Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

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)

This is a horribly written article, especially the lead. Someone (Leadwind?) who does not like NLP has taken ownership of the article and has twisted the whole thing into an attack. To say that many of the critical readings of NLP are critical is as an obvious tautology as you can get. They are not neutral, so claiming that repeating them is NPOV is absurd. This kind of behaviour undermines Wikipedia and shows a very weak understanding of what an encyclopaedia article should be. Sleeping Turtle (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OMG this article is an example of why Wikipedia is going to go down hill. People with an opinion who absolutely will not accept that their opinion might not be correct, just because they can find lots of other 'reliable' sources who agree with their opinion. I'm neither for or against NLP. I am against people who cannot writereasonable, impartial articles. I'll edit the first line to remove the subjective bit, but I'm sure the people who have set themselves up as 'guardians' of Wikipedia will accuse me of vandalism. Actually I don't know why I bother. Jimjamjom —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Which part exactly is the "subjective" bit? siafu (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who knows nothing about the subject, and came here only by curiosity, I can say I read most of the article, and still don't know what NLP is. Shame on thy who wrote the article, it's supposed to tell people what NLP is and what is it used for, not tell us what other people think about it as central topic (Excuse my poor english please). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.162.202 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Leadwind, what is NPOV? What are the "Reliable Sources" which say that NLP is 'Largely discredited'? Where are those studies which show that NLP sources are 'credible'? What does "RS" mean? Umesh Soman (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a trainer, consultant by profession, and I study a lot of different areas that can affect human performance. NLP is one of them. And so far, I have come acroos different research projects, which are also available online, which neither conclusively prove that NLP is totally credible, and neither conclusively prove that NLP is "largely discreditable". Umesh Soman (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that there are so many research based sources out there which are providing evidence both for and against, isn't there an unneccesary negative bias thats added here to this article by starting with "Largely Discredited" ? Umesh Soman (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The better way is to list sources which discredit NLP, if you feel so strongly. So, what are those sources? And would you be open to changing your approach if we list reliable studies which support the credibility of NLP ? Umesh Soman (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources are all in the main body of the article. If you have third party sources then propose them linked to suggested changes in the wording. For other editors - this is the tenth new SPA account making these points in the last six weeks. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with the first sentence is that the editor has confused applications of NLP with the core of NLP. This is akin to evaluating a motor car by the number of road traffic accidents and is very poor logic. One of the founders of NLP, John Grinder, eluded to this when he warned people: "The inability to distinguish either behaviourally or cognitively the consequences and applications of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) from core NLP itself (modelling of excellence) is extremely commonplace." It appears the editor of this page has made that same mistake.

Please correct the result of your confusion! NBOliver (talk) 16:10, 22 December 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)

I think the best response would be to name the number of qualified academics who claim nlp to be discredited. something along the lines of "according to..." An adaptive system (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the sentence wouldn't have to open with "according to".

There is no requirement to do that, unless and until you can produce some real sources to support a contrary view. Todate you and the latest cluster are all making the same general statements with no supporting evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with "htom"s original point that "discredited" in the beginning of the article, all by itself with no explanation, is a very strong and mysterious statement. I am brand new to NLP and came here first, and it immediately struck me when reading the opening. On the one hand I really appreciate the fact that scientists are trying to protect people like me from being gullable, but the term "discredited" alone seems too direct and even attacking. It would be like having an article about UFO chasers, and starting said article "UFO chasers are a delusional group of people who try to find...." I think it might sound better if it said, "NLP is a technique that has been officially discredited in university studies but is still practiced by a smaller group of believers...." Not to be more lenient on NLP, but simply to explain. Then again what do I know, I'm just a browser and new to NLP as well. edit -- on further thought I see that the third paragraph does a better job of deeper explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.21.146.241 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK - show me one expert who discredits the core of NLP, which is about modelling excellence. Modelling is used in systems analysis, high level sports coaching etc. As a start, consider this quote by John Grinder, one of the co-founders of NLP: "The inability to distinguish either behaviourally or cognitively the consequences and applications of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) from core NLP itself (modelling of excellence) is extremely commonplace." You and many of the "experts" have fallen into the same trap, which leads me to question their legitimacy as "experts" and your credibility for editing this article. NBOliver (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This really needs to go to the POV noticeboard to get an independent opinion. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the most important thing one should know about NLP is that it is largely discredited. The most important thing should be in the opening definition. Probably we should also say up front that it was part of the human potential movement. Saying that it's a pseudoscience might be going to far. It's not a POV statement if it's what the experts say. Treating NLP as a legitimate discipline would be POV because the experts say the opposite. Leadwind (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That depends upon what you consider to be "NLP". "The inability to distinguish either behaviourally or cognitively the consequences and applications of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) from core NLP itself (modelling of excellence) is extremely commonplace." John Grinder, Co-Developer of NLP. Most of the so-called "experts" make this same mistake, usually focusing on one small NLP application, eye accessing cues. In doing so they demonstrate a very narrow view of what constitutes NLP. I have yet to find any "expert" who discredits the core of NLP, the modelling of excellence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBOliver (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You've inserted exactly the same comment in multiple sections so I will respond once. Find a reliable third party source which says that and we can look at it. Otherwise its just the opinion of the eleventh SPA account created in the last six weeks ----Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Had you considered that if 11 people created accounts to complain about the poor editorial approach to this article, then perhaps there may be some value in taking their views into account?

The United States National Research Council, stated in it's investigation of NLP led by Daniel Druckman that they""were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors... This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modelling in the second phase of its work." There are several places where you can find details of this research. Would you accept Wikipedia as a reputable source?

The Grindler quote can be found at http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/5/1/Symbolic-Modelling-an-overview/Page1.html, 78.145.240.107 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment regarding 11 people creating accounts is off the mark: wikipedia does not poll the entire world, but rather a self-selecting subset of people who are interested and able to edit wikipedia. This is why simple majority is the governing principle. Consider if we were to initiate an RfC on this question-- I don't doubt that we could canvass significantly more than 11 "people" (keep in mind that we have no proof that any two accounts are separate individuals) to complain about giving NLP too much credibility. Additionally, "Rapport, the journal of The Association for NLP (UK)" may be a good source on what NLP is, as described by NLP professionals, but is not a reliable source on whether NLP is considered a valid technique amongst psychological professionals, as it represents the community of those who already accept and support NLP, rather than a dispassionate or disinterested investigator. I would similarly not accept the Journal of Astrology for sources about the validity of astrology as a science. Lastly, wikipedia is not a source for itself, ever; see WP:OSE and WP:RS for explanations of why this is the case. siafu (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that I have got to snark about. Do you find the Skeptics Society to be an unbiased source of invalidity of psychological methods? htom (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

eye lie detection myth

There is a recent article which tested the myth that eye movements can detect lies: "The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming". The authors established that this lie detection myth is still quite prevalent on the internet (based on youtube and google searches). They found that eye movements failed to predict lies. Can this be covered in the current article or should it be covered in the representation system subarticle under the subtitle "lie detection myth" or something like that? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

lol, who in the NLP commounity is making that claim? as far as I know the teachings are that there are habits formed from eye accessing cues. http://www.nlp-practitioners.com/interactive/nlp-eye-access-cues-game.php . as in this example or there is another which refutes the lie detection myth. Lie detection myth as explained by Nlpers in England In essence you are writing about fringe claims. Please tackle the mainstream. Enemesis (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll just quote the article I cited above: "Although the originators of NLP didn’t view ‘constructed’ thoughts as lies, this notion has become commonplace, leading many NLP practitioners to claim that it is possible to gain a useful insight into whether someone is lying from their eye-movements". --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

http://coachingleaders.emotional-climate.com/another-nlp-claim-debunked-but-was-anyone-claiming-it/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system11:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

tbh mate I have never read that, infact the literature is usually the same summary of eye accessing cues. The idea that you could detect lies with NLP is considerred bad practice and is not existent in mainstream NLP literature. common ideas on eye accessing cues . The idea that you can detect lies seems more like a weak hook to gain clientelle by fringe Practitioners an opinion on eye accessing cues not found in mainstream or the creators intent. infact it further states in the first article and in regards to mind reading abilities or being psychic as referred to by article reference 10,12 it states "Learning to read eye-accessing cues will not make you a mind reader but will give you a clue to the way the other person is thinking." This directly debunks those articles claims of what the creators have said NLP can do in terms of developing "psychic" powers or and I have to ask. What is sleep learning? I've never heard of this tbh. Visually constructed eye accessing cues are primarily to see someone become imaginitive usually with outcomes in mind this is a very pleasurable experience of viewing and constructing a future or seeing how they would feel with new emotional resources. You would then layer it with audio constructed resources that will build congruency in the feeling and the momentum of the new action and mindset that will take place with the client. This is never really explained however it becomes part of the outcome of learning eye accessing cues. the reason it is not highlighted as the outcome I guess is because you take the tools and make the connections between each part yourself that is making the neural connections within your mind takes a deeper hold and a great reference point for putting a system of parts together in which the world is full of systems to be explored found and improved upon. That is just my opinion. Enemesis (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Using eye movements, state shifts and calibration to allegedly detect lies is often traced to NLP. It was not a claim made by the originators but it has been claimed by other proponents of NLP according to the study. I really think it should be included in this article supported by the study by professor Wiseman and other points of view if covered by reputable sources. "Proponents of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) have long claimed that it is possible to tell whether a person is lying from their eye movements. Research published July 11 in the journal PLoS ONE reveals that this claim is unfounded, with the authors calling on the public and organisations to abandon this approach to lie detection."[1] --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

While it may be traced to NLP, as early as 1986 Richard Bandler said in front of a US Government enquiry that using eye accessing cues as a lie detector has nothing to do with NLP. Most serious NLP trainers and practitioners also reject the concept. To blame NLP for something a few misguided practitioners and writers support would be akin to me calling car drivers killers because a few drivers have killed others with their cars. Both are ludicrous generalisations and examples of flawed logic. NBOliver (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this point being made by the SPA accounts is more or less right. Would be helpful to have a more reliable third party secondary source than doubtfulnews.com because the sources in the article were deemed reliable after substantial discussion. Perhaps a new source can be found that clarifies.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Discredited citations

Although the last two citations use the term "discredited" they refer to specific interventions and probably don't belong in the opening section. Anyway, they don't offer any evidence for NLP (bieng discredited) as a whole. I'm sure there are people who would have a problem if positive results were posted for specific areas of intervention in the opening section. As far as the other two sources that use the term "discredited" the first one is based on the delphi method which has been "discredited" itself - "The most extensive critique of the Delphi method was made by Sackman (1974) who criticizes the method as being unscientific and Armstrong (1978) who has written critically of its accuracy." One systematic analysis based on a hand full of studies can hardly be conclusive. regardless even if you include both studies how can one claim scientific consensus based on these. They are a drop in the bucket compared to the field(s) of therapy intervention and most importantly experimental psychology. I thought I read the burden of proof is on the editor to prove the veracity of their clams. A small number of studies is just fringe research compared to the discerning whole of the field(s) of psychology.

p.s. Just out of curiosity who thinks Deep structure constitutes a pseudoscience term, And if so, can you explain it in the both the NLP and linguistic aspects? (this question is bieng asked for direct and civil answers only)

statement not supported by references

The following statement appears in the lead: "NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level." None of the references (Lum 2001; Lilienfeld et al 2001; Dunn et al 2008) directly support the statement. Please provide additional references that actually support the reference or remove it from the article. I think this was intentionally to see how long it would take for someone to check it. --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In one of your various previous identities you might recall the conversation about this one ----Snowded ^TALK 07:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're attempting synthesis. If you are supporting the statement as it stands, can you provide quotes from those references or provide alternate references that directly support the statement? --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As a serial editor you have some responsibility to remember previous conversations, mind you constantly changing your ID is not very responsible in the first place so maybe its asking too much? ----Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We can wait for someone else to check it then. Its just not in the reference as far as I can see. I think it was deliberate joke to test if people actually check the sources. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

False memory syndrome? It was a MIT professor as you well know. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember the professor's name? That does not explain why it is not supported by the current references. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes Scott I do, and if you check your previous ID's edit history you will probably find the discussion. As I recall there were several but Pentland was the MIT one. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Alex Pentland at MIT? Do you have a reference for that or any of the others? I cannot find it in my database. Seems like double standards. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, look thorough your previous IDs editing history and you will find the material. You have only ever edited on one subject so it shouldn't be difficult. Just to be clear, what you are doing is highly disruptive. You periodically change IDs in order to be able to raise again issues which have previously been resolved. Its not technically sock puppetry as you only, briefly had an overlap but it is disruptive. How to deal with it awaits advise. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I've already answered the sockpuppet case. Please don't harp on about it which I feel is a kind of harassment. As you know a vital aspect of wikipedia is wp:verifiability: verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. If the issue had been previously resolved as you claim, then the references would be correct. If you have evidence that Alex Pentland at MIT said something about NLP then it should be verifiable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've not accused you of sock puppetry, but of using different IDs to allow you to raise resolved issues and of meat puppetry. I'm waiting for advise as to where to raise that behaviour issue. If you want to fact tag that section feel free. I am more concerned at this stage at the long term disruption that is associated with you. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation was closed because I was unrelated to the accounts you accused me of. The clerk cannot comment on IP addresses for privacy reasons anyway. My door is open if you want to engage in dispute resolution. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, I have never accused you of sock puppetry but of serial name changes, and on at least once occasion meat puppetry. The last time you backed off when the community was about to investigate and stopped editing for an extended period, then returned with yet another name change and a cluster of new SPAs. If you want to make a clean breast of your past names then it might be possible to work with you ----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If snowded is right this is the most disruptive behavior since the Headley Down fiasco in '06. Guys, it would be a much better use of everyone's time if we could just focus on sources again.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

obscure sources

"[6][15] NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level."

6 is a bunch of reboots to the NLP page with no other links, how does it qualify to be a source? 15 has a short blurb about a study into bad psychology practices. The full text costs 11.95 and the rss feed does not mention NLP. Neither seem to be related to the subject matter "facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level" unless I'm missing something. Enemesis (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"[20] However, Noam Chomsky does not himself practice or recommend NLP. His original work provides theory and terminology for analyzing language, but was never intended for therapeutic purposes." [20] has only a reference to a book which may or may not have the information that you have described. Please use sources that can be validated and confirmed by all editors without paying exorbitant fees on books, sites etc... Enemesis (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"According to Clancy and Yorkshire (1989), Bandler and Grinder say that they studied Perls's utterances on tape and observed a second therapist, Virginia Satir, to produce what they termed the meta model, a model for gathering information and challenging a client's language and underlying thinking."

Who are Clancy and yorkshire? are they prominent? featured on wikipedia even? There is no link therefore no way to say that the correct terminology is "challenging a clients language" or that these people exist much less the dialogue. The source is erroneous and the wording and motive is deeply questionable. challenging would not be the word to describe. Enemesis (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

scientific criticism a whole section of the article practically devoid of any source citations. Enemesis (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is more. I will get to it in time. Enemesis (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

When raising an objection about specific part of the article here please refer first to archives for relevant issue. It has usually been dealt with already often many times before by possibly same editors. Present those links here to make discussion productive.[2][3][4]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. which parts would you like me to look at? It's all garbled nonsense to me about past edits unless you can spell it out for everyone. much like the obscure sources section I have just started. No I do not think it has been handled as the wiki article has been edited since then and also has a different tone since that time. If your attempt is to daze and confuse you have succeeded if it is to clarify it has failed. Enemesis (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read carefully those archives.

The links of the present article go direct to Lum.C (2001), Lilienfeld.S, Mohr.J., Morier.D.. (2001), and Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008) clearly stated in the references section. Those are references that teach scientific literacy at the professional and university level.

The Chomsky reference is Stollznow.K (2010). "Bad language: Not-so Linguistic Programming". Skeptic 15 (4): 7. Clancy and Yorkshire appear to be reasonable sources.

The Scientific Criticism section does not necessarily need to include statements by founders or promoters of the neuro-linguistic programming. The existing citations of the section appear to be fine. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry maybe you dont understand, I dont want (and from now on) I do not want subtle sources or nought concrete definitions. in case you do not understand I want it explained to me in full and in this context. right here or I feel when you leave links I am in a totally different conversation. leave your stuff here please so I and others may understand please . Enemesis (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You would of course have to givre notice of where this takes place to be clear ---> The links of the present article go direct to Lum.C (2001), Lilienfeld.S, Mohr.J., Morier.D.. (2001), and Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008) clearly stated in the references section. Those are references that teach scientific literacy at the professional and university level.

"Bad language: Not-so Linguistic Programming". Skeptic 15 (4): 7. Clancy and Yorkshire appear to be reasonable sources. clear but to whom? according to ur links it does not exist and is not accesable but only on your say so. please give reliable links to your sources or as far as I know it does not exist. Enemesis (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you need to clarify on which sources exactly you think do not exist and why you do not think they exist? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

About 10 seconds of research is all that is requried to determine that the source is, in fact, real: [5][6]. siafu siafu (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Siafu, 1. If editors want me to chase down all their sources when editting wikipedia every time thats going to be a hell of a lot of 10 seconds adding up. 2. I can't read that source to validate it. Enemesis (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1. If you are going to claim that a source "does not exist", it would be entirely appropriate to take ten seconds to see if that statement could be plausibly true first. 2. WP:OFFLINE. siafu (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And there is no reason why you should be exempt from the duties on any editor to do basic research and to read the archives if necessary. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Which source is more reliable as a source for the early history and origins of NLP: Clancy and Yorkshire (1989) "Bandler Method" or Robert Spitzer's "Virginia Satir & Origins of NLP". --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You have told before that asking general questions outside the context of proposals for change is inappropriate ----Snowded ^TALK 06:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The context would be the section on the history and origins of NLP and the collaboration between Bandler and Grinder and the three psychotherapists they studied. It could also cover how they met Bateson through Spitzer who introduced them to Erickson. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to propose text for a judgement to be made about sources. I am pretty sure both your Action Potential, and the last IP identity were told this. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You lost your sockpuppet investigation because the accounts and IP addresses were unrelated and on separate convenient with different behaviour. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for improving the sources, but this is a pretty source-rich article. We'd be better off prioritizing and targeting our work. The first question I'd ask is if there are any sources that are promoting obvious falsehoods or fringe POVs. If there are none, and it's just a matter of having decent information with obscure sources, we can try to find additional sources for each point one by one. But we're better off going a section at a time, or a few points at a time. Vcessayist (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody seems to agree on content changes. That's why I'm suggesting we work on improving the sourcing method in the meantime. I will do it if nobody else wants to. It will be much easier for new editors to check existing sources and collaborate. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A big part of the reason for content disagreement has been the persistent category mistake of new editors. You can have a more reliable third party primary source that is inadequate to defeat a third party secondary source if the review of the available literature by the latter includes the former. THAT has been the very successful basis for creating the negstive POV in the article. What's needed is sources of the same category that are newer and more reliable. Otherwise experienced editors will be right to dismiss this and accuse the SPA accounts of edit warring. We'll just go in circles.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Credibility

I added a new reference to a new poll by Norcross et al. The Fala et al (2007/2008) poster or manuscript cited by in Glasner-Edwards et al 2010's list for addition treatment was eventually published by Norcross et al. in the Journal of Addiction Medicine - I put the doi in the page. We should move this to a section in the article on credibility and discuss it more broadly. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Norcross' delphi polls: "In research designed to establish expert-consensus of discredited treatments in evidence based practice (EBP), Norcross et al. (2006) [15] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems, and Norcross et al. (2010)[18] for the treatment of drug and alcohol dependence it was rated as certainly discredited which was eighth in the list.[19]" --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

An argument you made in a previous guise. This confirms your disruptive intent. Creating a series of new IDs to raise the same issues again and again ----Snowded ^TALK 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to get RfC how best to cover norcross' polls? Why did you delete the reference to EBP? What were your reasons for reverting it? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You have previously attempted (in another guise) to qualify those statements and the matter was extensively discussed. If you want to propose a change again then outline your reasons here, but please reference what has changed since the last time. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:03, 30 November 2012)

I can have a look at what was proposed in the archives. I assume your just trying to save time but accusing everyone of sockpuppetry is not on. --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, I have not accused you of sock puppetry. Stating the fact that you use serial identities to allow you to raise issues again and again is a different matter. I'm not sure that has a name on wikipedia but it is disruptive.----Snowded ^TALK 10:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I raised the issue here is because what is in the article is not what is in the source. I'm not trying to waste your time or mine. I only have 4 months long service leave. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You waste everyone's time when you change your name (for the third time) and raise more of less the same issues as you raised in a previous guise without bothering to say what is different. If its just the same argument you are being disruptive. I have no idea how any long service leave you may have acquired is relevant. I don;t know why you do it as your style is pretty obvious and the constant changes and the lack of honest in owning up to them just damages your case ----Snowded ^TALK 07:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please keep your discussion about improving the article. Please review the policies regarding civility and no personal attacks. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Those policies allow comment on disruptive behaviour such as yours User:Comaze/User:Action potential/User:122.108.140.210/User:122.x.x.x. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I did not give you my real information when you asked. I'd rather remain anonymous on this controversial topic. Disruption is certainly not my intention. But I'm open to dispute resolution or even mediation if that will help us collaborate more effectively. That is what was suggested to a friend of mine who is very experienced with this sort of conflict resolution. --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well you have to suggest some other motivation that explains serial name changes for your assertion of intent to stand up to any inspection. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to engage in dispute resolution or mediation? I can provide sensitive information to a trusted third party that can clear up your queries about my motivations and purposes for using a single purpose account. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Its obvious who you are to anyone with familiarity with this article and as I say I can't see any reason for you to keep it a big secret, other than to allow you to constantly repeat the same edits. However if you want I'm happy to approach one of the Arbcom members to ask if they are prepared to listen to your case. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to get clarification from arbcom on a few things but it is mainly to do with article content and relevant policies. Things have changed since ArbCom looked at the article. At least we don't have the sort of biased, disruptive and abusive editors that ArbCom had. If you look at the documentation of blocks and the article remedies from 6 year ago, all the banned and blocked editors were extremely biased, disruptive and abusive. I just don't fit the pattern but I am willing to engage in mediation or RfCs if you want. There are many avenues in wikipedia to work out your differences and move on. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So you don't want to use a trusted third party to validate your identity changes? if not there is little alternative to seeing this as a matter for enforcement of the original Arbcom sanction on your first known persona----Snowded ^TALK 23:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already confirmed my details to admin via email. The ArbCom remedies do apply to me, you and anyone else who edits this article or related articles. Because of the use of sockpuppet and meatpuppet abuse by the anti-NLP side (the skeptics club/society), the sanctions/remedies apply to anyone who edits this article. Read more about it here. The remedies are actually quite good suggestions for collaboration: ascribing controversial viewpoints to sources, discussing any edits/reverts, being civil, avoiding obsessive editing, etc. That ArbCom case was designed to protect the article from the largest sockpuppet/meatpuppet ring that wikipedia has ever known. It would be good to get some more clarity on some content issues. That's what I'd ask ArbCom about if I had the opportunity. --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

When I see said admin post a notice that they are happy with your identity changes I may accept it depending on what they say, or I may ask for review. I consider your serial editing disruptive. Otherwise in your first ID you are named in the Arbcom resolution. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It was discovered that the disruption was from a group (from Hong Kong?) who were acting in concert to promote their POV of this topic. I'm definitely not one of the blocked or banned editors. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree your are however one of the editors subject to arb com ruling on the case and changing your ID is a way of trying to avoid that. Whenever you appear we also get a crop of new SPAs. Four this time round todate. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is no longer under arbcom probation that ended about 6 years ago! But the remedies are still good ones that we all should encourage. Some of the SPA could be legitimate users so give them a chance. Just point them to the appropriate policies and encourage them to find evidence to suggest appropriate changes to the article. Really the only way forward would b to encourage participation from the broader wikipedia community not just the rational skepticism group. --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2012

I would like to formally request the changing of the referring to the field of Neuro Linguistic Programming as "largely discredited" on the grounds that it not only is it untrue but arguably contentious, NLP is only discredited by those individuals who stand to lose by the field becoming prevalent, for instance those in the fields of applied psychology and counselors who charge patients vast sums of money, having them attend weekly sessions often costing what amounts to thousands of dollars, without any fundamental improvements taking place. NLP threatens because it treats people effectively and rapidly and does these professionals out of work, it is far more preferable for them to write in peer reviewed papers that is is discredited than admit that they are losing business to a field that treats patients far more effectively, NLP is prevalent in all areas of business and it's techniques are seen in fields ranging from sports to politics. To say that is is largely discredited is just an absolute fallacy and speaking to anyone in business or politics will confirm not only is it highly credited but the most effective method for personal enhancement

Savannahcharles (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, but wikipedia reflects what is found in the reliable sources. The lede summarises the article. So you have to either challenge the sources and/or find equally reliable sources to challenge them. Oh and "speaking to anyone in business or politics will confirm ...." is hardly an objective statement. You will find a lot agree with the sources. I note by the way this is your first edit, and on a subject about which you obviously care. Might I ask what brought you to the article? ----Snowded ^TALK 17:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

. Why exactly do we need to put it as "largely discredited" in the first sentence? That is something that could go to an request for comment (RfC). We need to reflect what the sources say according to their weight, and aim for a neutral point of view. There is a good guideline for writing about fringe topics which might help you better understand how this topic is to be handled. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

tbh this to me has always been a very acceptable format/template for describing a film on wikipedia. ----> a typical article about a film on Wikipedia/Dark City . Notice the article Describes the film, it's different components (dispassionate of any outside views)it also has its own section on both its detractors and it's successes. This to me is a reliable wikipedian article and gives the audience freedom of choice. Enemesis (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the article on Psychoanalysis is probably closer to the mark. --Reconsolidation (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What we need is a complete format/template change that is both educational and enlightening for the audience for this article to work. Otherwise we could find people using this article and any of the source material attached as the total ideas for NLP, The audience may feel discouraged from and feel encouraged to be totally none the wiser on the subject matter. Enemesis (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"If there are reliable sources that say "NLP is only discredited by those individuals who stand to lose by the field becoming prevalent" then they may be appropriate for the article. Looking at current sources, those who stand to lose in the context of the neuro-linguistic programming are said to be 1. unsuspecting and vulnerable consumers/clients , 2, people buying NLP certification, and 3 the public in the general who believe mistakenly NLP claims and concepts are scientific ones: For example, Stollznow, 2010, Corballis 1999, Beyerstein 1990, Drenth 1999.

Regarding the "largely discredited" issue; the repeat removal of sources on the discredit of neuro-linguistic programming (e.g. Witkowski [7][8] is quite unconstructive specially if you are arguing here for removal of same material from the opening line.

On the inspection of the literature on this issue, "largely discredited" is in respect of conceptually and empirically discredited. So a clarifying alternative could be: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a conceptually and empirically discredited approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the topic should first be introduced in a neutral way then deal with empirical validity and credibility. So, you could say, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s." then you could put: "Among psychologists,[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is considered largely discredited because it is unsupported by empirical evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that neuro-linguistic programming is discredited is well supported. It is also pseudoscientific. You (I assume this was you[9]) have also argued research is ongoing. There is currently research ongoing in field of astrology [10][11] which is also stated by Wikipedia and other sources to be the pseudoscientific field. I propose:

"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a conceptually and empirically discredited approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s"

The final line on that paragraph can be "According to certain neuroscientists,[3] psychologists,[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect, pseudoscientific and misleading terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that rephrasing if others are. It reflects the article as a whole, which is the purpose of the lede. We are not meant to be neutral between pro and anti NLP factions, we are meant to be neutral in reflecting the reliable sources. Reconsolidation, your previous habits were to make lots of small changes after you had been asked to discuss them first. I see that is continuing. Please use the talk page, for proposing edits (not general discussion), thanks. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think psychoanalysis is a better comparison than your astrology analogy. The wikipedia manual of style states: "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific."Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph We need to be careful not to push your point of view too hard or go into too much detail. I looked at a few other approaches to psychotherapy: "Psychoanalysis is a psychological and psychotherapeutic theory conceived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud.", "Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a psychotherapeutic approach that addresses dysfunctional emotions, maladaptive behaviors and cognitive processes and contents through a number of goal-oriented, explicit systematic procedures. ", "Family therapy is a branch of psychotherapy that works with families and couples in intimate relationships to nurture change and development.". Notice that they do not go into the empirical validity, credibility or controversies in the first sentence or first paragraph. That is generally given later in the lead. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not a good example. Psychoanalysis has both conceptual and empirical support. There are controversies over the evidence base for CBT and so on, but overall nothing like the issues with NLP which is in the pseudo-science box on the basis of the evidence, so Astrology (which also relies on self-reported impact) is a closer match. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is that most articles which have three or four paragraphs in the lead will start with a neutral description in the first sentence and even first paragraph. The empirical validity, credibility and notable controversies should also be covered but later in the lead. We should also look at the current second paragraph which does not really accurately define it. Its like we're setting up straw man. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

TBH, this article should be deleted, as it's not worth the fuss it apparently causes. How difficult can it be to 'balance' an intro? Jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Savannahcharles: "NLP is only discredited by those individuals who stand to lose by the field becoming prevalent, for instance those in the fields of applied psychology and counselors who charge patients vast sums of money, having them attend weekly sessions often costing what amounts to thousands of dollars, without any fundamental improvements taking place." Enemesis (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Intriguing - Who would be on such a list? GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, NLP was initially debunked by word of mouth to first spread a vastly shared and openly accepted opinion to the community. Enemesis (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Lim Kan keung: "If there are reliable sources that say "NLP is only discredited by those individuals who stand to lose by the field becoming prevalent" then they may be appropriate for the article. Looking at current sources, those who stand to lose in the context of the neuro-linguistic programming are said to be 1. unsuspecting and vulnerable consumers/clients , 2, people buying NLP certification, and 3 the public in the general who believe mistakenly NLP claims and concepts are scientific ones."

The top quote by Savannahcharles is actually true, In fact the common story was that when NLP was introduced to psychotherapists it was widely rejected almost instantaneously. These guys had spent thousands of dollars on an education for a science that does not create any fundamental changes or guarantee any client the skill to do so for themselves. Psychotherapy was an industry with a lot of money and infrustructure already involved. There's a lot to say about current systems that are in place and have been under threat of change. The Billion dollar oil industry that seems loathe to change toward any ecological future is driven by a corporate body and government who feel that the current system is adequate enough comes down to protecting an industry from Uninterrupted growth with minimal loss of time, money and resources. The governments will have wars to protect their interests and then what will the governement do? control media? Information? knowledge and truth? <---- as an example. In essence who is the majority trying to control the information about NLP? Who has the most to lose? Who prevents NLP from being considerred becoming a science? Then Snowded says that a psychotherapist can not be used as a resource because he was trained in NLP? Enemesis (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim that NLP (as taught in the early 1970s) is not scientific ... is correct. That was the very claim made by Bandler and Grinder; that they were not presenting a science or scientific anything. The modern claim that NLP is a pseudo-science is silly, since NLP did not claim to be scientific. The claim made by Bandler and Grinder was that it was magical, not that their method was scientific. It's as if someone looking for strawberries was whining that apple pie, claimed to be an apple pie, did not contain any strawberries, and that it therefore was not strawberry pie. D'oh. htom (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in respect of the sources Reconsolidation not the subject, as to Enemesis and OtterSmith, you are not allowed (here) to form your own conclusions as to what the sources means or the background beliefs or attitudes of those who wrote them. You have to find sources that draw such conclusions. OtterSmith, my point on the Surrey Source is that group also run a NLP consultancy business. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, you should read up on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view especially [and undue weight]. I think we need an RfC or third party opinion on whether NLP is: "2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." or "3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." It is not clear. That is really going to help us move forward and better apply the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guidelines to this article. --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Fully aware of both policies Reconsolidation, as you know from previous discussions. What you have to do is to find some scientific sources which substantially counter those which the lede summarises. Your 'repeated' attempt to shift to general discussion and Enemesis and OtterSmith opining about the claims of Brandler and Grinder and speculating as to the motives of those who reject NLP are not evidence in WIkipedia (or most other) terms. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The ArbCom rules that NLP should not be described as described as "unambiguously pseudoscientific". This is point of view and must be ascribed to a source. "Ascribing points of view 3) The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact. Passed 9-0"Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming The same could be said to the opinion that NLP is "largely discredited". It needs to be ascribed to a source or at very least there needs to be a inline citation. Can we say there is "reasonable amount of academic debate"? A 5 minute search of Google Scholar reveals quite a few papers published in academic journals in the last few years...

• Kong, Eric, and Mark Farrell. "Facilitating knowledge and learning capabilities through neuro-linguistic programming." The International Journal of Learning 18.3 (2012): 253-265.
• Tosey, Paul, and Jane Mathison. Neuro-linguistic programming: a critical appreciation for managers and developers. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
• Linder-Pelz, Susie, and L. Michael Hall. "The theoretical roots of NLP-based coaching." The Coaching Psychologist 3.1 (2007): 12-17.
• Mathison, Jane, and Paul Tosey. "Exploring Moments of Knowing: NLP and Enquiry Into Inner Landscapes." Journal of Consciousness Studies 16.10-12 (2009): 10-12.
• Tosey, Paul, and Jane Mathison. "Exploring inner landscapes through psychophenomenology: The contribution of neuro-linguistic programming to innovations in researching first person experience." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 5.1 (2010): 63-82.
• Carey, John, et al. Neuro-linguistic programming and learning: teacher case studies on the impact of NLP in education. CfBT Education Trust, 2010.
• Mathison, J., and P. Tosey. "Innovations in constructivist research: NLP, phenomenology and the exploration of inner landscapes." The Psychotherapist 37 (2008): 5-8.
• Kong, Eric, and Mark Farrell. "Facilitating knowledge and learning capabilities through neuro-linguistic programming." The International Journal of Learning 18.3 (2012): 253-265.
• Day, Trevor, and Paul Tosey. "Beyond SMART? A new framework for goal setting." Curriculum Journal 22.4 (2011): 515-534.
• Kudliskis, Voldis, and Robert Burden. "Applying ‘what works’ in psychology to enhancing examination success in schools: The potential contribution of NLP." Thinking skills and creativity Traumatology4.3 (2009): 170-177.
• Wake, Lisa. "Neurolinguistic programming: does it have a role in supporting learning or OD interventions?." Development and Learning in Organizations 25.1 (2011): 19-21.
• Angell, G. Brent. "Neurolinguistic Programming Theory and Social Work Treatment." Social Work Treatment: Interlocking Theoretical Approaches: Interlocking Theoretical Approaches (2011): 327.
• Bashir, Ahsan, and Mamuna Ghani. "Effective Communication and Neurolinguistic Programming." Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 6 (2012).
• Lee, Young Ju. "Consumer Preference for Smart-Phones Based on NLP Primary Senses." Computer Applications for Security, Control and System Engineering (2012): 322-327.
• Kong, Eric. "The potential of neuro-linguistic programming in human capital development." Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 10.2 (2012): 131-141.
• Jeon, Jaeho, InGeol Chun, and WonTae Kim. "Metamodel-Based CPS Modeling Tool." Embedded and Multimedia Computing Technology and Service (2012): 285-291.
• Gray, Richard M., and Richard F. Liotta. "PTSD Extinction, Reconsolidation, and the Visual-Kinesthetic Dissociation Protocol." Traumatology 18.2 (2012): 3-16.

Empirical studies

• Pishghadam, Reza, Shaghayegh Shayesteh, and Mitra Shapoori. "Validation of an NLP scale and its relationship with teacher success in high schools." Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2.4 (2011): 909-917.
• Savardelavar, Meisam, and Amir Hooshang Bagheri. "Using NLP in Sport Psychology; Neuro-Linguistic Programming affects on boxer State-Sport Confidence by using Meta-Models Method." European Journal of Experimental Biology 2.5 (2012): 1922-1927.

Empirical studies of lie detection

• Mann, Samantha, et al. "The direction of deception: neuro-linguistic programming as a lie detection tool." Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology (2012): 1-7.
• Wiseman R, Watt C, ten Brinke L, Porter S, Couper S-L, et al. (2012) The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. PLoS ONE 7(7): e40259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040259

Criticism (briefly mentions NLP)

• Corballis, Michael C. "Educational double-think." Neuroscience in Education: The good, the bad, and the ugly (2012): 222.

How do we decide whether this is reasonable academic debate? This literature shows that it is being taken seriously by some academics. The focus certainly has not been empirical research but can we still say there is reasonable academic debate on the subject of NLP for the purposes of this article? --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue has already been covered here [12] and here [13] including explanation to IP 122...Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The unqualified Google Scholar listing being a tactic adopted by both the IP 122 IDs and Action Potential to my memory. Case for disruptive behaviour is hardening. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded: "Case for disruptive behaviour is hardening." what the hell are you talking about. both you and Lam are very vague about these matters. You send pages that are longer than a short story and say its been coverred here here and here. In what section for bejebus? and to what extent is it coverred. It's just a quick conversation closer to move things in your direction. Please put a bit more thought into your answers so that we people can at least think your trying to work with the editors and so co-editors can give reasonable feedback to your answers. what kind of fools do you think are here? Enemesis (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Enemesis, search for the phrase "we do not evaluate sources independently of the statements they support" [14]. See also WP:NOTFORUM. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The case is hardening Enemesis because Reconsolidation is repeating more or less the same points that he previously raised in two previous incarnations. That is disruptive and given his first identity is under Arbcom restrictions may well be a way to avoid said restrictions. Otherwise there is a duty on new editors (assuming you are one) to read up on how things work around here and also on past history. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I did a search on Google Scholar for "Bandler and Grinder" today. There seems to be quite a few papers published in academic journals in different fields. The majority of these papers not empirical and discuss different aspects of it. There has been little support for NLP in the empirical literature. How do we decide on how much weight is given to the non-empirical literature. Is this list evidence of "reasonable debate" per WP:FRINGE on the topic? This is article dedicate to a non-mainstream topic so you cannot expect sources to meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) as was suggested earlier by Snowded and LKK. Sources dedicated to fringe topics are more relaxed to represent significant points of view. --Reconsolidation (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No one can judge the value of your lists and references until you give some indication of what edits you want to make in consequence. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

While it is relevant to the requested edit above, it is relevant to due and undue weight. It was suggested earlier that this article needs to adhere to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) but that would exclude the majority of academic literature and debate about NLP which is in the journals that are outside of the science of psychology or medicine. I'm saying it needs to adhere to WP:FRINGE guidelines and cover those points of view as well. This discussion is exactly for working on the article together to improve it. It is precisely about discussing sources and relevant policies. That is why we need to go to ArbCom or the administrator noticeboards to help us get some clarity. I'm not going to waste my time summarizing articles if there is no agreement on sources and weight. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources can only be judged in the context of proposed edits which it is claimed they support. This is not a forum or a discussion group so please don't waste your time, or that of other editors. And FYI arbcom deals with behaviour issues not content ones. Ditto the Administrator notice boards. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've gotten that backwards, Snowded. Sources are reliable, regardless of what they say or do or do not support, or they are unreliable, ..., it is the source, not the content, that is reliable. Is ownership a behavior issue? htom (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A source can be reliable htom but what it is reliable for is the issue. Ownership is a behavioural issue, if you think you have a case feel free to raise it at ANI ----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Its not a good example. Psychoanalysis has both conceptual and empirical support. There are controversies over the evidence base for CBT and so on, but overall nothing like the issues with NLP which is in the pseudo-science box on the basis of the evidence, so Astrology (which also relies on self-reported impact) is a closer match."

There are many academics who would claim the opposite. It just goes to show how easily one can become entrenched on one side of a contested topic that has no real clear decision. As far as I can tell, for a while, psychoanalysts were struggling with their position regarding evidence. Now recently, it seems as if they are pushing back against CBT. A lot of CBT practitioners turned away from psychoanalysis because the field was becoming too exclusive and they felt (the psychoanalysts that is) they didn't even need to produce evidence to support their claims. Of course, there was a backlash and CBT came into favor... and so on. It just goes to show how volatile the whole field is. Can anyone honestly say there weren't claims within psychoanalysis that couldn't be characterized as pseudoscience, especially within it's infancy? It all depends which way the pendulum sways and a statement like the one quoted above is isomorphic of the partisan bias which runs through the field of psychology, to NLP, right down to the editors responsible for this current incarnation of the NLP Wikipedia page. NLP has a scant amount of research compared to these other two fields. On what basis can we draw large the conclusions made on the page? Just because a piece of research says something does not mean it has the weight to be a conclusive fact in an article, other than the fact that it is making a claim only. This is far form conclusive proof especially in the field of psychology. The only thing anyone can Prove is that's what the study says . — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2012

I am a new account holder so I hope my request is appropriate! May I request that both the title and the first paragraph be edited in order to appropriately introduce the nature of the article? As it is not a description of NLP or it's approach as a methodology per say, might it be reasonable to suggest that the title and at the least the first paragraph be more of a lead in to the nature and purpose of the article? That way it would be less confusing and more informative to those researching NLP for the first time. It is clear to me that the author's purpose is to promote and advertise critiques against the subject, as opposed to offering a general reference article for the benefit of all readers, regardless of their opinion on the subject. Thanks. Affableparts (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please have a look at the policy linked here WP:GOODFAITH. If you have a valid suggestion, please make it clear here so it can be discussed. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

 Note: I have set this edit request to answered per the above response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

hi there wikipedia! I joined wikipedia to edit the page on neuro linguistic progamming due to its lack of information and bias. It puts NLP up in the spotlight in a very negative manner. Seeing as wikipedia is the ultimate encyclopedia on the internet I feel that this is a disservice to human knowledge. i am a professional that utilises NLP and would like to provide many other sources to balance it out. as you know it is semi protected. it also seems that this page has not been changed in a while yet from what i see on this talkpage is a lot of change wanted. could you may be let me know what is what with regards to no change being made etc? thank you for your time. Thomdez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomdez (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC) ok, i just saw why there is a problem with this page being fixed. took a lot of reading. hopefully this will be sorted. i have sources and recommendations if you want them but i will leave that until all the other disputes resolved. may be the page should be taken down until the disputes are dealt with. i think that would be the right thing to do in this situation. words are power after all. thank you for your time. please let me know. all the best. thomdez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomdez (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Side page

It seems that there are several people holding similar Ideas and proposals. Is there any way to create a side page where we can workshop and refine these Ideas in an appropriate space, as there are rules about the scope of discussion on the talk page itself. An adaptive system (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

You mean three brand new SPAs who arrive at the same time as Comaze adopts one of his new IDs? lol

You use a sandbox ----Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A slightly less snarky version of the above would probably include an actual link to the wikipedia sandbox. siafu (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly but I suspect we are dealing with experienced editor(s) here ----Snowded ^TALK 14:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are unable to assume good faith, I would suggest recusing yourself from the discussion rather than being snarky. There's nothing to be gained for the article or yourself from denigrating other editors, and at the very least you can prevent minor issues from blowing up into major arguments. siafu (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but I afraid years of Comaze creating new IDs and the sudden crop of new IPs and SPAs who join in, means that good faith has been stretched to the limits. AGF does not require us to be fools. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ya can't blame Snowy for being suspicious. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, if you have a concern I'd wish for you explain it fully and in a civil manner. No wonder your'e always getting new people if every one gets bullied away. Other potential editors will see the talk page and be scared away. After the comments die down you'll get a new group of people. Is this how all new Wikipedians are treated on this talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So, the sandbox Is for test editng what about mor of an informal talk page? Is there A page that can be created (or that already exists) just for the purpose of talking about the article in a more extensive manner? An adaptive system (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

You can draft some changes here and get input from more dispassionate wikipedians through the noticeboards. I really think that's the best way forward. There is a wikiproject but it is inactive: Wikipedia:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods - that is for improving the NLP and related articles. Any project would need to involve skeptics, more wikipedians and dispassionate topic experts. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded and Lam and anyone else editting the article should take a look at this for clarification purposes of the article and NPOV. It could save us a lot of trouble and time. WP:WEASEL

I know the Policy as I am sure do the many other editors who have got involved here. If you want to save trouble and time prepare specific proposals supported by reliable third party sources and make them here on the talk page. If you feel you are not getting a fair heraing at that point raise an RfC. Now we have been down that route before if you check, and the consensus of many editors has been that the article reflects said sources. So I suggest that you check that material and see if you have some new evidence to bringinto play. You might also want to check out the style guide. The lede summarises the article it is not normal for it to be referenced and the material is in the main body. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I typed this above in the section labelled "Openning section".

"I'm sorry I read those 2 articles and they in no way reflect factual errors. maybe you misunderstand fair interpretation of an article. read those links again there is no such allusion to "factual errors" 10 refers to the fact that they have not researched the topic enough, "paucity of data". the other does not mention NLP and if it does refer to NLP it does allude to the fact that the content is unbalanced but that will depend on the institutions you go to learn and what applications you would like to learn it for. "Concentrating primarily on techniques with strong claims for enhancing performance, the committee found little support for some (e.g., sleep learning, meditation, parapsychological techniques, hypnosis, total quality management)" who made these claims? are they relevant to this article? what is total quality management? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychological "The Parapsychological Association regards the results of parapsychologists' experiments as having demonstrated the existence of some forms of psychic abilities,[12] and proponents of parapsychology have seen it as an "embryo science",[13] a "frontier science of the mind",[14] and a "frontier discipline for advancing knowledge".[15] NLP to me has never said that there was an element of being psychic (that is reading someones thoughts from thinking about someone or seemingly from thin air), The founders do claim that your senses can become so attuned to distinctions ie. micro muscle and facial color changes that this is a pattern to observe and note to gauge the clients mood and his /her emotional associations from these distinctions and that from these distinctions that you may appear as if psychic but being "Psychic" is not the claim. other wise provide the link that says the founders have said that NLP is a way to become psychic otherwise either you or your source may have been confused as to what the claim actually means. Enemesis (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)"

wow do I really have to repeat myself as above. The article explicitly says that there are weaknesses and strengths in the NLP model. The weaknesses aren't common teachings and the strengths are the applications it is designed for. So for one the article is not properly represented and two the claims you are making are not supported in the mainstream of NLP literature, teaching or leading Mentors in the field. Factual errors is also vague what are the factual errors? I think we can now begin to edit this part of the article for clarity and NPOV. We will get to other sections as time goes on Enemesis (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I also suspect meat-puppetry among these many editors pushing for changing the intro; I do agree that largely discredited should be removed from the intro. I would feel the same if largely accepted were there. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rfc in future?

The pro-change editors should open up a Rfc on this article, instead of carrying out a slow edit-war? Otherwise, blocks should be considered for them. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more but think we should wait until after the peer review. The only way forward is to engage broader wikipedian community to resolve this content dispute such as through the request for comment or the dispute resolution noticeboard. The editors here seem dug into their position deeply! The request for peer review is already under way which will be a step in the right direction. We also need to get some comments about reliable sources and NPOV. You could also get some input from the fringe theory noticeboard. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could let the rest of us know how the 'request for peer review is already underway"? I see nothing in your edit history. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

People can search in my history for dispute resolution about the OED definiton and an attempt at an RfC. htom (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly worth reading as an example of the wider community view of this issue. Reconsolidation - still waiting for a response on this peer review which is underway ----Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This article doesn't help me as an ordinary user

I wanted to find out about NLP. I can't see what it is for the criticism of it. I hope this article can be made more helpful and more well-rounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.90.169 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to find out about something, you need to see the whole picture. Otherwise please read the material on your talk page. That tells you how wikipedia works ----Snowded ^TALK 03:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have rarely if ever felt the need to post to a talk page, and am completely unfamiliar with the protocol for doing so. Just wanted to add that I also didn't really find what I was looking for on the page, and would appreciate some content contribution by people with knowledge of NLP. I know nothing about NLP, and after reading the article I don't know much more. I appreciate the well-researched criticism, but it's hard to get a grip on what is being criticized. Keith Campbell - www.pathstoknowledge.com (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You may find this older version of the page useful -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=33400304 htom (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes its better but still infected by the omnipresent skeptic society. The nonsense about new age is just propaganda. NLP is about as new age as CBT. What this article needs more than anything is to get rid of the pseudoskeptics again. LTMem (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I should have looked even further back. There must be a descent one, after all, Wikipedia itself is a new-agey thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=9035096 Not sure that's good, either. Ah well. htom (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing changes?

As we are all editors here of equal value, I do not understand why we are looking for approval from Snowded when editing this page in total. I would like to suggest that other editors here would be free to edit the page within the bounds of wiki policy without such approval from one editor but as a colaboration of opinion as to what changes should be made toward the article. The way this could work is for someone to suggest an editing decision those that are against can provide reasoning those for can also provide reasoning for the proposed edit and only one submission from each editor. perhaps at this time any tweaks could also be suggested. Then a vote system of either aye or nay on both the edit and the tweak's to the edit to reach some mediation on the subject. Enemesis (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Open up a Rfc & send out 'neutral' requests to random editors, to particpate. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And the changes you have made have been reversed by multiple editors Enemesis not just me. Wikipedia is not a democracy, they have been reversed because they are not founded in reliable third party sources but represent a personal opinion of the editors making the changes. If you suggest a change here it will be discussed based on wikipedia policy which is to summarise the reliable sources. RfC (as GoodDay suggests) and also dispute resolution can be invoked. However Wikipedia will look with suspicion when every time discussion on this article arises we can a spate (5 so far) of SPA accounts freshly created. That suggests meat puppetry and probably needs investigation (something else that Wikipedia allows for) ----Snowded ^TALK 08:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, when I first started looking for an NLP school to commence training I did read that there had been over 500,000 people with formal training in NLP at that time. The likelihood that you are going to experience resistance on this article because of the POV tone is and always will be very high. Enemesis (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This WP:IDHT approach, is quite frustrating & to be blunt disruptive. Why are you avoiding the advise given to you? OPEN A RFC, in the manner I suggested. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

@ GoodDay, I thought you had no interest in this article. Snowded made a comment mentioning spas and meat puppets that claim is easily defendable by saying the truth. There is an absolutely huge community of NLP practitioners you can expect with the current state of the page that there will always be people who will want an NPOV article. Now whilst you have had a little tirade at me, had you noticed snowded's little rant to scare people from the idea of an RfC? of which I would have to research to know what that means.

OPEN A RFC, What are you afraid of? Right now, you & the other editors who want to make the intro NPoV, are only repeating yourselves. I have little interest in the article, but I do get annoyed with SPAs when they continue on a tentative course. IF you feel there's no way to get the changes you want? then just leave. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The internal motivations of other editors are not available for your perusal; this is an inappropriate comment. Please keep the discussion to the article itself. siafu (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Enemesis, I am sure that there are many people who are trained in NLP, it really doesn't matter. What does matter is what third party reliable sources say. Until you address that issue you are wasting people's time. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

COI, all around?

FWIW, I suspect there's COI on both sides in this dispute. However, I've neither the time 'nor' ability to handle the headaches that would accompany me, should I investigate those suspicions. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The accusation has been made before GoodDay, twice, and rejected by the community each time. It comes from external NLP sites which contain some crazy conspiracy theories about sock puppets as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who levied the charge and was rebuked by the Wikipedia administration. That was a waste of time. The only way to move this article forward is by respecting the editors and building a true consensus.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

first line

Maybe someone could change it to something along the lines of: "a small amount of evidence purports NLP to be possibly discredited". This is very rough and you would have to put the " NLP is" part at the beginning. Also, I think the Drug interventions, including alcohol, might belong somewhere else as they intent seems to be that they are commenting on NLP as a field on a whole which, they are not. This of course, is not a comprehensive solution but maybe it could reduce some conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Good ideas in part. The small amount of research on discredit is just not valid for the first line. It should be kicked totally from the article as its fringe, and certainly from the first line. Actually research by Tosey and co at the University of Surrey is still going on. The research is often positive and that is just not given any space here on the article. Of course the pseudoskeptics here are going to disagree, but HD and team may be gone before long especially if they keep pushing for arbitration. LTMem (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking it could be there short term, as a compromise. I'm glad more research is being conducted, but to my mind it'll take a lot for NLP's efficacy one way or another. That's just the nature of Fields that involve the human mind and or human behavior. I'm surprised that no one has written a response to the secondary research that is on the page. I seem to recall that someone criticised Sharpley though, maybe some one could source that. An adaptive system (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Yes the Einspruch research was never properly answered and some subsequent reviewers really still don't understand what NLP is about. The criticisms in the article are basically criticising the wrong thing. Thats not what most people learn about NLP proper. When Wikipedians have learned to deal properly with HD and co the article may get a proper re-writing that takes into account its real nature. LTMem (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why can't the Einspruch research be put on the page if it's a valid source? I'm guessing that the research in surrey is primary research. Either way could you provide a link for curiosity's sake? An adaptive system (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Remember that Tosey et al at Sussex are also an NLP Consultancy Group and are arguing that only phenomenological evidence is available. If there are proposals then raise them here as proposed edits in the main body of the article - remember the lede summarises that.----Snowded ^TALK 09:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, That Tosey thing is a whole other ball of wax and wouldn't be allowed on the page, though at the same time I think some of other research here may be suspect for competitive bias, but that's getting off topic. Are we not allowed to solicit suggestions here? If so, maybe someone could draft a lead that contains the idea suggested in the beginning of this section. Snowded, I'm not sure where you're going with the lede body issue. An adaptive system (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

The lede summarises the article. So if you want something there it has to be in the main body of the article. Your opening paragraph is your opinion of the literature. To include that in any way you need to find a reliable third part source which makes the same point. Read up on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and you should be able to see the issue. Also be aware that community is likely to be suspicious of eight new SPA accounts (at the last count) appearing on a controversial article. Especially when some (like LTMem) repeat accusations from sites which have been known to recruit meat puppets and have obviously edited or engaged before. On controversial articles, and this is one, its very important to focus not on the opinion of editors but on what is said in reliable third party sources. Speculations about what is or is not NLP by editors are a waste of time, what matters is what the sources say it is----Snowded ^TALK 11:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"largely discredited" is equally a matter of opinion. How can you prove that the small amount of secondary research = largely discredited? If you put the research in this field at parity at parity with other fields It is on the fringe level (of research). Furthermore, I deserve the same amount of respect as anyone else. It sounds like everyone here is suspected of something by someone. It's too bad we can't be innocent until proven guilty. Why is that so? p.s. most of the research on the page doesn't even talk about NLP as a field and a lot of it is just opinion, professional or not. That hardly justifies the synthesis already being made in the opening paragraphs. How do you suggest I proceed to avoid suspicion? An adaptive system (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

You proceed by finding some sources that support your opinion. The lede currently reflects referenced material in the body of the article. As to opinion, I am afraid "profession or not" is hardly the point. Wikipedia reflects published "professional" opinion, not the opinions of individual editors. Respect our need for sources and you will gain respect, continue to simply state your opinion and you won't ----Snowded ^TALK 02:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The "largely discredited" wording should indeed be deleted from the intro, per NPoV. BTW, I noticed 'yet' another newbie in the mix. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Same comment applies to you GoodDay, find some sources, don't opine! Otherwise yes and there will be more, the meat farm/network is obviously in full operation ----Snowded ^TALK 11:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A source isn't needed to remove a blatant Pov from an intro, anymore then excluding something like "evil, terrible human being" from the Adolf Hitler article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede reflects the main article, and the sources there support largely discredited (possibly wholly discredited). That is a fairly common form of words for a pseudo science. It's not the same thing as the sort of invective you reference. As ever you are simply providing us all with the benefits of your opinion rathr than focusing on content.----Snowded ^TALK 16:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose "largely accepted" in the intro aswell. Anyways, I'm in agreement with the meatpuppets, concerning the anti-NLP slant to the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidence GoodDay please. Are there third party sources which counter those already referenced? ----Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any sources linked to the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be acceptable naïveté from a newbie but not from someone with your experience. You know the lede summarises the article and is not usually referenced. I suggest you read the article and the sources there and then see if there is anything in the referenced material there which would support your opinion. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I must depart the intro discussion, for Wiki-personal reasons. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is not naive at all. Yes, the default is that the lead needn't be referenced, but keep in mind what WPWHYCITE says: "...although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead". It is clear that this is controversial. -Rrius (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead includes no fewer than 19 citations. Number 18 is for the Norcross study, of which the "largely discredited" is a fair paraphrase; you can see the abstract without any special access here. Is this just a matter of the placement of the reference? siafu (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Then make add a name= and put it after the claim we're talking about. It is not enough that some ref somewhere backs up the claim. It is a controversial comment, in that it looks like a POV comment. -Rrius (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur, as far as I can tell only one study actually says "discredited" in context to NLP as a whole, the rest is synthesis if I'm using the right term. Does not the burden of evidence rely on the editor to prove that one study = largely discredited? Isn't This undue weight? An adaptive system (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Siafu, in fact I think there are far too many citations in the lede as it is, so removing some of them would be a good idea! However if its really needed then the Norcross one would do. Adaptive system, I and others have been asking you and your compatriots for citations to reliable sources that say other than Norcross. Many of them have harsher words than "discredited". One might say "unsupported by scientific evidence" or any number of similar phrases (open to that sort of change). However the lede needs to summarise the article, and the overwhelming evidence is against NLP as any type of science. Now it is probably correct to say that NLP has more or less given up on its early claims and has fallen back to being a self-help cult like practice. The only papers any one has ever been able to find supporting its claims relay on self-reported events rather than any repeatable experiment - something that it a characteristic of all cults. However we don't have sources which describe that transition, if we did we could include it.----Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"unsupported by scientific evidence" is probobly more accurate. NLP is not broadly supported or disconfirmed by scientific evidence. I think more accurately you could say "currently unproven". As far as I can tell none of the founders considered NLP to be a hard science. How can you prove that not being science equates to being largely discredited. where is the research to support these claims. An adaptive system (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Per multiple previous requests please list the research that supports the claims, only then can your comments be taken into account ----Snowded ^TALK 12:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been a question mark at the end of my last statement. I was questioning your synthesis of the evidence. maybe someone here can provide a citation about NLP not claiming to be a hard science. I do understand that is hard on Wikipedia to prove a lack of some thing in terms of lack of claims and/or lack of evidence. It seems that a "factual" statement could be obtained based on one piece of research (or a very small amount) if there were none to the contrary. Is there not a mechanism win Wikipedia to address this this? An adaptive system (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

You need a comparative study and one that identifies a change from the general claims made when it all started. It needs to be from a reliable source, not an NLP one and must not be original research (ie you cannot take it from a statement by one of the NLP founders). When you have that please come back with proposals, until them this is just wasting people's time.----Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I will look into the rules and evidence. I still see a lot of varying subtle claims but only one that says discredited. It appears that you believe all these other statements equate to being "largely discredited", but that is your claim and not explicitly stated in any research. You still haven't shown me where it actually says or talks about NLP as a field being discredited other than one source. "Largely" is a measure of comparison. What are we comparing it to the one research piece that says that? How many pieces of research do the wikipedia standards require to satisfy the generalization of a field with respect to this? As far as I can tell one source is undue weight. You can think that being characterized as unscientific can lead to being summarized as discredited but it's not up to us to make those conceptual distinctions. It must be in the research. To say that being unscientific is akin to being, or contributing to being discredited, is a synthesis and a matter of opinion. If you want to replace the first statement with "scientifically unsupported" I would recommend using quotes) An adaptive system (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Using a phrase from one source which summarises the rest is common. Please point to one of the existing sources which contradicts that. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to use the phrase form the source to summarize the lead then do that, but you'll notice that even that uses a caveat as the actual phrase is "possibly or probably discredited". An adaptive system (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

It is not defensible in any article to make such claims about the subject of the article at the very beginning of the opening sentence even if there are reliable sources to support such claims. It is a blatant misuse of the purpose of the principles of an encyclopaedia article and a manipulation of the policies. Of course you can state that NLP has been largely discredited in research but this belongs in a subsequent place. The opening sentence should only summarise what the subject of the article is ~ NOT any assesments of its validity. Afterwriting (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article and the material there supports the statement. That said I think your suggestion that we should say it has been largely discredited in research is a good one as its more accurate. I'd also be open to moving that to the second paragraph of the lede if it would silence this controversy. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Largely discredited in research" is fine and clarifying according to the sources. The first line is fine. However, I suggest the last line of the first paragraph is also a fitting alternative for integration. e.g. "NLP has been largely discredited in research, and according to certain neuroscientists,[3] psychologists,[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts" Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What about largely unsupported by scientific research? An adaptive system (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

With respect I suggest you read those sources. Or maybe look again at the titles of the sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a new one, Argument by Title. htom (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Would this then be an example of argument from ignorance, or just misdirection? siafu (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what am I missing from the titles that state NLP isn't unsupported by scientific research? An adaptive system (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Also, originally I meant to say "largely unsupported by current scientific evidence" as I think that's more accurate.

The suggestion was that you read the source material and that if you were not happy to do that then the titles of the papers themselves would make the point. Otherwise you continue to state and restate, then state again the same opinion without offering evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The only situation in which "unsupported by current scientific evidence" and "discredited" are NOT synonymous is when a scientific investigation hasn't been conducted. Otherwise, as with NLP, these statements are completely synonymous. siafu (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Let's not mince words while kicking a dead horse forever guys. We have to agree that what's written is supported by reliable sources since those sources have even been vetted by editors including in notice boards by administrators. What's needed is NEW sources and specific dialogue about text changes that can be made to reflect them.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the tardy reply. I read all the titles at the bottom and if I were to draw a conclusion based only on what the titles say there would be one, as far as I can tell, negative statement directly on NLP. So some people are misreading things. Why shouldn't I question editors conclusions when they make statements like these? AS far as the "only situation in which" statement If you think really hard I'm sure you'l realize at least one exception to that. These inductive mis-leaps are exactly why we have to be careful about the language on the page. An adaptive system (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

It's a bad strategy to waste everyone's time. Focus on suggesting edits supported by reliable sources because the whole meat farm and off topic opining could set back a serious effort to improve the POV in the article. You've got to play by the rules because the admin have dealt with countless years of drama.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In this section, I did make suggestions supported by evidence on the page. As for my last statement I was just responding to the off topic suggestion made to me. I am NOT part of a meat farm please stop accusing me of that (if that's what you are implying). An adaptive system (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

Edit request on 21 December 2012

The entry starts with a highly objective statement "NLP is largely discredited" without any references that back this up. As a student studying counselling, hypnotherapy and NLP, I find this biased opening statement should be deleted unless the view can be substantiated with reputable references.

Redmarti (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For other editors - this is the ninth new account created in the last six weeks on this subject, all making similar requests. A meat farm is obviously in operation ----Snowded ^TALK 10:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No snowded as I have said above "Snowded, when I first started looking for an NLP school to commence training I did read that there had been over 500,000 people with formal training in NLP at that time. The likelihood that you are going to experience resistance on this article because of the POV tone is and always will be very high." Enemesis. The fact that there are many people involved with NLP training and stand by it's paradigm you will have people come to view one of their favourite topics and decide that is not written correctly. They will want to be involved in clarifying the article. This is as you would expect. Enemesis (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny how they only come in clusters around when Comaze attempts to edit again isn't it? ----Snowded ^TALK 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well snowded, since you agree that the norcross is representative of the whole article and you believe you can use it's phrase to summarize it, maybe we can find a more amenable solution by using "possibly or probably discredited" or something similar to it. By the way, I was just waiting till some one else came along to comment again so I can have some consensus with others on the page as well (incase you were wondering why i am commenting now). It certainly seemed to be a ghost town for a while there. An adaptive system (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

": Not done: The information is well-sourced in the body of the article; the lead does not need to repeat the sources in the body, and since it's a broad summary of many sources, trying to put sources there would just be cumbersome. Plus, of course, all of the article's history. Qwyrxian (talk)

That may be the case Qwyrxian, however the article is written in such a way that people will come away with the feeling of "well ok, lets stay away from NLP then." and really be none the wiser about the subject. Wikipedia is a place of learning and fun to come away feeling like we know a little more about the world because of what we have read. because of the serious and dour tone of the article and the reluctance to represent NLP in a NPOV light. I feel there is a severe manipulation of wikipedia policy and beauracracy to get what you want. This article is not a review. It is a description of NLP and all its components. Please write it in a non pov style to satisfy the needs of the reader. Enemesis (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As you have been told a hundred times Enemesis, its neutral as to the sources. You solution has always been to find other sources, not to repeat Ad Nauseam your opinions and rather foolish accusations. All independent editors who have looked at it are happy with largely discredited. The compromise is to move it to the second paragraph, but only if you will agree that ends the matter until you have new sources ----Snowded ^TALK 07:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I dont mind you saying what you have to say in the article but you must listen. The format is wrong it is not descriptive. The information is used to create judgement from the reader. Now please can I ask and instruct you nicely to please reformat the article to something that is both informative and educational as well being descriptive of your views? Enemesis (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No editor can instruct another Enemesis, neither should be article be representative of either my or your views. Both those comments reveal your level of ignorance about WIkipedia. You really need to read up on WP:NPOV and WP:RS. When you have something other than your opinion to offer present it here, otherwise you will just be ignored. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSCOI have you followed this? Enemesis (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and two previous reviews by the community have confirmed that I have. Try addressing the need for references, although I suspect you constant opining and now your attempt to undermine other editors indicates you can't. You might also like to read up on how to format your comments if you are finally starting to look up wikipedia process; a trend I would like to encourage. I did it for you this time to help out ----Snowded ^TALK 09:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

sample article of npov or COI

NPOV article

NPOV article

These are known as good npov examples from the COI page. Can you use some of these ideas and model them into the the articles formatting so that it is more clear for the readers what the subject is about? Enemesis (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"The compromise is to move it to the second paragraph, but only if you will agree that ends the matter until you have new sources" What gives you the authority to make that claim? I don't see how you could guarantee the out come of such a negotiation. An adaptive system (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

This is my proposal for the first paragraph: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, USA in the 1970s. The title refers to an asserted connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic"), and behavioural patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") that its proponents say can be changed to achieve specific goals in life. Among certain neuroscientists, psychologists, and linguists, it is considered discredited due to a lack of empirical support for its claimed effectiveness, methods, concepts and terminology." --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Making a proposal is good, making the changes directly when you know there is disagreement is wrong but you know that only too well as its a pattern repeated over your different identities. Your wording compromises the criticism too much and there is not a clear agreement yet on if discredited should be removed to the second paragraph. I'm prepared to support that if it ends the dispute, but not if it is just the first stage in a series of changes you plan to make. At the moment we still do not have citations that say it is credible. The qualification of "certain neuroscientists, psychologists" etc. is thus misleading as it implies there are sources in those academic fields or others which say differently. Todate when challenged on this you have simply listed the results of google searches without critical consideration of sources so please don't do that again. Find some comparative studies that seek to evaluate NLP, not self reports or material that requires original research or synthesis to support your view.----Snowded ^TALK 13:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"certain" is also ambiguous: are we referring to "certain" as in specific professionals or are they "certain" as in confident in their view? I'll wait for others to comment on your other points because I've been away. --Reconsolidation (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo are as ever avoiding the question as to other sources. I suspect we need to revert to the last stable version before you continued your slow edit war ----Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm on holidays at the moment. When I return I can review the sources for you. I think we need to put together a working group for this article. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The introduction needs to say that NLP consists of step-by-step techniques for achieving change for self and others. That is a crucial aspect of NLP that has been omitted from the opening section. For example, Professor Wiseman says "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) consists of a diverse collection of psychological techniques that aim to enhance peoples’ lives [3]." doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040259. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Probability of finding a source saying "NLP is not a discredited method"

Any one want to start a pool on there ever being such a statement in a reliable source? htom (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather we work together and put a post on the reliable source noticeboard to get comments from uninvolved editors. Have you read this book: The Clinical Effectiveness of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Critical Appraisal (Advances in Mental Health Research) Lisa Wake (Editor), Richard Gray (Editor), Frank Bourke (Editor). Routledge (October 24, 2012). It is published by Routledge, a reputable academic press. The editors include an assistant professor (Gray) and two PhDs (Wake and Bourke). They present a discussion of the evidence base including a discussion of its credibility as a mental health practice. They have also published in peer-reviewed journals. I think that book might be acceptable as a source to present another point of view. Gray has been investigating NLP in the treatment of PTSD. Wake has been involved in the UKCP. Bourke has a background in psychiatry. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of so many noticeboards that some admins are surely already exhausted. But regardless we can still build consensus for reliable sources among the editors on this talk page. For example, I've spent a great deal of time studying the peer reviewed journals in the American Psychological Association's psych info database. That is a fantastic resource. Some of the results of that research are visible on my talk page and are similar to the one you mention. But what I think we need is a review of these articles from a reliable source (since there are several highly regarded reviews that span the latest literature expressing the current POV in the article). That would move the ball forward and encourage the other editors to reflect what I would feel would be a more balanced perspective. In the meantime I would caution against edit warring again. --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation in his current and previous guises has a long history of periods of inactivity followed by slow edit warring. Hopefully that will stop. Otherwise if there are sources then we need to see what edits are proposed based on them, and the text which is being used to support those edits; BEFORE changes are made to the article----Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

And just while we are at it Lisa Wake runs an NLP Consultancy and Training group, again this is the Surrey link that has been discussed before.----Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Wake was chair of UKCP so she is notable. Will you admit that Routledge is a reputable academic publisher for this topic (per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE) compared to some of the others sources used in the current article? This source goes into the issue of credibility in more depth than many of the other research papers. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

the value of a source depends on what it is intended to support. If you are seeking to third party sources with a review written by someone whose main business is now an NLP consultancy and training business it's dubious. To be honest you keep referencing the Sussex group which again while in an academic environment a also running an NLP consultancy business. I suggest you try and find some third party material. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Routledge is a reputable academic publishing house ("Commercial Academic Press" ) and is acceptable according to the verifiability policy. It is listed [15] here] as reputable. "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas."WP:FRINGE, See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources Can you please quote the relevant policy you are referring to? --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, You can't answer peer reviewed sources with non-peer reviewed ones with COI and expect there to be a consensus. I'm in favor of your POV and yet you're even testing my patience at this point.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the section below where I ask about majority, minority and tiny minority view points per WP:UNDUE. A reputable commercial academic publishing house like Routledge is not as strong as an university press or peer-review journal article but it is still acceptable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes its good you found a source but my experience tells me you will run into a lot of trouble with other editors making vague statements that don't involve a specific edit request. Start with an edit obviously correct and then defend it with peer reviewed journals. My concern is that if snowded brings an arbcom request against you that your edit history will fully support his assertion. That would take us away from the POV you are supporting.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For the very last time Reconsolidation, I am making no comment on any source you propose until you say what edit you want it to support. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we agree that Routledge is a reputable commercial academic source? -Reconsolidation (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

See my last answer ----Snowded ^TALK 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I will assume that Routledge is a reputable commercial academic press. It has less weight than a university press or a high ranking peer-review journal but more weight than other publishing houses, industry magazines and low-rank journals. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just remember to propose changes here first, or if you must edit direct then respect WP:BRD rather than just edit warring (making minor changes still makes it edit warring). Your Arbcom restriction enjoins you to use the talk page remember. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

further reading section

I think we should clean up and improve the further reading section and add some external links. I separated the further reading list into critics and proponents - oversimplified but it makes it clearer. I think this should be just have a few well selected texts that discuss NLP more deeply. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

there is no basis for you to devide the sources into two categories. That is original research. By making that division without any authority you are in fact trying to make indirectly a point you have argued for elsewhere, trying to position anti and pro denigrating third party reviews. Reducing the number could have utility and I have left some of those in place. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're not happy with proponents/critics/research reviews then could you give an alternative? I think it is quite helpful for the reader to have a few articles from proponents and critics at the end of the article. The difficulty will be selecting which ones to include and which ones to drop. --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a well balanced area of the article. Naming books "pro-NLP" may lead fo accusations by editors of Original Research and adds nothing as long as the reliable sources are there. Good to see the list includes Frogs Into Primces so folks can experience the complexity inherent in the early communication. --Encyclotadd (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, please try and get a grip on the original research and synthesis policies. We cannot decide that some books are pro and others are anti unless there is a reliable source which does that. Also you are trying (again) to position the article as between those who are for and those who are against NLP. That is not our function, our function is to reflect what the sources say. Please stop this, and also stop edit warring as you did earlier. Read WP:BRD, again and respect it. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, Make your arguments in context of the sources rather than based on your personal opinions. You'll find that there are plenty of peer reviewed journals that agree with you but you seem not willing to make your argument to the others based on them. Non-peer reviewed opinions of people with obvious conflicts are the wrong starting point for this, and if you get banned that will confuse this situation. --Encyclotadd (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you quote the relevant wikipedia policy? --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It may help you to start by noticing the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources on "Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources." You have been violating the primcipals of Combinatorics, Synthesis and Original Research. Once you familiarize yourself with the rules we can begin to discuss the sources that support your point of view, which I would like to get included, but the right way, hopefully before the other editors lose patience with you..--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, There is a proposed guideline on WP:further reading section. It suggests that books be topical, reliable, balanced and limited. Some articles actually combine the further reading with external links section. I think your point is that the further reading/external links section needs to be balanced: "Balance is not merely a matter of listing the same number of sources for each point of view, but should be measured relative to the views held by high-quality and scholarly sources. If a large number of high-quality sources reflect a given view, then the Further reading section should normally reflect that tendency. Significant minority points of view should usually be included, subject to the same quality guidelines on reliability, topicality, and the limited size of the section. Publications about a tiny minority view need not be included at all. Notable and important works should not be excluded solely to achieve numerical balance. Further reading sections are not to be used for pushing a point of view." So, how do we determine which books and links to include "relative to the views held by high-quality and scholarly sources"? --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

By familiarizing ourselves with the sources. This is, in fact, not at all complicated in principle, though you may wish to refer to WP:UNDUE regarding the relative weighting. siafu (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, That's a main roadblock that I ran into trying to get the article to provide a more favorable POV. Editors provided multiple reliable sources that reviewed available literature and reached the conclusions expressed in the opening and elsewhere. What we need is another source reliable by the same or better standards substantiating the contrary position. You have to understand that some in Wikipedia community has come to view NLP as a cult in part because of the disruptive editing behavior here. Your time would be well spent in the APA's psych info database identifying new sources as a result. Regardless, please don't continue edit warring and/or imposing your own POV on others because you will just end up banned like the other SPAs instead of creating consensus.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Siafu and Encyclotadd, Help me out here by making this policy a bit more concrete with respect to this topic. According to Jimbo, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"..."In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject."WP:UNDUE Can you give examples of what would be considered majority, minority and tiny minority view points with respect to NLP? --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, The problem isn't your behavior with respect to the minority viewpoint, nor is it your viewpoint, which I agree with and hope can succeed. The problem is that you appear to be using a series of SPA accounts to edit war. You have to knock that off and stick to discussing reliable sources. If you persist without building consensus you'll just end of getting banned and do harm to the effort of the rest of us trying to improve the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotad. I'm not sure what game you are playing but I think you should stop. Reconsolidation appears to be making sensible moves using sensible processes. You need to assume good faith here. The only verified sockpuppets here are of the skeptic society who has been systematically downgrading this article for years by pushing a negative view of NLP[16]. The critics and opponents section sounds like a good idea. That should be persued. LTMem (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree the skeptic POV is predominating, a point I raised at length before. To change that requires a discussion of the sources. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, as far as I am concerned the issue is you adding in headings without any source to support them. Feel free to propose other material and/or deletions BUT I strongly suggest you accept WP:BRD if any changes are opposed.

LTMem, for a brand new SPA account you exhibit remarkable knowledge of the past history of this article and are making accusations that indicate a complete lack of good faith on your part. Have you ever edited wikipedia before? ----Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

how popular widespread exactly?

Even the critics have noted how widespread or popular NLP but it is difficult to say firmly. There are some estimates on how many people have been trained in NLP to "practitioner" level but there are no firm figures. We could also get some indication from book sales. The introduction currently states "NLP has been adopted by private therapists, including hypnotherapists, and in management workshops and seminars marketed to business and government.[5][6]" but we give no evidence and do not say in what countries people engage in NLP training. We could also comment about the structure (or lack of it) within the NLP community of practitioners. Could we please add some more detail to the body of the article with some estimations. Heap[17] gives some estimations of NLP uptake in the UK but it is now dated. How many people have attended training in NLP? Witkowski (2009) comments on its prevalence in Polish universities - is that a reliable source? --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add something like this: "The study and practice of NLP grew rapidly both in the United States and globally, and there are now NLP training providers in many areas of the world. It is estimated that over 100,000 participants have attended NLP training courses in the UK" -- doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2010.02.003 --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source we can't and I don't see how you will get them given the number of training agencies and lack of any central authority. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any figures other than the estimations given by sources that you've previously accepted as reliable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And as you say they are out of date. your edit makes no sense as it is not supported ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Review: NLP and phobias

Is the following review of research into NLP treatment of phobias acceptable as a source here?

Another older review (of VK/D, the NLP rewind technique) is here:

• Dietrich, A. (2000). A review of visual/kinesthetic disassociation in the treatment of posttraumatic disorders: Theory, efficacy and practice recommendations. Traumatology, 6(2), 85-107.

See also (not a review):

Are there other reviews of NLP and phobias that counter these supportive findings? How do we determine relative weight for these sources? In the context of the effectiveness of NLP as a treatment for phobias, do these sources represent majority, minority or tiny minority views with reference to WP:UNDUE? --Reconsolidation (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OMG you are doing it again. It entirely depends what edit you want to make which would then depend on the source. Lists in the absence of proposals for edits are a waste of people's time.----Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The main source is the first one listed which is the most recent and is indexed on pubmed so it is verifiable. If so, is that a majority view, minority view or tiny minority view in terms of the description and effectiveness of NLP in the treatment of phobias? Depending on how relative weight, the proposal would be to add a sentence, paragraph are or even a subsection describing the treatment of phobias using NLP (e.g. the rewind technique) with a summary of the evidence supportive or not. --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed the edit you want to make here and then its possible to answer the question. Oh and we will need some extract from the article as is only available on subscription. I assume you have it and are not just arguing from the abstract? I can't find any reference to the author other than this article by the way ----Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is probably enough material to have a subsection for "treatment of phobias". If the source is acceptable then I'd summarize the approach to treating phobias as described in the article including anchoring, the rewind technique, reframing and dealing with objections. Then would give a short summary of the supporting research evidence. The weight of the article is no very high given that the author is unknown and the Journal Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice is not highly ranked. That said, it is indexed by PubMed and has an fair SJR impact ranking.[18] Here is an outline of the article: 1. Introduction, "One area of psychotherapy in which NLP has proved particularly promising due to the claim of a cure in one hour or less (Bandler and Grinder, 1979, as cited in Ref. 12) is the treatment of phobias."; 2. Phobias; 3. NLP and ‘Anchoring'; 4. The NLP phobia cure; 5. Evidence in research: "Despite the experiential evidence and case studies attesting to the efficacy of NLP in the treatment of phobias, the research literature base supporting the use of NLP techniques in this area is limited.16 However, there is some research regarding the efficacy of "NLP in curing phobias."; 6. Further applications; 7. Reframing phobias; 8. Resistance. --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Section headings are no help and again, you need to propose an edit which the source would support. I can't see it being worthy of more than a sentence myself if that.----Snowded ^TALK 10:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Look more closely, I included the headlines as well as some excerpts. It would take more than a sentence. My proposal was to summarize the approach to treating phobias as presented in the source as described in the article including anchoring, the rewind technique, reframing and dealing with objections. Then would give a short summary of the supporting research evidence. I'm not going to waste my time summarizing it if you are just going to reject it because the source is not reliable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I checked everything closely and its not enough to form any judgement about what it actually says. All I can gather is that an author whose name does not come up on a web search has reviewed and summarised a body of material and concluded that NLP has some efficacy in dealing with Phobias. I have no idea what it says about the specific techniques unless those happen to be mentioned. I am suspicious about "experiential evidence" and your past history in stitching together sources makes me secure in the belief that any source you reference needs to be checked. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, I don't see how a new section could receive support from editors based on low weight sources that are first party and not necessarily [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Secondary_does_not_mean_independent#Combinatorics%7Cindependent]]. But I do think you have an argument for an additional sentence at the end of Applications: Other Uses. Why not propose one sentence that could go there and seek feedback from the other editors?--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd and Snowded, These are the main sources reviewed by the article. All these sources are verifiable.

• Allen KL. An investigation of the effectiveness of neurolinguistic programming procedures in treating snake phobics. Dissertation Abstracts International 1982;43(3). University of Missouri at Kansas City.
• Andreas S. Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP): changing points of view. The Family Journal 1999;7:22. doi:10.1177/1066480799071004
• Einspruch EL, Forman BD. (1988) Neurolinguistic programming in the treatment of phobias. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6, 1. doi:10.1300/J294v06n01_13
• Konefal J, Duncan RC. Social anxiety and training in neurolinguistic programming. Psychological Reports 1998;83(3). doi:10.2466/pr0.1998.83.3.1115 PMID 992319
• Krugman M, Kirsch I, Wickless C, Milling L, Golicz H, Toth A. NLP treatment for anxiety: magic or myth? (1985) Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 4 PMID 2863292
• Stanton HE. Treating phobias rapidly with Bandler's theatre technique. Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis 1988;16(2).
• Walker L. Consulting with NLP: Neuro-linguistic Programming in the Medical Consultation. Radcliffe Medical Press; 2002. For review see PMCID: PMC539523
• Walker L. Changing with NLP: A Casebook of Neuro-linguistic Programming in Medical Practice. Radcliffe Medical Press; 2004.
• Liberman M. The treatment of simple phobias with neurolinguistic programming techniques. Dissertation Abstract. Dissertation Abstracts International 1984;45(6B).

--Reconsolidation (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the Liberman dissertation (though not peer reviewed) warrants a sentence at the end of Applications: Other Uses in support of our POV. I don't know whether other editors would allow it. Probably you would have to propose a specific edit for everyone to consider, because listing sources is not responsive to the concerns expressed many times elsewhere on this talk page, and the multiple SPA accounts you established and edit warring have created a credibility problem for you.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking there should be a description of the technique as well as a summary of the evidence supporting and unsupportive. I think that would take at least a paragraph under either a section titled Applications or Techniques. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone would be glad at this point if you would simply propose some specific text on the talk page for consideration.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we also need to contrast the definition and application of NLP in treatment (e.g. anchoring, rewind technique, reframing) of phobias with the mainstream definition of phobias (e.g. DSM) and treatment (e.g. systematic desentization, exposure therapy)? per WP:UNDUE --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes that would make sense. It would be interesting to notice the differences in definitions and approaches. I think that would be a major contribution though other editors have not understood the significance of anchoring in the past in part because there is very little academic research on anchoring specific to NLP, and there can be different uses of the term anchoring in different contexts.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed text (working draft, final version will replace quotes with paraphrases or summaries from sources): Karunaratne (2010) says "The acquisition of a phobia is an example of rapidly acquired Pavlovian classical conditioning, and is a consistent response based on learning over a single trial.9"..."In NLP, a stimulus which is associated with and triggers a physiological response is termed an anchor."..."Anchors can be kinaesthetic, auditory or visual e.g. certain songs, images or smells can be extremely evocative of emotional states." Karunaratne describes a technique called "collapsing anchors" but says it is only appropriate for simple phobias. The rewind technique is also intended for treatment of traumatic phobias "in which even thinking briefly about an event causes a physiological emotional response, are stored as synaesthesias, where two representational systems become linked so that accessing one representation always results in access to the other"(Walker 2002 p. 147 as cited by Karunaratne 2010) "The NLP visual/kinaesthetic dissociation (V/KD; Bandler and Grinder, 1979) phobia cure dissociates this link." She then goes on to briefly describe the swish pattern. Followed by a section titled "Evidence in research" A number of studies are reviewed including Furman (1999) who "describes a study comparing the efficacy of four different brief therapies for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder." Einspruch and Forman (1988) "evaluated a program for curing phobias based on NLP" Liberman (1984) conducted a "pretest-posttest control group design study [where] twelve subjects meeting the DSM-III criteria for Simple Phobia were treated using the NLP phobia cure." Konefal & Duncan (1993) investigated "the effect of NLP training on social anxiety in twenty-eight adults was measured following a twenty-one day trial." According to Karunaratne (2010), "Both the NLP phobia cure and collapsing of anchors have been proven to be therapeutically effective individually, and Stanton15 investigated results when the two are used in conjunction."... Allen (1982) "explored the efficacy of NLP in changing the behaviour of thirty-six students with snake phobias." In the review Karunaratne (2010) concludes that "further research with larger populations and different phobias is needed to assess the efficacy of NLP in curing phobias." Karunaratne (2010) also describes reframing of phobias and dealing with resistance.

--Reconsolidation (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think anchoring is the strongest part of the model but that's based on OR. I think this is a bit wordy but a few sentences would be worth adding in the Other Uses section.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'further research' is needed is characteristic of the Sussex School; working with small samples of self-reported effects over short time periods, that is inevitable. It sounds like this source is the same, I suggest a single or possibly two sentences. No way does it warrant a whole section and I think we might need a qualification given that selling NLP training is the main occupation of the author who is selecting the studies. Over dependence on a single source is always an issue on Wikipedia, even before the COI issue. If any other editor had read the book or has seen the studies referenced, then their views would be welcome ----Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is something interesting, Reconsolidation, about your point that phobias may mean different things in NLP than in traditional psychological circles expressed in DSM IV. That might suggest the criticisms expressed by the sources in this article are wrong, and it might suggest the claims of the founders were right. The problem we have is that conclusion would represent original research and we would need a reliable source saying as much. Additionally success in making that point might detract from the view that the techniques are successful for addressing traditionally understood disorders since what we would have to agree was being treated would be something other than main stream psychologists understood. Thus better to drop the DSM argument when slimming this down to the sentence Snowded has indicated willingness to include. Make sense?--Encyclotadd (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, You make no sense to me because you failed to cite any sources to back up your position. I'll wait now to see if anyone comes up with any stronger sources for NLP and its applications in the treatment of phobias. Or to see if anyone wants to challenge my summary of that review. Otherwise, we can then proceed to collaborating on some text for the article to describe the technique and the evidence supportive or not. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Already challenged. Your proposed text is excessive for a single source from an editor with a commercial interest in NLP. The best you can do is a couple of sentences that says some support has been found for the use of NLP in treatment of phobias, that requires further research (per your own citation). For the avoidance of any doubt there is NO agreement to any change on that source without a draft presented on the talk page. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Side note there is an entry on NLP's VK/D rewind technique in The Encyclopedia of Trauma and Traumatic Stress Disorders, Infobase Publishing (Facts on File Library of Health & Living). The author is Ronald M. Doctor is an emeritus professor in psychology. To be honest, I was surprised that this review cited Krugman et al (1985) for some definitions but did failed to mention the nonsupportive findings of Krugman et al (1985). They compared an single-session treatment NLP technique for anxiety with a kind of self-regulated exposure therapy. They used a 1 hour waiting room control but there was no difference detected between single-session treatment NLP technique, exposure therapy and the control group of waiting in the room for an hour. We can only speculate why they left Krugman et al (1985) out. I'll check back in a week or so. --Reconsolidation (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

When you check back please have understood the rules on synthesis/combinatorics. You can be right in your own mind and viewed as edit warring by everyone else if you are constantly making arguments that have no basis in the way everyone else is discussing the article. Using meat puppets to then support the arguments I'm sure is raising hair on the back of admin by now. You obviously understand how to use google scholar and the apa psych info database - not sure why the Wikipedia rules would be so hard for you.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You are allowed to summarize reliable sources according to weight. It is not original synthesis. We just need to decide on weight and how much space in the article the sources can support. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The main negative POV footnote is a third party secondary source. You are wasting everyone's time by attempting to refute it with an individual first party primary source. It's very frustrating. Familiarize yourself with the rules and the nature of each source or we will get nowhere.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

I would like to remove the word " a discredited" and replaced with "an" in the first line. Discredited implies that there is absolutely no merit in an idea. Whilst there is legitimate commentary in the article about the weaknessess of the NLP approach in the article, the inclusion of this word in the first line is unhelpful since it is presented before the evidence.

Whilst there is doubt about its effectiveness therapeutically (as are other brief therapeutic techniques such as SFBT and EMDR) its use in sport and increasingly in education is the subjce of positive research output: reference: paper given at an internaitonal conference in 2003:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003319.htm

Granville60 (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Sorry, but I'm not convinced a single paper presented only at a conference carries sufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify the change, given the multiple higher quality sources cited in the lede. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

15th brand new SPA account created in the period since Comaze started editing again with a new ID. All making the same points ....

And for the information of editors unfamiliar with the field, the authors of the paper referenced also run an NLP consultancy and training business ----Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You guys don't realize the damage you are doing to the pro-NLP perspective in this article by violating Wikipedia rules. Whoever is orchestrating this meat farm please stop-- you're just perpetuating the myth that NLP is a cult. We can make improvements based on honesty and reliable sources instead. --Encyclotadd (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well there is some evidence of meat puppets being run from Sydney so I can see why you would make that reference. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any real difference between them and you to be honest, but happy to be proved wrong. They are simply saying they don't like some of the words. Given you have already edit warred on those words with no more grounds than they, you have you have little case to insult them. Are you really suggesting that editors opposed to your changes are organising multiple new IDs to discredit you? Why bother? ----Snowded ^TALK 23:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably Grinder's trainers selling new code or something. Huge mistake... will just end up circling back-- dishonesty always does. It never made sense that Grinder disavowed old code anyway. How was that a good idea? Conflicts of interest have needlessly cost the model credibility. The uphill battle on Wklipedia is absurd when it doesn't have to be. Honest people playing it straight is what we need coming together around reliable sources. That's what Wikipedia admin need to see.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont mind the sources as long as they are legit and properly referenced. It's just written horribly, from an outsiders perspective I would come away from the article being none the wiser about the subject matter. I believe it needs a reformat to give clarity. since the sources are ok and wikipedia relies on a consensus by the editors can we agree that it does need to be rewritten to provide a clearer understanding of the subject matter, rather than being a seemingly opined piece. also it appears snowded or someone has deleted my last request and discussion. why would they do that? Enemesis (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

diff for the deletion you are accusing me of please. Otherwise please feel free to draft a rewrite and post here or in a sandpit. I don't think it needs rewriting but happy to look at something concrete. But just repeating you opinions is not wheat the talk page is for - jousts wastes everyone's time----Snowded ^TALK 07:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

yes it is snowded, it is a place to discuss the article and gain consensus for edits. A consensus by definition is a decision made by the majority of the populace not ALL of the populace. if you are outnumbered then a new status quo for the article may take place and that will be regardless of your opinion. Enemesis (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:Consensus. Simple majority is not at all what consensus is about on wikipedia, and particularly the bulldozing of legitimate concerns and opinions by numbers alone that you are threatening is not acceptable. siafu (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you just say legitimate concerns? snowded the point is the decision is not up to you exclusively. That link that siafu left sort of backs up what I was saying in a few ways as well. siafu it is not a threat, it is more a reminder of how multiple editors work on a wiki page. Enemesis (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing the article Enemesis, and then for discussing changes in accordance with wikipedia policy. Your "outnumbered" threat is interesting given the number of new editors who have suddenly appeared. The community does not take kindly to meat or sock puppetry or canvassing so be careful. Otherwise, when you have specific changes supported by references bring them here. Until then stop wasting other editors time. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And please provide the requested diff or strike that accusation ----Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)