Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

issue with citing Glasner-Edwards and Rawson in lead

Another problem is of this sort: "Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”". On what evidence is that interpretation made? If it cites a delphi poll of expert opinions just state that so people know some context. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that this has not been addressed yet. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake here. The Norcross paper that Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) cite has since been published in another good journal. In the second round of the Nocross 2010 poll, NLP for the treatment of drug addiction was rated at 4.51 just above the cut off for "certainly discredit". Its a crappy paper because no confidence intervals or t-tests were reported so we don't know if its a valid inference but that's not for us to comment on here. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I found a basis for concern about these references appearing without qualification.

According to the Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 32(4), Oct 1985, 589-596, "[There are] 6 categories of design and methodological errors contained in 39 empirical studies of neurolinguistic programming (NLP)..." According to the article, much of the research was simply flawed. The article states these flaws, "...include lack of understanding of the concepts of pattern recognition and inadequate control of context, unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, lack of familiarity with the NLP meta-model of linguistic communication, failure to consider the role of stimulus–response associations, inadequate interviewer training and definitions of rapport, and logical mistakes."

In addition, this article disagrees with our Sharpley reference directly, saying, "A review of this literature by Sharpley (1984) failed to consider a number of methodological errors."

To me this seems like an obvious call for balance in the lede.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Proposed reorganisation of lead section

I am proposing that we reorganise the lead section to over these main topics. This will also help us organise the rest of the article...

• Broad definition from source such as OED
• Where it was create/co-founded
• Origin of title
• No single definition of NLP: give some examples of definitions from prominent sources, including founders, practitioners, academics and skeptics
• include examples of more promotional definitions
• including self description from Grinder, Dilts, Bandler et al.
• Summarize approach/perspective: e.g. interested in healthy functioning and learning, not pathology.
• dictim "Map is not the territory"
• Is it technology, methodology, set of practices? describe the differences
• Pseudoscience? briefly summarize the argument.
• Origins with modeling Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls
• Influence of Gregory Bateson - cybernetic epistemology
• Summary criticism from academic researchers: summary research including experimental studies
• Summarise uptake in professional areas: where it is popular/applied
• Summarise training providers and associations, level of recognition/discredit

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you draft something in a sandbox that can be looked at. That said, the lede is meant to summarise the main body so if you purpose is to change that, then you should start with proposals for changes there, not the lede --Snowded ^TALK 06:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is more of a top down approach. I'm not going to get bogged down arguing each change in the body. Let's do a high level summary and then revise the entire article. Is there anything that I've missed from your view of the literature? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We don;t start with the lede - provide a high level summary of how you see the main body then we can look at it. --Snowded ^TALK 06:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article would certainly have the include the above topics, wouldn't it? Is there anything missing from your understanding of the literature? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Any reorganization of the lede or main body should remove references to literature containing the word Skeptic or to content by Skeptic authors. The Skeptics organization is obviously meat puppeting because this slide show was given as a presentation at one of their gatherings: http://www.slideshare.net/krelnik/promoting-skepticism-via-wikipedia The disproportionate number of references in this article to Skeptic literature obviously owes to this collusion. Removing the references would be consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia rules and is the right thing to do (at long last). The sad thing is that, if the Skeptics organization understood the subject matter better, they too would advocate for the removal of their references as well.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the list of subject matters suggested for the lede, I would advocate for including an explanation of anchoring. In particular, the explanation should include a comparison/contrasting with classical conditioning. With classical condition there are physical elements present. With anchoring the elements may be entirely within the imagination. This is a particularly interesting idea that is important not only to this subject matter but deserves discussion among psychologists generally.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Anchoring is not unique to the neuro-linguistic programming. Skepticism is inherent in scientific thinking. Please refer to NPOV on pseudo-scientific and fringe subjects WP:PSCI. Please make your suggestions in writing here or if definitional/descriptive, in the section below. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to anchoring outside of NLP and predating the founders use of the term. That would be very interesting to me and further my understanding. The Skeptics Society is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization that has been meat puppeting on Wikipedia: http://www.slideshare.net/krelnik/promoting-skepticism-via-wikipedia There are so many references to literature by The Skeptics and containing Skeptic in the title that the impact of that organization in this article is transparently clear. That violates the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. Furthermore, if that organization understood this subject matter better, they would seek additional empirical / scientific evidence, and in doing so become partners in creating a substantially more informed world. --Encyclotadd (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No the burden is on you to provide reliable evidence that anchoring was originated by neuro-linguistic programmers. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Bandler and Grinder coined the term anchoring to diswtinguish it from conditioning in behavioral psychology. Its would be hard to argue that they are different concepts. This is stated in Grinder's Whispering but you'd need to find it in third party reliable sources to verify this statement. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I created a page to draft a new introduction basedTalk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/revise-intro. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

LKK, According to Wikipedia, NLP is responsible for the term anchoring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_%28NLP%29 . It's an important concept that receives almost no mention in this Wikipedia article except that tiny link. It barely receives a mention at all.

What's fascinating is the possibility that classical conditioning takes place without anything physical present. Pavlov showed us that a dog can salivate to the sound of a bell if he's shown food enough times while a bell is ringing. But does that same process take place entirely within the imagination of human beings? If you imagine a lover enough times and imagine yourself feeling good in her presence, does that feeling become classically conditioned to that stimulus? Conversely, if a person imagines a hallucinates negative feelings enough times, is that how anxiety becomes associated with stimulus?

Regardless of your view on whether that process is taking place within human beings, or whether it's a helpful way about thinking of certain aspects of life, clearly the subject needs further explanation in this article. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We should stop editor views from creeping into the article. A couple or more editors here have obviously hijacked the article for pushing their particular POV. Your info on the skeptic group is highly enlightening. Frankly they have made the article extremely slanted. NLP does not get the credit it deserves for originating key innovations. Whether we tolerate skeptic sockpuppets here or not we should NOT allow such obviously biased editing. Congru (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As Snowded has said for a long time, he will accept reliable sources that challenge the skeptical sources used in the article. If you have a access to an academic database then start compiling reputable/reliable sources. There are tools available that can help establish what are the most prominent sources for information about NLP. Google scholar is one that is accessible to anyone even if you don't have access to the full texts you can get an idea of how highly cited each article is. This will help weed out personal views. If someone is claiming the a skeptic journal article is a reliable source then apple the Google scholar test - how many citations does it have? If none, you can doubt the prominence of this article. The same test can apply to promotional or impartial literature. The amount of weight is assigned according to number of citations. Its similar to impact factor used in some research. As one of you said earlier, a real skeptic will be skeptical of his or her own view and will respond to reasoned discussion about evidence. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is more reliable, "The Oxford English Dictionary" or "The Skeptic Dictionary?" Snowded and LKK would have you believe the "Oxford English dictionary" doesn't belong in the article but "The Skeptic Dictionary" does. What tool do we need to recognize what's going on here?

Snowded reveals this POV explicitly by saying: "readers are commended to the skeptics web site This is one of the best sites I know on the web". --Encyclotadd (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs)

The skeptics web site is a good source for anyone concerned about pseudo-science in general. Scientists are skeptical its part of the discipline not a PoV. You need to get a grip Encyclotadd, we are not required to be neutral between NLP and skeptics, we are required to reflect what reliable sources say. Its a basic aspect of Wikipedia that partisan editors always find difficult. --Snowded ^TALK 06:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we agree that "The Skeptic's Dictionary" (and similar Skeptic's literature) is intentionally not balanced? In the intro Carol (2003) says that "The Skeptic’s Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term “occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects. The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects. If anything, this book is a Davidian counterbalance to the Goliath of occult literature."[7] Similarly, other hardened skeptic sources are trying to provide the Davidian counterbalance. Wikipedia is not a Davidian counterbalance, it aims for POV with the weight assigned based on parity of reliable sources. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No we can't, Science is skeptical in nature. If it properly uses evidence then it is fine. Also (for the hundredth time) we are not required to write a balanced account between NLP advocates/practioners such as yourself and reliable sources within academic literature. We reflect the latter. --Snowded ^TALK 13:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Skeptic Dictionary says, "We are not trying to present a balanced account." Snowded disagrees with his own reference saying it is a balanced account.

The Skeptic Dictionary quotes a confusion language pattern without describing it as such. Then it argues the founder of NLP is a bad writer because he wrote something confusing.

That is why the author of The Skeptic Dictionary refers to his own articles as Davidian, meaning from the perspective of someone who survived torture in an inferno and describes the experience.

This is just hardcore POVing presented dishonestly by Snowded/LKK as balanced academic literature and science. Time for this article to reflect reliable sources, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, instead. --Encyclotadd (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Davidian" seems appropriate to describe what it is like trying to explain to you how wikipedia works. It always a danger with an SPA, as the focus on one subject means they don;t edit articles where they do not have a strong opinion and don't put the effort into understanding the basic rules of sourcing and NPOV. --Snowded ^TALK 22:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop it with the wikibullying Snowded. You are supposed to welcome new editors. Encyclotadd is making genuine efforts to put this article (and talk page) in order. That even goes as far as making formal inquiries about extreme skeptical POV elements here. I suggest you watch your step. Congru (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

S/he has been editing for three months, has received a welcome, links to rules on editing and a lot of advice. Despite this s/he has been subject to multiple warnings including one from an admin on personal attacks.--Snowded ^TALK 06:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have seen what has been going on with the deletion of rather incriminating links and information. Its suspect. Again, tread carefully. The whole world can read what has been going on here you know! Congru (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Susan Gerbic gave a talk on "guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia and how important that is as skeptics for us to get the message out there". Despite assurances from Gerbic that "it's not vandalism, which it kinds of sounds like, because we are totally following the rules", concern has already been expressed that editors may attempt to give otherwise neutral articles a pro-skeptic slant. Although in the past there have been crackdowns on religious POV-pushing... Gerbic was clear that what has been left behind is not sufficiently pro-skeptic, describing the "skeptical content" on Wikipedia as "not very good".

http://www.territorioscuola.com/wikipedia/en.wikipedia.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-15/News_and_notes --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We need to make sure that we assigned weight according to prominence of views. There are some low grade partisan sources like skeptic's books and magazines that have slipped into the article. We need to aim for consistency. We don't want low grade promotional literature slipping in either. Snowded did say earlier that he allow other views to be represented in the article but he shifted the onus away from him or LKK. He wants other editors to find the other sources and ask him if they are acceptable. I did a quick search on psycinfo and proquest and found other articles which are more supportive. But we need to agree on a way of selecting the sources that all editors would agree with. Snowded and LKK are reasonable people and will respond to a reasoned discussion and evidence. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are the testimonials that one of the leading seminars (at which Bandler teaches) places on their website:

http://www.purenlp.com/people.html

The one that stands out to me is Ed Cox, owner of Sylvan Learning Center. For those who aren't aware, Sylvan Learning Center has close to a thousand locations that have taught more than 2 million grammar and high school students. It's one of the leading for-profit educational institutions in the country, that hires NLP trainers such as Donald Gerard: http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/piedmont/staff.cfm )

If Editors are truly interested in balancing the POV, why not include that among the Skeptic references in the lede?--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Current I do not know of any studies that have systematically investigated the uptake or reception of NLP in different professional areas. Estimations are sometimes made by independent sources. Do you know of any reliable third party sources for the information you presented above? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "uptake" can be investigated and whether the results would be meaningful. But the Sylvan Learning Center endorsement is easily shown on other third party sites. Ed Cox's article for IPPR.org, for example, called "Growing Big Society" states, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) training had been delivered and found to be a valuable tool for staff development." He is listed on a third website as Master Practitioner NLP level: here http://www.nlptoday.com/webdirectory_us_i_p.htm

Pretty strong endorsement if you ask me and fair way to balance POV in the article, wouldn't you agree? We're talking about the owner of a school that has educated more than 2 million children. --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, so a "Master Practitioner' of NLP says that NLP is of value? Hardly a reliable third party source is it? And yet again, please please understand that the article does not have to be balanced between pro-NLP and some supposed anti-NLP group, it has to reflect the reliable third party sources. --Snowded ^TALK 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No that's obviously not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the following:

The Institute For Public Policy Research Limited (IPPR.org), the major independent charity known for work on public policy such as climate change, attributes the following quote to Ed Cox, the owner of Sylvan Learning Systems: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) training had been delivered and found to be a valuable tool for staff development." Please see his article titled on their website titled "Growing Big Society." --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed Cox is a master NLP Practitioner. Ed Cox has written an article which says an NLP programme delivered value for staff development. OK? Not a reliable third party source, but a NLP practitioner saying good things about NLP. Source a web site. Have you read WP:RS, please do --Snowded ^TALK 23:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So if the President of Harvard University appeared on a website as a Master Practitioner, you wouldn't view his endorsement of NLP as significant?

Regardless of your answer, the owner of a for-profit school that has educated 2 million children at least deserves mention as a notable practitioner in the lede.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We don;t have a section to list notable practitioners and I think I would resist it as there would be major arguments about who should or should not be included. I can't see any case for the lede which is there to summarise the article --Snowded ^TALK 00:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do have such a section. It's section seven.

So now there is a perfect slot to mention two million children were educated on this method.

--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is everyone now agreed on this inclusion?--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes its fine, go ahead. Congru (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Per comments above you have not established a reliable third party source to support the "endorsement" so it can't be included, even with a source it might fail WP:WEIGHT. Section 7 is just a list of names, it does not include text about what they achieved etc. which is what you have been proposing. If you want to include his name you would have to show references to him, your opinion about his notability based on ownership of school is not enough. --Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the wikilawyering Snowded. You know you have consensus against you. Congru (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That "endorsement" is just an otherwise non-notable NLP believer saying something positive about NLP. Doesn't mean we have to take it at face value or plug it into the lede. bobrayner (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Bobrayner, How can you say a man who educated two million children isn't notable? --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft high level outline for entire article

• Introduction/lede
• Origin of title, No single definition of NLP: give some examples of definitions from prominent sources including typical definitions from promotional literature, definitions from founders/prominent practitioners, definition from academics and critics.
• Founding and development, history
• Summarize the orientation: i.e. model v theory; interested in healthy functioning and learning, not pathology. Pragmatism v. Theory
• Intellectual Influences e.g. dictim "Map is not the territory", Bateson, Chomsky, including criticism
• Influence of Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls
• Is it a technology, methodology, set of practices, or pseudoscience?
• Argument concerning pseudoscience
• Research literature: including empirical and other academic literature
• Reception and uptake: Estimation of number of practitioners, number of books, where it is applied, how large is the industry, what professional areas?
• Training providers and associations, level of accreditation, level recognition / level of discredit

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks more like an essay on NLP than an encyclopedia entry, section headings for example would never be a question. --Snowded ^TALK 13:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Come on Snowded. Comment on the substance, not the format (if you can). Congru (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, what leads you to believe that thx outline presented above looks like an essay rather than a good wikipedia article? Do you have an good article or featured articles on similar topics? Are there any good articles on approaches to communication or psychotherapy that are well presented in your eyes? -ab you give any suggestions about his to improve it? Are there any missing bits? -192.148.117.101 (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well just look at the headings from "Summarize the orientation" to "Is it a technology". These are the headings for an essay on NLP not an encyclopedia entry. There are asking questions that the writer would answer, rather than summarising the field. You also need to make a convincing argument as to why the current structure is wrong. It looks OK to me --Snowded ^TALK 18:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. So I need to demonstrate that there the current document structure misses important issues discussed in the literature? The current structure is missing some important aspects of the field. This will become apparent when I flesh out the above structure with reliable and prominent sources from various academic fields. The question whether the field of NLP is a "Is it a technology, methodology, set of practices, or pseudoscience?" is important and is discussed in the literature. That would not be the final heading. It would under a heading of definition or description of NLP. I'll flesh out this section with some prominent and reliable sources which matched or exceed the standards that you have accepted in the past from hardened skeptics. Based on the literature, it is not black and white as it is currently presented in the article. Can you please give me a some more time to gather the sources. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yu might be better suggesting where material is missing and establishing that with sources rather than conjoining that with a restructure. The question presents a false choice - it can be a method, a set of practices AND a pseudoscience. --Snowded ^TALK 22:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not asking the reader to make a choice so there is no false choice. Its probably best to hold off judgement until I can complete a survey of the current literature. This will help identify what is missing. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In order for a claim of pseudo-science to stick better than day old jello to a wall, there ** MUST ** be an assertion a subject is scientific. That is ** absolutely ** a requirement, according to Wikipedia, for a subject to be considered such.

The founders of NLP never said they created something scientific. On the contrary, they suggested they create tools and techniques, a psychology and communication model.

Everyone knows these are liberal arts subjects (not science!) at the university level. Suggestions otherwise create a fiction.

The onus is very much on the accusers such as Snowded to prove their claim that the founders describe NLP as science--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-sciences are not only identified by explicit claim to science by proponents. They are identifiable from a number of characteristics e.g.; the fake use of scientific sounding jargon, trappings etc, the characteristics of the proponents – confirmation bias, cherry picking, conspiracy theories, cultlike groupings, and other factors involving commercial promotion by exaggeration and censorship[8][9]. For purpose of Wikipedia editing it is the sources that identify neuro-linguistic programming as pseudo-scientific that count. The sources in the article comply with WP:RS. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think its black and white. Sure some promotional literature has defined NLP as the "science of communication" or "science of getting what you want". But the co-founders certainly never described it as a science. Both the founders had undergraduate degrees in psychology and one of the founders was professor in linguistics at the time. To say that the terminology is fake is an exaggeration so you LKK could be accused of dabbling in pseudoscience! We won't really know if the article applies with WP:RS and WP:NPOV until we do an survey of the literature using a method agreed upon at the front end. You appear to have picked some sources and ignored others to support your preconceptions. In NLP they call it perceptual bias - finding information in the world to confirm your belief or perceptual filters. In science its called confirmation bias. What about the meta model? All those questions: how do you know that? What is your evidence for X? How does X cause Y to happen? What X specifically? According to whom? What are you referring to by X? These are questions to promote critical thinking. The article needs to reflect the various points of view in the literature; not a single hardened skeptic's POV. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources are the important point here. Encyclotadd can identify or dissociate neuro-linguistic programming from pseudoscience using personal criteria. I can do the same using the criteria I stated. But on Wikipedia it is the sources that matter. If you want to see definition and more concrete characteristics of pseudo-science: Click the link to view [10]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you create that video yourself? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeh right! It looks like you had help from Snowded or associated skeptics. Its totally unprofessional. Congru (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What method has been "agreed at the front end"? As far as I remember the only response you have had to those ideas is a reference back to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any agreement at the front end yet but I'm hoping to get some agreement before proceeding with a survey of the literature. That way we could apply WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT policies somewhat impartially. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia definition of pseudoscience is very clear. It states that, "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific." NLP has never been presented in this way by its creators. On the contrary, the creators go out of their way to say it's not scientific.

For example, in Frogs Into Princes, the founders state that, "everything we are telling you is a lie." They make it explcitily clear they are just sharing a model. They say elsewhere (repeatedly), "The Map is not the territory," again expressing that it's just a model.

It's a major flaw of the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Encyclotadd; NLP in Frogs into Princes, and in Reframing, is presented as a magic, not a science. It is considered an art that can be practiced, with somewhat predictable results (just as psychotherapy is as much, or more, art than it is science.) The description of the practice of NLP as a magical art is even stronger in the preface of their The Structure of Magic I & II. htom (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources guys, please. Without sources you are just wasting people's time. This is not an NLP chat web site --Snowded ^TALK 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We're citing Bandler and Grinder's works. You don't consider them or their books to be reliable sources on what they were teaching. This is futile. htom (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

For statements about what they said, but not for anything evaluative. That needs a reliable third party source. I have read their work and I think they make a science claim, you think otherwise. We don't resolve those differences here we use reliable third party sources --Snowded ^TALK 20:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're requiring that we prove a negative (specifically, that "NLP is not a pseudo-science"); we won't be able to do that, with or without third-party sources. htom (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's like asking for an explicit reference that a dog is not a tree. It's so obviously not a tree that no expert would bother making the point.

NLP is a model. Baner and Grinder present it that way throughout their writing. Do a search in Frogs Into Princes for their use of the word "lie" and on the Internet for "The Map Is NOT The Territory."

It's misleading that this article suggests otherwise. It's time for the article to represent facts rather than references to unsubstantiated POV.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC) --198.228.232.16 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, if statements are made, in relation to NLP, that lend themselves to either scientific verification/invalidation, then evaluating them in such a manner is totally valid. That being said, a counter-argument could be presented, in defense of NLP, which suggests that the statements/methods evaluated do not take into account the subjective abilities of the practitioner himself (which would thus address the practitioner's "artistic" ability). For example, if computer software was used to read aloud a trance induction that often worked for Erickson, and it failed to hypnotize subjects, it would surely be inappropriate to claim that the trance induction is ineffective. Willyfreddy (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you back Willyfreddy. Looks like this weekend will involve some presents. Merry xmas mate! Congru (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too, man. Have a great holiday :) Willyfreddy (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled web we weave

For those wanting some mild amusement, this "evidence" based approach to collaborative working might amuse. And a revealing post from one James Donely on an NLP web site: "Interesting developments at the Wikipedia sock puppet investigation:. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheSkeptics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Looks like Scott and Inspiritive are doing a pretty good background check on Snowden. That Google Maps link is pretty stiff evidence. Lets see if Snowy can wriggle out of this one" --Snowded ^TALK 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh please! If this is your idea of reliable information Snowded, then its the cherry on the POV pusher cake. Its about as reliable as that contrived skeptic claptrap you insist on pushing in substitute for reliable NLP expert and neutral encyclopedic knowledge. Your comment is frivolous and predictably erroneous. No doubt it will be roundly ignored by any discerning admin. So just pack it in. Congru (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors working on this page are mentioned in the link Congru, although they have not been notified. And its useful further evidence --Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Congru, Snowded stated that he will accept reliable sources which challenge current sources. So they have shifted the onus on other editors. If other good quality sources can be produced which show significant other views, they can be included. I think your time would be better spent collecting reliable sources for prominent points of view. Google scholar is a good place to start if you don't have access to an academic database. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Some day everyone involved in this article is going to open their eyes and say to themselves you know what, Oxford English Dictionary is probably pretty reliable. A Davidian account by its own admission is not.

Entire sections of the article are deleted that are important to understanding the model so this isnt just about POV'ing it's about more than that- obfuscating the very ideas.

Unfortunately the admins of Wikipedia are either sympathetic to the Skeptic perspective, personal friends with the editors involved, or not taking the time to understand whats going on here.

I'm convinced it's hopeless.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The only way to convince Snowded or the administrators would be to compile a list of prominent reliable sources showing different perspectives and how prominent they are. Look at the relevant wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@ IP 122, One of Bandler & Grinder's contributions was to model Milton Erickson's language patterns in a way that could be written down and studied by others. Milton Erickson wrote the forward to their book on this subject, which created an entire additional field of Ericksonian hypnosis. Here are the academic papers on those language patterns: http://www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Neuroscienceresearchgroup.html Get them into the article on NLP I'll gladly stand corrected.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Anchoring

Whether you agree with anchoring or not, it's mentioned in countless texts and at most leading seminars on NLP. It seems clear to me that the subject must be brought up more than just by reference in an encyclopedia article about NLP. A quick Google search for the phrase "NLP anchoring," for example, produces over a quarter million results.

Here is the definition of NLP anchoring according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_%28NLP%29 There are a lot of other explanations on the web but this is one that I like: http://www.whitedovebooks.co.uk/nlp/anchoring.htm

Please discuss.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Its one of several subjects covered by NLP and there is a pipeline. Why should it get more prominence than others? --Snowded ^TALK 22:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It receives no prominence at all (just one word). Yet it's important enough to appear in Google search results close to a half million times, receive it's own Wikipeida article, and has even been the source of empirical studies, such as "A STUDY OF INITIAL RESPONSE AND REVERSION RATES OF SUBJECTS TREATED WITH THE ALLERGY TECHNIQUE" by Judith A. Swack, Ph.D

Surely it deserves more than a word.  :) --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not where you were inserting it. There may be a case to expand the descriptions of individual techniques, but that would need to be balanced so as not to emphasise one over another. Generally where material is covered in another article then it would be linked, not replicated --Snowded ^TALK 23:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If it were simply a technique you wouldn't be wrong. But you'll noticed it's frequently described as a noun. That's because it's a theory -- often compared with classical conditioning -- in addition to being a technique. That theory has been used to create many techniques. The study by Judith A. Swack, Ph.D will be of interest to you as well. --Encyclotadd (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The edits you made, which were reversed, simply replicated material from another article at the end of a list of which anchoring was a part. Hence my comment. That list contains several techniques, or theories if you prefer which are associated with NLP. Normally the pipeline would be enough --Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the text may have been more appropriate elsewhere in the article is valid. I'd be glad for you or another editor to take charge of adding the information more appropriately.

It's one of the most important theories (perhaps the most important) in the model because a third of techniques (in "The Big Book of NLP Techniques" anyway) are based in some part on anchoring.

You did not notice that I added the information slightly differently than it appeared in the Wikpedia article on NLP anchoring. That was because many people are familiar with classical conditioning, the very famous psychological theory invented by Pavlov. Anchoring can be easily understood in that context, as the same process taking place entirely within imagination.

One of the most famous "interventions" is the "Fast Phobia Cure." That technique involves anchoring a new more pleasant response to a stimuli that previously was associated with a negative one.

I hope the information can be added in the way that I'm suggesting. However, if it's added verbatim the way the definition appears elsewhere on Wikipedia, although that would be less clear, at least it would be added in some form and the article will be more complete.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"The VKD procedure is sometimes referred to as the 'Fast Phobia technique or Fast Phobia Rewind"(Simpson and Dryden 2011) See, Simpson S D R, Dryden W: Comparison between REBT and Visual/Kinaesthetic Dissociation in the Treatment of Panic Disorder: An Empirical Study. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 29(3): 158-176, 2011. doi:10.1007/s10942-011-0136-2 Dryden seems to be a prominent researcher and practitioner in the CBT literature so this article about VKD (an NLP derived technique also known as the "rewind technique" or "fast phobia cure") might be acceptable under WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. You'd have to read the full text and ask Snowded who has a good grasp on the relevant wikipedia policies. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Its a single study using a single experimenter student not a review of many such as with the Witkowski and Sharpley. Nothing is mentioned in that study about anchoring. Dryden may be notable. In his book Psychotherapy and its Discontents, Dryden says that after 1988 when Bandler admitted threatening Corine Christensen with murder and leaving her alone to die after she had been shot in the head, then drowned his sorrows in gin and cocaine, he then moved on to continue developing neuro-linguistic programming. That could be relevant to history and founding section. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.american-buddha.com/bandler.method.htm A much more detailed telling of the story. There are other versions. Note Blander and Grinder started publishing about NLP in 1975, so "moved on to continue developing " has a different meaning than the obvious one. htom (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? We are discussing cocaine instead of anchoring in this section?

Many NLP techniques involve anchoring. To fail to mention the theory at all renders this article very incomplete.

Please... how can we approach informing readers in a way that all Editors would support?--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See here --Snowded ^TALK 07:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

VK/D involves anchoring. It is a dissociation of the Visual and Kinesthetic "anchors" that were supposedly formed during the traumatic event. This paper does include a up-to-date review of other background research. If you bothered to look - there are other reviews papers of VK/D in traumatology research. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of anchoring in the Simpson and Dryden 2011 study. However, it does say that VKD is not original to neuro-linguistic programming. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There are other papers that deal with anchoring more directly. But do you think the VK/D technique (A.K.A. rewind technique, fast phobia technique)is relevant to this article? How much space would you dedicate to it? It was featured in Devilly's critique as well as the Traumatology (e.g. C Figley) empirical studies and review articles. Most of the papers see it as a promising technique that requires further investigation. This shows that at least some researchers take VK/D seriously. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not an article about VK/D it is an article about NLP. Its like the stuff on mirroring that some editors tried to introduce. You can't write about something and inpute an NLP link/validate. You could in a paper that you wrote but not in an encyclopedia entry. The only relevant thing here is NLPs use of VK/D. Again try and make a specific proposal rather than asking general questions.--Snowded ^TALK 10:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know Bandler and Grinder coined the term VK/D to describe what was the active ingredient in the fast phobia technique, and other similar techniques used in NLP, that are supposed to remove or reduce the negative feelings associated to visual memories (visual sequelae) involved in specific (and complex?) phobias. But I'd have to check the literature for specifics. Don't worry, I'll make some specific suggestions after I've completed compiled a list of recent academic literature. I hope we can find agreement on selection of reliable sources at that point. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

@ IP 122, that would be a huge contribution. This article is missing reliable information about anchoring and VK/D. In fact there is no explanation of these subjects in the article. Any references you can provide may add immeasurably.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Encyclotadd. I added a link to the list of studies on NLP. There is a huge amount of good stuff on the NLP related articles here. I suggest we make better use of it. If Snowded, LKK, and others in the skeptic society want to go against it, they will be contradicting Wikipedia. Congru (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Presently anchoring is characterized in the article as a method/intervention, which is not correct. It can be but was also intended in a much more broad sense than is implied by those words. As stated by Bandler and Grinder in Frogs Into Princes, "Anchors are everywhere."

Here is the way anchoring appeared in the article back in 2006 after one of the Wikipedia administrators cleaned up the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=57666114#Anchoring

To me this seems like a really obvious clarification that would help readers to understand the model substantially more clearly.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Its the version after it was edited by an NLP practitioner who is also an admin but has been involved in a lot of controversy Encyclotadd so it has no special authority. I repeat my earlier question. Have you got a third party source which says what it is (if it is not a method/intervention) and gives us a better source for that general summary (in which anchoring is listed as one item) --Snowded ^TALK 07:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating.

The book "Frogs into Princes, neuro-linguistic programming" was written by Bandler and Grinder and published in 1979. In that book they describe anchoring the following way:

"Anchors are everywhere. Have you ever been in a classroom where there's a blackboard and somebody went up to the blackboard and went -(He pantomimes scarping his fingernails down the blackboard. Most people wince and groan.) What are you doing? You're crazy! There's no blackboard. How's that for an anchor?"

The key thing to notice is that they say "Anchors are everywhere." Clearly they are not describing just a methodology/intervention as it's currently portrayed in the wikipedia article. That's why it deserves "special treatment" (as you call it) relative to normal methodologies or interventions mentioned in the article.

This version of anchoring does a good job of articulating the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=57666114#Anchoring But I'm open to any approach to clarifying that everyone can agree upon. So if you have a way of clarifying that you like better, by all means.... I'm open to it.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I am going to make one last attempt here to explain this to you. We currently have the following sentence in the article : "In addition to the first two models, Bandler, Grinder and a group of students who joined them during the early period of development of NLP, say that they developed techniques that they termed anchoring, reframing, submodalities, perceptual positions, and representational systems". That is not supported by a direct reference so its weak and we should look at it but that is a different matter. It lists anchoring as one technique amoung several and there are pipelinks to the articles concerned. So if you are happy with the wording at Anchoring then the pipeline is probably enough. If you want to add in summary material here then it should be a cut and paste but a summary and you will need to summarise the other listed techniques or provide a source which says why Anchoring is more important in some way. B&G saying that "Anchors are everywhere" does not even involve them saying that it is more important, You are drawing that conclusion and on wikipedia that means nothing. If you want to draw that conclusion then you have to support it with a third party reference. So you need to come back here with specific sourced proposals. Just listing your interpretation is a waste of your time and that of other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 09:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the summary that I propose we add in the body of the article: "Anchoring is a term for the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. The stimulus may be quite neutral or even out of conscious awareness, and the response may be either positive or negative. They are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning." This is the shorter summary that I propose we add in the lead: "Anchoring is a term similar to classical conditioning by which memory recall state change or other responses become associated with (anchored) to some stimulus." I recommend we reference Frogs Into Princes since that's one of the most important original texts. If this is suitable to everyone, I'll do the research to reference this thoroughly. --Encyclotadd (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me spell it out. W H A T I S Y O U R S O U R C E T O S A Y T H A T A N C H O R I N G S H O U L D B E T R E A T E D D I F F E R E N T L Y F R O M T H E O T H E R T E C H N I Q U E S L I S T E D? --Snowded ^TALK 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to resort to yelling, Snowded. I'm hopeful we can agree on an edit through cooperation.

You keep using the word "technique" even though I have repeatedly shown that it's different from a technique. I've shown this three ways: I've cited Frogs Into Princes, which is an original text. That text explains that anchors "are everywhere" and describes anchors that have nothing to do with techniques, such as automatic responses to fingernails on a chalkboard, which are considered anchored responses in the original text. I've shown you clarifying language in a previous version of the Wikipedia article predating either of our involvement in this article, and I've shown you an entire additional article on Wikipedia clarifying it.

You have asked for a third party source but that would not be as good as original writing about anchors by the founders of NLP, which I have already provided.

This is not a question of "importance" of anchoring. This is a matter of accuracy-- expressing correctly in the article what anchoring actually means in context of NLP.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that we have clarified that once again, I'd like to focus everyone's attention on the following proposed edits. This is based on the original text, copy that appeared in the article years ago, and the article about NLP anchoring appearing on Wikipedia (acknowledging that the original text is the best source, and will be the ultimate reference used for this addition):

I propose we add this in the body of the article: "Anchoring is a term for the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. The stimulus may be quite neutral or even out of conscious awareness, and the response may be either positive or negative. They are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning."

I propose we add in the lede: "Anchoring is a term similar to classical conditioning by which memory recall state change or other responses become associated with (anchored) to some stimulus."

I can live with this being clarified in the body of the article without reference in the lede although I hope everyone can agree on both additions.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A statement that "Anchors are everywhere" does not establish that anchoring is anything other than a technique. If we are going to expand the description of this technique then we need to balance it with descriptions of the other. That gets too lengthy and the pipelines are more than adequate if people want to read more. Using primary sources is permissible, but we should really use secondary or tertiary sources per policy. You've been pointed to these many times before, but please again read WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, your proposals in whole or in part fail those and as far as I am concerned are rejected unless and until you properly source them and answer the question about priority. --Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

He was describing a response to imaginary finger nails on a chalk board ! That's not a technique, it's a conditioned response taking place entirely within imagination. PLEASE read the original source, which fully explains this. You will find that what I'm saying is refelcted there (as well as virtually everywhere else NLP anchoring is described).--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Anchoring is described as a technique in multiple NLP sources. Per the "theory" some anchors naturally exist, but others can (it is claimed) be "installed", "activated" etc. if you are trained in NLP techniques. Various NLP sites and handbooks offer techniques to create "visual", "kinesthetic" & "auditory" anchors. Read the polices, research the sources and come up with some argument as to why anchoring should be given preference over the other techniques and/or that the description of those techniques should be expanded beyond the pipelines that are already there. --Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are expressing the ideas much more correctly now.

In fact your explanation is strong enough that your words could be used almost exactly to clarify anchoring in the article: "Per the theory, some anchors naturally exist, but others can (it is argued) be "installed", "activated" etc. if you are trained in NLP techniques. Various NLP sites and handbooks offer techniques to create "visual", "kinesthetic" & "auditory" anchors."

I would prefer the explanation written by the previous Editor of the article:

"Anchoring is a term for the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. The stimulus may be quite neutral or even out of conscious awareness, and the response may be either positive or negative. They are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning."

But I could live with yours in the name of progress over perfection. So if you want, I'll support that change, or I'll be glad to make it if you agree to support it. Finally a consensus can be born!  :) --Encyclotadd (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to expand the current material. The pipelink is sufficient. If we are going to expand it then the other techniques need parallel treatment and I would want to see a third party source which identified them as the main ones. As to "more correctly", well words fail me. --Snowded ^TALK 07:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame because as you well know now, there is an issue of factual accuracy at stake here, and your verbiage is acceptable to me.--Encyclotadd (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources? How are we meant to represent polarized viewpoints?

Of the three articles below, how can we decide whether the following sources meet WP:RS and, if so, how much WP:WEIGHT so we give them? It is clear that Sharpley has weight because it has been cited by many times in academic journals and it was originally published in an medium weight "Journal of Counseling Psychology". The "Polish Psychological Bulletin" is not high ranking. I don't know about the other journals. But we need some way of assigning weight more impartially.

• Lisa Wake, (2011) "Neurolinguistic programming: does it have a role in supporting learning or OD interventions?", Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 25 Iss: 1, pp.19 - 21 doi:10.1108/14777281111096799
• Paul Tosey & Jane Mathison "Neuro‐linguistic programming as an innovation in education and teaching" Innovations in Education and Teaching International Volume 47, Issue 3, 2010 doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498183
• Sharpley (1987) "Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory?" Journal of Counseling Psychology doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.1.103
• Witkowski, T., (2011) "Thirty-Five Years of Research on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP Research Data Base. State of the Art or Pseudoscientific Decoration?" Polish Psychological Bulletin. doi:10.2478/v10059-010-0008-0

How are we meant to represent these polarized viewpoints? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You evaluate them in the context to the statements they support. If the journal is peer reviewed then its a reliable source. We also need to be careful when an article is written by NLP practitioners but that does not discount it. Your question is not a valid one, we do not evaluate sources independently of the statements they support. --Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we should evaluate sources independently of statements that they support, explicitly do not support, and those they say nothing about. Because a source supports a point we wish to make does not make it reliable, and because it supports a point we wish to refute does not make it unreliable. And whether or not it was written by an NLP practitioner or by a Skeptic doesn't discount -- or add value -- to it. We understand you have a point, Snowded, and it's expressed well in The Skeptic's Dictionary ( http://www.skepdic.com/neurolin.html ). The goal of this article is to reliably describe NLP, not to praise it, not to condemn it. Your attitude here seems to lack NPOV. htom (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to take that view, but it might help if you bothered to read what I said. --Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My question was: "Of the three articles [above], how can we [evaluate] whether the following sources meet WP:RS and, if so, how much WP:WEIGHT so we give them?" Snowded is saying we need to look at the context in which the statements are made. But why was my question invalid? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

IP 122.... You have already answered your own question [11]. There is no need for any editor to waste time explaining to you something that you clearly appear to know already. If you continue such questioning you will exhaust the patience of other editors, if they have not had experience of your editing and approach to discussion. It is unconstructive and disruptive. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We probably all have to agree to Snowded's standard that references to "peer reviewed" journals be included. That seems inarguable, and I feel this way even though the references that meet this standard in the article are contrary to my own POV. Snowded and IPP both are open to discussing context for references that do not rise to that standard. Perhaps that's where some constructive conversation can take place as a result.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The question of this section is satisfied with reference to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Beyond that we need specific edits to comment on. Discussion of how-to can be conducted on the discussion pages of above policies. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's have some transparency here with our selection of sources. I'm looking for high-level agreement between the editors here who want to collaborate. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You have high level agreement to abide by WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT which define the collaborative environment. I for one am not prepared to engage in an abstract debate which is not linked to proposed changes to the article - its a waste of time and space and you really are pushing the edge you know. Constant comments no sources provide; it is now verging on disruption. --Snowded ^TALK 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at those policies again. They are very general so we'll still need to discuss how to apply those policies to this article. I'll attempt to summarize those polices with reference to this topic. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free but I'm not playing that game and I am seriously considering an ANI report for long term disruption and meat puppetry if this goes on. You need to propose actual amendments to the article that can then be discussed in the light of those policies. If you have general issues then you discuss those at the talk page of the policies themselves. --Snowded ^TALK 08:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think my proposals will help prevent disruption and meat puppetry from skeptics or proponents in the future. We can survey the literature in a neutral fashion, identify the different view points, and then assign weight accordingly. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you make specific proposals for changes, properly sourced in accordance with policy you are wasting everyone's time --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your entitled to your opinion about the process but whatever has been happening on this article so far has not been worked. You must admit the article is lopsided. If we can begin with the broad brush strokes then we can move toward the specifics later. Have you had a chance to consider what academic databases would be suitable as a guide to the viewpoints on this subject? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands reflects the sources. Until you propose some more there is no future in this conversation. --Snowded ^TALK 12:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Snowded is right that moving the conversation from abstract to specific will more likely result in progress and is the intention of the rules.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I made some specific changes to the article. They will have to get past our already growing consensus now;) Congru (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Three single purpose accounts a growing consensus? Please. Propose changes here first please. I would be interested to see the Baxter 1994 article to see what explicit mention it makes of NLP. There is a fair amount of evidence that any talking therapy can create serotonin changes, studies on meditation show the same sort of thing as I remember it. Anyone got a copy? I assume Encyclotadd that you did check it out, rather than simply cutting and pasting? --Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the full citation, I have not read it: Baxter LR Jr. Positron emission tomography studies of cerebral glucose metabolism in obsessive compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1994 Oct;55 Suppl:54-9. Review. PMID 7961533 7961533. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's move the Skeptic Society references to a single section of the article

Skepticism is a word, philosophy and and theory often considered at the heart of all scientific research. It's also an organization called "The Skeptics Society" that is incorporated as 501(c)(3).

The Skeptic Society is a mostly well intentioned entity. It's very well organized, has a large readership, publishes a quarterly journal called "Skeptics," a newsletter called "eSkeptics," and a monthly magazine column called "Skeptic." There is an email newsletter readership of tens of thousands. Their goal is advancing adherence to the scientific method. The organization believes the method must be applied to both scientific and non-scientific realms (religion). This is all easily referenced from their website: http://www.skeptic.com/

As all well educated Editors of this article know, Ivy league and other top universities treat the field of psychology as "liberal arts" not "science." The field is comprised of psychological models striving to make sense of imagination and human experience, which are nebulous and complex. One can easily become confused trying to express them in simple or complex terms. Psychology receives treatment by academics as a liberal art as a result because that treatment allows discussion to take place without the confines implied by the scientific method.

Neuro-linguistic programming is a liberal arts psychological model that was created in on a campus in reaction to other liberal arts models. It has always been considered primarily in that context, such as when it was hailed in the 1980s as a significant breakthrough in psychotherapy, and when the organization of Freudian neuro-linguistic psychoanalysts was formed, which is described on Wikipedia.

Like all liberal arts psychological models, neuro-linguistic programming is not science. The Skeptic Society applies rigid scientific standards to it nevertheless, arguing that it's a pseudo-science and that specific scientific assertions create a basis for evaluating the field in that way.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion including The Skeptic Society. But theirs is not a main stream point of view. Only their POV is finding voice in this NLP article.

That's because the Skeptic Society actively encourages it's members to create interest in their organization and ideas by editing Wikipedia. They have an entire page dedicated to this on their website titled "Fix Wikipedia" http://www.skeptic.com/get_involved/fix_wikipedia.html

The Skeptic Society website advocates for gathering at meetings such as Skepticamp (www.skeptic.com/tag/skepticamp/) where people are further encouraged to edit Wikipedia according to their POV.

Here is the presentation that was given at Skepticamp on editing Wikipedia: http://www.slideshare.net/krelnik/promoting-skepticism-via-wikipedia

The impact on this article appears to have been profound.

Check out this list of references published by The Skeptic Society or closely aligned with their POV in this article:

1. Barry Beyerstein is described in the article as a Canadian SKEPTIC

2. Witkowski is featured in the SKEPTICAL Inquirer November/December 2010 issue

3. Stollznow is featured in The SKEPTIC publication January 1, 2010

4. Drenth P J D spoke at 10th European SKEPTICS Congress

5. Heap authored The SKEPTIC Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

6. Lillenfeld is featured in SKEPTICAL Inquirer Vol. 33 No. 5

7. Dunn.d. is featured in The SKEPTICAL Inquirer 1989 Spring; 13:260-3

8. Norcross is featured in the SKEPTIC dictionary

9. Glasner-Edwards is featured in the SKEPTICAL Inquirer

10. Della Sala is a lecturer and contributor to the SKEPTIC magazine

11. Koocher co-authored the SKEPTIC dictionary

12. Singer and Lalich appear in the children's SKEPTIC dictionary

13. William F. Williams is a self described SKEPTIC in his book

This is not consistent with main stream point of view rules on Wikipedia. There are millions of people who ave attended Anthony Robbins seminars (he took that business public for nearly a billion dollars) have been educated by Ed Cox who owns Sylvan Learning Centers and have read and loved Paul Mckenna, Richard Bandler and John Grinder books, which have sold millions upon millions of copies.

I suggest we move all of these references to a single section of the article titled "The Skeptic Society Objection to NLP." It's important for The Skpetic Society to be allowed their POV in the article because some of their members are notable academics. But that POV should not be the only one expressed by the article, or suggested to be main stream, because clearly it's not.

If you don't agree, or if you partly agree, please explain. If you agree completely with everything I'm saying, please speak up as well because it's important we achieve a consensus.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Good account Encyclotadd. The information is also in need of condensing. Right now the narrow view of skeptics is being given free reign all over the article. It should certainly be "sectioned" because it is a fringe in itself. It also needs to be qualified by the vast numbers of confirming studies that call for further research. [12]. Congru (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Skepticism is at the heart of science and the material cited is in reliable sources. You can't simply label it in this way and tidy it away. The same requirement stands as it always has - you can augment the other sections of the article with referenced material. But the criticism section (and lede summary) is properly referenced. --Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said above (check history), I think it's perfectly valid to evaluate relevant NLP claims empirically. I understand why you want to isolate the Skeptic's publications in that way, but I don't think that it's appropriate to come up with our own categorization of publications, based upon our own criteria. The academic community has already done this, in terms of labeling journals Tier 1-3 (Tier 1 being the highest quality). Undoubtedly, the journals that have contributions from your Skeptics group will be Tier 3. I believe it is important to highlight to the reader that the critical publications included in this page are the bottom-rung of the academic journal industry, or non-peer-reviewed books, and thus potentially not notable. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Skeptic Society is as pure as it's painted. They seem to want to become "The Deciders" of scientific value, which would be a horrible thing to have (the Federal government's allocation of research funding show what happens with that!) Other than opinion, I agree with Enclycoptadd. htom (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You can use http://www.scimagojr.com/compare.php to compare the weight of journals. We can use this tool to help decide what are the weighty articles when compiling a list of reliable sources.

1. "Polish Psychological Bulletin" (not listed in SJR) is scraping the bottom of the barrel. So perhaps Witkowski's paper does not really hold much weight.
2. "Skeptic" - not listed in SJR
3. "Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management" does not seem that weighty.
4. "Human Resource Development Quarterly" has roughly the same impact factor as "Innovations in Education and Teaching International"... Both low but if we are including Bergen Von et al in Human Resource Development Quarterly then we should somewhat give equal weight to Mathison & Tosey in "Innovations in Education and Teaching International" for example.
5. "Journal of Applied Social Psychology" has similar rank (Druckman's 2004 brief retrospective account).
6. "European Psychologist" has better rank than the journals above but is not as good as "Journal of Counseling Psychology" which has more weight than most other journals I checked in this article. That one is similar in impact factor to "Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry" (Devilly's viewpoint article)

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate which aspect of WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT you are referencing with this? I've just reviewed both policies and I can't see anything which requires checking to SJR. Are you suggesting that any of the sources are not reliable and/or not peer reviewed? If so why have you not raised your objections? You can't make policy on a single page, but I suspect you know that. To expand a little, if you had a body of material which contradicted some of the negative sources, and that material came from journals of greater standing then that would affect the balance of the article. Material that references techniques that share language with NLP but does not explicitly mention NLP does not count as to use that would be original research or synthesis. In practice NLP is a sideshow, and does not attract a large body of research. We are lucky in a sense that there is any as most pseudo-sciences are generally ignored by the literature. So I come back to a question you have been asked time and time again, where are your counter sources so that we can evaluate them? You can only challenge existing sources per WP:RS not per some set of rules you want to concoct on this page. --Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to to apply this rule: "all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately"WP:FRINGE. I concur that "if you had a body of material which contradicted some of the negative sources, and that material came from journals of greater standing then that would affect the balance of the article." --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas everyone!

@ Snowded, you suggested "peer reviewed" be the standard. He simply responded with a better standard. It seems like an academically honest approach to me.

@ IP 122, I agree that the weak POV sources (tier 3, non-peer reviewed such as the self-described Davidian rant) from the Skeptic Society should be removed entirely. The Editors of this page who represent The Skpetic Society or have becoming unwitting supporters of their POV might not feel fairly by such a move. That's why maintaining the sources but moving them to their own section strikes me as a smart middle ground most likely to receive a consensus.

According to the Skeptic Society presentations on their websites, they are very interested in promotional links appearing in references. This middle ground would even allow them to maintain those links.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than debating the reliability of each source individually, which will never lead to consensus given the history of disagreement about them, let's focus instead on moving the Skeptic Society references to a single section of the article.

Even the Skeptic Society advocates editing this page can agree on that because their voices will still be heard. It will give the society greater prominence in the article, which is their stated aim on as shown above. Meanwhile the rest of us longing for honesty in the article will feel placated. It seems like an obvious solution to me. --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks on other editors. You have already been placed under caution for this. --Snowded ^TALK 06:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a very strange statement you are making. I've been very careful and purposeful not to call anyone out specifically. That's because I hope consensus can be reached here by all editors.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, its an attack and you really need to stop. I suspect that only a block will teach you the lesson if then, but lets see. --Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. It wasn't an attack but some of your sniping is approaching that. You don't own the article, and you don't own the talk page. AGF is not a suicide pact. htom (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My comment was to Encyclotadd (not sure what you are responding to there) who has now been warned on his own talk page about attacks on other editors. So feel free to think its an ownership issue. I think its one of cilvity --Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what advantage moving the Skeptic Society references into one section would provide. All I'm seeing in this discussion is a number of not-so-veiled digs at the Skeptic Society which seem to be based on little more than a dislike of their conclusions. If there is an issue with the reliability of the sources, it should be brought up at the RS noticeboard; we should keep in mind that we are not the arbiters of what is "good" science or not, since wikipedia is meant to reflect what is the consensus view of the sources. As to the specifics of combining all Skeptic Society sources together, this seems especially unhelpful as it would require the reader to jump back and forth between sections; it's better to keep the Skeptic Society cites inline with the other cites, and mentioned in the relevant places in the article as this facilitates easier reading and understanding. siafu (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We should note that very few of the references are to the skeptic society. There is a fair amount of original research in that list --Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Check out this list of references published by The Skeptic Society or closely aligned with their POV in this article:" I'm confused as to what you're even suggesting. These are articles done by different people, at different times, and mostly by different organizations. Are you trying to imply that these are all from The Skeptics Society? Because that is completely unfounded. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Some here have tried to characterize scientific criticisms as opinion of skeptic society [13][14][15][16]. There are also comments on a general skeptics conspiracy[17]. You are correct, it is unfounded. The only connection with reliable sources is the recognition that pseudo-scientific groups tend to build anti-science sentiment and claim of conspiracy against their following[18]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Really?

The Skpetic Society writes on their website, "We know from our internal traffic statistics that people really do follow up on the skeptical resources cited in Wikipedia articles." They go on to say in a linked article, "This helps us... publicize the skeptic movement."

You don't have to be managing director of a marketing firm to understand what's going on here.

I'm not for identifying the Editors appearing on The Skeptic Society's project page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism ) or calling them out individually. That would not be consistent with the spirit of cooperation.

But I am for reaching out to those people who know who they are, and saying simply: "Come on guys.... you can have your voice in the article. But let's call it what it is in a single section, Skeptic Society POV."

To me that seems like a middle ground everyone can agree upon consistent with the spirit of mutual respect and collaboration.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place where we section up the article for different interest groups. If you think any of the sources are not reliable, the raise them at the reliable sources notice board. if you think their is bias or meat puppetry raise it an ANI, but think carefully before you do that. Otherwise you do not have support for this, let it go. --Snowded ^TALK 19:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I realize that you are just trying to help. But I really don't want to get into that kind of game of notice boards and hateful terms such as meat puppetry and boomeranging attacks. Wikipedia rules advocate for discussion over allegation. It would be way better if we can reach consensus here.

Towards that end, I'd like to appeal to any Editors who have not participated in the Wikipedia project page promoted on The Skeptic Society website to speak up. Perhaps that way we can move away from simple ping pong matches that are tiresome and don't move us forward. I'm sure all of us would welcome neutral reasoning regardless of perspective expressed.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"You don't have to be managing director of a marketing firm to understand what's going on here." Are you suggesting that the members of the wikiproject Rational Skepticism are also members of The Skeptics Society and thus have a conflict of interest? Is that what you're saying? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to parse Encyclotadd's reasoning. Personally, I'm not a member of Rational Skepticism but it's not that simple - apparently the "skeptic society" problem also encompasses anyone who has a tangential connection to any organisation with "skeptic" in it's name; with such reasoning it's easy to set aside lots of different voices which think NLP is silly, and I'm sure my voice could be set aside too.

Why are we still wasting time on this? bobrayner (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If Encyclotadd can offer a reliable source that states the Skeptic Society is conspiring to write against neuro-linguistic programming particularly then it could be included. The associations, practitioner standards section needs expanding to include clearer material on neuro-linguistic programming as a cult or cult-like development. Such a source could be relevant there. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll dig around and look for more sources. In the meantime, here is a webpage about the "Hong Kong University Skeptics" indicating they were banned in 2006.

http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Hong_Kong_University_Skeptics

That's a different organization from The Skeptic Society. But it's interesting to read that apparently "Hong Kong University Skeptics" accounts were responsible for problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu

Here is the Administrator of Wikipedia explicitly calling out Hong Kong University Skeptics club:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57682854&oldid=57681161

Here is the way the NLP article appeared AFTER those accounts were cleaned up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=57666114

That's a very different article than what appears on Wikipedia today. What's interesting is that many of the same sources we are now discussing (such as Sharpley) were deleted when those accounts were banned.

Per Lam Kin Keung's request, I'll look for even more sources.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OK now those references are interesting. As the admins point out those editors were banned for incivility and meat puppetry back in 2006, NOT for content issues. The current NLP web sites which are discussing the NLP page all make extensive references to that period and to the accusations of sock puppetry that Encyclotadd has repeated here. One of the editors from that period, ActionPotential now editing here as 122.108.140.210 is still focused on similar issues. I think there are problems here Encyclotadd in that it looks like you are using material from an off wiki site designed to organise proNLP editors here. Is this the case? --Snowded ^TALK 06:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to organize anybody. I'm just responding to Lam Kin Keung's request for proof of a conspiracy by The Skeptic Society. That's the first article that pops up in search results when searching for related terms.

Also, let's be clear here. I'm not saying the very same people affiliated with Hong Kong university and the Skeptic Society are still editing the article today. Even if the very same people are here today, I don't care. All I'm hoping for is that we can work together to create a more accurate article in a cooperative way.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Also, let's be clear here. I'm not saying the very same people affiliated with Hong Kong university and the Skeptic Society are still editing the article today. Even if the very same people are here today, I don't care."

Then what is even the point of bringing it up? I really don't follow the connection between the Rational Skepticism wikiproject, the American Skeptics Society, and this other Hong Kong based organization.

And to reiterate: The Skeptics Society has no formal or official ties to the Rational Skepticism wikiproject (as far as I know). In their Get Involed section, they list several ways that you can become an activist for the skeptical viewpoint. One of them is Fix Wikipedia. It lists several ways to improve wikipedia, and it lists the Rational Skepticism wikiproject as a worthwhile project to join. That's it. These two groups have an overlap in interest, but they are independent organizations. One does not dictate what the other does. And ultimately we want more people to join wikipedia. The more people, the more diverse backgrounds, all playing by the same rules will result in a better Wikipedia.

Now if you truly wish for what we can all agree is an outside source to look at this issue, we can bring in some outside arbitration. That would settle this issue once and for all. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, I don't know if that's necessary. Hopefully reasonable people will form a consensus, right?

I mean just think about it..... aren't thirteen Skeptic Society references a bit much? This is a psychological model not a scientific one. There is also the issue of quality references being deleted. For example, the Skeptic DICTIONARY makes it into the article but the Oxford English DICTIONARY definition has been deleted.

I would hope the Rational Skepticism wikiproject would join with us here and be part of the solution by supporting these edits or suggesting new ones.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There are not 13 Skeptic Society references, there are 13 references from reliable sources constituting a board range of academic journals. Reasonable people listen to arguments and read up on wikipedia standards rather than indulging in conspiracy theories. --Snowded ^TALK 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 we have one SPA account who is not prepared to accept what experienced editors have told him/her even when several independent editors (such as yourself) have joined in to explain yet again what a very small amount of effort to read up on the 5 pillars would tell them. Mediation is overkill for one disruptive SPA. Further, said SPA has simply picked up a baton in terms of edit warring and personal accusations that were previously carried out by other SPAs over several year now. SOme of those have been blocked, some have simply withdrawn when the patience of the community ran out. Its a long term pattern, mostly fed by a couple of external web sites --Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are just personal attacks aimed at me, and it saddens me. Please, this isn't about you, Snowded, and it's not about you and me. It's about the article. It's about the way the article is being edited generally.

In fact, Snowded, I genuinely hope you can feel good about working together towards a better article. For example, I'm willing to accept your verbiage for anchoring. We had quite a back and forth elsewhere on this talk page about that subject. But the way you are now expressing the idea is accurate and a contribution. Let's use that first agreement between us as evidence to each other that we can reach future agreements. We can learn from one another.

Anyone reading these references can tell they represent a single point of view advocated by these skeptic societies. Skeptic societies deal with the scientific method. Psychological models are generally discussed as liberal arts subjects rather than science. The rigorous method is not ordinarily applied there. I understand the skeptics want it to be applied there, and I have no problem with their taking that position. But right now it's the only position expressed in this article and that's not accurate or fair. Also valuable sources that were not consistent with this POV such as The Oxford English Dictionary reference have been removed. That's not reasonable either. We need some cooperation in how to handle this.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Its about properly sourced material that follows wikipedia rules Encyclotadd. Until you find the first and read/understand the second we will make no progress and I've wasted enough time trying to explain it to you. You do not have agreement to this change, its over. --Snowded ^TALK 07:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If that were true the Oxford English Dictionary would receive greater prominence in the article than the Skeptic Dictionary. But as anyone can plainly see only Skeptic dictionary appears (prominently) in the lede and Oxford English Dictinary has been repeatedly deleted from the entire article.

That's not fair and it's this isn't a question of properly sourced material. It's a question of a few people encouraged by offsite society websites collaborating to express a single POV to the exclusion of any others. Come on Snowded, join with me in addressing this situation.--Encyclotadd (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

See previous comment --Snowded ^TALK 17:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your previous comment was not responsive.

I raised the issue of NUMBER of Skeptic POV references, and how the Skeptic references totally dominate the article, not the QUALITY of them individually.

It's the other sections of this talk page (such as "this paragraph is extremely biased, discuss") that were started by several other Editors that examine the poor quality of the references mentioned in this section. You prefer the Skeptic's dictionary to Oxford's dictionary in this article. Those sections would be the place for you to make that mysterious argument, I'm sure citing the five pillars, yet again where it would indeed be responsive.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The OED definition was rejected because it appeared under special. However, note that other OED editions have a shorter but similar definition under standard usage. What reliable sources challenge the viewpoint of Beyerstein, Witkowski, Stollznow, Drenth, Heap, Lilienfeld, and Drenth? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@122, The amount of academic work being excluded from this article is breathtaking. I'll explain one area as an example.

The Milton Model consists of twenty language patterns used by Milton Erickson that were written down by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. They wrote "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1" with a forward by Milton Erickson himself, and "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 2."

Those books are very important. Hypnosis was traditionally understood to mean sleep-like states and "direct suggestions." Erickson, Bandler and Grinder popularized the idea of waking-state hypnosis and "indirect suggestions."

This is fully explained on Wikipedia in an excellent article about Milton Erickson where you'll find these books referenced.

Virtually every hypnosis school in the world informs students about this work. It's true that some schools favor the traditional approach of lulling a listener to sleep and issuing direct suggestions, while others prefer the more conversational approach. But anyone who has studied hypnosis beyond an entry level has encountered this work.

Volumes of academic studies have been conducted on Milton Model language patterns. Ernest Lawrence Rossi, Ph.D., who won The Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy among other awards, authored a number himself. Here are some download links:

www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Research%20Group%20Papers/1%20Atkinson%20Rossi%20et%20al.%20%20AJCH%202010.pdf

www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/LICHTENBERG%20Hyponotic%20Susceptibility%20IJCEH%202004.pdf

www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/keypapers/NN%20WHAT%20IS%20A%20SUGGESTION%202007.pdf

Cheek conducted a study with THREE THOUSAND participants. See Cheek, D. "Awareness of Meaningful Sounds Under General Anaesthesia." "Theoretical and Clinical Aspects of Hypnosis", Symposium Specialists, 1981.

Obviously this work doesn't make it into the article about neuro-linguistic programming even though the article clearly indicates that the Milton Model is a major part of NLP.

A handful of Editors have come up with bogus reasons for excluding it. They would have you believe that because the studies mention the Milton Model and not NLP, that they don't belong in the article on the basis that it's original research.

My point in bringing this up is that the problem with the article isn't just about the Skeptic Dictionary definition receiving preferential treatment over the Oxford English Dictionary definition, which alone should strike you as odd. It's about the the Skeptic society references being the only voice in the article to the exclusions of outstanding work.

I wish others would recognize what's going on here and call for a change.--Encyclotadd (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are paraphrasing what it says in reliable sources then you are not engaged in original research. You just need to show that Grinder and Bandler's (1976) "Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, MD" is discussed in reliable sources. It is more difficult to show how important it is relative to other models or techniques (or other issues) related to the topic of NLP. I think LKK and Snowded will argue that the views of Beyerstein, Witkowski, Stollznow, Drenth, Heap, Lilienfeld, and Drenth represents the mainstream scientific consensus. They will argue that any competing viewpoint must not obfuscate the mainstream POV. But read the policies carefully, if you can show that other viewpoints exist and are prominent then they can be represented based on parity of sources. This is not a mainstream topic so the rules are more relaxed. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@122.108.140.210, I'm already citing reliable sources.

Ernost Rossi is a reliable source. He's incredibly distinguished. The American Psychological Association for Psychotherapy gave him the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy in 1986. The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis gave him a Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy in 2008.

Ernost Ross edited Bandler & Grinder's book "Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, MD." It would be impossible for him to give that work any greater endorsement. He has created many wonderful research studies about Ericksonian language patterns:

www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Research%20Group%20Papers/1%20Atkinson%20Rossi%20et%20al.%20%20AJCH%202010.pdf

www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/LICHTENBERG%20Hyponotic%20Susceptibility%20IJCEH%202004.pdf

www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/keypapers/NN%20WHAT%20IS%20A%20SUGGESTION%202007.pdf

These papers were co-authored by other notable academics. For example, David Atkinson worked on one and was President of a university. You'll find that other co-authors are equally distinguished: Jane Blake-Mortimer, Salvatore Iannotti, Mauro Cozzolino, Stefano Castiglione, Angela Cicatelli, Erika Chovanec, Richard Hill, Claude Virot, Bhaskar Vyas, Jorge Cuadros, Michel Kerouac, Thierry Kallfass, Helmut Milz, Claire Frederick, Bruce Gregory, Margaret Bullock, Ella Soleimany, April Rossi, Kathryn Rossi, & Stanley Krippner.

You wouldn't have any idea that such notable people support these language patterns from this NLP article.

The Skeptic Society references, on the other hand, are totally dubious. The Skeptic Dictionary is by its own admission a diatribe. (The author's exact words are "Davidian rant" in the introduction to the book.) The Polish Psychological journal doesn't even show up at all in lists of peer reviewed journals. These are joke references compared with The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and The American Psychological Association for Psychotherapy, supporters of Rossi.

There is a systemic problem with this article that I hope I'm successfully highlighting here.

This problem was sorted once before by Wikipedia Administration who simply deleted the same Skeptic Society sources we are now discussing.

Prior to the clean up by Wikipedia Administration, the article looked similar to today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=56056003

Note Sharpley, Druckman, Beyerstein, etc.

Here is the way the article looked after the Wikipedia Administration got involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=57666114

According to the Administration, the problem in 2006 was The Hong Kong Skeptic club:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57682854&oldid=57681161

There may or not be the same Editors involved.

Regardless, I hope everyone reading this can come together as friends. It should be the Editors rather than Administrators that fix the article.

That's why I proposed a middle ground: moving those Skeptic references to a single section rather than our just deleting them entirely.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) There doesn't seem to be any such thing as the "American Psychological Association for Psychotherapy" that I can find [19], and I can't find any evidence from he American Psychological Association (APA) that they have ever so honored Mr. Rossi; neither the APA website [20] or google[21] have any such endorsements easily findable. Perhaps you meant some other organization? Also, the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis doesn't seem to have a record of a Lifetime Achievement Award either [22][23]. These all are really the sort of specific facts that require a direct citation, and not just from the person himself.

The American Psychotherapy Association publishes the peer reviewed journal "The Annals."

They attribute those accolades and others to Ernest Rossi:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/American+Psychotherapy+Association%27s+2005+National+Conference.-a0134955718

"Dr. Ernest Rossi, a Fellow and Executive Advisory Board Member in the American Psychotherapy Association, is the author of numerous renowned books on psychotherapy, including The Psychobiology of Gene... 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."

Rossi clearly endorsers Bandler/Grinder's work on the Milton Model because he edited their book "Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson." (Erickson won many awards and wrote the forward.) --Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In which case it was good for me to call you out on this because of the two awards you mentioned originally, both have turned out to be unsupported, and are now replaced by a third one from a new organization: the American Psychotherapy Association-- surprise, another red link; I am somewhat familiar with the psychotherapy credentialing system, and I have to admit I'm not familiar with this organization, and the credentials they offer (BCPC -- no article on wikipedia) aren't ones I recognize (e.g. the vastly more common LCPC, LPC and LCSW-- see List of credentials in psychology). This is not the American Psychological Association, so you'll have to explain why this particular organization's endorsement is one that matters, and why we should not consider this to be a fringe group-- or at least, one with much less "oomph" than the (real) APA.

Certainly all that you've presented would make it seem that Rossi is an RS when it comes to what NLP is, even without that "Lifetime Achievement Award", but it's not obvious that he's reliable when it comes to whether or not NLP actually works, or whether or not its premises are actually based on scientific evidence. siafu (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the additional namedropping, you cited: "Jane Blake-Mortimer, Salvatore Iannotti, Mauro Cozzolino, Stefano Castiglione, Angela Cicatelli, Erika Chovanec, Richard Hill, Claude Virot, Bhaskar Vyas, Jorge Cuadros, Michel Kerouac, Thierry Kallfass, Helmut Milz, Claire Frederick, Bruce Gregory, Margaret Bullock, Ella Soleimany, April Rossi, Kathryn Rossi, & Stanley Krippner." I've taken the liberty of wikilinking them all; note how all but 3 are red; of the blue ones, Richard Hill is a disambiguation page that does not include any psychologist, and Bruce Gregory is about the new Zealand politician. I think the answer to your problem, namely: "You wouldn't have any idea that such notable people support these language patterns from this NLP article." The reason you would apparently not know is because nobody actually cares as they are not notable people.Only Stanley Krippner actually has an article on wikipedia, and a citation showing his support for the theory might be helpful or warranted, but the additional names don't do us any good for establishing anything at all.

LOL, I don't have to prove all twenty of his co-authors are notable for everyone to recognize that Rossi is himself reliable!

Rossi's co-author David Atkinson was President of Grant MacEwan University. He was the former president of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and two Ontario universities, Brock University in St. Catharines and Carleton University in Ottawa. There is a full article about him on Wikipedia (as well as Rossi and Erickson): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Atkinson . --Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-sequitur unless you were dropping those extra names in an attempt to establish reliability. I had thought that they were being presented as a list of supposed notables who support a particular theory, since that's what you said:

You'll find that other co-authors are equally distinguished: [...] You wouldn't have any idea that such notable people support these language patterns from this NLP article.

. As I explained, this is meaningless; you wouldn't have any idea that such people support these language patterns because they're not notable people. siafu (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, statements like "These [Skeptic Society references] are joke references compared with The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and The American Psychological Association for Psychotherapy, supporters of Rossi." themselves speak only to a statement of personal bias. Hypnosis, over its rather colored history, has been the subject of a fair amount of charlatanry and hogwash itself, some of it formerly endorsed by the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis itself. The Skeptic Society may not be ideal as a reference, but certainly it holds as much credence to the ASCH, especially on matters of efficacy. siafu (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, I didn't mean that Skeptic society references are a joke generally, and apologize if my comment was perceived that way. Actually, I hold the Skeptic Society in high regard when the organization is focused on matters of science. It's when the organizations stray into matters of faith, or liberal arts, where the scientific method was never intended to be applied, that there's an obvious issue. I don't believe there is any benefit to applying the scientific method to the existence of Moses or Freud's Ego/Id. I think the societies should heed their own advice about such matters and be skeptical of their own skepticism.

That said, many references we are discussing are absolutely a joke because they are unreliable. The Polish Psychological Association stands out for not being peer reviewed and at best third tier. The Skeptic Dictionary describes itself as a Davidian rant. That's a reference to burning in a sweat lodge, barely surviving, and then writing an account of it. It's totally inexcusable such references have been allowed in this article to the exclusion of notable academics and peer reviewed journals.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd you seem to be constructing a strawman. You need to use independent reliable third party sources to be given much weight. Also, those sources you cite do not directly discuss NLP or cite Bandler/Grinder so they are not relevant to this article. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confident that in a private email exchange you would find my evidence sufficient to withdraw the comment about the straw man. However, rather than making this about anyone individually, we are much better off making this about ideas, and coming together as a group to support the best ones.

Towards that end, please see many comments above regarding reliable sources.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What sort of persuasive argument could you provide via private email that you can't provide here? AFAICT, the only difference would be the use of your own credentials, which are valueless in this discussion and therefore not persuasive. siafu (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Siafu, I'm sorry I brought that up. The information would distract us from the more important conversation about ideas because it has to do with a single account.

Regarding absurd POVing in this article, the following appears in the American Psychological Association's peer reviewed database PsychInfo and was written by a Professor of Psychology in Delhi University:

"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." The same article goes on to say that, "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 if there is no theory to back it up….. "

Clearly there are reliable sources who disagree with the Skeptic view. You wouldn't know that from this article. That quote is from 2011.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

VK/D

The following source says that VK/D was developed by Bandler and Grinder (1979)... We should note that Dryden is the editor in chief of that "Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy" and that I'm not sure of the rank of that journal. There are two viewpoints here: Herbert, Lilienfeld, and Lohr (2000) and Devilly (2005) argue that there is a lack of empirical research into VK/D and it has not been submitted for peer review. In contrast, Mohiuddin (2006); Carbonell and Figley 1999; DC Muss (2002); and Simpson and Dryden (2011) argue that it is a promising technique and requires further research. Simpson and Dryden (2011) agrees with Dietrich et al. that the VK/D technique was developed by Bandler and Grinder (1979) based on the work of Erich Fromm. According to a review by Dietrich et al.,

"the available evidence suggests TIR, the TRI Method, and V/KD are effective treatments for posttraumatic sequelae." [...] "Rigorous studies need to be conducted and replicated using comparison groups to demonstrate that the identified treatment is equivalent to another “well-established" treatment or superior to medication, psychological placebo or other treatment. Scientist-practitioners are encouraged to take an active role in this line of enquiry and to conduct research with combined components, using good experimental designs and standardized approaches."

• Academic book: JD Herbert, SO Lilienfeld, JM Lohr (2000) "Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Implications for clinical psychology"
• Professional magazines in medicine: Mohiuddin (2006) What….. no medication? An introduction to the Human Givens approach - inside this issue
• Simpson and Dryden (2011) Comparison between REBT and Visual/Kinaesthetic Dissociation in the Treatment of Panic Disorder: An Empirical Study Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy
• Higher impact journal: Devilly (2005) "Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry" doi:10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01601.x
• Academic journal: Carbonell, C Figley 1999 Promising PTSD Treatment Approaches Traumatology
• Academic press: DC Muss (2002) "The Rewind Technique in the Treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Methods and Applications" in Contributions in Psychology
• Dietrich, AM., Baranowsky, AB., Devich-Navarro, M., Gentry, JE, Harris, CJH., Figley, CR., (2000) A Review of Alternative Approaches to the Treatment of Post Traumatic Sequelae Traumatology Volume VI (4,2)
• Dietrich et al. (2000) A Review of Visual/Kinesthetic Disassociation in the Treatment of Posttraumatic Disorders: Theory, Efficacy and Practice Recommendations Traumatology June 2000 6: 85-107, doi:10.1177/153476560000600203

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviews of neuro-linguistic programming tended to examine the conceptually pseudo-scientific concept of sense preferences such as VAK etc. As stated in the article, neuro-linguistic programming fails in those reviews. It is not our job to conduct reviews of multiple research papers, and there appears already to be conceptual overlap with the sensory predicates and VKD in the existing reviews. I will check again through the sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a review paper by Dietrich et al (2000) which was cited by Simpson and Dryden (2011) in their recent paper. VK/D appears to have spun-off from NLP and been evaluated a a "promising" technique in its own right. VK/D does not depend on any "sense preferences" or what the literature referred to as preferred representational systems (PRS). Charles Figley who was at FSU is probably the most notable proponent of this NLP-VK/D as a promising technique. Maybe we should create an article dedicated to VK/D -- it is notable as a technique by itself? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Gray (an assistant professor in Criminology at Fairleigh Dickinson University) has published a few papers on VK/D recently including one titled "Gray-Liotta PTSD Extinction Reconsolidation and VKD-RTM" published in Traumatology. It is available online for free: [24]. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see a reference. Having read it the key phrase appears to be: "Despite other explanations, the authors believe that a little known intervention originally described by Richard Bandler (1985) makes specific use of reconsolidation mechanisms and deserves serious reconsideration". The author takes a perspective on a variant of a technique created by one of the NLP founders (i.e. it pre-existed) and suggest further research. These seems a common theme in a lot of papers referenced and one really looks for the results of that further research. I can see the material could have use in an article on VK/D which would logically have an NLP reference or two. I can't see how it affects the criticism section which is properly sourced. The pro-stuff is covered elsewhere in the article--Snowded ^TALK 08:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing that this research doesn't appear in the article yet.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we can write an article on Visual-kinesthetic dissociation and also have a reference or short description of it somewhere in this article and then linked to it. We don't really describe the major techniques in NLP such as rapport, anchoring, reframing, pacing and leading, etc. Is there a good academic article which describes the classic techniques in NLP? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reorganisation of article - work in progress

#	Existing	Proposed change	Reliable Sources
1	Short introduction including was "Neuro-linguistic programming refers to"	Keep first sentence and move self-description to 4th paragraph	NLM: "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." OED (Special usage under neurolinguistics): "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 Critics: typical example.
2	Example	Where it was create/co-founded	Spitzer, R. (1992) Virginia Satir and the Origins of NLP, Anchor Point, 6(7) as cited by Tosey (2010) Exploring inner landscapes through psychophenomenology: The contribution of neuro-linguistic programming to innovations in researching first person experience. Qualitative Research in Organizations
3	Example	Origins of title. The title refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life. 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 0916990079. as cited in [25]
4	Example	Give some examples of definitions from prominent sources, including founders, practitioners, academics and skeptics. Sample include more promotional definitions. Contrast with other definitions from proponents, academics and skeptics. including self description from Grinder, Dilts, Bandler et al.	Example
5	Example	Summarize approach/perspective: e.g. interested in healthy functioning and learning, not pathology. Is it technology, methodology, set of practices? describe the differences	Example
6	Example	Give best argument that NLP is a Pseudoscience	Most prominent sources for this argument
7	Example	Theory v. model: Origins with modeling Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls; Influence of Gregory Bateson - cybernetic epistemology; Is it a theory? e.g. dictim "Map is not the territory"	Example
8	Example	Summary criticism from academic researchers: summary research including experimental studies.	List most reliable sources for criticism of NLP. e.g. Eisner 2000 as cited by Tosey 2010
9	Example	Number of people trained as practitioners Size of industry Popular application areas Uptake in professional areas	E.g. Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy Counselling Association NLPCA is member of UKCP
10	-	Summarise training providers and associations level of recognition/discredit	"possible discredited" for treatment of mental and behavioural disorders (Norcross 2006) "certainly discredited" for treatment of drug addictions (Norcross 2010) Polls of expert opinion of possibly discredited practices ranked NLP as "possibly discredited" for the treatment of behavioral disorders and "certainly discredited" for the treatment of drug addiction

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues missing. These are not really academic issues so they have been ignored by the literature and I'm not sure where they would be covered.

• NLP in the popular culture (movies, television shows, seduction community)
• Summary of popular NLP books and authors:
  • Anthony Robbins (US best seller: wrote first popular NLP book: Unlimited power),
  • Paul McKenna (Best seller in UK), ...

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant policies for reorganisation: see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/policy --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this conversation. Here are my thoughts. The Milton Model and The Meta Model both deserve entire sections. There has been substantial research into Ericksonian hypnosis by psychologists and neuro-scientists that can speak directly to the Milton (Erickson) model and should be included. Also Notable Practitioners, NLP Theories and NLP Techniques all deserve their own entire sections of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 08:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Sections 4&5 appear to offer an evaluative approach (see my earlier comment on essays rather than encyclopedia articles). The policy on prose is a good one, but if you look around has been difficult to implement in practice on many articles. The section here is also about scientific reception (which just happens to be critical in the main). I agree with you that NLP is mostly known these days as one of a myriad of management consultancy and self-help methods but we really need a source which makes that statement. Overall I would expect two things in this quest of yours on a new structure. Firstly a clear reason why the current structure does not work; Secondly a mapping of old onto new. I also strongly suggest you use a sandbox to work on this and create a link here. It makes the talk page less cluttered. --Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The evidence against the current structure finds voice in the disagreement throughout this talk page and number of edits reverted. The sandbox is a helpful suggestion after tentative agreement is reached regarding structural approach.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement by a small coterie of SPAs is not evidence of any defeciency in the strucuture. Also, as far as I can see that disagreement has not been to the structure, but has focused on removing anything critical of NLP. So my request still stands for a summary of what is considered wrong with the current structure and a high level mapping from old to proposed new. At the moment I don't see a case and I remain disturbed that the summaries provided seem to focus on an evaluative essay which will create multiple issues. --Snowded ^TALK 08:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still working through the reliable sources and relevant policies. I will try to map existing structure into the proposed new one. I'm looking through the policies to try to explain what is wrong about the current structure. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I repeat my suggestion that you take any proposed changes into a sandbox where you can work on them in peace. When you have the reasons and the mapping done you can always link here. --Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Eisner 2000

Do you think that Eisner (2000) is a reliable source for criticism of NLP? It is cited by Tosey (2007; 2010) in these papers. Eisner says "What is presented in workshops by Bandler and Grinder is unverified stories"

• Donald Eisner (2000) "Strategic Systems Family Therapy and Neurolinguistic programming" In The death of psychotherapy: From Freud to alien abductions. Praeger. ISBN 0275964132
• Tosey (2007) Fabulous Creatures of HRD: a critical natural history of Neuro-Linguistic Programming
• Tosey (2010) Neuro‐linguistic programming as an innovation in education and teaching

Tosey (2007) states: "Eisner ( 2000) argues that as a psychotherapy NLP has no sound empirical or theoretical basis; Eisner’s critique, however, is levelled at many therapies and may be considered scientistic." --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It boggles my mind that a book about alien abductions found it's way into this article. It's a very silly source.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read the source before making comments like that --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, don't get put off by the title. Its one of most comprehensive critiques of NLP from a positivist perspective. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than trying to balance all of those weak Skeptic Society sources with sources of only equal caliber, let's just remove them from the article or move them to their own section.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

See the WP:FRINGE policy. It says "It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And just for the record, nearly all the sources are not from the Skeptic Society but from reliable sources. Encyclotadd, your attempt to claim meat puppetry didn't even pass first base on that one so you really should give up that line of argument if you can't sustain it. --Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling Skeptic Society source "weak" is also quite unhelpful. The place to challenge the reliability of sources is at the reliable sources noticeboard, and not here. If you believe the sources to be weak, have them examined there. siafu (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Norcross 2010

The paper that was the source of the "certainly discredited for the treatment of drug addiction" was just a poster when it was cited by Glasner-Edwards but now it has been published in Journal of Addiction Medicine. Just a note that it is fairly poor science. They state that anything with average rating of 4.5 or greater was considered "certainly discredited". NLP was rated 4.52 in the second round but there was a large SD, a big error term, in the data. They did not use confidence intervals or significance test which is just poor science especially for a group claiming to having an evidence-based orientation. The methodology was flawed but unless a reliable source makes that statement we'll just have to take it at face value.

• was ranked certainly discredited in treatments in the addictions. source: Norcross JC, Koocher GP, Fala NC, Wexler HK. (2010) What does not work? Expert consensus on discredited treatments in the addictions. J Addict Med. Sep;4(3):174-80. PubMed PMID 21769032. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of using reliable sourcing is so that we, as wikipedia editors, are not the arbitrators of scientific validity. This task is left to the editorial board of the journal, who, if the source passes muster as being reliable, are considered to be the experts in the matter. siafu (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

G. Brent Angell (2011) NLP Theory and Social Work Treatment

• G. Brent Angell (2011) "Neurolinguistic Programming Theory and Social Work Treatment" in Francis J Turner (ed.) Social work treatment : interlocking theoretical approaches. 5e Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195394658 worldcat

The above article is published in a reliable source, a university press. It might be useful for this article for perspective of NLP from a social worker perspective. I only briefly looked at the abstract and introduction. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well bring it here when you have a specific proposal, WIkipedia is not a place to keep research notes --Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought it could be a bit more collaborative. You and other wikipedians were asking for reliable sources for this article. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No we are not, the content of the article is well supported by reliable sources. We are saying that if you want to change the article you need to provide reliable sources to support those changes. You have over months now made general comments, sought to change policy on this talk page and carried out the odd minor edit war. So far you have consistently failed to discuss changes on the talk page and failed (despite many requests) to propose changes supported by reliable sources. The talk page is littered with your musings rather than any serious discussion as to how to improve the article. Adding a reference here to an article which by your own admission you have not even read yet without any reference to any change is a misuse of the talk page. If you want to do this sort of thing create a sandpit (I put some effort into explaining how you do this when you asked) and invite editors who are interested to access it.--Snowded ^TALK 08:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

because it is published by a university press, the source meets the criteria for a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. I want to talk about weight now. How does it compare with the other sources in this article in terms of weight? How do we decide that? --58.163.175.181 (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you 122.108.140.210 editing from a Victoria address? You need to say what edit you propose which would be supported by that source. --Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

without getting into the specifics we should be able to agree that this is a reliable source for statements about NLP theory applied to social work treatment whatever that means. I was just replying using my iPad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.192 (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You really need to get an ID (or use your original ActionPotential), I am now up to four names/IPs under which you have edited. In response to your question, for the hundredth time, propose an amendment based on that source and we can judge it. Without proposals for change you are, yet again, wasting everyone's time including your own. --Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You must admit that the source meets wikipedia rules for reliable sources. The articles does not currently include a social work viewpoint yet. We'd need to discuss in general and agree that it is a reliable source before making any specific amendments. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You already know that you need to make a specific suggestion before anyone will be able to decide whether it is a reliable source for the statement made. You are currently being persistently disruptive. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Both Snowded and Lam Kin Keung are correct. The reliability of sources is entirely dependent on the context of the statement being sourced. A journal on civil engineering can be a reliable source for statements regarding the efficacy of pre-tensioned concrete in modern bridge building, but not a reliable source for statements regarding the aesthetic appeal of cable stay versus suspension bridges, by way of example. If there is no specific change, addition, or deletion you are proposing, it is not possible to say whether the source is reliable for the purpose or not. siafu (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

But in general, can we agree that: a university press on social work CAN be a reliable source for statements regarding the application of NLP to social work treatment, but not a reliable source for statements regarding the empirical efficacy of NLP in the context of scientific psychology, for example. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's possible in theory, but not obvious prima facie. Any source can fail to be reliable just by being a crappy source, and in this case it doesn't seem like a university publication on social work should be ruled out categorically. You would need to be more specific, just as other editors have requested. siafu (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"certain", "a number of" or "some" neuroscientists etc?

• Lam prefers "certain"[26]
• I prefer "a number of"
• A third person prefers "some"

Also, why do we order "neuroscientst before psychologist" when most of the critics are psychologists, not neuroscientists? Shouldn't this be ordered with the strongest (by number) of critics first? There are no pure neuroscientists who weight in on the subject except for Corballis who is really a psychologist (cognitive neuropsychologist) whose work straddles neuroscience by way of neuro-imaging and neuropsychology. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of certain in this context is very clear. A number of is fine, but neuro-linguistic programming is considered to be pseudo-scientific, controversial, and discredited according to neuroscientific thinking as well as linguistic and psychological. Then I propose this compromise:

"According to a number of neuroscientists,[3] psychologists[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses discredited, misleading, and pseudo-scientific terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a utterly questionable sentence in the article. None of the sources are neuroscientists for starters:

The Polish Psychological Journal isn't even peer reviewed among psychologists.

Stollznow is an Australian writer, linguist and podcaster.

Sergio Della Sala teaches psychology at the University of Edinburgh.

Corballis teaches psychology at University of Auckland.

Also there are plenty of esteemed academics who view Bandler and Grinder's work as worthwhile.

Dr. Ernest Rossi, who discussed elsewhere on this talk page, endorsed Bandler and Grinder's Milton Model when he edited their book, "Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson."

According to the APA, Rossi was a Fellow and Executive Advisory Board Member in the American Psychotherapy Association, is the author of numerous renowned books on psychotherapy, including The Psychobiology of Gene, 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.

Rossi co-authored papers supportive of this work with David David Atkinson, who was President of Grant MacEwan University. He was the former president of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and two Ontario universities, Brock University in St. Catharines and Carleton University in Ottawa. There is a full article about him on Wikipedia (as well as Rossi and Erickson): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Atkinson

The sentence should be removed from the lede entirely.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We all know how fraudulent LKK/Snowdens compromises are (hilighted very clearly by Willyfreddy). The line should go. Congru (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"We all know..." No, we don't. What *I* know is that you have made no edits outside this topic. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 04:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources are neuroscientists, Jeraphine. None. Zero. Zilch.

You wouldn't ask basketball players to comment on cricket, would you?

Several of these references were removed by Administrators of Wikipedia as part of the arbitration ruling in the past. I share Congru's dismay that the proposed compromise is anything less than removal.--Encyclotadd (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what's going on, I just got here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 04:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome. Its been discussed before [27] and the line was inserted under agreement. Here is Corballis [28]. The view is that of neuroscience or neuropsychology. There are significant neuroscientific views critical of neuro-linguistic programming [29]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to Corballis who wrote two sentences about NLP on p.29, 41 of Are we in our right minds? (1999). In Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions about the Mind and Brain. Do you think that is an acceptable source, and why? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion requests

I'm probably doing this wrong, but I'm bold. I've requested a third opinion on the question "whether or not NLP is a pseudo-science or a psychotherapy method". htom (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right to raise this question.

Bandler and Grinder go out of their way to present NLP as non-scientific. They write in Frogs Into Princes, an original source about the subject: "Everything we are telling you is a lie." How much more explicit could they be? They go on to write that, "The Map is not the territory." I'm paraphrasing here, but this means their NLP model (map) is not reality (the territory). They there is zero scientific claim whatsoever.

Psychological models, like Bandler and Grinders, are usually treated by universities (including Harvard and Yale) as liberal arts subject matters. Degrees in psychology are often not bachelors of science. That's because psychological models are understood to be unscientific. Freud created a lot of scientific sounding terms like psychoanalysis and his work is also not pseudoscience. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming#Ascribing points of view. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 02:43, 3 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)

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)

• 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.[30] --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)

• 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.[31] [32] 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)

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)

Science of excellence, Heap

This edit may need some work [33]. I see your point. The quote is from the 2008 Heap publication [34], rather than the 1988 written in the entry. That would be a simple correction. It is also very damning though. It could be re-written to reflect that. I will also look for statements from neuro-linguistic programming sources that make explicit or implicit claims to science. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes need to be cited (with page numbers). I saw two uncited quotes (one in the text and one in the references) and removed them. I removed the rest because that claim isn't made in the article (as far as I could tell upon skimming; whoever added that stuff originally apparently couldn't be bothered to cite properly with page numbers). The bottom line is, that article clearly does not come out in support of neuro-linguistic programming and it's not correct to try and present it as a reference that does so. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the 2008 source you linked, the quote isn't from there either. It's from an NLP book, which Heap is quoting. Referencing it to Heap (2008) would again be incorrect (in essence you'd be trying to make the quote look like it's from a reliable third-party commentator, when it's not). The longer quote from the footnote is still not in this source. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I will look further to more reliable sources that state neuro-linguistic programming authors claim science or scientific status. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's lots of examples like that. I gave up because Lam Kin Keung and Snowded decide they would revert any attempt at correction I made. Look at the first sentence of the second paragraph written by Lam Kin Keung: "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, and helps people attain fuller and richer lives". The two sources failed verification. For example the footnotes states: "It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p. 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia, and can even cure a common cold (op.cit., p. 174)...(Also, op.cit., p. 169) Bandler and Grinder make the claim that by combining NLP methods with hypnotic regression, a person can be not only effectively cured of a problem, but also rendered amnesic for the fact that they had the problem in the first place. Thus, after a session of therapy, smokers may deny that they smoked before, even when their family and friends insisted otherwise, and they are unable to account for such evidence as nicotine stains." You cannot use seminar transcript or transcripts from individual sessions with clients as a primary source for claims. You need to find reliable third party sources which discuss the claims made by the originators. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The material was not included by Snowded or me: [35]. Once again, if you suspect anyone of sockpuppetry make a proper WP:SPI instead of making tedious insinuations and childish accusations on the talk page. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

LKK, That wasn't responsive. IP 122.108 did not say you wrote that material originally, LKK. He said he feels like you and Snowoded are auto-reverting his edits.

It's not for me to express whether that feeling is valid. I'm not an administrator of this website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467514338&oldid=467500150

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467885010&oldid=467882309

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467716838&oldid=467687887

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467595779&oldid=467555629

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467514338&oldid=467500150

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=469083918&oldid=469065680

But I can comment on reliability of sources in this recent reversion history:

I strongly disagree with your eliminating the Oxford English Dictionary definition in favor of the Skeptic Dictionary definition.

That turns this article into a Davidian rant, which is how the author of the Skeptic Dictionary describes his book in the introduction. Davidian rant refers to burning in a sweat lodge and then writing an opinion about the experience.

Obviously IP 122.108 is right that you should have allowed his edit.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right. The amount of autoreverts going on here is ridiculous. Deleting the rather incriminating information you posted on skeptic COIs and obvious socking, locking the article when it should be boldly corrected. Perseverence is called for. When it is unlocked, the 2006 version really does need to be the benchmark. Congru (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Related article creation

I just created Real People Press, the publishing company of the Andreas'. It had already been created on the German WP (some text translated from their article). their publication of Hugh Prather's book earns them notability beyond the NLP field. I'm notifying editors here out of respect for the ongoing editing issues around NLP. I wont put a link in this article (the name is in one reference now, and it seems that references usually dont have links in them), as i am not a contributor here otherwise. full disclosure: while i have no connection professionally with NLP, i have some tangential personal contact with the ideas (and i did sell their books, not on commission, along with 30,000 other titles, at a small press book distributor 15 years ago, where they were bestsellers). I had no idea when i started this article an hour ago that there was any issue here, though i was vaguely aware of issues related to nlp in general. I'm sure the article i just created can be improved. i have linked its appearances on WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That helps us identify hidden self-published sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources should not be automatically removed. If a self-published source is cited by a number of independant reliable sources then it might be considered notable for this article. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries the publisher is quite reliable and certainly has more expertise in the field than the skeptics magazine references. LKK and possie don't have a let to stand on. Congru (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)