Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Writing the history section

Hi. Was surprised to find huge gaps in the history of NLP in this article. I'm sure that various editors have considered doing it, but I probably see a few conflicting impulses:

• If the only allowable history of NLP comes from its critics, we might not be able to describe in ordinary terms who is "important", and how the NLP community has actually evolved.
• If the only allowable history of NLP comes from its critics, we largely duplicate the "criticism" section.
• If we add a variety of "developments" by NLP practitioners and theorists, we risk promoting those developments, or making them sound verifiably true.

The status quo has been "well, let's not add anything at all". As much as I think this is the safest and most NPOV approach, it goes against our fundamental WP:GA and WP:FA goals of being comprehensive and complete. I expanded the history section with developments since the 1980s. Does anyone have any concerns either way, that the section is either too harsh on NLP, or too supportive? Rather than deleting or removing big hunks of the section, let's try as much as possible to rephrase or re-verify the material. I'll try to check in again when I can, hopefully within the next week or two. Vcessayist (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think removing one paragraph that largely replicated an earlier one is "removing big chunks". Overall I think your changes improve it. However there is an over reliance on internal NLP sources which makes its problematic, especially given some of the internal NLP politics that is reflected in those sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my only goal was to try to establish a clearer timeline, so there isn't this huge black hole where the 1990s should be. I've tried to be careful about the use of NLP sources, only using them to verify what they're claiming or promoting, while staying silent (or adding context) about whether those claims and promotions are verifiably true. If you want to flag any sources or statements that could use a better source, I'll see what I can dig up.

In addition, something about internal NLP politics should probably be here. I'm only somewhat familiar with this NLP stuff from the self help angle. Are there any facts about the politics as you understand them that maybe I could find sources for? It might be easier to build and improve the section if I knew what I was looking for. Vcessayist (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)f

I've never found any third party sources so I think the most we can say is that the "New Code" was introduced, but we would need a source to say why. I know that a lot of the SPAs here in the past have been New Code advocates. My experience is that it is more or less now a part of the self-help and pseudo-scientific management consultancy although there are some (University of Surrey for example) who take it more seriously. I think the changes you have made are fine, but its about all we can say without a third party source. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

first line

I work on leads a lot, and I edited the first sentence to make it describe the subject better. It's NPOV to say that NLP is "largely discredited" because our reliable sources say exactly that. NPOV means reporting what the RS's say without a POV distortion. The RSs say that it's largely discredited, if not entirely. Leadwind (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that 90% of reliable sources are not an experts in NLP, They are experts in other fields that are commenting on what they believe is NLP. Would you ask a farmer to fix your truck or would you ask a mechanic?

Has anyone noticed, that there is nothing about what NLP actually is in this article?

I am an expert in NLP and yet I'm getting stonewalled at every corner even though I'm following wikipedia protocal to best of my newbie knowledge. All I'm wanting to do is include what nlp is..not what people claim it can or can't do. Things like NLP well formed goal setting, eye accessing cues, rapport building and maybe a quick explanation of the NLP decision making process(meta model). I just want to say what it is.... nothing else. let people decide if it's useful or not. Instead I get NLP is a largely dicredited approach to..... let's forget about an explanation of what nlp is and just jump into the biased sources of non-nlp experts. The sources in the article are not porportionately balanced and represent only those 'anti nlp' views and from what I have experienced, every effort is being used to keep any positive nlp information from being included. Even most of the reliable sources in this article are from people who haven't even taken an NLP course.

The article is called 'Neuro Linguistic Programming' not Anti- Neuro Linguistic Programming. I'm a Christian and I can tell you I'm scared to death to look anything to do with my faith on wiki because of how totally biased and plagued with opinions wiki really is. Just an idea how about we all go old school and make 'neutral' neutral again. not just in this article but all of them and that would include making sure all sources are neutral or well balanced. Mike00764 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use colons to format your comments. You are understand a NLP practitioner? That means to a degree you have already taken a position. No attempt is being made to keep properly referenced material out, if you have some list it here and we can look at it. Otherwise the sources come from reputable sources, academics who have reviewed cases and the literature and formed conclusions. You don't have to take an NLP course to form an opinion on it, any more than you have to experience full emersion baptism to form an opinion on the validity of the Baptist Church. At the moment you keep arguing your opinion. That will get you nowhere. Sources please and argument based on those sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What a hornet's nest!

I know nothing about NLP. Only came to the page because someone in China wrote to say they just completed the first NLP course and found it of value. Knowing nothing about the course, I came here to learn. After reading this page, I still do not understand what NLP is about, only that the people who wrote the Wikipedia page are quite convinced that it is a discredited course that does not deliver on what it promises (or something to that effect).

Accordingly, this page reads more like a Medieval religious debate than an encyclopaedic article, with a clear bias that NLP is bad.

I recommend that it be completely rewritten:

1) Present a neutral description of what NLP is so that people who do not understand anything get a good overall understanding of what it is about.
2) Create a criticism section that flips back and forth from positive claim to negative rebuttal, but write both sides in a neutral, dispassionate way
3) Do not presume just because someone has written a debunking article that can be quoted that this is The Truth. Rather present the gist of the debunking article in a neutral way so readers can form their own opinion

Historia Errorem (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC) - - - -

Wikipedia works from reliable sources and the article reflects what those sources say. We are not required to be neutral between pro and anti-NLP groups, but to reflect those sources. Please read up on the five pillars of WIkipedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

- - - - I am familiar with the five pillars, including this one:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

The article is not neutral. As a neutral person coming to it to learn about something someone has attended, all I learn is that it has been discredited by people. I did not learn much about the subject, but only its opposition. Also, while I won't take the time to check it out, "authoritative" probably needs more support than in this article. Just because it is quoted, does not mean the sources are authoritative. Indeed even academics with degrees and prestigious chairs does not mean their work is authoritative; especially when they become judgemental.

Like Scientology, it obviously is a subject that has both believers and opponents, and it appears the opponents are vociferous and well represented on Wikipedia. But what if I was an anthropologist seeking to understand the belief systems? I would suspend judgement about the validity of those belief systems but this would not mean that I would not document them.

When an anthropologist is told "witches fly to the full moon on a broomstick", do they begin by saying "what utter nonsense, don't be absurd. No one flies on broomsticks?" Well, actually the bad anthropologists do say exactly that, but the best ones don't. Instead they say "OK, I accept what you say, now let me work out how they do that since it is outside my scope of reality." That anthropologist sees that before the witch flies she has a big cauldron with a witches brew that she stirs with a broomstick. The anthropologist observes the witch putting in deadly nightshade into the pot, which on chemical analysis shows bella donna, a powerful mind altering drug. Then the witch puts the broomstick between her legs (not wearing underpants) where the drug penetrates the skin at the right rate... enough to induce hallucinations, but not enough to poison the body. Now curious, and being a bold scientist, the anthropologist tries the drug and has a mind-blowing "trip" where everything seems absolutely real, except their assistant video taping shows the anthropologist never left the room. It all was in the mind, but the drug set the mind on a dream as real as daily life. So the answer comes clear. Yes, the witch does fly, but not in the physical world, but the world inside her mind. Of course the next step is to ask if that other world is real, but the anthropologist steps back, because in academia, there is a clear line over which one steps into religion. That is dispassionate science. It explains rather than judges.

So I would like to have a dispassionate explanation of NLP first, before it is trashed with scholarly quoted judgement.

However, I won't do it, because frankly, I have more important things to do in my life. I added this comment just to help save Wikipedia from bad reporting. Historia Errorem (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a common mistake to thing that NPOV means balanced between all points of view. It does't, it means neutral in representing what reliable sources say. As to the example, may be the anthropologist should leap off a cliff with the broom to be authentic? The Anthropologist is in an event carrying out primary research. That is not our task here, we summarise in an encyclopaedic way what the sources say, and they says its discredited. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Proper methodology

Have all the cited studies been done double blind, placebo controlled ,and with exact methodological reproducibility? If not i suggest you remove them or mention this lack of credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.59.138 (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

if you think any of the sources fail WP:RS then raise it. It's not our place to criticise the methodologies used. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually " neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." There is a definitive lack of "all significant views" that are published by "reliable" sources in this article. Mike00764 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Then come up with some sources that you think should be represented and we can look at it. But use the talk page first please, your edit warring is going to get you blocked if you carry on ----Snowded ^TALK 14:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"a largely discredited approach"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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