Los Angeles -- so a permanent block may not be advisable. Yakuman 05:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul McKenna PhD

Is it Wikipedia style to introduce someone with their degree in the first line? There's a lot about McKenna's PhD in the text, but is it correct to style him Paul McKenna PhD in the first line? I don't see anyone else with a PhD credited in this way - there's no "Richard Dawkins PhD", for example. What's the consensus here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin S Taylor (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've looked at other biographical articles and it is not customary to use the PhD in the first line. The article does state he has the degree in a later paragraph, which works for me. Absentis 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's relevant to know about Ph.D.'s from the outset. John Grinder has his up there at the top in the first line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerseasalt (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, consensus is that a person's degrees are not mentioned in the first line. Unless someone can point me to some kind of precedent, a single example doesn't cut it. Absentis 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are people so tied up over this issue? Is there a certain amount of jealousy going on? Paul McKenna has attained a PhD, why do people feel it necessary to take this title away from him here in Wikipedia? Also, in regards to Martin S Taylor. Is this the Same Martin Taylor who lectures on hypnosis and is therefore a commercial competitor to McKenna?

No one is saying it's necessary to take his title away - the article clearly mentions it. We're just trying to apply a consistent style across Wikipedia. Most scientists don't have 'Ph.D' listed after their names, so why should those outside mainstream science such as McKenna and Grinder?

Whether it's the hypnotist Martin S Taylor who edits Wikipedia articles is irrelevant; this is purely a question of Wikipedia house style. As it happens, it is the same Martin S Taylor, though since I work at schools and universities where they could never afford McKenna and since I don't do any NLP, McKenna and I are hardly competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin S Taylor (talk • contribs) 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, John Grinder is described as 'Ph.D' and Phil McGraw as 'Dr Phil'. I see no reason why McKenna should not be described in this way. Many only know McKenna's television shows and books, people do not realise McKenna's academic credentials. If Wikipedia is to be as accurate as possible it is important to have all the information about somebody and not let petty rivalaries comtaminate accuracy.

Well that's exactly the reason it's in there. It's an attempt to justify his professionalism because he's regularly thought of (fairly or not) as something below a "proper" scientist. With individuals whose scientific reputation is unchallenged - Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Nils Bohr etc. - nobody bothers to put "PhD" next to their name. In fact, I've just made a concerted effort to look at the pages for a number of the most important scientists in the 20th century and I couldn't find a single one that had PhD next to their name. The only page I've seen which does that so far is John Grinder's page - I don't think Phil McGraw is particularly relevant because "Dr Phil" is the name he's adopted as a trademark on TV shows.

Personally, on the grounds of standardisation and also on the basis that it existed more for reasons of self promotion than objective accuracy, I think the proposal to remove it was correct. Blankfrackis (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless or bogus PhD degree?

But Mckenna's Ph.d is not from an accredited university, as stated in the article - to quote the IMCA website: "the programmes offered, and awards granted, from IMCA and Revans University are conducted under the Education Reform Act's provisions for foreign universities to operate in the UK. They are deliberately action learning programmes, i.e. not following traditional academic pedagogical paradigms. As such they are not intended to and as such do not lead to degrees that are Listed by the UK's Department of Education. However, they have been widely accepted since 1982 by industry and universities as appropriate for action learning in some 44 countries across the world. Any potential students contemplating an IMCA and Revans University programme with a view to using the awards as the basis for further academic or career development/ salary increments etc. should satisfy themselves that the action learning approach is appropriate for such further aspirations."

IMCA and Revans University is not even accredited in its "home country" of Vanuatu - http://online.degree.net/archive/index.php/t-1451.html . The PH.d is meaningless.Ikayess (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

First, Paul McKenna doesn't have a PhD, he (maybe) has a DPhil degree.

Secondly, if it's correct what you are writing, than it should be added in the text about the docorate Paul McKenna! This is really relevant information. Demophon (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The following comment was written at the website 'The Quackometer' as reply on the column Quack Word #3: 'Doctor':

As far as I can tell, Paul Mckenna went on to obtain a second PhD from the International Management Centres Association (IMCA) which, it is claimed, is a "fully accredited UK PhD". Now the IMCA does not have any powers to award recognised UK degrees nor is it affiliated with any colleges that do (it is not a recognised or listed body according to the UK authorities). The IMCA is accredited by the British Accreditation Council (BAC), but that is simply an independant body that awards colleges with accreditation for achieving satisfactory student welfare and teaching standards. Application is voluntary and no established universities do it. It does not provide accreditation for degrees. The power to award degrees in the UK can only be granted by an Act of Parliament or a Royal Charter. Which begs the question of what is meant by a "fully accredited UK PhD". The PhD itself is not accredited and cannot be a UK recognised degree. While I would not question the validity of the work that went in to obtaining it, you do have to question what "PhD" means in this context. It is essentially self-styled by the college issuing it, and the title itself has no real substance outside of the college that awarded it.

I really have my doubts if Paul McKenna does have a real PhD and whether we should mention it like that. Demophon (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UT

You can think what you like. It was decided in the British high courts that McKenna's PhD is legitimate by the leading legal minds in the land.

What is this, above? Read the judgement, the Judge was of the opinion that McKenna "thought" he had a Phd but that opinions may differ as to it's worth. The crux of the case was Mckenna's honest belief not the validity of the doctorate. To say that some of the finest leagl minds in the country agreed is simply a distortion. I have been reading through the main article and it's clear that the whole thrust of it is to mislead, there is no impartiality. I notice, too, that edits get amended pdq! Is Mckenna keeping someone on his payrol to guard over this lot?

Do I detect a note of jelousy in your postings?

No one should be jealous of a charlatan and a bogus

The legally correct position is that Paul McKenna was awarded a DPhil degree by IMCA, not a PhD, although it amounts to the same thing. Whilst the Latin roots for both abreviations are identical (Doctor Philosophiae or Philosophiae Doctor), the abbreviation PhD has over the years come to stand for a pure research doctorate, typically completed by young scientists with a purely academic career orientation. At the time, IMCA introduced its doctoral program it was felt that the designation DPhil (which is also used by a smaller number of mainstream academic institutions) was more appropriate due to the action learning focus of IMCA's work which means the outputs are not necessarily as formalised as one would expect under university laboratory conditions.

All IMCA awards are made under the provisions of the British Education Reform Act 1988.

Paul McKenna's DPhil may be a genuine degree, but it cannot be a UK degree since IMCA does not have the power to confer UK degrees. It could - and presumably does - offer degrees from elsewhere. The High Court was not explicitly asked to consider whether Paul McKenna's second DPhil was a British degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.8.182 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Irregardless such comments are in violation of WP:SYN . -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When I made my edits I did not draw this conclusion. I merely deleted the erroneous statement that McKenna's degree is a UK degree and noted that IMCA is not on UK Government's list of institutions approved to award degrees. That is not original research. Please do not revert this edit again without further discussion. I have not suggested that Mr McKenna's degree is bogus.

The sources are solely placed in the artcile to advance a particular perception about McKenna that is not made in the sources themselves - WP:SYN - DO NOT continue to make such violations by returning the material. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you happy with the latest version? This does not risk advancing any perceptions that McKenna's PhD is in any way bogus, makes it clear that IMCA itself is accredited by BAC (BAC accredits institutions, not courses), does not question whether McKenna's degree is genuine, and not make any comment about McKenna's degree being a 'UK degree'. If you're not happy, what is your precise objection, and can you find a way to move the article forwards in a way that you are happy with but that is more precise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.8.182 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless the sources are talking about MCKENNA's degree, placing them in this article is only to make readers come to a conclusion about McKenna's degree that are not made explicitely in the sources, thus it is counter to our WP:OR (sub WP:SYN) policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Article still carries the inference that this man holds an academic doctorate accredited by UK authorities.The references to NLP also attempt to create an air of academic credibility for this pseudo-science.As this article appears to be written and policed/modified by apologists for this man,should it not be withdrawn and replaced with a stub stating that 'Paul McKenna is a Britiah hypnotist'? Alternatively,could the broad content of this discussion be incorporated into the article under a heading such as 'Controversy surrounding Paul McKenna',or similar? This issue could easily be resolved by Mr McKenna himself - all he has to do is submit his 'thesis' for examination by a reputable and established UK university, thereby exposing his work to the same rigorous intellectual and academic scrutiny that all of us who hold academic doctorates, from established and credible universities, have had to undertake. As it stands,this is the sort of article that draws Wiki into disrepute. Outraged Doctorate,November 21st 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read our policies, particularly: verifiability and no original research and WP:SOAP - and we can begin working to bring the article to be a better represention our policies.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointing to the official list ([1]) of universities which are permitted to award degrees in the UK is not "original research". The article misleadingly states that the DPhil is from a "UK accredited" institution - implying that it was gained from a fully accredited British institution - when the institution cannot award degrees in the UK. What it actually should say is that the degree comes from a foreign institution which has been recognised as conforming with the academic regulations in a foreign country (in this case Vanuatu). That is the role the BAC plays - it makes sure that degrees acquired outside the UK comply with the standards in the country where they were awarded.

What the IMCA and similar organisations actually do is one rung above mail order degree firms. They are a British organisation which has not acquired the right to confer degrees in the UK, so they contract third parties from other countries with lax academic standards (Vanuatu in this case), award the degree in accordance with the foreign standards and then present it as a "recognised British degree" because it has been accredited by the BAC. This is a well known practice and wikipedia should not allow someone to present a degree acquired in this manner as a "UK accredited" degree. Nor does a source have to mention Paul McKenna given that the issue here is the statement about the IMCA's status and has nothing to do with McKenna himself. Blankfrackis (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

LaSalle

I added back the bit about McKenna's libel suit. It is relevant to the section it was in, since it's about libel litigation. And it's relevant to the article as a whole, because it shows that he was stupid enough to pay for a degree from LaSalle University (Louisiana), whose operator, according to Assistant US Attorney General William Moschella, pleaded guilty to conspiracy for falsely claiming it was accredited. He later realized that he had been duped, applied for compensation, and got another degree somewhere else.

Please don't remove it without a discussion. Novalis 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category: Social psychology?

Have I missed something out? Why is the article categorized in Category:Social psychology? --Ibn Battuta 13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs a complete revamp

Gosh, what a mess! You can see the vandalism problems, but: the images were messing up the article (does it need the NLP tag? He's not mentioned, so I am not sure it does); the trivia section is out of control; and the references all mucked up! I am not going to start thinking about editing this, as personally I'd have POV issues with the subject - there's much to commend, but too much else as well, and this one needs a good balance edit between fact, referenced hype and removal of the fiction. Good Luck to whoever attempts it, but he does deserve better than this. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a good start but I still think this article reads like a press release. Perhaps the middle section could be toned down and various views ascribed to sources. ----Action potential ^{t c} 02:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the page is written in an overly promotional tone so it can be looked at?

(moved comment to end of page where this topic coincidentally was already under discussion) -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Much of the pimping of products and shows has been toned down. You may wish to contact User talk:Demophon who recently moved the tag to the top of the article or User talk:Action potential based on the comment above (or User talk:Orangemike is also someone who is interested in this type of cleanup of articles.) I personally would not have serious objections if it came off at this time.-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But also, if you are Mr. MckKenna or working on his behalf, please remember wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I don't work or had/have any association with Mr McKenna, and my only conflict of interest is - in the most human and neutral point of view that I can find - is that I don't think he's not entirely or exactly the best at what he does! OK? In such cases, its best left to others - and they are doing a pretty good job. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Link pharm

I removed these from the article's external link section intending to incorporate them as references into the article. However upon reviewing the content I am not sure that there is a way to properly include the information within the article under WP:UNDUE - if someone else has other references or is better able than I am to create appropriate context, please feel free to use as sources:

Legal Coverage

1998 Case Against Christopher Gates

• Winning case cost me £1m, says McKenna
• Interview at time of the case
• Hypnotist cleared

Family and personal life

There is nothing on the article about his family or personal life; a major omission for a biographical article about a celebrity. Does anyone know any information about it. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article because no editor has included information that has been published in a reliable source. If you know of a source that has such material, add it to the article or leave a note/link here and request that someone else add it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There was some info about a girl, but it vanished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.164.103 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the girl dumped him on television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.164.103 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Celebs

McKenna and celebs. Not enough discussion of his working with celebs, sports stars and boxers. They include DeGeneres and Bandler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.138 (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Under construction

The site www.officialpaulmckenna.com has been "under construction" for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.130.236 (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been "under construction" for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.184.183 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Grinder

Apparently, Grinder prefers the German pronunciation of his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.184.183 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)