Jump to content

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JPLogan (talk | contribs) at 03:22, 27 December 2005 (→Other editors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Sub article

Neuro-linguistic programming/Working is now the working article, where I will make comprimises or fixes.

However, a few of the criticism sources are a bit questionable, at least the cult ones(7 habits of highly effective people is even criticism there!). On the other hand removing all references to cult behavoir, most of the science section, and the image would seem to be crossing into censorship. Lets agknowledge NLP's faults, and off course, if attributes that are supported scientifically can be found, then add them to the science section. The engram section should be modified to no longer focus on just engrams, as they are rarely used.

And lets not edit war down there either please.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VoiceOfAll. I checked the Loma ref again. Seven habits do not appear on that piece of literature. The NACHF paper focuses on empirically unvalidated (falsified) dubious therapies. So, the link to the webpage is not an accurate attribution, however the view that NLP is a dubious therapy in the same category as Dianetics is a credible source. 203.186.238.166 02:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)HeadleyDown 02:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I almost forgot, Stephen Covey is often criticised for his claims to scientific support for his 7 habits (although automaticity research refutes this) and he is about as guilty as Deepak Chopra for mixing mysticism with his "remedies". [1]. Regards HeadleyDown 02:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find an author named Loma. What is Loma's first name? And what university/organisation is this author attached to? --Comaze 04:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We still have no evidence that an author named Loma exists. How does this fabricated author keep getting into the article? And by the way NCAHF/Loma ref is not a paper at all, it is a short article that is not published by any reputable publisher. The Loma ref is most likely written by Steven Barrett. --Comaze 03:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine with me. And of course like every method that claims to enact influence NLP and hypnosis are used in the context of cults. I admit i overdid my proposal a little bit because the premature assumption of the self-proclaimed 'proponents of science' about me being an NLP-Fan together with the sloppy methodical work irked me somewhat. Personally i regard most of the methods collected in NLP as unverified regarding their effectiveness in a therapeutic setting, and as far as the scientific background goes: B & G made it clear enough that they aren't very much interested in it. Blauregen 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blauregen. Your excuses make it clear that the pseudoscience section is absolutely necessary for the article. It makes no difference whether BnG say they are priests, pragmatists, or anti-science gurus. The fact is, they make hypotheses and scientists test them. They propose theory to support their assertions, and those theories are odd mixtures of pseudoscientific and/or falsified theory and assumption built on assumption. They choose to create whole glossaries of obscurantism in order to sound scientific. And they make pseudoscientific excuses placing the burden of proof on science and on the consumer to prove the efficacy of their dubious rituals. They (and many other NLPers) also actively associate various other pseudosciences with their pet pseudoscience. (all according to the literature). HeadleyDown 02:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No HeadleyDown. We don't need to provide an additional explanation what pseudoscience is. I am all for mentioning that <source> regards NLP as pseudoscientific - though for the sake of brevity and comprehensibility we should restrict ourselves to a few reputable and representative sources - and to link to the appropriate article. That <source> stated this opinion is factually correct. Citing the complete list of reasons why they have this opinion is far beyond the scope of the article and should be left to the sources. Blauregen 08:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blauregen, your agenda to censor criticism is clear. The pseudoscience section should read "NLP's pseudoscientific characteristics". At least that would stop people like you from claiming we already know what pseudoscience is. Just read the thing clearly. It is not explaining to readers what pseudoscience is. It explains in what ways NLP is pseudoscientific, and it reduces the size of the article. NPOV states that a fact should be explained when the reason for the view is unclear. Pseudoscientific subjects are notoriously confusing. If there were no NLP pseudoscience section, those citations that are there would have to be mentioned in other places, and each with their own particular explanation. As it stands, the NLP pseudoscience section is a concise and clear network of facts. HeadleyDown 09:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to break this to you HeadleyDown, but your assertion is wrong. Around half of this section is simply swaggering about "The characteristics of pseudoscience....". If you have the impression that the appropriate article on pseudoscience is incorrect you should try to correct the errors there, instead of here. If you feel an urge to explain the pseudo-scientic characteristics of certain premises and methods of NLP this belongs to the appropriate methods and principles. There is a whole article on Principles of NLP where you could place criticism of said Principles, without artificially inflating this section of the main article. Blauregen 10:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I make no assertions about the pseudoscience article. However, I have noticed your desperation towards censoring the NLP pseudoscience section, thereby whitewashing the article. Remember that any side-section or extra articles on principles etc were written by similarly desperate fanatics who could not write their promotional obscurantisms on the main NLP article. So they decided to place their fringe psychobabble in other wikipedia places. NLP is a fringe practice. A single article is sufficient. HeadleyDown 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I am happy that the NLP page is locked for further edits and tagged as NPOV. People should conduct their own edit war on their own website. --Dejakitty 20:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Fine by me also. Saves me having to revert the censorship of fanatical meatpuppets. HeadleyDown 00:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I re-pasted in the images into the working article. They save the reader a great deal of time, and save having to spend a couple of extra paras each on explaining textually. HeadleyDown 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Headley and science orientation editors. Well done for showing a clear article and your clear explanation. The net is too full of false claimants. It appears here to dirty the encyclopedia, and you do well to brush it off. I wish I had more time. It is satisfying to point out the truth(facts). It looks like you get the satisfaction every day. All those unconvincing deluded (Comaze, FT2, old bandits, and the new fools (DejaKitty, AKlukis, and so on) have been well exposed for their wronghead promoting of fakevetenskap. Merry Xmas. HansAntel 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes wikipedia is satisfying. Its mostly clarity that is rewarding though. A kind of intrinsic motivation. ATB HeadleyDown 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I seem to have come at a bad time:) Well, it is clear that this article has some fervent believers, so I will try not to diss the gospel according to the authors. Anyway, I have been looking at the article and it looks quite scientifically deeply covered, and ---well I have to say it, NLP is considered a highly dubious pseudoscience according to my research also. From discussion it is also clear that the new age aspects of NLP explain a lot about its state. Well, here are some references from my investigations:

Concerning pseudoscience: Bandler and Grinder's observations, theories and grasp of neuroanatomy have been discredited and NLP is considered a dubious therapy according to (Elich, et al 1985; Gumm, et al 1982; Jupp, 1989; Poffel & Cross, 1985; Salas, et al 1989).

Elich, M., Thompson, R. W., & Miller, L. (1985). Mental imagery as revealed by eye movements and spoken predicates: A test of neurolinguistic programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 622-625.

Jupp, J. J. (1989). A further empirical evaluation of neurolinguistic primary representational systems (PRS). Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 2(4), 441- 450.

Gumm, W. B., Walker, M. K., & Day, H. D. (1982). Neurolinguistics programming: Method or myth? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(3), 327-330.

Poffel, S. A., & Cross, H. J. (1985). Neurolinguistic programming: A test of the eyemovement hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61(3, Pt 2), 1262.

Salas, J. A., de Groot, H., & Spanos, N. P. (1989). Neuro-linguistic programming and hypnotic responding: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Mental Imagery, 13(1), 79-89.

Hope this helps to clarify things. Merry tidings. DocEastwood DocEastwood 06:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the refs Doc. The more the merrier. ATB HeadleyDown 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Hi again. I noticed that engram is an 'issue' here. Well, if you're into popular psychology, you're gonna associate engram with scientology (because dianetics is part of popular psychology). I relate it to neurology theory, but then again, I am a scientist. I'm not really into popular psychology. Most people havn't a clue what an engram is. From my reading of the Dilts et al 1980s Subjective Experience book, its pretty clear that they're talking about engrams from cover to cover. - Internal circuits, V-K-A, fourtuples, and so on. If you mention senses and the neurology and mental processing that is entailed, you are talking about engrams. There's no escaping the fact that NLP is about engrams, even if they do handle the concept in an "odd" way. DocEastwood 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, NLP engrams seem to be a dead concept, possibly abandoned due to credibility issues. We shouldn't simply say "NLP is about engrams" if that is an outdated minority view. On the other hand, several major NLP authors did mention them, so we have to let the history speak for itslelf, and not just ignore them.
Quote"If you mention senses and the neurology and mental processing that is entailed, you are talking about engrams"
Well, not necessarily, engrams are a theory and are a slightly more detailed abration than "neurology". Most NLP books likely mentioned neurology just to use the word, because it seems scientific, I have seen this kind of thing before. That issue is already addressed in the criticism section though. Enneagrams, which are not scientific at all, are actually used more than egrams. You might want to increase their mentioning rather than the small engram idea.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VoA. I noticed that the engram term is actually used fairly recently, so its not outdated. Also, it would seem that engram is more a European/asian NLP term, than a minority one. I remember Hans mentioning that NPOV does have a passage about not being Anglo-american in perspective. I checked, and he's correct. BTW, its cool that we have a pagelock again. Cheers DaveRight 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DaveRight, I think that the use of engram in some Hong Kong "NLP" training is a minority view, and there are counter-example that would need to be given the same or more weight. --Comaze 03:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry. A google.de search on engram and nlp shows that most hits only use both terms in spatial proximity, the main sources that use use them otherwise are anglo-american and predominantly this article or ripoffs of it. Blauregen 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blauregen. Your search is narrow. As is your view. HeadleyDown 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi again VoA. The Dilts and BnG books all mention "circuits" when talking about those sense combinations/connections. They also talk about "loops". This is central to engrams theory and explains how NLP is supposed to sustain its brief quick fix methods. Neuronal nets as a concept does not cover circuits. The engram concept is the only concept in neuroscience covering neural circuits and loops. Cheers again. DaveRight 08:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So if i understand you correctly engrams as a neuroscientific concept (as opposed to the faulty use in dianetics) should be mentioned in the article in correlation to NLP? Well, they aren't that common, but if you insist i would not be opposed to mention them with an addition which interpretation is actually meant. This would give NLP an not entirely justified scientific appeal though. Blauregen 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a possible point for clarification. To my knowledge Dilts does not use the engram concept in relation to the subconscious. He does, however, make errors concerning the use of the neural network term (which refers to an artificial computing development) and he also makes pseudoscientific jumps from Hebb's rule, to the practicalities of NLP anchoring rituals (unfalsifiable). I think we could add something there, however, as it stands, some NLPers do make the gaff of applying engrams to the unconscious. In fact, some define the engram using exactly the same definition as the one invented by Hubbard [www.mcguireprogramme.com/articles/Unpredictability5.rtf]. Regards HeadleyDown 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction. According to wikipedia the term neural network refers to both, artifical and bilological structures. The supplied RTF refers to NLP only in one paragraph and a reference to Robbins, who as far as i know practces something he calls NAC, not basic NLP. It is hardly representative. Blauregen 14:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, the engram passage needs no changes at all. Anyway, your reliance on the web, and on other wikipedia pages is not particularly helpful. HeadleyDown 02:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dilts & Delozier's (2000) article on Artificial intelligence (http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html/AkAz18.html p.41) and it's influence on NLP is also relevant for the definition and use of Mind or neuro in NLP. See section on Bateson's Criteria of mind which is the minimal definition use in NLP practitioner training. --Comaze 02:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bateson's Criteria of Mind

The entire field of neural networks is based on circuits. For example the machine learning model, feedforward, feedforward loops. NLP (eg. Malloy et al 2005) actually does cite Neutral networks as the source for some brain theory. It is important to note that Grinder (2001) considers neurology to be outside the domain of NLP and encourages those interested in NLP to become familar with recent developments in cognitive linguistics so that those interested can work alongside researchers in other field such as neuroscience. According to Grinder the scope of NLP is primarily the "linguistically mediated maps of first access".
The relevant passage from "Steps to ecology of emergence is"...
"The conceptualization of knowledge in terms of the “all or none” character of “difference” goes back in its modern computationally-based form at least to McCulloch and Pitts (1943). The fundamentals of neural nets that they laid down have undergone various stages of elaboration and development by theorists like Hebb (1949), Holland (1975) and Varela, Thompson and Rosch (1993) among many others. And the rigorous focus on difference as the defining epistemological relationship was developed extensively by Bateson (1972, 1979/2002), and continued in our own work by DeLozier and Grinder (1987) with application as a teaching method by Malloy (2001). Influenced by McCulloch’s thinking (see M. C. Bateson, 1991), Gregory Bateson proposes that difference is the basis of mental process which itself has six criteria:
  1. Mind is an aggregate of interacting parts or components.
  2. The interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference.
  3. Mental process requires collateral energy.
  4. Mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination.
  5. In mental process the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms (i.e., coded versions) of the difference which preceded them.
  6. The description and classification of these processes of transformation discloses a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena. "(Malloy et al 2005 pp.40-41) --Comaze 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term is engram. And we have plenty of references that show the fact. Citing Grinder on neuroscience is like citing Hubbard. HeadleyDown 02:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Malloy, Grinder and Bostic should be given more weight than Sinclair based on notability and authority in the field. Above is a direct quote from Malloy, Grinder and Bostic-St Clair published in Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 2005. See also Dilts & Delozier (2000 pp.246-274). --Comaze 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Science needs more weight, Comaze, with supporting references. HansAntel 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weight is also determined by the verifiability, number of citations, authority of authors and reputation of publisher. Steps to ecology of mind (Bateson 1979) has over 1400 known citations so that source can be considered authoritative for Batesonian Epistemology. Steps spans many fields including communication theory and anthropology. --Comaze 04:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

How does everyone like the current proposal?[2] Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, VoA. Reasonable file size, clear and factual, with no particularly large passages censored. I think it should be stabilized more or less around there. Regards HeadleyDown 02:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article unprotected. Please make only minor changes to it without agreement. Larger changes can be made to the working article. Also, lets just keep the tag there since there is discussion. If Comaze or someone would like to replace it with sectional tags for certain areas, then please do so.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes Voicofall. Improving using incrementals is good. Also, I think the pseudoscience section can have info added. I have some European journal papers that explain more. But to be added piece by piece. HansAntel 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great, we need the highest quality references we can find. I've added NPOV sectional tags to the section that require higher priority of attention. --Comaze 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Higher", I take it there are other sections you have qualms with? Is it a general style or ref. issue, as the other sections seem like they could only use minimal work.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The current structure and layout of the document is fine, except I still think that the "Questionable applications" can be connected to the "Applications section". "False claims to science" can be merged with "Pseudoscience". In terms of refs there are still many over-generalisations that need to be connected to aspects or specific schools or authors of NLP because they are not shared by the entire field, this can be done by tracing back the citations in the references. Generally the style and prose can be more encyclopedic, and kept consistant throughout the entire document -- this might need to be delegated to an external wikipedian. Some of the less-notable references and content can probably be removed in favour more reputable sources that is both for definitions and criticism of NLP. In some cases the references do not closely match the attributed statements, we'll need to work on this one-by-one. --Comaze 05:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

I see that comaze has made the NPOV tag into more specific tags...good.

Now all we need is a point by point list, for each section, of what is wrong and a suggested fix.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK VoiceOfAll, but I am sure it is unneccesary to repeat what has been stated over and over in the archives. I suggest short replies to the NLP fanatics, and if they employ the old badgering trick, it is simply a trolling tactic that is best ignored. Regards HeadleyDown 09:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I list would be nice, as before, we often had long rants that were not very concise.
I noticed that you moved the picture down to the applications section. Thats seems fine over there. If every reference will get challenged or something, then I might be bothered.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Issues:

This is a draft list (still more to come). Feel free to populate the list --Comaze 22:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Neuro" in NLP

  1. Include short paraphrase of meaning of mind from Structure of Magic Vol.1 (1975a), Frogs into princes (1979), Whispering 2001, Malloy (2005).
  2. Definitely mention AI/Neural Networks/Hebb influence include refs
  3. Possibly mention Turing Machine, Neurological transforms, Linguistic transforms, first access (4-tuple, primary experience), linguistically mediated maps -- probably too much detail
  4. TOTE (Test-Operate-Test-Exit) proposed by Miller, Galanter & Pribram (1960). And Miller's The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two) and neuropsychologist Oliver Sacks.

OK, though I am not sure about number 3, much of that seems like it would go into too much detail, and digress. Definetely, the neural networks should go in, perhpas Millar influence, and some of the number 3 items.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific analysis of NLP

  1. Include peer-review journals [3] and [4]. Identify verifiability and notability of sources listed in those links.
  2. Include relevant findings APS conference, "Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) Pseudoscience or Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit"[5]
  3. include some information about proper experiment design as defined by Grinder and Bostic St-Clair (2002)
  4. Distinguish between clinical psychology studies and outcome based studies.

Comaze, these issues have been discussed before multiple times, and your persistent denial shows that you are only here to enlarge the article. None of the studies you present are conclusive. They offer no proof. The current scientific analsysis is conclusive and based on expert (clinical psychologists) views. Your addition of those refs will lead to multiple explanations being added and a much larger section. Considering your bad faith actions, I will remove the NPOV tag. HeadleyDown 02:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HeadleyDown. I've added point 4 based on your feedback. I'm still working on a paraphrase of the APS convention paper, we might be able to insert some relevant findings --Comaze 03:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you can get started on the working article. However, note the message on the bottom of those webpages about study size and the fact that these are not external. They will therfore be worded as "but studies by X contents that..."

However, the Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit link does not really go anywhere. The other two links mention or list reviews, but don't have them, and they are likely not by notable people. If there are any, then they can be cited.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

  1. Include findings 17th American Psychological Science conference, "Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) Pseudoscience or Topic of Peer Reviewed Academic Merit"[6] - a poster can be found on Michael Foley's site [7].
  2. Correction to ref Lilienfield et al 2003 [p.248 criticism is connected to VK/D (Grinder & Bandler 1979) that is used in workshops (eg. Figley) to treat PTSD, anxiety and trauma while VK/D lacks substantive clinical support Herbert, Lilienfeld et al. p.964[8]

If any relavent findings can be found then add them, but that first link is just an event summary. This may have very limited use then.

If the criticism refered only to one/several aspect(s), then reword the section on the working article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been forwarded the paper from the APS convention so I can paraphrase some relevant findings from there. --Comaze 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still doubt this will make much improvement. As for Lilienfield, I dont see what is wrong with the two areas he is cited at in that section. Do you not want the ref for the "self help delopement" part or at the list?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lilienfeld specificially criticises VK/D (Grinder & Bandler 1979) for treatment of trauma as taught in workshops, he says without substantive evidence. Lilienfeld does not study the entire field of NLP, at the moment Lilienfeld is overgeneralised. --Comaze 05:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Show how you would reword it one the workin article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry VoA, everyone: I've run out of time today. Should have some time tomorrow. --Comaze 10:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, Comaze is advocating that highly respected clinical psychologists should not have their views represented. And that NLP and turing machines should be. Go figure! HeadleyDown 16:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your feedback I modified the Lilienfeld point to make it more specific. --Comaze 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cult characteristics

  1. What authors, techniques or specific aspects of NLP are cult-like? All criticism needs to be connected to specific aspects of NLP.
  1. If NLP is a set of techniques what techniques are cult like, or used by cults? Is this just an opinion of the author, or is this cited? This needs to be balanced with Hassan and Prof. Charles Figley who consider techniques of NLP useful in helping people leave cults and the view that NLP is promoted as a way to encourage independant critical thinking
  2. Hassan is aware of some cult leaders that have trained in NLP, he is not aware of any cults that use NLP as a central part of the indoctrination methods.
  3. Some prominant trainers are Christian (eg. Dilts) some are Agnostic, some are against any sort of indoctination. At the moment the Cult section
  4. Gary Tippet is misrepresented[9]. He basically state that some cult leaders are training in NLP.
  5. Crabtree is not notable[10], this reference and attributed statement can be removed or truncated into the first sentence in that section, "NLP is referred to a technique used by both mild and aggressive cults".
  6. Singer, Margaret & Janja Lalich are given alot of weight in the article. What aspects or schools of NLP are they criticising?

Well, the difference between the "commercial cult" and actual cults should be stated more clearly in the article.


Specific attributtes of NLP, such as group pressure, should be tied to cult criticism, rather than all of NLP. There likely is no cult that is just build around being an "NLP cult". NLP does seem like a "commercial cult" at times, given the secretiveness, ellusion of peer review, ect...Criticism should be reworded to either "some aspects" or the exact ones("aspects, such as..."), but it should not just be deleted.

Commercial cult is already mentioned in order to distinguish the sect/religion/cults from commercial cults. The term 'new age' could be useful there though.HeadleyDown 02:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the "NLP sucks" quotes have already been trimmed out, so we won't need to cut out too many more of those.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified comments about Hassan, added Crabtree, and Tippet while you were editing. Based on your comments I'll refactor the list accordingly. I'll be back later . Can you change your comments after it has been refactored? :) --Comaze 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree to remove or truncate Crabtree ref , and reword Tippett? This should be fairly simple. Then we can cross out those two points and move forward --Comaze 09:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors

FT2 has "given up" on this article. Fuelwagon won't be back anytime soon [11]. Where the others?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hay, VoiceOfAll. Didn't someone remind you? Its Christmas:) Comaze is hoping Santa will allow him to remove all criticisms from the article. HeadleyDown 16:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My primary focus now is accuracy; closeness of attribution to the actual source. --Comaze 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Comaze's focus in actual fact is just the same as it always was; To remove criticisms of NLP. This is quite a dry season, but I will be checking up on things at least once a week - forever. And any facts I see that should be in the article, I will paste right back there. You hear that Comaze? JPLogan 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=32833667"