Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

OED definition

I added the OED definition back into the lead: It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour". It might help to note that there is no single definitive version of NLP and highlight the differences in definition between the major players. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your addition has been reverted to the version which complies with above discussions. Please see [1] and [2]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your diffs do not even support your position. On what basis did you remove the definition from OED? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Also LKK, show us exactly what you mean by "discussion". Because frankly it looks like your version of discussion would be better described as extremely beurocratic and wikilawyering. Get your house in order. Explain! Congru (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

User 122... There has already been discussion on this issue. That is why I supplied the diffs. The material from Grinder and Bostic St Clair was added to satisfy the discussion on the lede section for representing the views of authors of neuro-linguistic programming and critical scientific viewpoints. By my understanding of discussion, please refer to WP:TPHELP. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no agreement to quote Grinder and Bostic St Clair in your diffs. And once again you failed to address the question. But the OED definition is back now so I assume you've backed down on that one? Can we at least agree that OED is a reliable source? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, after your weekend of activities you still have to justify with reference to the previous discussions for its inclusion. [3] and [4]. Otherwise that edit can be reverted. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read that discussion and do not see any argument to remove the OED definition which has been there for years and has served as a stability point. If you want to remove it then you'd need to justify that edit with a better source. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

IP 122... You made this edit on the weekend [5]. It has been allowed to avoid edit warring. Without your justification it can be reverted. A long and not very clarifying dictionary definition is inappropriate as part of encyclopedic lede. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, OED does not define neuro-linguistic programming. It is included only as a special usage. The edit is tendentious and misleading. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it and get back to you because my university subscribes to the Oxford collection. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So does mine. The OED has is a brief entry on "Neurolinguistic"; under a "special uses" subheading it gives "neurolinguistic programming", a noun. The four examples of usage are quite telling, I think. bobrayner (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So? We can represent it as that in the article then. Congru (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted; [6]. Please see prior discussions on the lede. Your addition falls under the complaint that it is not clear or accessible to readers. It also misleads by promotion and associating with the term neurolinguistics. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You cannot reject the definiton of NLP in the Oxford English Dictionary because you "just don't like it". Try to avoid searching for evidence to suit your own POV and ignore other reliable sources. I think we should get a third party comment on including OED definition again. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED entry for neurolinguistic, adj. has a "Special uses" section containing: neurolinguistic programming n. The sources supplied for this use are...

• 1976 R. Bandler et al. Changing with Families 186 [Bibliography.] Grinder, J.; Bandler, R.; and Cameron, L. Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume I. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications.
• 1977 J. Grindler et al. Patterns of Hypnotic Techniques II. i. 108 This is an extensive area containing many interesting patterns some of which will be contained in a forthcoming publication (Neuro-Linguistic Programming I).
• 1990 Kindred Spirit Summer 21 (advt.) Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an exciting, challenging set of communication tools which will allow you to be how you are when you are at your most effective.
• 2001 Working from Home Mar. 29/1 Peter is well qualified to offer advice and training in a range of subjects from marketing and selling to neuro-linguistic programming.

I.e. The "definition" is taken from Bandler and Grinder. This edit, cited above, starting with "It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary..." misleads the reader by dis-associating NLP from its creators and lends a false smear of credibility by referencing the OED. The definition of NLP should be sourced to its inventors or other secondary sources. The OED "definition" should not be used. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to define a communication model without quoting the people who created the model. The definition is from a reliable source which has reviewed the original texts here. Thats fully consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia rules. --Encyclotadd (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the definition of NLP should be cited to the original sources. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The OED editors wrote a concise, accurate, reliable definition, and cited those who invented this use of the term. htom (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Any definition of NLP would of necessity reference original sources at some stage. I'm not sure where Encyclotadd's claim that the OED reviewed the original texts in this article comes from - can you show us that? We don't normally just hike down a definition here, but we need to reflect the sources in the lede. It maybe that we could change the final sentence to reflect the fact that NLP has been adopted in a range of fields and there are some empirical reports, but that comparative studies have shown no scientific base. I'm thinking aloud here in an attempt to break the OED/not OED dichotomy --Snowded ^TALK 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I got the impression from the OED sources another Editor posted a few messages above. Two of the references were original sources by Bandler and Grinder.

I appreciate the suggested change to the lede. I think it's a good idea.

I hope the OED definition can be restored as well. It would make a big difference to clarifying the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't use a special use statement in a sub-division of a definition and which only quotes direct sources no third party ones. Also you have not answered by question about your source for your statement that the OED had "reviewed the original texts here" --Snowded ^TALK 10:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED supplies information about words not topics and does not review sources accuracy. In other words: Do not use the OED as a reference in this article. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL @ checking for accuracy. Snowded, Bandler made up the term neuro-linguistic programming. He is therefore a reliable source on what it means. The OED refers to his definition in the original texts. What more could you possibly need? A peer review of a peer review of a dissertation about what the man meant? By the time all these peers finish reviewing each other's reviews the Internet will be dated technology. Allow the OED in the article already. :). --Encyclotadd (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I really wish you'd read the five pillars sometime. You are not writing an essay here, there are rules about how it is done but I am done trying to explain it to you. Now answer a question. You said of the OED "The definition is from a reliable source which has reviewed the original texts here". Do you have any evidence of that review, or did you just make it up? --Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:OWN? The Oxford English Dictionary's review process is not ours and is not subject to our review. Writing them to ask them about it would be Original Research. They did their thing, we use their results. If your claim is that the OED is not a reliable source for the definition and usage of an English language phrase, that's interesting, but this is not the place to make that argument. htom (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know you should not make a claim (see my quote from Encylotadd). Neither should you make a rather silly accusation of ownership if you are not prepared to back it up. If you think that is the case raise it at ANI otherwise leave it alone; in other words put up or shut up. Otherwise you misstate the issue with the OED, You and Encylotadd really need to spend some time looking up wikipedia policy and looking at the arguments that have been put by other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 23:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Q.E.D.? htom (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A variety of notice boards may be needed here, and as a result I hope it's transparently clear to everyone what's transpiring here.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (capital letters added by me for emphasis), "[The] process of adding ANY new word, or a new sense of an existing word, is long and painstaking, and depends on the accumulation of a large body of published (preferably printed) citations showing the word in actual use over a period of at least ten years. Once a word is added to the OED it is never removed; OED provides a permanent record of its place in the language." The endorsements on the book jacket are extraordinary and broad ranging. The Nation writes that, "[Oxford English Dictionary is] one of the monuments to the patient persistence of scholarship and one of the most sterling illustrations of that strange piety which only scholars can understand."

For those unaware of what the term "Special usage" in dictionaries means, it refers to the way a small percentage of words and terms can share multiple parts of speech. For example, some words are both "nouns" and "verbs." It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with sources as was erroneously suggested. If you do not believe me yet, grab a highly reliable source such as the Oxford English dictionary and look it up!

It's time for honesty an integrity to be restored to this article. This is not an isolated issue-- it's a systemic problem with the article at this point. But admitting this edit would at least be a starting point.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did mangle my edit above. It should have been: "...and does not review sources for accuracy on a topic." Regardless, in your haste to avoid WP:AGF you've missed the point about sources entirely. I suggest you propose the changes you wish to make (or just make them and follow WP:BRD) and see if you can get a consensus for them. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

By reviewing sources over ten years for consistency, the Oxford English Dictionary does an incredible amount of work in arriving at definitions. How much more review for accuracy would you ask them for?

Both the Oxford English Dictionary definition and The Skeptic Dictionary definition have been discussed at length before. WP:BRD was tried and failed. The auto-reverts of the Oxford English Dictionary definition out of the article and The Skeptic Dictionary reference into the article violates both the spirit and the letter of a variety of rules.

I absolutely assume good faith because of the rules, and because doing so is a personal philosophy of mine. It's the unreasonable behavior -- NOT the faith -- that intervention can change here.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) OED reference [7] is not relevant in this article. Information should be cited from sources relevant to the topic, not from dictionaries (which are only qualified to provide information about what the term means, not information about the topic itself). rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED is relevant because many different definitions of NLP appear online, and countless definitions have been debated for the lede of this article. OED reviews a decade plus of literature prior to arriving at definitions, striving for NPOV. That means it's a sensible clarification for the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• FYI: A case has been opened on the Dispute resolution noticeboard and can be found here Oxford English Dictionary definition —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC request

I started a Third Opinion request, have been told that RfC is more appropriate. The question is "Whether or not NLP is a pseudo-science or a psychological method?" htom (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The tool doesn't have an option to put this into a group like Medicine or Psychology. :( If someone knows how to do that, it would help. htom (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience. I believe there are references for this somewhere in Neuro-linguistic programming and science and Neuro-linguistic programming#Criticism and controversy. For further explanation I'll refer you to this comment (from this article's failed FAC), which I agree with wholeheartedly. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  And by the way, categorizing this RFC under Language and Linguistics is not really appropriate; neuro-linguistic programming has nothing to do with linguistics other than the fact that they unfortunately share part of the name. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not especially happy with the choices given in the tool; that was closest. Linguistics used to be the study of communication through symbols, and in that old-fashioned sense there is a stronger association than the use of the letter string "linguistic". Can you add it to lists I think more appropriate, medicine or psychology or psychotherapy, please? Thank you. htom (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

References to pseudo-science are clearly given in the article. --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't this been discussed already? What exactly is the question here? Does someone have a problem with the Pseudoscience category? Or any cited and attributed mentions of "pseudoscience" in this article in general? What's the problem? We're not having a debate amongst us whether NLP is this or that, our own opinions are irrelevant. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a small group of SPAs who would like it removed, or so qualified as to be meaningless. We have been asking them to come up with sources for months but they have failed to do so. There have been various slow edit wars trying to remove referenced material. All the sort of thing you get on articles like this. --Snowded ^TALK 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh deer. I requested semi-protection earlier, just for the IP(s), but no one's reacted yet. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how something should be labeled a "pseudo-science" when it does not claim to be scientific. Some (I have not looked at all, or even most) of the citations seem to be attributing the failure of new teachings several generations removed from NLP to NLP, rather than to those new teachings. Some of those new teachings do claim to be scientific, and are properly so labeled. NLP did not make that claim, and should not be tarred with the sins of its errant grandchildren.

Snowded seems to think I'm a SPA; why, I don't know. I think it's name-calling and wish s/he'd stop. It makes it hard to AGF. htom (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(I think they were referring to the other ones, not you.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When my objections are swept up as if that's what I am, then it's easy to make that mistake. I mostly think the article here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&action=historysubmit&diff=97563191&oldid=97548346 )(the first pair compared when I asked for 2006) is far, far better, and does a much more balanced discussion of the pseudo-science flavors of some of NLP's descendants. The current article approaches being an anti-NLP screed. htom (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't argue against sources. You say that NLP does not claim to be scientific. That is your opinion, but it means nothing here (the same goes for my view that it does ). The very very simply point is that a body of reliable sources say it is. Therefore that is reflected properly in the article. No you are not an SPA, but you are about the only NLP advocate here who isn't. --Snowded ^TALK 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When the sources are misused, I can and have. Here, that's ignored. I am trying to be an NPOV advocate, but it appears that's not desired here, if the current article is really considered to be better than the version I linked to just above. htom (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide diffs to your points you say got missed or ignored and they relate to this RFC then we can address them in here. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how much of this criticism from linguists is driven by jealousy of Grinder's success and turf wars? Wosow (1985) provided some insight: "Linguistic theorists who leave the ivory tower are eyed with suspicion and treated as tainted. Consider, for example, what is undoubtedly the greatest commercial success to have descended (in one sense, at least) from generative grammar, namely Neurolinguistic Programming. One might think that the fact that Grinder is no longer a poor boy like his former colleagues in academia would have made him a hero to them. Far from it. Obviously, linguists don't know what side their bread is buttered on. Perhaps this is a sign of the integrity of our discipline. However, the fact that we have no more respectable applications to offer in its place raises questions about our status as a science" - Wasow, T. (1985). Comment: The wizards of Ling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3(3), 485-492. Wosow is now a professor of linguistics at Stanford.[8] --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It already seems tendentious. Criticisms from Corballis, Drenth, Stollznow and others answer this point and come decades after the Wazow comment. Since 1985 practical application of linguistics and neurolinguistics have multiplied. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

LKK, You missed the point. To date there are still no respectable applications of generative grammar. Ask any linguist, especially a Chomskyan, before answering that question. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with 122.108.140.21 and Wasow, Professor of Linguistics at Stanford University, in the view NLP is a psychological and communication model.

I'm not going to call anyone out individually, because this decision can be made based on ideas alone. But 122.108 is right to mention turf war. The most active Editor smearing NLP in this article runs a competing seminar business that is conflated with NLP, meaning considered absolutely identical in the marketplace. (Conflated was his own word on his website, and he deleted it from his talk page when it was pointed out there, because it exposed his dishonesty about declaring "no COI.")

That Editor is very similar to HeadleyDown, who the administrators banned in 2006 when this page was cleaned up. He advocates for the same references as banned HeadleyDown. He was born near the town of HeadleyDown. His family owned a home in HeadleyDown. He is affiliated with the same University in Hong Kong as Headley Down. Yet amazingly he slipped by all these years without anyone connecting those dots, or those who connected the dots took no action on it.

Again, it's not necessary to call anyone out individually because the ideas alone make the argument successfully. One of the best selling books by NLP founders Bandler and Grinder is "Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson." That book was endorsed by Ernest Rossi, one of the leading psychoanalysts in the world. By endorsed, I mean that Rossi edited it.

The argument of pseudoscience fails completely when you consider Rossi's credentials: The American Psychotherapy Association (which publishes the peer reviewed journal "The Annals"), describes Rossi this way: "He received the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy from the Erickson Foundation in 1980 and from the American Psychotherapy Association in 2003. He also received the 2004 Thomas P. Wall Award for Excellence in Teaching Clinical Hypnosis. Today he conducts training workshops sponsored by his nonprofit organization, the Ernest Lawrence Rossi Foundation for Psychosocial Genomic Research." Here is the source for that reference: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/American+Psychotherapy+Association%27s+2005+National+Conference.-a0134955718 Obviously Bandler and Grinder's book is academically credible.

Rossi was also involved in substantial neuroscientific research. Here is a list of a dozen academic studies and papers on neuroscientific subjects: http://www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Neuroscienceresearchgroup.html One of those studies about the language models described in Bandler & Grinder's book was co-authored by David Atkinson, President of Grant MacEwan University, and former president of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and two Ontario universities, Brock University in St. Catharines and Carleton University in Ottawa.

We are talking about academic heavy weights who support Bandler and Grinder. You wouldn't know that from this article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That is all entirely irrelevant. An appeal to authority doesn't prove anything about the status of the field, especially one so tenuous as you describe above. (Rossi's name does not even appear on the Google Books entry.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And the personal attacks, based on an off wiki website which seems to co-ordinate the SPAs who plague this page, are getting very very tedious. None of those accusations have survived any formal investigation its just a juvenile smear campaign which reflects badly on Encyclotadd and his many predecessors. --Snowded ^TALK 09:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate, Snowded, if you would not insinuate personal attacks against me such as SPA or meat puppet. You have provided no evidence and the attacks are baseless.

Also you are distracting from the important ideas by bringing up formal allegations against you that were made by other Editors, and your " surviving " them. That's hardly a credential and has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

If this subject is found to be a psychological model, ideas will be the solitary basis for the decision. Towards that end, note Editor 122.108.140 comments two paragraphs below in which he points out that Google scholar returns 900 "scholarly" articles that cite Bandler and Grinder's 1979 "Frogs into Princes." You wouldn't know so many academics are citing NLP founders work from reading this Wikipedia article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You are an SPA Encyclotadd, a simple examination of your edit history shows it; its a factual statement unlike your nonsense about HedleyDown. It is also factually true that you are the latest in a long series of SPA accounts that have taken a pro-NLP stance on these articles over the year and it is also factually true that you are repeating material here from NLP web sites relating to Wikipedia. I haven't at this stage made an accusation of meat puppetry although I am thinking about it. If I do I will make the case at ANI and notify you accordingly. Otherwise your last paragraph is, shall we say surprising unless you are unfamiliar with the way references are made in academic articles. If I wrote a hostile article about NLP I would cite Bandler and Grinder; citation is not the same thing as endorsement. Also as has been pointed out to you time and time and time again, we try and avoid primary sources when we edit Wikipedia. --Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's factually inaccurate. I'm a newbie, and that's very different from an SPA. I've edited more articles on Wikipedia than most people who joined the community just a few months ago. All of my edits have been well referenced.

Snowded, I would remind you that you were not called out in the Headley Down comment above. You just jumped right out in front of it like it was a moving train, and then reacted emotionally. Sorry for touching a nerve. I promise not to make any more Headley Down comments that hit so close to "home."

Now, let's focus again on the 900 academic papers citing NLP. I will start going through them because rather than talking about academic findings in abstract terms, we would be much better off being specific.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) You have just repeated accusations here that you have made directly elsewhere Encyclotadd, Your "I didn't call you out directly" will fool no one. You are simply trying to get around the fact you have been warned twice for making personal attacks. Not aware of any emotion in my response but if that is how you see it c'est la vie. Otherwise your resolution to start going through academic sources is a welcome one I look forward to the results. --Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience Looking through the extensive list of citations, most are media reports, books, and self-published articles. I can find only few papers that appear to be from peer-reviewed journals the field, and I can find abstracts of only two of them online. And they both say the same thing.[9] [10] And unless I'm missing something, in favor of the notion in the above discussion I see a whole lot of appeals to authority a little bit of ad hominem, and really nothing else. --Quintucket (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You can have the last word on this so that we can discuss the well referenced facts about this article again. Towards that end, please comment on this statement from a peer reviewed source written just a few months ago (see APA's psychinfo): "The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained." --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What search terms did you use? What databases did you search? Psychinfo has a whole category dedicated to "Neurolinguistic programming". You can also use "Bandler+Grinder" as a search term in psychinfo for a broader result. And Google scholar returns 900 "scholarly" articles that cite Bandler and Grinder's 1979 "Frogs into Princes". --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Quintucket. Its not enough that you make such a sweeping statement. You are under the burden here to demonstrate how neuro-linguistic programming (a modeling technique that is explicitly stated to be not a science) can be pseudoscience. I am sure we all eagerly await your attempt. Congru (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• REAL, doesn't always work, is used by cults or cult-like organizations such as NXIVM, is potentially a very dangerous form of mind control. Not unlike hypnosis. Some are more suggestable than others and depends on many factors. Chrisrus (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The journal Counseling and Psychotherapy Research found in 2010 that, "Neuro-linguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on par with other well established psycho therapeutic techniques." http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240?journalCode=rcpr20#preview

According to the peer-reviewed American Journal of Forensic Psychology, "[NLP has] the capability to enhance the listeners' ability to relate to the subject of the testimony, to maintain their attention, and to increase their interest in the material presented." http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-35734-001

According to the peer-reviewed The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, "One NLP technique to help individuals reflect deeply on situations and relationships, and that has yielded promising results, is called ‘Perceptual Positions’. This approach has been adapted and piloted for use in individual and group workshops to help participants access personal beliefs and values in relation to sustainability." http://ijs.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.41/prod.244

According to Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, which appears in the American Psychological Association's psychinfo, "A basic NLP technique, enhanced by hypnotic language patterns, worked effectively to bring about successful outcomes." http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_record&files=214_rdb.dat&f_count=1

Dissertation Abstracts International writes that, "The study focused on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), the model or tool utilized in gathering and reporting of data. This communication-based interviewing model was selected because its clinical approach offered a replicable model in addition to having sound theoretical principles." http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/Dissert&CISOPTR=6237&CISOBOX=1&REC=9

According to Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, "NLP's major contributions involve understanding new models of human experience." http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_record&files=219_rdb.dat&f_count=1

The journal of Academic Therapy writes that, "Anchoring, a neuro-linguistic programing technique, was successful in helping a sixth grader with learning disabilities reduce his anxiety reaction to math tasks. " http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ331480&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ331480

This was thirty minutes of research-- imagine how many supportive academic documents can be found in a week or a month.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm indenting this because I'm adding this information out of chronological order. But I think it's important that this be understood clearly by every new Editor who reads this section.

A professor of psychology at New Dehli University expresses the following view:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) as an effective interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy is used quite frequently in corporate, health and education sectors. Practitioners of NLP provide intervention in the fields of relaxation, phobia, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), allergy as well as in peak performance training. While it seems quite fascinating to see a wide range of practitioners in the field, the trend also warrants possible misuse of the concept. The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained. Till date, NLP is applied without a theory. The scientific community seems not serious, when its practitioners claim that "NLP is heavily pragmatic: if a tool works, it's included in the model, even i f there is no theory to back it up….. ", thus, discouraging a scientific inquiry. The title neurolinguistic programming implies a basis in neurology (lacks evidence), computer science, and linguistics, but marketed as a new science or new age form of psychotherapy, judged simply pseudoscientific by the skeptics. These views made scientific research in this field less appealing among researchers. A review on the current trends and practices in NLP is presented here with a direction for future research in the field.

Not how he disagree specifically with the Skeptics. This is a reliable source because it appears in the American Psychological Association's database of peer reviewed articles and journals, and this quote is recent (summer 2011).--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, your use of external references is rather irresponsible. Half of the quotes you just presented you didn't provide references for, so I have nothing to say about them. Of the ones you did provide references for, some are primary research studies (Stipancic 2010, Mayers 2003, Cureen 1995, Thalgott 1986), which do not provide evidence about the scientific community's perception of NLP (which is what this RFC was supposed to be about); they only provide results about a specific sample using a specific methodology, and without looking at other studies (or even looking beyond the abstracts of the studies you cite) you won't be aware of limitations of these primary studies. Some of the papers are far too old to be of any relevance now (Thalgott 1986, Davis & Davis 1983, Davis 1984)--they don't show anything about the current perception of NLP. Appropriate references would be more recent review or meta-analysis articles. Where you did cite those, you did so irresponsibly; at the top of this section you cited the Biswal (2011) paper as if it supports the idea that NLP is a real science, but nowhere in the abstract does the author say that, and in the full text the author specifically refutes that notion (note particularly pp. 50 and on, including the sections "Review of NLP literature research" and "Lack of scientific validity", where he explains that empirical data do not support the claims of NLP and clearly states that there is no justification for calling NLP a 'science'). The Murray et al. (2002) abstract, as well, doesn't say anything about NLP's status is a science, it just apparently says that one NLP technique was useful for something (and note that this article is not a scientific article or in a science journal, it's an applied journal); I wasn't able to access the full text so I can't say more. This brings me to my next point, which is that you appear to only have read (and not even understood) the abstracts of all these studies, but not the actual text, and thus totally missed the point of what these articles are saying, particularly with the Biswal (2011) paper (which you bafflingly call "Pro-NLP Paper"). You also don't seem to understand that articles reflect the views of their authors, not the journals publishing them (and even less so the database in which you found the article), given that you are saying ridiculous things like "Dissertation Abstracts argues that....". Sorry, but the articles you've dug up don't support whatever you seem to be trying to say and they don't address the numerous references already in the article that show NLP is a pseudoscience, and I have no confidence in your ability to responsibly read and use external sources. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Rjanag, It's ironic you claim to have read the sources when it's apparent you didn't read my messages referencing them. I said (twice) those quotes were found in under thirty minutes. It was disclosed twice they were dug up in haste. You also fail in your response to consider the reliability of new sources in context of ones appearing in the article. It's true the ones brought up newly on this talk page are of varying weight-- we're even referencing dissertations. But the vast number of Skeptic Society references (debated extensively elsewhere on this talk page) are generally not peer reviewed at all. The ones that are peer reviewed are strongly opposed in other journals. (Sharpley, for example, appears without qualification in the lede. But several articles in psyhcinfo say he failed to note major problems with the studies he as reviewing.) In order for Wikipedia to claim NPOV in this article, balance and factual accuracy must be restored. I hope you will join me in calling for it.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why saying twice that you dug these up in haste (your words) justifies the behaviour. Also you appear to be making claims on your reading of the abstracts alone. None of them are comparative studies, many of them just argue for more research. I really can't see what you are suggesting. None of these challenge the current referenced material (unless you plan some original research), some of them might support edits to the text outside of the criticism section but you have made no proposals. --Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What I was saying is that it was obvious from 30 minutes of research that there are peer reviewed perspectives not finding voice in this article. I have every intention of doing more research because this article is in need of balancing. I hope other Editors will join me in the effort.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

When you do that research I suggest you do more than skim the abstracts for what you think are favourable statements. Reading sources is generally commended to researchers, thinking about them in context a real bonus. You also need to address Rjang's points. --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that other editors here (you know who I am referring to) have been skimming articles for less favorable statements to suit their own point of view. There needs to be a balance of different perspectives according to weight. Its not easy but can be done. --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who. If you're referring to me and the Biswal article--I did not skim that article, I read it, and it's not just a few unfavorable statements here and there. One of the article's main points is that NLP lacks scientific rigor, that is not open to debate, that's simply the fact of what the article is. I'm not going to try to argue over what an article is about with people who haven't even read it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Norcross

• "Norcross et al. (2008)[18] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited"

The above line is an exaggeration. What is the context of this list and on what poll/study was it based? What paradigm do the authors of the study adhere to? --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Disputed text: NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.[5] In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [17] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2008)[18] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”.[19]

This disputed text above needs to be looked at carefully. On what evidence are these claims based? What perspective are these authors writing from? What are the other views about credibility and reception of NLP in various professions, not just evidence-based clinical psychology? --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and at length. Its not clear by the way if you are a new editor or not. Would you clarify. --Snowded ^TALK 09:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it still doing in the article if it has been discussed at length? Can you answer the question: On what evidence are these claims based? What are the limitations of the studies? --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed at length and the current wording agreed. Every six months or so it comes up again, look through the archives. Now please answer the question are you a new editor? --Snowded ^TALK 09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the outline and purpose of that entire paragraph? Is it intended to outline the reception of NLP? If so, in what context? --122.x.x.x (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the prior discussion and critically answer the question - are you a new editor? --Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you think a new editor would be able to indent his or her comments and use an IP address range like that? I cannot see these questions answered about the intention of that paragraph. What is that paragraph intended to outline? Could someone else enlighten me? --122.x.x.x (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No I don't, so would you please tell us under what IDs you have edited before --Snowded ^TALK 11:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I really need you (or other editors here) to answer the questions about the content here. My account was created with the sole purpose of working on this topic. I can disclose my other account(s), and/or qualifications to a trusted third party if absolutely necessary but I'm not getting drawn into the dog's breakfast that is this discussion forum. Now, can you try to focus on the article content? You must admit that it needs work. Can you give your purpose for that paragraph I quoted above? --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that if you have edited on NLP subjects under another name then it is misleading to come here without declaring the accounts under which you have previously edited. You may even have been involved in the prior discussions on this issue. The patter of refusal is similar to another IP address which was clearly linked to an off site NLP web site which was generating meat puppets. We also have a few blocked sock puppets around the issues you raise. Given that history its a very reasonable question to ask before engaging in content issues with you. Especially when you are raising nothing which has not been raised and discussed before. --Snowded ^TALK 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you endorse the paragraph as it appears in the article currently? I'm just looking at the state of that paragraph right now. You must admit that it needs work. I'll ask again: what is the intended purpose of that paragraph? Can I assume that it is meant to outline the reception of NLP in the research literature and clinical psychology in particular? --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the previous discussions on this subject of which I suspect that you are all too aware. Please also respond to the question, if you have edited this article before under another name please declare it, otherwise you are just the latest in a series of SPA accounts who arrive here with very similar agendas. I'm not sure if its sock puppetry, but it is disruptive behaviour and prevents progress on content issues. Your edits also follow the pattern of 122.108.140.210 who of recent months has tried to have generic conversations in the absence of specific proposals for change coupled with sources. --Snowded ^TALK 12:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You chose to shift the discussion from a specific disputed portion to a generic discussion about editing behaviour or sock-puppetry. I have already declared that this is a single purpose account for editing this article. So let's get back on track.. If it was raised in the past, it certainly was not addressed in the article as the problem text is unchanged. Can you answer the question above regarding the purpose of the paragraph I referred to. It might help to repeat this for each section in the article. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The section was discussed and the current text agreed. You consider the text to be problematic, others did not last time. So I'm sorry I refer you to the previous discussion. As to the behaviour issues these are now serious on this article. Your refusal to respond is disruptive, for all we know you are a sock puppet of a permanently banned user. --Snowded ^TALK 13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Being anonymous is certainly disruptive to those who want to cyber bully or stalk. I'm not accusing you of that but you do need to be more careful with controversial topics. Critics and enthusiasts are attracted to these kind of fringe topics. Its hard to find balanced editors. I was very specific in the portion of text I was examining closely. Would you prefer that I suggest alternative text rather than highlight disputed text for discussion? I was really trying to find out your purpose for that paragraph seeing that you have curated this article recently. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being anonymous, there is everything wrong with editing with multiple accounts. I think you owe it to other editors to read the prior discussions on this, If you have something new to bring up fine, but if you just want to rehash the old arguments under another name that is clearly disruptive. Oh, and I always enjoy "not" being accused of something --Snowded ^TALK 14:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello 122.x.x.x. Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the second paragraph, I think there should be a number of definitions from various perspectives clearly identifying the sources. A close paraphrase of OED definition or a close paraphrase from Bandler and Grinder would be helpful. There are other definitions that can be highlighted such as how NLP is defined by Dilts, Grinder, and Bandler in NLP volume 1: "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (as it appears in the subtitle of that book). The definition from the US National Library of Medicine night be useful, it says: "A set of models of how communication impacts and is impacted by subjective experience. Techniques are generated from these models by sequencing of various aspects of the models in order to change someone's internal representations. Neurolinguistic programming is concerned with the patterns or programming created by the interactions among the brain, language, and the body, that produce both effective and ineffective behavior."[11] That definition from OED or NLM could be paraphrased in the second paragraph. As for the final paragraph, I need to know what its purpose that paragraph before making specific suggestions. If its about the reception and credibility of NLP, we might note that "Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy Counselling Association" is an accrediting organisation for UKCP alongside the EBP perspective from Norcross. The reader also needs to know the limitations of the Norcross polls. That top ten list is more spin that substance. --122.x.x.x (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

First, the lead should summarize the body. It is much easier to add material in the body first then modify the lead as needed. I'm not sure how a list of definitions accomplishes this. Second, what other sources do you suggest would help us understand the limitations of Norcross? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) Given its unreasonable obsession with unnecessary definitions, and the fact that User:Encyclotadd and 122.108.140.210 just had a discussion about wanting to force these same definitions from the same sources into the lede, I presume this IP is one of them. Better to just ignore it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well 122.108.140.210 is a pretty obvious replacement for ActionPotential (who also ran an NLP consultancy business) and the style of 122.x.x.x is very similar - including the non-denial language. 122.108.140.210 is also linked to at least one indefed meat puppet through an apology on his talk page just before the banning. Its all there for a sockpuppet/meat puppet report but the general pattern over the last year or so has been to push and push, then just when everyone else is getting frustrated and ready to file the formal report, to back off for a few months, then come back again with exactly the same arguments usually supported by one or two newly created SPAs who take a more extreme position. Evidence of off wiki co-ordination is circumstantial, but the accusations against other editors are a common feature of all and can be found on a couple of external web sites. So its a pattern and it may be time for a formal report to ANI if the disruption continues. --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A formal report to the ANI is appropriate whether the disruption continues or not. As an uninvolved editor, I have been somewhat surprised at how long this has been allowed to continue. ISTB351 (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I've been assembling the evidence over the last year or so. I agree its probably time, but I don't have it until next week. I keep hoping a neutral admin or experienced editor will take it up and track through - I am demonised on a number of the external NLP sites.--Snowded ^TALK 06:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And your response to your demonisation on external NLP sites appears to be to demonize NLP here? Do you really think you can manage to edit with a NPOV after such treatment? htom (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded certainly seems to be trying to do so; demonization by NLP partisans is hardly evidentiary regarding one's ability to follow WP:NPOV. The truth is that there is a pattern of disruption happening at this article that needs to be addressed officially, as the usual methods of discussion are being subverted by sockpuppetry and external canvassing. siafu (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting possible tactic for you there htom. You set up a web site and launch attacks on any editor who disagrees with you. You then say that as a result of that disagreement they can't edit the article. That aside if you have an diffs for me editing in "demonisations" as opposed to material supported by reliable sources please provide them. From the other comments here I think it is probably time to make the formal report. If no one else picks it up I will do in sometime late next week assuming work does not overtake me --Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who claimed to have been demonized. Care to point at the website you claim I've put up, please? htom (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that some people/cultures don't understand irony. Please note the use of "possible", its the second word in the post. --Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Htom. Please take time to read discussions carefully. The tactic in general for demonising can be seen here as one example: [12]. The pattern is keeping repeating so its certainly time for formal report. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just ignore it mate. Its not nice that people here are accusing each other of off-site canvassing or sockpuppeting. NPOV and reliable sources will prevail in the long term. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Implications or expectations of bad faith don't seem to me to be especially ironic, Snowded. Perhaps that is something you expected? htom (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not let the discussion get disrupted again. Can you return to collaborating on the article? If that means getting third party comment or using administrator noticeboard then great. More experienced eye balls the better. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TBH, discussion of this article should come to a halt, until the sock/meat puppetry situation is taken care of. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A fresh start... a wikiproject?

I'm interested in talking to people who are really keen to work on a rewrite of this article starting with a fresh survey of the literature. Wikipedia has developed good articles based on topics far less controversial than this one so I think there is still hope. Please message me on my talk page if you are interested in working on this project. Editors here try to paint each other as skeptic or advocate. We want to find a middle ground. Think accountant or mutual observer or what they call a strong third position in NLP, rather than overzealous marketer or skeptical debunker. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started the WP:NLP wikiproject. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide. This needs to be a collaborative effort between wikipedians. If you are interested, please sign your name on that project page under the participants heading and we can get this rolling. --122.x.x.x (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming is a fringe pseudo-science. It does not require many articles or a project. Cutting or deleting articles does not require a project. Deleting promotional phrases, commentary and links also does not require a project. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me first say that articles for deletion as well and removing any promotional or commercial links can be co-ordinated and tracked as part of the project. do you work In health? I need to remind you that arbcom ruled that wikipedia you cannot make assert that as a fact but should ascribe that view to a source. That said, you're welcome to join the project if you want to help clean up related articles. It will be a place where a more structured collaboration can take place. I've used our rational scepticism templates to get the project started. Again, Lam, you are most welcome to join the project if you would like to help. I think the project will help avoid some of the issues you faced here in the paste. At the project we can come up with some specific goals moving forward. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt your newly created WikiProject will last long, as it seems to cover basically one article. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

One? There are many NLP related topics like milton model, meta model, visual-kinesthetic dissociation, therapeutic metaphor, the seduction community, Ross Jeffries, Paul McKenna, anthony Robbins, Richard Bandler, john grinder, the game, ... Just have a look at the number of articles linking to this article on NLP. There needs to be a project to co-ordinate all of these articles. -122.x.x.x (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The lede current states "NLP has been adopted by ..."

The lead current states "NLP has been adopted by private therapists, including hypnotherapists." This is far too narrow as it excludes management training and other areas of applications outside of psychotherapy. Should we add in the other main application areas? --122.x.x.x (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I could live with that, as long as it's framed appropriately. It's hardly a cornerstone of mainstream management training, but there are trainers who use it. bobrayner (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the text in the body is expanded to include that, with references and with care not to over claim. Then we can look at the lede. --Snowded ^TALK 21:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bobrayner, nobody would claim that NLP is mainstream management science or training. Interestingly, "management training" links directly to MBA. Is there an article for the seminar and workshop industry that NLP seems to be familiar in. Can we use the Von Bergen et al 1997 doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920080403 as a source? While critical of its lack of scientific grounding, they make claims how popular NLP has become in management training. Von Bergen, C., Soper, B., Rosenthal, G. and Wilkinson, L. (1997) Selected Alternative Training Techniques in HRD. In Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol 8, No 4, Winter 1997. p.281-294. See also: Ashley Dowlen, (1996) "NLP - help or hype? Investigating the uses of neuro-linguistic programming in management learning", Career Development International, Vol. 1 Iss: 1, pp.27-34. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding sources: [13]: Von Bergen et al 1997 describe NLP as among a number of ""Alternative" techniques" in HRD. It is important to specify the type or category of management techniques. It is misleading to say that neuro-linguistic programming is widely used in management [14]. Pseudo-scientific can be a science oriented term for this line. Alternative is ok as a category or type. Von Bergen et al go into detail describe neuro-linguistic programming as alternative and involving extraordinary claims especially to efficacy and are related to alternative medicine.

New Age and alternative medicine are descriptions of neuro-linguistic programming already in the article (Beyerstein 1990) and also in:

Beyerstein 2001, Fringe psychotherapies: The public at risk. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, 5, 70-79.

Heap. M. 1988. Neuro-linguistic programming, a British Perspective. Hypnos Vol XV. No1

Research neuro-linguistic programming is described more detail as a New Age technique (Swets and R.A. Bjork [1990]: Enhancing human performance: an evaluation of “new age” techniques considered by the U.S. Army. Psychological Science 1(2):85-96.)). Swets and Bjork state that those New Age techniques grew out of the human potential movement of the 1960s, were getting attention in the public press and were touted and sold to government and industry training programmes.

The article and lede should show the distinct nature of neuro-linguistic programming. Neuro-linguistic programming is distinct from mainstream therapies such as CBT, and mainstream management techniques which do not generally get promoted or adopted by new agers or alternative medicine practitioners.

This edit is more consistent with the sources:

NLP has been adopted by private therapists, including hypnotherapists and alternative medicine practitioners (Heap 1988), and is used as a New Age technique (Swets and Bjork 1990) and "alternative" training (Von Bergen et al 1997) in management workshops, seminars and pseudo-religious events (Stollznow 2010). Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe 'fringe' or 'alternative' rather than 'new age' then? --Snowded ^TALK 05:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes fringe would work also. There is more to write about the new age/cult-like aspects of neuro-linguistic programming in the article. But as a technique, fringe is a good description for lede. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

the primary claims of NLP advocates

The current second paragraph says "The founders of NLP, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, say that NLP is capable of addressing problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders". There is no citation for this paragraph at present but I think it originally cited one of Heap's papers available on his web site. But this does not accurately represent the primary claims of NLP. There are two primary claims in NLP:

1. enhance effectiveness through improved communication and influence (To quote Von Bergen et al: "NLP is a system of procedures that purports to enable people to increase their effectiveness in communicating with and influencing others.")
2. modeling effective patterns of behaviors of exceptional performers (see for example: Druckman 2004)

So we need to make changes to represent this.

• Von Bergen et al. (1997). "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD". Human Resource Development Quarterly 8: 281–294. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920080403.
• Druckman, Daniel (2004) "Be All That You Can Be: Enhancing Human Performance" Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume 34, Number 11, November 2004, pp. 2234–2260(27) doi:doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01975.x

Side note: there is some inconsistency between Von Bergen et al 1997 and Druckman 2004 with respect the the second point above. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As several of us have said to your previous incarnation. Please propose changes rather then trying to initiative long conversations about the general principles when choices as to wording and sourcing have to be made in context. --Snowded ^TALK 06:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently the second paragraph says:

• “The founders of NLP, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, say that NLP is capable of addressing problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders."..."Bandler and Grinder claimed that if the effective patterns of behaviour of exceptional people could be modeled then these patterns could be acquired by others";

I think these sentences can be revised to better reflect what the proponents of NLP actually claimed. They claimed to offer: (1) a set of tools and strategies to enhance effectiveness through improved communication and influence, and (2) a modelling methodology to acquire the successful patterns of behavior of effective people. --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Specific proposal with sourcing please --Snowded ^TALK 09:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And please don't experiment with what you know are controversial edits. For example your recent change removes the references to some of the extreme claims of NLP, those are a part of the whole and need to be properly represented. --Snowded ^TALK 09:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The text would be something like: "The founders of NLP, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, claimed to offer: (1) a set of tools and strategies to enhance effectiveness through improved communication and influence (e.g. Bandler and Grinder 1979 as cited by Von Bergen 1997), and (2) a methodology to model the successful patterns of behavior of effective people (Bandler and Grinder XXXX as cited by Druckman and Swets, 1988; Druckman 2004)." --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been trying to introduce the "claimed" or equivalents to modify some of the more extreme statements by the founders for over a year. I don't see any reason to move from the current text to the proposal above. --Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you got an independent source that outlines the more extravagant claims you were referring to? From my viewpoint, the main ones that tend to come up in advertising material are: rapidly alleviating phobias, reframing negative beliefs, and changing unwanted habits. We should probably focus on the main claims that are referred to (or tested) in the independent literature. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)