Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

RfC request

Closing per WP:NOTAFORUM - please take COI issues to COIN]]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I started a Third Opinion request, have been told that RfC is more appropriate. The question is "Whether or not NLP is a pseudo-science or a psychological method?" htom (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC) The tool doesn't have an option to put this into a group like Medicine or Psychology. :( If someone knows how to do that, it would help. htom (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Pseudoscience. I believe there are references for this somewhere in Neuro-linguistic programming and science and Neuro-linguistic programming#Criticism and controversy. For further explanation I'll refer you to this comment (from this article's failed FAC), which I agree with wholeheartedly. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC) And by the way, categorizing this RFC under Language and Linguistics is not really appropriate; neuro-linguistic programming has nothing to do with linguistics other than the fact that they unfortunately share part of the name. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I was not especially happy with the choices given in the tool; that was closest. Linguistics used to be the study of communication through symbols, and in that old-fashioned sense there is a stronger association than the use of the letter string "linguistic". Can you add it to lists I think more appropriate, medicine or psychology or psychotherapy, please? Thank you. htom (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC) References to pseudo-science are clearly given in the article. --Snowded TALK 08:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Hasn't this been discussed already? What exactly is the question here? Does someone have a problem with the Pseudoscience category? Or any cited and attributed mentions of "pseudoscience" in this article in general? What's the problem? We're not having a debate amongst us whether NLP is this or that, our own opinions are irrelevant. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC) We have a small group of SPAs who would like it removed, or so qualified as to be meaningless. We have been asking them to come up with sources for months but they have failed to do so. There have been various slow edit wars trying to remove referenced material. All the sort of thing you get on articles like this. --Snowded TALK 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Oh deer. I requested semi-protection earlier, just for the IP(s), but no one's reacted yet. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I do not see how something should be labeled a "pseudo-science" when it does not claim to be scientific. Some (I have not looked at all, or even most) of the citations seem to be attributing the failure of new teachings several generations removed from NLP to NLP, rather than to those new teachings. Some of those new teachings do claim to be scientific, and are properly so labeled. NLP did not make that claim, and should not be tarred with the sins of its errant grandchildren. Snowded seems to think I'm a SPA; why, I don't know. I think it's name-calling and wish s/he'd stop. It makes it hard to AGF. htom (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC) (I think they were referring to the other ones, not you.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC) When my objections are swept up as if that's what I am, then it's easy to make that mistake. I mostly think the article here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&action=historysubmit&diff=97563191&oldid=97548346 )(the first pair compared when I asked for 2006) is far, far better, and does a much more balanced discussion of the pseudo-science flavors of some of NLP's descendants. The current article approaches being an anti-NLP screed. htom (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC) You can't argue against sources. You say that NLP does not claim to be scientific. That is your opinion, but it means nothing here (the same goes for my view that it does ). The very very simply point is that a body of reliable sources say it is. Therefore that is reflected properly in the article. No you are not an SPA, but you are about the only NLP advocate here who isn't. --Snowded TALK 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC) When the sources are misused, I can and have. Here, that's ignored. I am trying to be an NPOV advocate, but it appears that's not desired here, if the current article is really considered to be better than the version I linked to just above. htom (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC) If you can provide diffs to your points you say got missed or ignored and they relate to this RFC then we can address them in here. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Just to give an alternative viewpoint. I don't believe in NLP as a personal opinion, but as previously stated personal opinions do not matter. However the label pseudo-science implies judgement made by the author/s of the article. The scientific method does not have an outcome of "pseudo-scientific". Science is the acquisition of knowledge through gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. It maybe both that NLP has been scientifically discredited, and can be criticised for using pseudo-scientific terms - but labelling NLP as pseudoscientific applies a judgement on behalf of the reader that does not need to be made. Suggest the way forward is to remove the judgement statement, and enhancing both the techniques section and measurable evidence/critique (Tiiischiii (talk) 02:05, 9 February 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.[1] --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC) It already seems tendentious. Criticisms from Corballis, Drenth, Stollznow and others answer this point and come decades after the Wazow comment. Since 1985 practical application of linguistics and neurolinguistics have multiplied. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) LKK, You missed the point. To date there are still no respectable applications of generative grammar. Ask any linguist, especially a Chomskyan, before answering that question. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I completely agree with 122.108.140.21 and Wasow, Professor of Linguistics at Stanford University, in the view NLP is a psychological and communication model. I'm not going to call anyone out individually, because this decision can be made based on ideas alone. But 122.108 is right to mention turf war. The most active Editor smearing NLP in this article runs a competing seminar business that is conflated with NLP, meaning considered absolutely identical in the marketplace. (Conflated was his own word on his website, and he deleted it from his talk page when it was pointed out there, because it exposed his dishonesty about declaring "no COI.") That Editor is very similar to HeadleyDown, who the administrators banned in 2006 when this page was cleaned up. He advocates for the same references as banned HeadleyDown. He was born near the town of HeadleyDown. His family owned a home in HeadleyDown. He is affiliated with the same University in Hong Kong as Headley Down. Yet amazingly he slipped by all these years without anyone connecting those dots, or those who connected the dots took no action on it. Again, it's not necessary to call anyone out individually because the ideas alone make the argument successfully. One of the best selling books by NLP founders Bandler and Grinder is "Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson." That book was endorsed by Ernest Rossi, one of the leading psychoanalysts in the world. By endorsed, I mean that Rossi edited it. The argument of pseudoscience fails completely when you consider Rossi's credentials: The American Psychotherapy Association (which publishes the peer reviewed journal "The Annals"), describes Rossi this way: "He received the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy from the Erickson Foundation in 1980 and from the American Psychotherapy Association in 2003. He also received the 2004 Thomas P. Wall Award for Excellence in Teaching Clinical Hypnosis. Today he conducts training workshops sponsored by his nonprofit organization, the Ernest Lawrence Rossi Foundation for Psychosocial Genomic Research." Here is the source for that reference: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/American+Psychotherapy+Association%27s+2005+National+Conference.-a0134955718 Obviously Bandler and Grinder's book is academically credible. Rossi was also involved in substantial neuroscientific research. Here is a list of a dozen academic studies and papers on neuroscientific subjects: http://www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Neuroscienceresearchgroup.html One of those studies about the language models described in Bandler & Grinder's book was co-authored by David Atkinson, President of Grant MacEwan University, and former president of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and two Ontario universities, Brock University in St. Catharines and Carleton University in Ottawa. We are talking about academic heavy weights who support Bandler and Grinder. You wouldn't know that from this article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC) That is all entirely irrelevant. An appeal to authority doesn't prove anything about the status of the field, especially one so tenuous as you describe above. (Rossi's name does not even appear on the Google Books entry.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC) And the personal attacks, based on an off wiki website which seems to co-ordinate the SPAs who plague this page, are getting very very tedious. None of those accusations have survived any formal investigation its just a juvenile smear campaign which reflects badly on Encyclotadd and his many predecessors. --Snowded TALK 09:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I would appreciate, Snowded, if you would not insinuate personal attacks against me such as SPA or meat puppet. You have provided no evidence and the attacks are baseless. Also you are distracting from the important ideas by bringing up formal allegations against you that were made by other Editors, and your " surviving " them. That's hardly a credential and has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. If this subject is found to be a psychological model, ideas will be the solitary basis for the decision. Towards that end, note Editor 122.108.140 comments two paragraphs below in which he points out that Google scholar returns 900 "scholarly" articles that cite Bandler and Grinder's 1979 "Frogs into Princes." You wouldn't know so many academics are citing NLP founders work from reading this Wikipedia article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC) You are an SPA Encyclotadd, a simple examination of your edit history shows it; its a factual statement unlike your nonsense about HedleyDown. It is also factually true that you are the latest in a long series of SPA accounts that have taken a pro-NLP stance on these articles over the year and it is also factually true that you are repeating material here from NLP web sites relating to Wikipedia. I haven't at this stage made an accusation of meat puppetry although I am thinking about it. If I do I will make the case at ANI and notify you accordingly. Otherwise your last paragraph is, shall we say surprising unless you are unfamiliar with the way references are made in academic articles. If I wrote a hostile article about NLP I would cite Bandler and Grinder; citation is not the same thing as endorsement. Also as has been pointed out to you time and time and time again, we try and avoid primary sources when we edit Wikipedia. --Snowded TALK 19:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC) That's factually inaccurate. I'm a newbie, and that's very different from an SPA. I've edited more articles on Wikipedia than most people who joined the community just a few months ago. All of my edits have been well referenced. Snowded, I would remind you that you were not called out in the Headley Down comment above. You just jumped right out in front of it like it was a moving train, and then reacted emotionally. Sorry for touching a nerve. I promise not to make any more Headley Down comments that hit so close to "home." Now, let's focus again on the 900 academic papers citing NLP. I will start going through them because rather than talking about academic findings in abstract terms, we would be much better off being specific.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) (sigh) You have just repeated accusations here that you have made directly elsewhere Encyclotadd, Your "I didn't call you out directly" will fool no one. You are simply trying to get around the fact you have been warned twice for making personal attacks. Not aware of any emotion in my response but if that is how you see it c'est la vie. Otherwise your resolution to start going through academic sources is a welcome one I look forward to the results. --Snowded TALK 08:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Pseudoscience Looking through the extensive list of citations, most are media reports, books, and self-published articles. I can find only few papers that appear to be from peer-reviewed journals the field, and I can find abstracts of only two of them online. And they both say the same thing.[2] [3] And unless I'm missing something, in favor of the notion in the above discussion I see a whole lot of appeals to authority a little bit of ad hominem, and really nothing else. --Quintucket (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC) You can have the last word on this so that we can discuss the well referenced facts about this article again. Towards that end, please comment on this statement from a peer reviewed source written just a few months ago (see APA's psychinfo): "The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained." --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC) What search terms did you use? What databases did you search? Psychinfo has a whole category dedicated to "Neurolinguistic programming". You can also use "Bandler+Grinder" as a search term in psychinfo for a broader result. And Google scholar returns 900 "scholarly" articles that cite Bandler and Grinder's 1979 "Frogs into Princes". --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Yes Quintucket. Its not enough that you make such a sweeping statement. You are under the burden here to demonstrate how neuro-linguistic programming (a modeling technique that is explicitly stated to be not a science) can be pseudoscience. I am sure we all eagerly await your attempt. Congru (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) REAL, doesn't always work, is used by cults or cult-like organizations such as NXIVM, is potentially a very dangerous form of mind control. Not unlike hypnosis. Some are more suggestable than others and depends on many factors. Chrisrus (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC) The journal Counseling and Psychotherapy Research found in 2010 that, "Neuro-linguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on par with other well established psycho therapeutic techniques." http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240?journalCode=rcpr20#preview According to the peer-reviewed American Journal of Forensic Psychology, "[NLP has] the capability to enhance the listeners' ability to relate to the subject of the testimony, to maintain their attention, and to increase their interest in the material presented." http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-35734-001 According to the peer-reviewed The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, "One NLP technique to help individuals reflect deeply on situations and relationships, and that has yielded promising results, is called ‘Perceptual Positions’. This approach has been adapted and piloted for use in individual and group workshops to help participants access personal beliefs and values in relation to sustainability." http://ijs.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.41/prod.244 According to Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, which appears in the American Psychological Association's psychinfo, "A basic NLP technique, enhanced by hypnotic language patterns, worked effectively to bring about successful outcomes." http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_record&files=214_rdb.dat&f_count=1 Dissertation Abstracts International writes that, "The study focused on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), the model or tool utilized in gathering and reporting of data. This communication-based interviewing model was selected because its clinical approach offered a replicable model in addition to having sound theoretical principles." http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/Dissert&CISOPTR=6237&CISOBOX=1&REC=9 According to Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, "NLP's major contributions involve understanding new models of human experience." http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_record&files=219_rdb.dat&f_count=1 The journal of Academic Therapy writes that, "Anchoring, a neuro-linguistic programing technique, was successful in helping a sixth grader with learning disabilities reduce his anxiety reaction to math tasks. " http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ331480&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ331480 This was thirty minutes of research-- imagine how many supportive academic documents can be found in a week or a month.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I'm indenting this because I'm adding this information out of chronological order. But I think it's important that this be understood clearly by every new Editor who reads this section. A professor of psychology at New Dehli University expresses the following view: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) as an effective interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy is used quite frequently in corporate, health and education sectors. Practitioners of NLP provide intervention in the fields of relaxation, phobia, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), allergy as well as in peak performance training. While it seems quite fascinating to see a wide range of practitioners in the field, the trend also warrants possible misuse of the concept. The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained. Till date, NLP is applied without a theory. The scientific community seems not serious, when its practitioners claim that "NLP is heavily pragmatic: if a tool works, it's included in the model, even i f there is no theory to back it up….. ", thus, discouraging a scientific inquiry. The title neurolinguistic programming implies a basis in neurology (lacks evidence), computer science, and linguistics, but marketed as a new science or new age form of psychotherapy, judged simply pseudoscientific by the skeptics. These views made scientific research in this field less appealing among researchers. A review on the current trends and practices in NLP is presented here with a direction for future research in the field. Not how he disagree specifically with the Skeptics. This is a reliable source because it appears in the American Psychological Association's database of peer reviewed articles and journals, and this quote is recent (summer 2011).--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Encyclotadd, your use of external references is rather irresponsible. Half of the quotes you just presented you didn't provide references for, so I have nothing to say about them. Of the ones you did provide references for, some are primary research studies (Stipancic 2010, Mayers 2003, Cureen 1995, Thalgott 1986), which do not provide evidence about the scientific community's perception of NLP (which is what this RFC was supposed to be about); they only provide results about a specific sample using a specific methodology, and without looking at other studies (or even looking beyond the abstracts of the studies you cite) you won't be aware of limitations of these primary studies. Some of the papers are far too old to be of any relevance now (Thalgott 1986, Davis & Davis 1983, Davis 1984)--they don't show anything about the current perception of NLP. Appropriate references would be more recent review or meta-analysis articles. Where you did cite those, you did so irresponsibly; at the top of this section you cited the Biswal (2011) paper as if it supports the idea that NLP is a real science, but nowhere in the abstract does the author say that, and in the full text the author specifically refutes that notion (note particularly pp. 50 and on, including the sections "Review of NLP literature research" and "Lack of scientific validity", where he explains that empirical data do not support the claims of NLP and clearly states that there is no justification for calling NLP a 'science'). The Murray et al. (2002) abstract, as well, doesn't say anything about NLP's status is a science, it just apparently says that one NLP technique was useful for something (and note that this article is not a scientific article or in a science journal, it's an applied journal); I wasn't able to access the full text so I can't say more. This brings me to my next point, which is that you appear to only have read (and not even understood) the abstracts of all these studies, but not the actual text, and thus totally missed the point of what these articles are saying, particularly with the Biswal (2011) paper (which you bafflingly call "Pro-NLP Paper"). You also don't seem to understand that articles reflect the views of their authors, not the journals publishing them (and even less so the database in which you found the article), given that you are saying ridiculous things like "Dissertation Abstracts argues that....". Sorry, but the articles you've dug up don't support whatever you seem to be trying to say and they don't address the numerous references already in the article that show NLP is a pseudoscience, and I have no confidence in your ability to responsibly read and use external sources. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Rjanag, It's ironic you claim to have read the sources when it's apparent you didn't read my messages referencing them. I said (twice) those quotes were found in under thirty minutes. It was disclosed twice they were dug up in haste. You also fail in your response to consider the reliability of new sources in context of ones appearing in the article. It's true the ones brought up newly on this talk page are of varying weight-- we're even referencing dissertations. But the vast number of Skeptic Society references (debated extensively elsewhere on this talk page) are generally not peer reviewed at all. The ones that are peer reviewed are strongly opposed in other journals. (Sharpley, for example, appears without qualification in the lede. But several articles in psyhcinfo say he failed to note major problems with the studies he as reviewing.) In order for Wikipedia to claim NPOV in this article, balance and factual accuracy must be restored. I hope you will join me in calling for it.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I fail to see why saying twice that you dug these up in haste (your words) justifies the behaviour. Also you appear to be making claims on your reading of the abstracts alone. None of them are comparative studies, many of them just argue for more research. I really can't see what you are suggesting. None of these challenge the current referenced material (unless you plan some original research), some of them might support edits to the text outside of the criticism section but you have made no proposals. --Snowded TALK 08:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC) What I was saying is that it was obvious from 30 minutes of research that there are peer reviewed perspectives not finding voice in this article. I have every intention of doing more research because this article is in need of balancing. I hope other Editors will join me in the effort.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC) When you do that research I suggest you do more than skim the abstracts for what you think are favourable statements. Reading sources is generally commended to researchers, thinking about them in context a real bonus. You also need to address Rjang's points. --Snowded TALK 10:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) It appears that other editors here (you know who I am referring to) have been skimming articles for less favorable statements to suit their own point of view. There needs to be a balance of different perspectives according to weight. Its not easy but can be done. --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I don't know who. If you're referring to me and the Biswal article--I did not skim that article, I read it, and it's not just a few unfavorable statements here and there. One of the article's main points is that NLP lacks scientific rigor, that is not open to debate, that's simply the fact of what the article is. I'm not going to try to argue over what an article is about with people who haven't even read it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry. I was saying it is real, and therefore not psudoscience. But I was also saying that I'm concerned or alarmed by its potential for use by cult-like organizations or such to mind-control people. I did not speak of it's potential for good. You have established that it seems to have real benefits for great good based on these citations. However, are there no citations that express any alarm or concern for its potential as a mind-control tool for suseptable individuals? Chrisrus (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry I'm late to the party but it doesn't seem to be sufficient that a few published psychotherapists label something as a pseudoscience. In order to be classed as a pseudoscience on WP, it must be "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" WP:FRINGE/PS. Is anyone claiming that and if so, where are your sources? --Mindjuicer (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC) A quick search of the Letters archive at The Psychologist should convince you that most members of the British Psychological Society hold NLP in distain. However, this doesn't satisfy WP:RS. One of the problems with determining that something is "generally considered pseudoscience" is that nobody wants to lend it credibility by dissing it. Famousdog (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC) A quick search showed nothing of what you mentioned. Not only is it not a RS, the BPS is not representative of the scientific community and disdain <> pseudoscience. I suspect that there are NLP practitioners who promote themselves using pseudoscience -- but this does not qualify NLP as a pseudoscience according to WP categorisation. Nor does it justify the perjorative usage of "pseudoscience" in the lead. --Mindjuicer (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC) The lede summarises the article. There are more than enough references in the article to pseudoscience to justify its use in the lede. ----Snowded TALK 22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC) I'd be surprised if a supposedly neutral editor would want such a pejorative word in the lead. Basic WP policy is "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." WP:NPOV. That means that pejorative language must not be used, especially in the lead. --Mindjuicer (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Mindjuicer, we don't make our own rules here. There is no policy against using pejoratives in articles. We do it all the time. If the sources use pejoratives, we use pejoratives. We follow the sources. (Quack and fraud are two that come to mind.) If we added pejoratives when the sources did not do so, that would be wrong, but that's not what's happening here. "Neutral" and "without bias" does not refer to content, but to editorial motivations that are revealed by using words and meanings not found in the sources, IOW OR and SYNTH violations. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I am looking for precedent on pejoratives. I've yet to see anyone but you say it's OK. Your last sentence is not policy. Also, stop stalking me. That goes for Famousdog too. --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Try and avoid making silly remarks on other editors and focus on content issues. Wikipedia policy is clear, we reflect reliable sources we do not balance between pro and anti NLP positions. A significant amount of those sources say it is a pseudoscience so the content, and then the lede reflect that fact. ----Snowded TALK 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) If the cap fits, wear it. I'm looking to see why this article is such a mess and you're putting yourself forwards as the first POV-pushing suspect. The word "pseudoscience" is highly pejorative. What part of "fairly and without bias" do you not understand? --Mindjuicer (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC) For the second time, please focus on content issues not your opinion of other editors. Reliable third party sources say it is a pseudoscience. We reflect those sources fairly and without bias. We are not required to balance between the views of NLP advocates and those they call skeptics. If you think the balance is wrong, then the onus is on you to provide counter sources to those already identified. ----Snowded TALK 02:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC) And how does including highly pejorative language allow other viewpoints backed by reliable sources to be represented fairly? Your assertions contradict core WP policy. --Mindjuicer (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC) it se the language used by the sources so it's what we use. That is Wikipedia core policy. We do balance across all reliable sources so please provide some which say it is not a pseudoscience (and that does not include OR or synthesis and we can look at if the balance is correct or not. Pit. Your energy into that, rather than attacking other editors. ----Snowded TALK 04:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I strongly recommend adopting a policy of WP:SILENCE toward Mindjuicer. What you are witnessing, I both suspect and hope, are the death throes of an editor about to be blocked for outrageous behaviour. Famousdog (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I agree with Mindjuicer. The article is an indictment that's not even remotely encyclopedic. He's right to call out the perpetrators. If the Wikipedia community understood the obfuscation that has taken place, there would be an uproar.--Encyclotadd (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Please stop making implications and accusations without providing evidence and assume good faith, Encyclotadd. Obfuscation? Please. NLP is obfuscation exemplified. Which parts of the article are not "remotely encyclopedic"? Which editors are "perpetrators" of this "obfuscation"? If you have evidence to show to the Wikipedia community, please do so and we'll see if there is any "uproar". Back up your accusations with diffs or don't bother responding - I've had enough evidence-free editorialising and empty words from Mindjuicer in the last week to last me a lifetime. Famousdog (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Famousdog, The model cannot be understood without an explanation of Anchoring. Anchoring appears in every single original text almost without exception. All attempts at adding information about anchoring are met with rule based objections. That is what I mean by obfuscation. The editor who rejects adding information about anchoring has an acknowledged conflicts of interest. This article is hopeless in it's current form--- it's like an article about Pavlov and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy that doesn't explain Classical Conditioning. There's no way to make sense of the model from this article. Hope that clarifies my use of the word "obfuscation" adequately. If you don't believe me, call any hypnosis school or any NLP school in the world, or grab any original text on NLP and read about anchoring for yourself. Totally unexplainable move.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Good point, when I looked at the ANI example and other edits its obvious there is a more generic issue here linked to pseudoscience in general. Encyclotadd is already under a warning for personal attacks and could end up in a similar place. ----Snowded TALK 13:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC) The phrase "please focus on content issues not your opinion of other editors" springs to mind. "NLP is obfuscation exemplified" is noted as evidence of CoI. --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC) On what planet is that evidence of a conflict-of-interest??? Famousdog (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC) If a COI is alleged, take it to WP:COIN. In the meantime, this thread has descended into general discussion and is closed per WP:NOTAFORUM. ISTB351 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC) References		[[{{{link}}}|{{{tab}}}]]

istb351, would it be fair to rollback the article?

Closing per WP:NOTAFORUM. ISTB351 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello istb351, can I please ask? Would it be more appropriate to revert the article to a time before this dispute? There are a couple of editors who are in contention as to their identity on wikipedia. As the evidence mounts against these editors I find it hard to give them the reward of editorial priviledges of displaying a version of NLP that is similar in content to headlydowns version so many years ago. Headlydown has lost his right to edit wikipedia as you know and should not be rewarded in any reincarnation or suspected reincarnation. This would only give him every encouragement to continue as thinking he will have some success at doing it. Also I would like to add that any of Headly's edits should be recorded to identify recurring themes research writing style etc if you are not already doing this so that a reincarnation is easy to identify. I have I think rememberred my correct user name. If you could direct me on how to find it then I will. Juzzyfet was an old nick and one that I had used years ago on other sites, however I think this one will be correct and identify me from that time. I will not display it here as it has personal identifying information. instead I will ask FT2 to verify it. regards. Enemesis (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC) The only grounds for reverting the article to an earlier version would be if that earlier version better reflected the sources. As you have failed to indicate (a) an earlier version that the article should be restored to, or (b) why that version better reflects the sources than the current version, there are no grounds for reversion at the present time. If you believe that specific content does not reflect the sources, then post it here. These general requests will do you no good at all. As for the HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) issue, unless you are prepared to submit an ANI/SPI report on the matter, I would advise that you strikeout your comments above. It is simply not acceptable, given WP:AGF & WP:NPA to make insinuations or accusations of sockpuppetry without supporting material, especially when these accusations have been made by socks and SPAs before and have been thus far found to be groundless. In any case, given the spam recently posted at my talk page, I was under the impression that you believed that I was a sock or meat puppet of Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As for your previous identity, it seems appropriate to wait until the administrator that you have contacted has made their views known. This thread is liable to be closed if you continue to fail to abide by WP:NOTAFORUM and the aforementioned policies. ISTB351 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) in regards to a) The predominant sources are anti NLP making a biased article I have recently come in if you could direct me then I could find previous edits as examples. In regards to b)I believe from the posts I have left before that it is quite clear that this article expresses the problems with NLP and does not have enough historical value to repressent the subject resepctively. I will not comment on headleydown for now, I will take your advice and upon me being a witness at that time I would hope that it would hold some weight. Enemesis (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC) .

Lawsuit Paragraph

ISTB351, Regarding your recent revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=476983224&oldid=474420508

I agree the existing sources are not adequate. Perhaps the solution is adding references rather than removing the copy.

My reason for my feeling this way is based on the following:

The Independent, mentions the lawsuit. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/healthy-living/messing-with-your-head-does-the-man-behind-neurolinguistic-programming-want-to-change-your-life-ndash-or-control-your-mind-1774383.html?action=Popup

A university professor writes about the lawsuit here. http://www.neurosemantics.com/nlp/the-history-of-nlp/the-lawsuit-that-almost-killed-nlp

The Skeptic Dictionary even covers it. http://www.skepdic.com/neurolin.html

None of these are perfect sources. But they're an indication that the perfect sources are out there-- for example the court documents themselves.--Encyclotadd (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection at all to the inclusion of the material, and even if I did it wouldn't matter. What counts is whether there are third party reliable verifiable sources that indicate its notability. Given the sensitivity of legal matters in relation to BLP issues, we have to be even more vigilant than usual. The Independent article above mentions the lawsuit in passing, the The International Society Neuro-Semantics is not a reliable source on this matter, and the Skeptic Dictionary reference is unclear and hardly appears reliable under the circumstances. If reliable sources are found, the material can go back in, but under the circumstances as you accept "[n]one of these are perfect sources". Court documents would be primary sources and so would not be "perfect sources" as you imply. ISTB351 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm persuaded by that argument and particularly your assessment of the Skeptic Dictionary as unreliable here. I would just add that, if it fails the standard of reliability here, then you may want to consider whether the Skeptic's Dictionary fails the standard of reliability of "Scientific Criticism," which it's held out as in the NLP article itself. But good luck removing it. --Encyclotadd (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a third party source (it was a review of Lisa Wake's book) that sums up the lawsuit and malaise quite well in one paragraph, "Unfortunately Bandler and Grinder fell out and there was a lawsuit that was eventually resolved in 2001 with both agreeing to be recognized as co-founders of NLP. This dispute resulted in the establishment of a number of bodies to represent NLP and, in addition, various approaches have been developed and numerous strategies have been incorporated within NLP. The result of all of this trauma and change has been that NLP has grown in many directions without a clear and universally recognized unifying content. The end result has been a “discipline” which has no clear agreed definition of purpose and some external commentators question its credibility and evidence of success."(Wilson 2011 p.1) If you want to use it, the citation is: John P. Wilson, (2011) "NLP: Principles in Practice", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 43 Iss: 2. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

reliable sources and basic structure for article revision

I'm working on a revision based on current reliable sources, see User:122.x.x.x/NLP_reliable_sources. I'm starting with just a bare bones structure. If anyone else is keen to help let me know. I will be starting with a search of the literature for "Bandler+Grinder" OR "NLP" OR "Neuro-linguistic programming" OR "Neurolinguistic programming". I will use google scholar, psychinfo, pubmed and proquest. Any suggestions? --122.x.x.x (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you focus on improving individual sections rather than attempting a whole scale rewrite from scratch. Those on current practice etc. are weak and provided you can avoid promotion could easily be improved. Attempting to rewrite the whole thing to remove criticism, per your edit waring over four persona is unlikely to gain consensus. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

When you said "current practice etc" - are you referring to the service that NLP practitioners provide in terms of consulting coaching, and/or psychotherapy, or as a practical communications model? Or both? What other areas do you think are lacking in the current article? I just want to add the Emerald database which has a business focus to the list of databases I mentioned above. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Side note: I'm still working on the outline here: User:122.x.x.x/NLP_reliable_sources. I'd really appreciate your help with creating headings to cover the main topics as per the reliable sources. --122.x.x.x (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

consultancy method in business

The use as a consultancy method in business, although we need proper references. That has always been weak, less sure that there are any other major gaps ----Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunaetly, there are not many proper references if you mean high quality peer-reviewed papers and there is no formal NLP-oriented "consultancy method in business". There are some books from academic press like FT Prentice Hall. I'll let you comment on "Open University Press" as a publisher. Those books give hints to how NLP is used as a consultancy method.

Most of the papers related to NLP indexed by business databases like Emerald are not very good quality. There are a number of business oriented papers (e.g. Yemm, 2006; Dowlen, 1996) that summarize its methods emphasizing outcome-oriented thinking with sensory acuity, flexibility in behavior and communication, rapport, and state management. There are also a low quality case studies and other mainly promotional pieces.

• Graham Yemm, (2006) "Can NLP help or harm your business?", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 38 Iss: 1, pp.12 - 17
• Ashley Dowlen, (1996) "NLP - help or hype? Investigating the uses of neuro-linguistic programming in management learning", Career Development International, Vol. 1 Iss: 1, pp.27 - 34 doi:10.1108/13620439610111408

I think Tosey and Mathison (2010) are close to the mark when they say that, "[NLP] is used in organizational contexts as a method of executive coaching (Linder-Pelz and Hall, 2007; Hayes, 2006); and its techniques and frameworks have a wide variety of applications in business (Knight, 2002) and management development (Molden, 2001)." doi:10.1108/17465641011042035

• Molden, D. (2001), NLP Business Masterclass, FT Prentice Hall, London.
• Knight, S. (2002), NLP at Work: The Difference that Makes a Difference in Business, Nicholas Brealey, London.
• Hayes, P. (2006), NLP Coaching, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
• Linder-Pelz, S., Hall, L.M. (2007), "The theoretical roots of NLP-based coaching", The Coaching Psychologist, 3, 1, pp.12-17.

--122.x.x.x (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few more case studies and viewpoint articles related to the method used in business consulting:

• Case study: Ian Lavan, (2002) "NLP in business – or more than a trip to the zoo", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 34 Iss: 5, pp.182 - 187
• Case study: Lisa Wake, (2011) "Applying NLP tools and techniques in an FMCG environment", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 43 Iss: 2, pp.121 - 125doi:10.1108/00197851111108953
• Viewpoint: 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
• Case study: Lindsey Agness, (2011) "Changing the rules of the game", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 10 Iss: 5, pp.11 - 16
• Sara Nolan (2011) says that "In “Changing the rules of the game”, Lindsey Agness proposes that successful change can be achieved by identifying and changing the unconscious rules within an organization’s culture...She draws on NLP to identify ways of breaking down those rules so that they become identifiable and therefore manageable and pliable, helping culture shifts to be achieved in a short space of time. For example, the NLP concept of pattern breaks – abrupt interruptions that break a habit or state – can be applied in business as a way of shaking up the status quo..." - Sara Nolan, (2011) "Change management", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 10 Iss: 5, pp. -

--122.x.x.x (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you are providing these lists - they exist outside of any context. The journals are OK in the main, but it depends what you are using them to support. Please (and you have been asked this many many times before) proposed specific amendments with sources then other editors can engage. If you want to have a general discussion area use a sandbox. I would add that some of the quotes here appear to be specific cases, you really need a third party review to make a general statement about use without falling foul of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH ----Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You just stated that the coverage on the use of NLP as a consulting method was lacking and that we need proper sources. WP:OR states:"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." And WP:SYNTH states that: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Please elaborate on this statement: "you really need a third party review to make a general statement about use". --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been editing on wikipedia for many years, you know the principles and you have stated them. What you need to do is to make a sourced proposal for comment while avoiding synthesis. The means that an article which reviews the cases is going to be better than trying to string something together from cases. The time I have for this article is going on preparing the meat puppetry/disruptive editing case for ANI as we need a long term fix. Once that is out of the way I'll happily take on looking at some content issues. Otherwise I am happy to comment if another editor makes proposals for changes, but I am not going to waste any more time on general discussions. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, you ducked the question. When you said, "You really need a third party review to make a general statement about use," what do you mean by "third party review?" Third party review of what exactly? Is that a requirement for statements about use in all articles? It seems like a completely unrealistic request to be making of another Editor and obfuscating as a result.--Encyclotadd (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've spend far too much time trying to explain wikipedia process to you, despite the various insults and accusations. You have now been around here long enough that you can look it up in WP:RS for yourself . About 90% of your talk page edits are either accusations or statements of your opinion. I suggest a brief sabbatical on the five pillars before you sound off again. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Snowded was referring to statements that directly state or imply academic consensus. I think Snowded is trying to warn against "original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material" which is related to academic consensusWP:RS/AC. So we should use third party reviews to make general statements about academic consensus. But the key to reliable sources is: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."[Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources] So there is no reason why we cannot use the abovementioned case studies and viewpoint articles related to NLP in business (as indexed by Emerald) if they have undergone reliable publication process by Industrial and Commercial Training, Development and Learning in Organizations, or Strategic HR Review. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The claims made for use in business are so weak I'm not sure it's even needed to include sources. Aside from that, I concur with 122. --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Case studies are low quality evidence for efficacy but they can be used as examples of use in business. If the case studies are reviewed or cited by others that gives them more weight. But it is not that simple. I'll quote the policy again, 'The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work' ...for example, FT Prentice Hall or Open University Press, Industrial and Commercial Training, Development and Learning in Organizations, or Strategic HR Review ...'All three can affect reliability.' We need to make judgements about the relative reliability of different sources. It appears Snowded is trying to apply this rule about medical claims to NLP: "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals". Snowded is arguing something like "Ideal sources for assertions about use of NLP in business include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable business journals". Is that correct an accurate reflection of your position snowded? --122.x.x.x (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

An example of original research was an earlier attempt to include material from that guy who ran an education business. The danger with gathering cases, no matter what the journals, is what conclusions you draw from those and what statements are made - indeed why a particular example is selected in the first place. WP:RS is pretty clear on this and your formulation is not one I would disagree with. However until we have proposed content linked to sources it is difficult to make any judgement. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We could start with a summary of the sources on NLP in use published in Industrial and Commercial Training, see a profile of the journal here: [4]. We need to be very careful to stick to the sources and adhere to the policies highlighted by Snowded, especially WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. No conclusions should be made or implied unless they are directly supported by the sources. We could propose the summary here and then incorporate it into the article under a section titled "organization development and employee education and training"[5] or something more relevant. We would give more more weight to any review papers in that journal (e.g. Yemm 2006) and less weight to individual case studies or promotional pieces. The editorial board should not be allowing the later. If we find additional papers and criticism it can be incorporated later. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As it reads I think you are in danger of failing both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, selection is a form of evaluation. As I said before you really need something which takes a wider view. But I'll wait to see what you propose. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to bang on about this, but Wikipedia is not a forum. You need to propose specific edits here, rather than this general approach. There is nothing wrong per se with the work that you have done on gathering sources, but it is not really aiding the article at the present time. Can I suggest that you do the following: either (a) make changes to the article, and a BRD cycle can begin, or (b) propose specific changes here first. Unless you conform to this approach, the article cannot be improved. Certainly, this long and discursive thread has as yet resulted in no improvement and has merely taken up a lot of editors' time and patience. I am minded to close it, if what has thus far gone on continues much longer. ISTB351 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from you there is a WP:CONSENSUS on taking a general approach. Whilst making a big edit might get there faster, it's more likely to lead to frustration, a weaker section and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

A general, consensus approach can build trust as it highlights the more general aims of each editor -- and it divides up the work better. --Mindjuicer (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Too much time has been spent on this talk page in these highly general discussions, especially with 122 in both this and his previous identities. This is not a forum. Consensus based approaches are linked to proposals for actual changes. I agree with ISTB, there has been more than enough abstract discussion. When 122 is ready to make a source based proposal, then it should come back here. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll paraphrase those sources I mentioned earlier in my own words and make a change based on that. Then the discussion will be more concrete. I won't have time until next week to do it properly. Sorry, I'm going to have to put this off for another couple of weeks until I get some more time. I am getting more familiar with current research in management training and development. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolving six years of controversy quickly and easily

I believe the reason this article has been the center of controversy for the past six years is that it's inaccurate.

The article's flaws are obvious to anyone who has studied this model in any depth. Don't believe me? Do five minutes of independent research... contact any hypnosis or NLP school in the world.

Why is this the case? Traditional Wikipedia rules have failed us.

Virtually everyone who has attended a lecture on NLP has received a "license." I submit that one can only learn communication techniques by hearing words and tonality while watching body language, in addition to reading books. When a source is "licensed," it means he took the time to attend a lecture and figure out what NLP is actually about.

Yet "licensed" sources have been regularly rejected on the grounds they have a conflict of interest.

It's time for us to view licensed sources for what they are-- significantly more knowledgeable than unlicensed sources about NLP. --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:RS and WP:COI, and come to think of it WP:SOAP, oh but they are "traditional wikipedia rules", pity really, this is the Wikipedia. If you want to change policy then propose it on the policy pages, please don't waste people's time here. The talk page is to discuss changes to the article, in accordance with policy. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, this problem cannot be solved unless we agree on a general structure or all players from one side of the fence leave the article to the others to decide holistically what should be written. I think some common sense beyond what the current policies are should prevail. There is a voting system yes? Could we propose a structure and vote on it. Enemesis (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, which portions of this article are "inaccurate"? Please tag them and provide proof of their inaccuracy. The article's "flaws" are not obvious. Please tag them and provide proof of any flaws. Don't just say "do five minutes of independent research..." and leave all the work to other editors. Do it yourself then provide proof of the independence of your research. You say Wikipedia's traditional rules have "failed us". They haven't failed me recently. They have been a great help in getting disruptive, non-collaborative and unhelpful editors banned from editing certain topics. If "virtually everyone who has attended a lecture on NLP has received a license" I think you would be on firmer ground arguing that there is something wrong with NLP not Wikipedia. Within WP:COI guidelines, there is nothing to restrict licensed practitioners from editing this article, as long as they conform to rules regarding verifiability of statements, reliability of sources and do not promote the subject or indulge their own opinions. I would welcome some input from experienced NLPers, but if you can't back up your edits, back off.

Enemesis, Wikipedia is not a democracy. One editor can easily overturn the edits of several others providing they can back up their edits with reliable sources. Famousdog (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, well that could go on forever or until some one gives up. Perhaps wikipedia should consider that not everyone has that kind of time up their sleeves Enemesis (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" doesn't "consider" anything - it is an encyclopedia, and if you can't be bothered to spend a little time finding reliable sources for any material you want to change/add, then I can't help you. Famousdog (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Snowded has an industry affiliation that a Wikipedia administrator recently described as a conflict of interest, though he has not been banned from the article on the basis that his edits have been within guidelines. However, I believe his response above reflected that conflcit and was not particularly cooperative or helpful. Snowded, we can cooperate and you can defend your point of view-- what I'm suggesting change is factual accuracy not perspective. Everyone can agree on supporting accuracy.

Famousdog, There are two important areas of inaccuracy, and they defy tagging in the article because they are more complicated than changing a single sentence or even paragraph, and they're important to understanding this model. The first is "anchoring." For the sake of simplicity, you can just think of anchoring as being the same thing as classical conditioning. It's not the same thing. But it's clsoe enough that for the sake of this conversation you can think of them that way. (You can do a Google search for "Pavlov" and "classical conditioning" to easily understand what I'm saying.) Anchoring develops the ideas of classical conditioning further in a variety of important ways. It's taught at every reputable hypnosis and NLP school in the world as a 101 subject.

There is no way to understand the NLP model without a substantial amount of information about anchoring. It's presently a glaring omission in this article to anyone who has received any training in hypnosis or NLP. But there is no way to defend this perspective using so called "reliable sources" because not enough work has been done yet within a peer reviewed context, so the subject doesn't appear. But it's all over the hypnosis and NLP texts and in every school.

A big second issue with the article is that it suggests NLP is said to magically change things. The word "magic" appears in a lot of NLP literature, and the suggestion that things can magically change can influence someone powerfully, so is useful in NLP. But anyone who has read the literature understands, NLP is a model. The founders of the subject say over and over again that "the map is not the territory," meaning the model is not a human brain. NLP is always put forward as just a model. The word magical is used as a language pattern. This is very much confused in the article. Bandler is quoted as saying the common cold can be cured with words. A great deal of additional context should be given to that statement for the article to be understood to be accurate.

The way to solve this is to rely on sources that are licensed and highly trained in NLP because they are the ones who understand how to factually express the article.

Again, this is not about point of view. We can leave point of view in the article to so called psychological experts. But in expressing the model factually and accurately, we need to rely on the people writing about and teaching the subject matter sometimes professionally. It's the only way Wikipedia is going to get this right.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is just an implicit attack on WP:RS. If you want to change WP policy, then take it up at the appropriate policy article. You cannot do so here. As for your claim that "Snowded has an industry affiliation that a Wikipedia administrator recently described as a conflict of interest", please provide some evidence. ISTB351 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Enemesis launched some even more nonsensical accusations on my talk page so its obvious that WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are policies s/he wants to abandon along with WP:RS. I think Encyclotadd is referencing a diff I gave him when I was adjudged not be a sock puppet (another accusation made) and not to have a COI, but not to worry he is following in a path, with identical accusations, to that trodden by several other SPAs in the past along with Enemesis ----Snowded ^TALK 08:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Encyclotadd and Enemesis need to provide some evidence for their assertions or changes that they want to make and stop treating Wikipedia as a forum. This will go nowhere until they either a) provide reliable sources or b) succeed in changing (several) WP policy/ies. Ranting here will not move things forward and, if pursued, will simply lead to a topic ban for them both. From this point onwards I will be observing WP:SILENCE until they suggest some concrete, constructive changes to the article. Famousdog (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
it will go nowhere anyway, until all of one side leaves we are at a a stale mate. You can talk wiki stuff all you like but those are the facts. IT was the way it was when headly was here. we were lucky he screwed up so obviously. If you would like to discuss changes we cannot agree until we know a common format, then we have a guide, other wise we have hot air breezing this way and that. You all know this is true and we are just playing the game until it comes to it. Snowdd maybe those accusations are true and thats why you get accused so many times... Famousdog the evidnce is over 5 years old and there does not seem to be a database that has those resources anymore, I think it's foolish given headlydown was such a violator in the domain of wikipedia to discard it. I can nonly rely on people who were there at the time now, and they have not been on for a hile. I will wait until they log in and respond ...Enemesis (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Famousdog, my proof is that every single hypnosis and NLP school in the world agrees that anchoring is a central concept. Like I said before, peer reviewed journals have virtually nothing on anchoring, and the term anchoring has meanings that exist outside the framework of NLP, so even identifying the term in peer reviewed journals is not enough. But the importance of anchoring to NLP is undeniable. Some editors would have you believe that rules on original research must be observed here, and that calling a school and asking a teacher about it is a violation. But that rule is getting in the way of TRUTH. We have a choice between a dishonest article that follows the rules, and an honest one that doesn't. I vote for honesty. And I think the five pillars supports this perspective.--Encyclotadd (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)