Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Pseudo science

Actually there are many references - I've been planning to make some edits to the main body based on the material, but there is enough here and here to justify use of the category. --Snowded ^TALK 08:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. AJRG (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Pleasure, unfortunately another editor did not even bother to read the edit summary --Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple of Google searches didn't convince him. Can you quote verbatim from two or three of your best sources? AJRG (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Read his edit summary, he didn't even look at the talk page. I've asked him to self revert as WP:BRD applies. --Snowded ^TALK 08:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

However, to respond to the query - from Tomasz Witkowski "Thirty-Five Years of Research on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP Research Data Base. State of the Art or Pseudoscientific Decoration?" which is one of the articles available without paying. Its also a disciplined survey of many papers building on Heap.

"being the background for the pseudoscientific farce, which NLP appears to be. Using “scientific” attributes, which is so characteristic of pseudo- science, is manifested also in other aspects of NLP activities. It is primarily revealed in the language – full of borrowings from science or expressions referring to it, devoid of any scientific meaning. It is seen already in the very name – neuro-linguistic programming - which is a cruel deception. At the neuronal level it provides no explanation and it has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming. Similarly impressive sounding and similarly empty are expressions used for formulation of tenets of the concept, such as sub-modalities, pragmagraphics, surface structure, deep structure, accessing cue, and non- accessingmovement. My analysis leads undeniably to the statement that NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever."

Enough I think --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting author who hoaxed a Polish psychology journal. The study, though, suffers from selection bias: Witkowski has his own (unstated) definition of NLP which he uses to exclude data from the sample. AJRG (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the hoax assuming its true, Shows someone with a good sense of the absurd and the guts to demonstrate the ease with which people can be taken in! All studies need to make selections and when I read it there seemed clear. That said, its not our place to comment on the quality of the article if it has been in a refereed journal. There are several others as well on the search, I selected one that was readily available by was of illustration.--Snowded ^TALK 04:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Tomasz Witkowski went to the trouble of recreating the Sokal Hoax might suggest that he has serious reservations about the quality of the peer review process. I came across a detailed reply to this paper here. AJRG (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I review around 4/5 articles a month for journals where I am on the editorial panel, and I've been through it as an author. I think any intelligent person has serious reservations about the process but the fact remains that Witknowski's paper is in a refereed academic journal and the counter is a subpage of a commercial NLP site. So its a curiosity no more. I know I have said this before but I am impressed by your facility to use internet searches --Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

With all that journal income, you'll soon be able to afford my fees... AJRG (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

lol, happy to give you 80% of zero --Snowded ^TALK 15:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Snowded; Still plugging away, I see :)
Anyway, I thought I'd drop in a comment or two about one of your latest claims.  Namely that my response to Witkowski's article is "a subpage of a commercial NLP site".

In the first place, what is it you think I'm selling?  Due to a disagreement over my publisher's, sorry - EX-piublisher's - ethics I have withdrawn both of my books from publication.  So, no cigar on that score.
And in any case, are you really not aware that Mr Witkowski is also a published author of books, in Poland?

In the second place your comment is a complete red herring.  My response to Witkowski Review of Witkowski's article, regardless of where it was published, is either correct or incorrect on a point-by-point basis.  Arguing that my entire article is less valid just because it doesn't appear in a peer-reviewed journal is neither here nor there - except to an academic like yourself who has a vested interest in perpetuating a system that pretends that academics are smarter than the rest of us.  Which is certainly not always the case.

You also seem to have forgotten to mention that I have had a response to Dr Michael Heap's articles (1988, 1989 & 2008) published by Michael Heap in his own yearly sceptic's magazine - The Skeptical Intelligencer, Vol. 11, 2008.  Since my article Response to Dr Heap's criticisms took up nearly half the magazine, which is financed by Dr Heap himself, I hardly think he used my article merely in order to extract the rejected body fluid, as one sock puppet suggested a while back.  More likely, I think, it was because even though he doesn't support the FoNLP, he at least has the integrity to present both sides of the case and allow his readers to draw their own conclusions.

Of course your argument matches Witkowski's overlong and basically irrelevant claim that even getting reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal isn't worth a whole lot unless it is a "highly rated" peer-reviewed journal.  Yet as I demonstrate in my own article, it takes no effort at all to find material in highly-rated journals which make the same mistakes as can be found in articles in less highly-rated journals.  The following (24 point rated) examples are both taken from Witkowski's article:

• An article by Coe and Sharcoff (1985) in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis which is invalid because the researchers were examining a claim that the co-creators of the FoNLP had never made - the myth that a person's PRS could be ascertained by self-report and/or watching their eye movements as well as by listening to their use of sensory predicates;
• An article by Matthews, Kirsch and Mosher (1985) in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology which is invalid because it reported on an investigation the "NLP double hypnotic induction", which doesn't exist, i.e. whilst there is certainly a technique called the "double hypnotic induction", it is not an NLP-related technique, and neither Nandler nor Grinder ever claimed that it was.

Likewise it is extremely misleading to imply that the peer-review process has anything to do with establishing the "truth" of any article. For example, amongst other relevant material published by the Journal of Counseling Psychology in the 1980s there was an article by Falzett (1981) which supported the value of using a person's PRS, an article by Sharpley (1984) which claimed there wasn't even a sure way of determining someone's PRS, a response by Einspruch and Forman (1985) which said that both Sharpley's review and most of the material he reviewed had missed the point, and Sharpley's so-called "rebuttal" (1987) which counter-claimed that it was Einspruch and Forman who had missed the point.

So, does that mean that "NLP" was valid in 1981, until Sharpley's article in 1984, then valid again in 1085, but invalid again in 1987?
I don't think so.

AndyzB (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry its very simple. A peer reviewed journal counts as a reliable source here, while a blog article does not. Why not submit it? --Snowded ^TALK 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Andy, why don't you polish your blog article and submit it? Someone needs to get a hold of all those original experiments and critique the methodology. Its like the blind leading the blind. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The NLP-pseudoscience issue is interesting from the new Witkowsi paper, and worth explaining more clearly. Witkowski emphasizes the pseudoscientific characteristics beyond the fact that NLP has no reliable evidence for effectiveness. So in the context of pseudoscience, he covers Sharpley’s paper on NLP being an untestable (pseudoscientific) theory : Sharpley, C. F. (1987). Research findings on Neurolinguistic Programming: nonsupportive data or untestable theory? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 103-107

But Witkowski goes deeper looking at NLP’s discredit and implausibility, referring to Norcross et al and Singer and Lalich. Nocross, J. C., Koocher, G. P., & Garofalo, A. (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice Copyright, 37, 515–522

Singer, M. T., & Lalich, J. (1996). "Crazy" therapies. What are they? Do they work? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers So the pseudo-science issue in NLP involves, but is a bit different from the issue of empirical results. There are slightly different views/rationales from those who say it is pseudoscientific. It has no reliable evidence for effectiveness, but that is only one aspect. There are other sources online:

Lilienfeld makes use of NLP as an example of pseudo-science in this article:

http://www.srmhp.org/0101/raison-detre.html

and in research articles on teaching undergraduates how to identify pseudoscience: Lilienfeld, S. O., Lohr, M., & Morier, D. (2001). The teaching of courses in the science and pseudoscience of psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 182-191

There are other sources that teach critical thinking and identify NLP as pseudoscience: Teaching critical thinking in psychology: a handbook of best practices (2008). By Dana Dunn, Jane S. Halonen, Randolph A. Smith ISBN: 978-1-4051-7402-2. PP12

“From the beginning of course, scientific psycholog had many pseudoscientific competitors to contend with, ranging from astrology to graphology. In the 20th century and the growth of technology, we saw the introduction of nonprofessional therapies that added scientific sounding language: neurolinguistic programming, right-brain training programs, the Transcutaneious, Electro-Neural Stimulator, the Brain SuperCharger, the Whole Brain Wafe Form Synchro-Energizer. The appeal of such psychobabble is not surprising: people have a great nead for easy answers that promise escape from uncertainty and that do not require them to think too hard.”

There is evidence of this on the web also in the form of presentation slides with similar references sections: In the field of language and linguistics:

http://show.zoho.com/public/simonspears/Scientific-Thinking-in-Speech-Therapy-ppt

(Lum identifies NLP as pseudoscientific, some of the slides of the above are from the book: Lum, C. (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, New Jersey London)

“Have you ever wondered about the difference between speech and language therapy and other occupations (e.g.) elocutionists) and complementary therapies (e.g. iridology, reflexology, aromatherapy), or pseudo-scientific interventions such as neuro-linguistic programming?) They differ from one another in significant ways. “ (Lum 2001, p16)

In the field of psychology (as above):

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dfbw8nz3_1hqgpsbf7&pli=1

Devilly (2005) also uses NLP as an example of pseudoscience in: Devilly.G. (2005) Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Vol.39 p.437

Singer and Lalich (1997) in Crazy Therapies. The reviews of the book state it is about pseudoscientific therapies and the authors have a whole section devoted to neurolinguistic programming. Singer and Lalich mention the fact that there is no evidence of effectiveness. But they also talk about the exaggerated and pseudo-scientific terms. They also talk about the implausibility of the claims.

Singer (1996) says "none of the NLP developers have done any research to "prove" their models correct though NLP promoters and advertisers continue to call the originators scientists and use such terms as science, technology and hi-tech psychology in describing NLP"

Singer, Margaret & Janja Lalich (1997). Crazy Therapies: What Are They? Do They Work?. Jossey Bass, p167-195. ISBN 0787902780.

Also in Prometheus chained: Social and ethical constraints on psychology. Drenth, Pieter J. D. European Psychologist, Vol 4(4), Dec 1999, 233-239. doi: 10.1027//1016-9040.4.4.233

“Here again we find a great number of pseudo-scientific horsefeathers: neuro-emotional integration, reincarnation therapy, scientology, and – a more recent popular approach – neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). Again, the latter will be elaborated as a good example of the humbug being peddled out in this field.”

“Often pseudo-scientific practices are motivated by loathsome pursuit of gain. We have already seen the economic manipulation of the credulity of NLP quarries.” He writes about pseudoscientists and their manipulation using the ignorance or desperation of clients.

There is also a section in neurolinguistic programming in an Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience that also covers NLP’s pseudoscientific ideas and identifies its lack of evidence for effectiveness:

Dr William F. Williams, Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2000) publ. Fitzory Dearborn Publishers, ISBN 978-1-57958-207-4

So to show the common scientific view of NLP as pseudoscience, and the explanations for why it is considered pseudoscience, it will probably need its own sub-section in the scientific criticism section. Following Witkowski and others above, that can include: NLP as a pseudoscientific title, NLP concepts being pseudoscientific, and NLP practitioners using pseudoscientific myths and perspectives.Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Th criticism section really needs more structure, do you feel up to a redraft? I used Witkowski as it was one of the few on the list that was easily accessible for other editors to check, but it was only one of many examples, the list above with the commentary fleshes that out considerably. If we get that section right then the lede can be changed to provide a summary --Snowded ^TALK 09:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be quite easy to expand or re-integrate what is already there. It may or might not need sub-sections. The above is plenty to work with for now. I will have a go. Please correct any language mistakes I might make. I will be working from my cognitive linguistics background, so other business, philosophy of science, or science perspectives are welcome. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Very happy to help --Snowded ^TALK 10:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I jumped the gun a little. I think I agree with Snowded here. We need a section that gives an outline of the argument of critics. I think it would be best to start from an article that is peer-reviewed and use as the main source to structure the section. The Witkowski paper is not a good example because it was not written by a native speaker of english and makes many basic errors. Can you suggest an article which best represents the skeptic's argument? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets let Lam Kin Keung draft something, he has a solid grip on the sources and its easy to correct english --Snowded ^TALK 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Issues in view of NLP as pseudoscience

Hello. Here is a structure that gives clear explanation of the issues of this view. Some of it is from the prior section. There is more to check or add, but here is a draft below Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC):

NLP has been criticized beyond its lack of reliable evidence for effectiveness. Certain neuroscientists, linguists and psychologists have written that; neuro-linguistic programming is a pseudo-scientific title; NLP uses pseudo-scientific claims, concepts and terminology; NLP exhibits characteristics that identify pseudo-scientific developments; and NLP appears on lists of discredited therapies.

The term neuro-linguistic programming has been identified by some sources as a pseudo-scientific title. Roderique-Davies (2009) says that the name of neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific and wholly inappropriate as it offers no explanation of behavior at the neurological level. Witkowski (2010) also states that at the neuronal level NLP provides no explanation at all and it has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming. Similarly, Corballis (1999) has stated that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability".[57]

Witkowski (2010) states that NLP uses impressive sounding and similarly empty expressions such as; pragmagraphics, surface structure, deep structure, accessing cues, non-accessing movement etc. Beyerstein (1995) also says that NLP contains pseudo-scientifically applied terms such as eye accessing cues, metamodeling, micromodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, presuppositions, representational systems, and submodalities. He says this is to obfuscate and to give the impression of a scientific discipline.[58] According to Beyerstein (1995) "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."[59]

With regard to the perceived promotion of popular myths and anti-scientific perspectives, Beyerstein (1995) has implicated NLP in promoting a set of neuro-mythologies of the New Age involving a relativistic perspective and the use of “you create your own reality” in an attempt to gain immunity from scientific testing. Devilly (2005) has used NLP as an example of a type of pseudo-science called a “power therapy”, and has outlined a number of characteristics that identify such pseudo-sciences. Such characteristics include the promotion of unobtainable goals, rationalization traps, manufactured credibility, a set of specific beliefs, self generated persuasion, vivid appeals, the use of common misconceptions, and attacks on critics through the use of innuendo.

NLP has also been included in literature critiquing pseudo-science in general. Sources include books such as Crazy Therapies (1997), the Encyclopedia of Pseudo-science (2000), Science and Pseudo-science in Clinical Psychology (2002) The Skeptic's Dictionary (2003) and Tall Tales about the Mind and Brain (2007). NLP has more recently been used as a key example of pseudo-science to facilitate the understanding of the importance of rational and critical thinking in a number of academic subjects. Lum (2001) uses NLP as an example for understanding the difference between science and pseudo-science in language and speech therapy, and Lilienfeld et al (2001) and Dunn et al (2008) have used NLP as an example of pseudo-science for teaching undergraduates how to identify pseudo-scientific psychological interventions.

According to Witkowski (2010), NLP also appears on “the list of discredited therapies” published in the journal; Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. With reference to work by Carroll (2003), Della Sala (1999), Lilienfeld et al (2003) and Singer and Lalich (1996) on identifying “pseudoscientific, unvalidated, or “quack” psychotherapies”, Norcross et al. (2006) have rated NLP on a continuum of discredited procedures. They listed “Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) for treatment of mental/behavioral disorders” at “3.87 (SD=0.92)” which achieves a similar level of discredit as dolphin assisted therapy, equine therapy, psychosynthesis, scared straight programs, and emotional freedom technique (EFT). Subsequent literature by Norcross et al. (2008) shows that “neurolinguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence” was rated among the top ten most discredited of the interventions included in the study [64], and in Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010), NLP is listed as “certainly discredited”.

It looks good to me although I would be tempted to include the self-reported/phenomenological reliance in the first sentence. --Snowded ^TALK 08:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that is just a original synthesis. You are not allowed to take bits and pieces from different sources and create your own synthesis. See WP:FRINGE. But its not that simple. You can remove the subtitles if you want. Keep up the good work. Just don't put it to the article yet until others editors have had a chance to comment and make suggestions. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How on earth is that synthesis? It summarises the issue with lots of references. No conclusions are drawn which are not in the source material. --Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is original research and/or synthesis because it takes bits of pieces from multiple sources and then combines them in a novel way. As it stands it is just a hotch potch of statements from different critics. You need to find the most reputable/reliable source that outlines the arguments of critics. You can even paraphrase this. But we need to find and agree on an appropriate source first before redrafting anything. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All wikipedia articles summarise material using references from multiple sources not a single source. This is prevarication --Snowded ^TALK 04:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Good editing is about selecting and rephrasing sources. But this article is difficult because the sources appears to be polarized between proponents and skeptics, and few in the middle. I'm trying to get from you a high quality source that best summarises the arguments of skeptics. Suggestions? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really agree with your language here. Its not that most academic sources are skeptical about NLP, its that they dismiss it as a pseudo science. It is more than legitimate to summarise those sources in this article, and there is no need or requirement to find a single summary source. --Snowded ^TALK 08:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Snowded. I think you are right the first sentence needed more about going beyond evidence. Actually the phenomenology issue could stay in the before Empirical Validity section because it has more focus there. The issues of pseudo-science usually go further than issue of empirical measurements. Instead the Devilly source explains better the issue of promotion perspective and anti-science. There could be some overlap between the sections but so that long it explains the matter clearly it should be ok. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that you make use of an impartial tone. Also, avoid stating opinions as facts. See if you can achieve some neutrality by introducing the notable counter-arguments for each criticism. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You might be getting close to the creationist argument here that all things are theories. We are not required to be neutral in the sense of accepting both scientific criticism of NLP, and the arguments of NLP advocates as having equal value. --Snowded ^TALK 08:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually agnostic, or maybe weak atheist. I do not believe in god or creationism but I would still attempt to "write for the enemy" to counteract my bias. I would outline the arguments of adherents and scientists without letting my personal bias intrude. If you're honest, the watchmaker argument is somewhat convincing. But that is a different kettle of fish. There is clear consensus in science that evolution is the better theory as it has superior explanatory adequacy, is testable, and it is confirmed by experimental data. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is not what you would or would not do, but how wikipedia is written. Here we are talking about NLP as a pseudo-science in a section under that name. There is no requirement to counter the over-wealming evidence of the scientific community within this section. The tone at the moment reflects the sources which is what it is meant to do. I think its time to put it in place with some minor tweaks. --Snowded ^TALK 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Writing for the enemy" is a good way to counter personal bias which is clearly a problem in this draft in its current form. In fact, neutral point of view is required when writing for wikipedia. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not addressing the point. The text summarises existing scientific literature which is the standard in WIkipedia. If you think it doesn't do that then provide an example. If you have references from reliable sources that provide counter arguments then list them. If you can't do either then I will put the existing text into the article. --Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What would be acceptable to you as a reliable source? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:RS --Snowded ^TALK 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone provided evidence of this being a majority view? If not, then we should be clear that it's a significant minority view. AJRG (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any scientific sources which counter this, and several of the "its pseudo-science" articles summarise the literature so its clearly the dominant view. Of course if you can find anything which says otherwise, happy to look at it. --Snowded ^TALK 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Most reliable sources don't describe NLP as pseudoscience. They usually point to the need for better quality research. Until that changes, it's a significant minority view. AJRG (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2000) doesn't qualify as a reliable source - see David Bloomberg's Nov 2000 review in Skeptical Inquirer... AJRG (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please give your best example of the "its pseudo-science" articles that summarise the literature so I can check it. Crazy therapies (Singer 1997) is not a WP:RS. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I already linked you to the one that is readily available, and the others are well summarised above and they have been in place for some time. If there are specific authorities you dispute please list them with a reason (not a statement) --Snowded ^TALK 02:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of the following journals, which ones would be acceptable to show counter-arguments? The Coaching Psychologist, Qualitative Research in Organizations, Curriculum journal, Journal of Transformative Learning, Journal of Consciousness Studies, The Psychotherapist, Human Resource Development Review, Qualitative Research in Management and Organization, Learning Organization, Constructivism, Innovations in Education and Teaching --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Crazy Therapies is written by psychology professionals (PhD level) Singer and Lalich. It includes a big section on NLP. It is referred positively by Norcross et al (2006) as literature examining pseudoscientific psychotherapies. Carroll (2003) could be added (Carroll, R. T. (2003). The skeptic’s dictionary. New York: Wiley.).

The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is edited by Williams. The (17 or more) advisors, consultants and contributors are mostly PhD level lecturers and professionals. It is cited by e.g. Technical Communication Quarterly 12. 3 (Summer 2003): 267-284. The Rhetoric of Junk Science.Hass, Bruce; Kleine, Michael.

The sources are accurate and reliable for statement that NLP is included in books critiquing pseudoscience.Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my impression as well when I checked the two books out. I can't see any reason stated above as to why these are not reliable sources. AJRG & the IP do you have any arguments here? If not I think this has gone on long enough. --Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I gave you the Skeptical Inquirer reference. To quote from the review: ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout.", "It reads more like a collection of opinions", "[needs to] contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." AJRG (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Lam Kin Keung's draft still fails to include any context or counter-arguments. By what criteria did you select your sources and snippets, and exclude others? You still have failed to give me your best source that represents the skeptics arguments. What source best summarises the views of proponents? Is there a source that impartially reviews both sides? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting to the deeper issues and context, the main criticism of the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is that it has “Paranormal Favouritism” and is not critical enough.

The scientific skepticism views and context have some added points. A good recent source is that of the linguist and the skeptic Dr Stollznow:

“NLP is simply another pseudoscience with a pretence to science in its name, terminology, and alleged lineage.”

Not-so Linguistic Programming: Skeptic vol 15, Number 4 2010. Pp7

There are two issues to add from that source. One is that the claim to previous expertise is also pseudoscientific one. The other is the similarity with scientology:

“With its promises to cure schizophrenia, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder, NLP shares similarities with Scientology and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR.”

Stollznow (2010) Pp 7

The Norcross references have NLP and scientology together in the research, Devilly (2005) writes of scientology in relation to power therapies and NLP and Drenth 1999 also writes of scientology in the same criticism as NLP. So the scientology information from the skeptics resources could add a bit different view to the present information. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you start quoting partisan sources such as skeptics magazines and books then you're opening the gates for equally partisan sources from NLP proponents. That's why I suggest we begin with a source that outlines the arguments from both sides in an impartial way. Also, keep to peer-reviewed journals only which will help filter out most junk and save all time. Can you please comment about the acceptability of some of those journals I mentioned above? Would they be acceptable sources to you? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will look into them. As Snowded mentioned, the current section above is ready for adding to the article. We can make discussion of additional sources separately. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So if I understand it you're looking into the counter arguments of both sides? This needs to be done before inserting anything. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been looked at. The criticism section is ready for update. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. It doesn't make clear that this is a significant minority view, and woefully fails NPOV. AJRG (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I clarified the first 2 lines. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

AJRG - how can you say it is a minority view when its nearly all the available sources? So you have something which says that? Either (to our IP_ are we required to show counter arguments to statements made by reliable sources. This is time wasting. Without a counter source the material needs to go up. --Snowded ^TALK 15:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on NLP don't use the term pseudoscience. You've provided a few that do, so this is a significant minority view. AJRG (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect, minority view is an interpretation on your part. We have a significant number of academic sources which say it is. You have not provided ones so far that directly or indirectly say it is not. Anyway as far as this argument there are significant sources which say that it is, and that is all the proposed amendment reflects. If you find reliable sources that reject the claim then they might be included as a counter balance. However they would have to be comparable, ie from refereed journals. I would cast doubt by the way on a journal created by NLP advocates and refereed by them--Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence for this being a majority view. Publication of a claim in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it a majority view. AJRG (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text does not say that it is the majority view, it follows normal WIkipedia style in reporting what reliable sources say. If you think there is an issue with WP:WEIGHT then you need to find some comparable sources that counter the position otherwise I can't see any valid objection to the text as proposed --Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliable and neutral sources indicating that NLP may have empirical validity then these need to be balanced against those sources claiming NLP to be pseudoscience. The fact that some sources suggest that it is pseudoscience is notable. Claims of pseudoscience, however, don't necessarily mean that something such as NLP is definitely false or invalid - often it just means that it hasn't, for whatever reasons, satisfied the required empirical criteria. The fact that some sources claim it to be pseudoscience needs to be mentioned in a neutral way - not in a way that suggests that such claims are objectively true. Sometimes what people assume should be "reliable sources" turn out not to be so reliable at all. Ontologicos (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources above are reliable compared to the majority of the sources in the article. They are from scientific viewpoints. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience - but you don't actually need to include that. The new wording is a slight improvement, but the last paragraph about Norcross et al. is OR in this context and shouldn't be in this section at all. AJRG (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Williams Ed (2000) is reliable, especially for the statement. Norcross et al (2006) refer directly to other the sources in the section. I will update and make it easier to read. There is a new reference for the issue too:

Glasner-Edwards. S., and Rawson.R. (2010) Evidence-based practices in addiction treatment: Review and recommendations for public policy. Health Policy. Volume 97, Issues 2-3, October 2010, Pages 93-104 Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is still OR. Either directly quote Norcross on NLP as pseudoscience, from a reliable source, or leave the section out. AJRG (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like OR to me - what is factually incorrect? Also please clarify, when you say section you mean the last paragraph, or are you now arguing a wider case? --Snowded ^TALK 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Norcross papers don't support the claim of pseudoscience - they make a different claim which is already reported in the article. Trying to infer support is OR. AJRG (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not original research. Quotes are ok though, have been added with further examples of the continuum for clarity. Research of Norcross et al takes the pseudo-science issue and adds further case adding consensus and granularity to a continuum of discredit.Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I think with your latest changes we are now there. AJRG, if you still have objections would you list them please. At the moment you only seem to be arguing the Norcross point, is that the only objection?

The two paragraphs starting "NLP is also considered" still imply a majority view and need to be recast. Unless you can directly quote Norcross on NLP as pseudoscience, from a referenced reliable source, inclusion is OR (as well as undue weight since the actual claim is already in the article). AJRG (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

SO if we change "is also considered" to say who said it and move the Norcross the main criticism section will that satisfy you. I really disagree with you by the way on both points, but I am testing a compromise --Snowded ^TALK 11:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Subject to sight of the actual wording, that could be a reasonable compromise. AJRG (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

So start those two paragraphs with a new one saying "A range of academic commentators have stated that NLP is a pseudo science:" then have the two paragraphs as bullets removing the considered and just stating the reasons.  ??? --Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"A range of" is poor, as it implies a wider membership. "A number of" is more accurate. I'm not wild about your bullet point idea, but give it a try. AJRG (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree. I made the even stronger changes to the two lines. Also the main issue of the section is “NLP has been criticized beyond its lack of reliable evidence for effectiveness”. That includes the pseudoscience related criticisms and the discredit related criticisms of Witkowski, Norcross et al and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson. I should have made that clearer in that first paragraph. See if it ok now. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Where in the Norcross paper does it discuss, report findings or make conclusions regarding NLP for the treatment of mental disorders? Can you provide a quote and page numbers? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Norcross et al (2006) state “ Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) for treatment of mental/behavioral disorders” and give average of second round at “3.87 (SD=0.92)” at page 518. Witkowski (2010) also states this as on "the list of discredited therapies" and “Neuro-linguistic Programming for treatment of mental/behavioral disorders averaged 3.87 (SD=0.92)” page 65. Norcross et al 2008 list “Neurolinguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence” under “Top 10 Discredited Mental Health Treatments” (page 198) in the section “The Dark Side: Identifying What Does Not Work” page 196. In section “1.2.1. Treatments that do not work” Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list “Neuro-linguistic programming” under “Certainly Discredited” page 97. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we now replace the "Scientific criticism" section with the above text. We can then look at changing the final paragraph of the lede to reflect this material --Snowded ^TALK 06:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the Scientific Criticism section is a bad idea. This majority of reliable sources ask for better research. Only a few make the pseudoscience claim. AJRG (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have relevant research reviews that state your objection? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the default scientific position. Reviews that don't use the term pseudoscience cannot be used to artificially inflate your point of view, and so still belong in a separate section. AJRG (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement “a good deal more empirical support is needed before the positive therapeutic claims of neurolinguistic programming proponents can be taken seriously” is more relevant to the Empirical validity section.

Following your concern of reviews that use the term pseudo-science, this could also be added or paraphrased to the section on “criticisms beyond lack of evidence” if you want more quotes:

Drenth (1999) states that “The wellknown Dutch psycholinguist Levelt (1995) has passed devastating judgment on NLP: It does not know the literature, it makes use of insights that have been rendered out of date long ago, concepts are not understood or are a mere fabrication, conclusions are based upon wrong presuppositions. The theory and practice of NLP has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights, nor with linguistics, nor with informatics and programming.) page 235

“Pseudo-sciences such as NLP, homeopathy, and spiritual healing are not without danger. In the first place we often see a more serious relapse after a temporary improvement, as was shown recently by the psychologist Vervaet in a follow-up study of victims of healing by praying. Moreover, in case of no or little success people suffer not only from feelings of disappointment, but also from feelings of guilt and failure (lacking motivation, insufficient faith). Third, it prohibits serious investigation and diagnostics with sometimes tragic consequences”. Drenth (1999) page 236 Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I will start working on the lede. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no analysis or discussion of that data specific to NLP by Norcross which puts into doubt its citation here and puts into doubt the reliability of Witkowski as a source because there is no way to know if it was statistically significant. We don't why it was not analysed or included in the discussion. Perhaps there was too much variation in the data to allow for any inference. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

They are both reliable sources for information presented. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

On what basis is it reliable given that no statistical inference is justified? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:RS Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Before current section of facts on criticisms beyond… is added, here is optional paragraph that includes explanation about the growth of NLP. Prof Lassiter and Roderique-Davies give explanation:

Some criticisms of NLP give explanation as to why NLP has been adopted in some situations: In criticizing the use of NLP as inappropriate for police interrogations, Lassiter (2004) says that NLP is accurately described as pseudo-science, and is based upon premises that are prime facie implausible, folklore and myth, and may be a throwback to trial by ordeal. Roderique-Davies criticizes NLP as a “cargo cult psychology. (page 62)”

Lassiter, G. D. (Ed.). (2004). Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment. New York: Springer. (page 79)

This and other criticisms about the perceived cult-like nature of NLP could be added as there is the time. Or the current section on "criticisms beyond…." could be just added as it is. What is your preference? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any more objections so I suggest you make the change --Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Its been in more than acceptable factual state for a long time. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. On what basis is it reliable given that no statistical inference is justified? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That is your commentary on the content of the article, it does not challenge its reliability unless you have an article with equivalent authority which makes the point. You need a reference that makes the same criticism --Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re- the heading for scientific criticisms section: It is written showing scientific points of view concerning NLP. Witkowski and Beyerstein look at NLP and its anti-science perspective, Lilienfeld, Devilly, and others look at its pseudoscientific characteristics. Its clearly scientific criticisms. If you have other evidence, discuss here. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

They're certainly academic, but poorly informed rehashes of other peoples opinions don't have anything to do with science (which the OED defines as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"). Pseudo-science ("a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method") is a rhetorical accusation, not a scientific term. AJRG (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be the view of yours that the pseudoscience characterization is just rhetoric, or just academic. Academic has a misleading doubletalk meaning. There are other options. The title could be "pseudoscience and research on discredit", "Criticism from science professionals", "Characteristics of Pseudo-science", or just "Scientific Criticism". None of those latter titles holds double meanings. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

None of these suggestions are acceptable. Academic has a clear primary meaning (see here) whereas its secondary (purely colloquial) meaning is not applicable in this context. AJRG (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a summary of reliable sources, I don't see any basis on which you can say its a "poorly informed rehash". Are you saying those sources are not scientific? Also on what basis do you say that psudo-science is not a term used by scientists. it clearly is. --Snowded ^TALK 18:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources are mostly primary sources, tertiary sources or non-English publications. I didn't say that scientists never use the term "pseudo-science" - I said it wasn't a scientific term: it has no evidential basis. AJRG (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, they are mostly commentaries on NLP by people from the scientific community. Those count as reliable sources. If scientific sources label it as a pseudo-science then how can that not be a scientific criticism?

By that logic, a couple of articles about baseball by sailors in a maritime journal would make baseball a nautical term... The two Norcross papers are primary sources for their American opinion polls. Glasner Edwards and Rawson probably counts as a primary source too, since they quote without evaluation another, then unpublished, American opinion poll, also by Norcross. None of this has been replicated by third parties, or outside of the US. AJRG (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC

I'm not aware that maritime journals have anything relevant to say about baseball. On the other hand in this case we have a range of articles in relevant journals all of which come to similar views. Your commentary on those content of the journals is not relevant unless and until you can produce some reliable sources which support you. If you did then the material might be relevant, but it would not challenge the fact that these articles represent a body of scientific criticism. Also you are very confused on primary sources; these are scientists drawing conclusions about NLP in reliable courses - that is exactly what Wikipedia looks for. Otherwise we have a section with the title "criticism" and with content that comes from reliable sources in the scientific community. Those various commentators, in reviewed articles are using the term pseudo-science. Its perverse to try and claim that this is not scientific criticism. --Snowded ^TALK 04:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

For heaven's sake go and read the policy before you pontificate about it. Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. (3. Further examples include ... tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; ... ) AJRG (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The paper you added to the NLP and Science article is a primary source [1]. Secondary sources are built on primary sources. Primary sources would be for example Sharpley and Witkowski referred in their reviews that concluded the NLP is untestable/pseudo-science/discredited. Primaries and reviews would also be ones that the expert panel of psychology professionals would know of to say that NLP is discredited. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Lam, your comment proves that you haven't understood the policy - primary sources can only be used in specific ways (which I complied with in the case you quote). AJRG (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also AJRG I note that you do not challenge that those sources are scientific. There is also a huge difference between a witness report of a traffic accident and a reputable profession writing up the results of an experiment in a peer reviewed journal. Its like your maritime example, a wholly inappropriate and misleading comparison. I further note that you have been citing lists of practices as evidence with no use whatsoever of reliable referred sources. It is very very clear that the criticism here is from the scientific community. It may be invalid (although sources would be needed to establish that) but it is scientific. --Snowded ^TALK 04:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A Delphi poll doesn't count as peer review. It's just an opinion poll. AJRG (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The individuals represented in the literature of (Norcross et al, Beyerstein, Devilly, Drenth etc) are most often characterized as “experts”, “doctoral level mental health professionals”, “trained psychologists” and “behavioral scientists”. The perspectives followed in those sources are primarily science and scientific skepticism. It goes beyond question of empirical validity, to the face validity of concepts (or misconcepts), and identifies pseudo-scientific characteristics of neuro-linguistic programming. "Academic" is too narrow and imposes the unsourced opinion of the criticisms being just rhetoric or just impractical. Accurate straightforward titles could be “Pseudo-science”, “Pseudo-scientific characteristics of NLP”, “Criticism from Professional Psychologists” "Criticism from Psychology Experts", "Criticism from Behavioral Scientists”, or “Scientific Criticism” Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Lam, you're still trying to imply that this is a majority view. It's a significant minority view, no more. AJRG (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think of those that "Scientific Criticism" is the best and the most common in wikipedia. Pseudo-science is also acceptable. --Snowded ^TALK 04:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that something isn't science is (necessarily) not a scientific criticism - its a philosophical one. AJRG (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

When made by scientists it clearly is. On what planet is a criticism by several scientists not scientific criticism? Your significant minority point was discussed before - at the moment the only sources we have make the various criticism. Despite weeks of repeated requests the best you have achieved is a few primary sources that list it as a therapy. If you can't do better than that I am going to revert the title to scientific criticism per this discussion. If you are unhappy you can take it to a forum --Snowded ^TALK 16:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I struggle to believe that you're claiming ignorance of meta-level reasoning. A claim that something isn't science necessarily exists at a meta-level outside of science. It cannot be part of science, so the adjective scientific does not correctly describe it. As for your significant minority point, Lam has found a handful of reliable sources that use the term "Pseudo-science". If you could be bothered to check the talk page archive, there are many more reliable sources which do not. AJRG (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A body of references from scientists have deemed NLP to be pseudo-science. It is thus a scientific criticism. Of course you might want to tell those scientists that they fail to understand meta-level reasoning and you are of course entitled to such an opinion. However for our purposes here your view of the legitimacy of their use of language is hardly relevant. The exclusion of something from the definition of science, is the legitimate province of scientists. Lam has found a body of material that criticises etc. Todate you have not provided a reliable source which challenges that conclusion. I have checked the talk page archive, and I see that I have replied on each "reference' you have produced. Most were to lists of use which is not the same thing. --Snowded ^TALK 22:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Until you can produce a reliable source saying that a claim of pseudo-science is a scientific criticism, you're indulging in OR. AJRG (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry , I've been very patient over this but that response is comical. A section headed scientific criticism has to contain criticism by scientists, what language they use is their affair. --Snowded ^TALK 09:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. WP:V applies. AJRG (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Its an absurdist position to say that language used by scientists has to be independently verified as being "scientific", when that language comes from reliable sources. There may (I think this is silly but I am willing to try it) a possible way forward if we title the section "Scientific Criticism" and have a following section which is titled "Pseudoscience" containing all the material which uses that word. If that is not acceptable then please be very clear which policy you think is violated if we call this section "Scientific Criticism". If you then insist on the position it can be taken to the appropriate forum --Snowded ^TALK 09:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If the pseudoscience material is moved to its own section, the scare quotes may not be necessary. The title should be Pseudoscience claim, because it is not the majority view. AJRG (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You have sources which say it is not pseudo science? You have a source which says it is not the majority view? Does anything in the article make a statement about its majority/minority status? --Snowded ^TALK 14:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Take the trouble to review the large number of references in the talk page archive. For a recent example see here. AJRG (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If you check out the abstract that one is a critical article it doesn't make a statement about pseudo-science or the majority status of any claim. Otherwise I have reviewed and commented on all articles you have brought to this discussion and none of them provide a counter position. Its evident you just want to draw this out so that you can find a way to reduce the impact of any criticism so please simply state which wikipedia policy you are relying to to sypport your statement that pseudo-science is not a legitimate term to be used in a referenced section on scientific criticism. We can then take it to the appropriate forum --Snowded ^TALK 14:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to find many reliable sources saying that the moon isn't made of cheese. I gave you an example of NLP being treated as science, and being criticized in that context. The talk page archives go back a long way, and many other people have provided sources. The burden is on you to produce a reliable source saying that a claim of pseudo-science is a scientific criticism, otherwise it's OR. AJRG (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

AJRG, you failed to make clear link to policy. Here it is: WP:OR. The sources for scientific criticism are extremely strong. Your objection is very sad and pitiful. Sorry NLP is so criticized. Please read the policy carefully and try to cope. Editing as a practitioner or proponent will be very hard and focus on the criticism section of a pseudoscience will uncover more critical information through time. Scientific Criticisms is both reasonable and suitable as a title. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lam, please abide by WP:NPA. You haven't produced any reliable sources for a claim of pseudoscience being scientific criticism. WP:V applies. AJRG (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

“Academic” clearly involves imposing the unsourced opinion about practicality of the criticisms. “Pseudoscience” is acceptable as a compromise. It focuses more on content rather than the critics. Otherwise Scientific Criticism title is fine. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with a separate section on the pseudo-science claim, which is clearly notable. It can't, however, contain anything that doesn't explicitly use the term pseudo-science, because that would be OR. AJRG (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The section involves information that has the explicit mention of pseudo-science, including the Norcross et al sources. Pseudo-science is acceptable as a title. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lam, as I said above, I'm fine with Pseudoscience claim as a section title, but you can't use the Norcross Delphi polls to support it. AJRG (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Discredit is an issue within and related to pseudoscience issue. Norcross states that it is important to know what is discredited, or doesn't work according to consensus, beyond the issue of pseudoscience. Witkowski's paper states NLP is pseudoscience and then goes further to quote Norcross et al. The pseudoscience title is fine and Norcross is included, unless you can contact Norcross, Witkowski and others to make them retract their comments about pseudo-science. More can be added from Roderique Davies and others on discredit of the NLP concepts, relation to other discredited developments, new age etc. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can support that position from the sources you have. Let's examine the exact quotes you're relying on, one by one. AJRG (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The quotes were already examined in previous discussion. Sorry, AJRG, but your edit is unacceptable. For over a week you have failed to provide anything substantial to support your claim, and your edit just imposes your opinion about pseudoscience and rhetoric. The edit is reverted to the original (Scientific Criticism). If you want to discuss quotes more, do that in a section that deals with the specific issue in question. If you have further objection, take it to a suitable forum. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim above (outdented) hasn't been substantiated. Please do so per WP:V. AJRG (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

AJRG. The onus is on you to substantiate your edit. After a week, you have not done that. So it is reverted back to "Scientific Criticism" Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On what basis did you select your sources for this section? It seems highly selective. On what basis did you decide "scientific criticism" was most appropriate for the subtitle? How can we work toward some sort of balance here? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed lede paragraph

Hello. As mentioned on the above, here is proposed lede paragraph Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC):

NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science in part due to a lack of professional credibility and insufficient empirical evidence to substantiate its effectiveness. NLP appears to have minimal impact on mainstream academic psychology or mainstream psychotherapy and counselling. NLP is seen from certain scientific, linguistic, and neuroscience perspectives as having a pseudo-scientific name, concepts, terminology, and characteristics. NLP is used as an example of pseudo-science for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on consensus based expert-derived lists of discredited therapies and interventions.

This seems to ignore the role of NLP in the British NHS, for example here, here and here. AJRG (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That might be relevant or included in the statement: "NLP has been adopted by some private psychotherapists, including hypnotherapists, who undertake training in NLP and apply it to their practice. NLP has gained popularity within management training, life coaching,[15] and the self-help industry.[16]". They are different issues. It is relevant more to the earlier paragraphs in the lede. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also here. AJRG (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also AJRG two of those references are non-clinical and many management courses from many theoretical backgrounds are made available by the London Deanery and others. None of those references are third party --Snowded ^TALK 05:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you chose to add your comment here, I should point out that The British Journal of Radiology is the official peer-reviewed monthly research journal of The British Institute of Radiology... AJRG (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Where else would I add them? You initially provided three references; two Yorkshire and Humber and London Deanery are non-clinical offerings of training and the Newham one says that NLPis one service in the Harmony Family Centre. You then added a 2006-7 survey of 50 patients which has an "if repeated qualification" in the BIR. None of those are third party comparative studies.--Snowded ^TALK 15:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why the obsession with third party studies that add no new research? AJRG (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

'cause that is the way wikipedia works. --Snowded ^TALK 20:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explicitly quote the policy you're relying on. AJRG (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, this is borderline prevarication. To make a statement about a range of research we need a reliable third party source which has done that comparison. You are attempting to find odd quotes (only one of which is an RS) and then synthesis a conclusion. WP:OR and WP:RS read, think ... --Snowded ^TALK 17:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't quote a policy then? AJRG (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that even Lam Kin Keung relies on finding odd quotes and opinions and then follows with unjustified generalizations/conclusions. We need to be clear when we are making scientific statements and when we are stating beliefs and opinions. This applies those who are dismissive (e.g. skeptics) or supportive of NLP. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So far he has produced a broad range of sources and summarised them well. So far you have only expressed your opinion but provided no sources --Snowded ^TALK 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed there is the referencing in the lede of the article. So some is added above and some changes that are fitting the references. Do you have any more suggestions on this paragraph? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they are a legacy of conflict, in terms of style given that the lede summarises the text it would not need references --Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. That will make it easier to the reader. The first sentence might not be representative of literature. In what sense is the NLP popular? Popular psychology? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there a plethora of self-help books, training courses, certification schemes etc - mainly in the leadership/communication/management fields. Its not popular in psychology as we have established. --Snowded ^TALK 05:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, would the above change represent it in the context better? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK by me, lets see what others think --Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the source for "exists mainly in popular psychology" - is there any RS support for this? AJRG (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a quote. I just made this information into the softer form:

“Not surprisingly, assumed but now discredited left right brain differences top the list of NLP’s dubious roots. Its mental typologies, and the remedies for personal shortcomings derived from them, are not to be found in any reputable psychology textbook.” Della Sala (2007) Page xxi

“However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further” (Devilly 2005)

Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Its normal for the lede to summarise the article. So far all of the evidence is that it is discredited in reputable psychology, and despite several requests no counter references have been provided. In those circumstances its fairly generous to say its present in popular psychology, it might be more accurate to say that its dominant residual practice is in management/leadership/personal development --Snowded ^TALK 10:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok that sounds fine. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not fine - it's pure POV. For the use of NLP in European Psychotherapy see Ginger S, Legal status and training of psychotherapists in Europe, European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 173 - 182 AJRG (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Ginger reference makes brief mention of "NLP". It does not mention the "neuro-linguistic programming" specifically. It says above the listing "It is therefore difficult to globally enumerate the relative importance of these diverse trends, but we have attempted an approximate estimation". The paragraph above should be summary of the criticisms. This longitudinal statement comes from critic Devilly (2005): "NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community". I make suggestion that Devilly could appear in the main part of article. To make simple the paragraph above, the first part of the statement could be removed. See how it is looking. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, and purely as a matter of personal opinion, I find the level of ignorance posing as informed opinion amongst critics of whatever it is they think of as "NLP" to be deeply unfortunate. Let me give an example.

Lam Kin Keung has repeatedly referred to Norcross as a reliable source of information on "NLP". But in doing so he has apparently overlooked all of the information that throws the validity of the Norcross et al's polls into serious doubt:

• Norcross et al seem to have had little knowledge of some (most?) of the "treatments" they were asking people to rate. For example, in the report on their 2006 poll, whilst bemoaning the fact that "37% [of their "experts"] were not familiar with Erhard Seminar Training" (page 521), they nevertheless included in their list of 'treatments' "Erhard Seminar Training for Treatment of mental/behavioral Disorders". And this despite the fact that Werner Erhard sold his business over 20 years earlier to the organisers of the Landmark Forum, now known as the Landmark Education Corporation (LEC).
  

(Three guesses as to which organisation isn't included in the list.)

• The value of the results are highly dubious in light of the wording of the survey: "Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests", along with the wording in the rating scale:

"1 = not at all discredited, 2 = unlikely discredited, 3 = possibly discredited, 4 = probably discredited, and 5 = certainly discredited."
(Norcross et al, 2006, page 516)

Even a high school student of psychology is likely to know the effects of couching questions in a particular form of words. In this case it seems very likely that the frequent use of the word "discredited" introduced serious bias into the test results. It should be noted that whilst the mythical "NLP treatment" was rated 3.57 in round 1 and 3.87 in round 2 (see below), the lowest scores for any form of treatment were 3.32 in round 1 and 3.26 in round 2.

• The value of the results is further thrown into doubt - as even the authors admit - by the limited number of tresponses.
  

From an initial mail out of 209 questionnaires, only 138 were returned, of which a further 37 had to be discarded (for various reasons - page 516). On the second round (see next point) the questionnaires were mailed to the 101 respondents from round one, but only 85 responded - just 40.7%. This surely suggests that a majority of the people the researchers thought of as people whose opinions mattered didn't think the poll was particularly worthwhile.
(In the second poll (2009), 250 questionnaires went out, 113 came back, but 30 were blank. In the second round 75 questionnaires went out, but only 57 came back - 22.8% Hardly a vote of confidence?)

• There is no indication in the articles covering the two polls which would suggest that there was any attempt to standardize the ratings. That is to say, there was no set of descriptions which would indicate what exactly was meant by, for example, "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) for treatment of mental/behavuioral disorder". So what on earth did those who ranked this mythical subject actually think they were rating? Did they all believe in the same myth? Who knows - nether Norcross nor Lam Kim Keung know the answer, but we are asked to accept this as valid evidence regarding "NLP"!

• The very nature of the two part poll reeks of peer pressure. In brief, in the second round (using exactly the same questionnaire), raters were sent the processed results of round 1 along with the questionnaire. This is easily recognizable way of implying that those taking part in the second stage of an activity should try to conform to the results in round 1. Coming in combination with the emphasis on the word "discredited" it surely comes as no surprise that only three results in round 2 were lower than for the same item in round 1, whilst the rest went up by anything from 0.03 to 0.35.

Why on earth should we accept any opinion that appears in such a thoroughly questionable exercise?

See here for more details of both poll reports: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/norcross.html

Likewise, why should we value Devilly's opinion? He took his (flawed) description of the V/KD technique (which certainly doesn't include the "whole" of the FoNLP) from an unofficial source - i.e. from someone who most certainly wasn't an expert on the subject - and gave it barely 12 lines of text on a two-column page. When I corresponded with Dr Devilly (by e-mail) he seemed to have difficulty remembering anything about "NLP" or the FoNLP. Again, hardly the mark of someone who was/is well-informed about the subject.

See here for more details on Devilly's article: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/devilly.html

So, whilst I accept without question Lam Kin Keung's assertion that various statements have been made about "NLP" being a pseudo-science, it seems that he really needs to get to grips with the fact that ANYONE can say ANYTHING. Even when they have virtually no idea what they are talking about. Which is a pretty crucial difference, though certain critics consistently try to brush it under the carpet or smother it with red herrings.

Yet another example cited in this discussion is Robert "Skeptic's Dictionary" Carroll. In his book Carroll gives more space to NLP than to any other subject. And it is mainly nonsense - his PhD notwithstanding. He fails to provide an accurate definition of "NLP", he misdates it's creation, he misplaces it's geographical point of origin, he wrongly states that it is a "large group" programme, he wrongly equates it with est (Erhard Seminar Training), etc. And so on and so forth. And that's in just the first few lines of the fantasised description!

For a more detailed description see: http://www.bradbury.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax27.htm

In this context, journal articles are likewise mainly erroneous. That statement often brings scornful dismisal because it seems unlikely that so many academics would make such errors. So let's consider the article by Dr Willem Levelt of the Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, Holland, for example.

At the start of his critical article Dr Levelt claims that he has read a whole "stack of books" on the subject - yet he cannot distinguish betweem "neuro-linguistics" (a term coined by Alfred "General Semantic" Korzybski at least as far back as 1936 (thirty-six) and "neurolinguistics" (no hyphen), a term related to the follow-on from aphaseology, the study of the effects of damage to the brain on a person's understanding and use of language. This is an interesting oversight since the term "neurolinguistics" is generally thought to have been formally introduced as late as 1985 by Harry Whitiker when he founded the Journal of Neurolinguistics - about 11 or 12 years after Bandler decided to use the name "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" and over 40 years after Korzyski coined the term.
By and large, Levelt's article hammers on about this confusion of "neuro-linguistics" and "neurolinguistics", or merely rehashes previous criticisms.

But there is another, very simple reason why so many articles by academics are in error - the academics aren't making the mistakes themselves, they are simply copying from each other - errors and all. And since they have done so little research they don't even realize that the errors are there.

One example of how these errors originate can be found in the case from 1977 when PhD candidate Lee F. Owens submitted a thesis in which he claimed that "NLP" suggested three ways of determining a person's representational systems - eye movements, verbalizations and self-report. And even in that brief description we already have two crucial errors.

1. The five "representational systems" referred to in NLP-related sources are essentially the five basic senses - sight, hearing, etc. So there is absolutely no need to investigate what a person's representational systems might be.
2. In fact Owens confused plain "representational ststems" with the "preferred representational system" concept, and his failure to find agreement between the alleged three methods of assessment says nothing about any aspect of the genuine FoNLP (field of NLP).

Nevertheless, numerous researchers, as well as reviewers such as Sharpley and Heap, took the easy option of approximating Owens' experiment and (inevitably) reporting the "three ways" error as though it were a reflection on the authentic FoNLP.
But note - no one ever produced a quote from anything by Bandler and Grinder in which they made the "three ways" claim; and neither (as far as I know) has anyone referred to the genuine claim which appeared in both The Structure of Magic II (1976) and Frogs into Princes (1979), i.e. "In order to identify which of the representational systems is the client's most highly valued [i.e. preferred] one, the therapist needs only to pay attention to the predicates which the client uses to describe his experience". (The Structure of Magic II, page 9).

And so the errors have been perpetuated, over and over again, seldom straying beyond the bounds of the "eye movements, PRS, predicate matching triangle" which so many critics seem to imagine constitute pretty much the whole of "NLP". It's a bit like some of the contributions on this page. The same errors are posted in a discussion and then unquestioningly treated as bona fide evidence. Good grief!

It is also interesting to note that Snowded, and others - along with Witkowski, of course - are still pushing the tired old "peer reviewed journels are totally reliable instriuments of truth" myth, though my point about the conflicting articles which appeared in the Journal of Counseling Psychology in the early-mid 1980s seems to have overlooked.

If we accepted this claim then we would have to syuppose that NOTHING is "true" unless it has first been confirned in some reputable peer reviewed journal. A likely story :))))

Let me put the point a little more forcefully, then, by quoting the words of a genuine expert on the subject:

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
(Horton, R. (2000), Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. In the Medical Journal of Australia, No. 172, pages 148–9.)

Richard Horton, FRCP FMedSci, for those not familiar with the name, is editor-in-chief of the internationally renowned, peer reviewed British medical journal The Lancet.

AndyzB (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This might be relevant for the fourth of the paragraphs of the criticism section "Critics are silenced with the retort that one must be part of the movement to make a sound judgment." Drenth, 1999 page 235 Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea as its a common pseudo-science defense. I had the same when I blogged on the subject, the strong statement that until I had been trained I could not comment. Otherwise Andyz you are arguing a position not using sources. That has no validity in wikipedia. You may think that is wrong and you may also (along with others) not like the peer review process. However that is how wikipedia works. If you want to challenge that then the place is other than this article. Please also note that wikipedia also requires you to use people's user name failure to do so can result in a block --Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, it would really help if you actually read the policies you wave around. Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. You've made your identity very clear, so this cannot possibly apply in your case. AJRG (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I did read it, carefully, and its come up before in related discussions. The fact that its easy to find out who I am in real life (as it is for AndyzB does not justify using real names in discussions. Given that it is easy to find its not a blocking offense per se on a first instance, but persistent use might be, especially when the error has been pointed out. --Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Squid ink. You don't want to engage with AndyzB's points, so you're creating a distraction. AJRG (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Clear water - I have no intention with engaging with AndyzBs points as they are either his opinion, original research or arguments against policy. If he can produce some reliable sources then we can look at - the same point I have made to you several times. I have told him to use by user name not my real name per wikipedia policy --Snowded ^TALK 12:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Still creating a distraction, and no sign of an apology for wrongly threatening to get AndyzB blocked. Your position would have more credibility if you could be bothered to look up your own references. Perhaps you'd be good enough to respond to the European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling reference I gave above... AJRG (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The block threat was in violation of WP:Civility and should be withdrawn. It appears to me that Snowded's throwing around of Wikipedia' polices that have no bearing on the point in hand deserves the censure of this encyclopaedia. An apology to AndyzB would be appropriate in this case, as well as the recognition of the undoubted validity of the points that he has recently made. This sort of obfuscation and obstruction impedes the production of an effective encyclopaedia. Earlymorningcans (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys really need to read up on the way Wikipedia works. AndyzB has made a series of criticisms of material in referenced papers, and he has criticised the whole concept of refereed papers having authority. He has also referenced and partially reproduced material from from his own web site which acts as a clearing house of sorts for NLP material. All of that may or may not be valid, however it has no place here unless and until he gets those criticism published in a reliable source. At that point and at that point only do the criticisms come into play, and even then WP:WEIGHT would apply. AJRG, I thought I had been through all your references, looking back I went through 4 but you have quoted another without a link. I have found it and read it. NLP is listed one of a list of "Humanistic or Existential approaches" with no other commentary. I see no reason to dispute that, or that it is used within the NHS and elsewhere. That is already covered in the article. Nothing in that article (or source referenced by you) has addressed the issue of pseudo-science. Please remember that we have a section on criticism, and the lede needs to reflect that section as well as other uses. Easrlymorning, I think I'll wait for the checkuser to run on your account... --Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, if we're honest, your entire approach to the job of editor does nothing but violate a primary tenet of Wikipedia - that information should be presented a neutral point of view. You, on the other hand, do whatever you can to expunge anything that contradicts your own campaign - conducted not only here but all over the Internet - to discredit whatever it is you think of as "NLP". Since when does Wikipedia exclude any information that hasn't been published in what YOU call "a reliable source"? What is actually required is that material be suitably referenced so that readers can check FOR THEMSELVES whether the information is likely to be reliable. Your behaviour, in complete contrast, violates visitors' right, as intelligent adults, to see both sides of the "argument" and make their own decisions.

I am therefore formally requesting that you provide me with information, or point me to information, on how I can complain about your totally biased activities as an editor which, in my opinion, are more likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute than serve it's declared aims. AndyzB (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you.

I put a welcome message up on your use page to help you navigate your way around here. I suggest you read it and in particular WP:RS; your statements above indicate that you haven't read either. The neutral point of view principle does not mean that we have to be balanced between a position that is supported by reliable sources and one which isn't. IF you read up on the reliable sources policy you will see this. As to complaints you can go the reliable sources notice board to get a third party opinion or you can raise the subject at WP:ANI. I am more than happy for my editing history on this article to be put under scrutiny, but you might want to read WP:Boomerang and/or get some advise from more experienced editors before you go down that route. I'd also check your facts carefully. I have mentioned NLP less than a dozen times coming up for five years of nearly daily blogging and maybe a few tweets. Its something I rarely encounter in the world of management, and never in academic circles and that has been the case for the best part of a decade --Snowded ^TALK 06:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello AndyzB. Please feel welcome to add constructive editing in collaboration. Also please be of understanding about Wikipedia and read the articles posted to you. Some information on Wikipedia may be you find objectionable. If you make big changes to cope on the article you may be reverted. That is regular. Big changes are discussed here first. Some new editors here may have an NLP practice. That is ok if they declare it and they offer the helpful suggestion. Science views on NLP are very unfortunate and negative. Sorry. They are the relevant major views. Some of the information you showed today might be useful. Welcome to discuss. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lam Kin Keung - please see the end of these comments:

Firstly, I'm not particularly surprised by the tone and content of your response, Snowded. But FWIW, threats have never impressed me much, especially when it looks very much like you are trying to deter me from using safeguards deliberately built-in to Wikipedia - another violation of WP:Civility?  ;)

And who determines what is "reliable", Snowded? (I'll come back to this later on.)

As to your mentions of NLP, those that appear under your own name may be relatively rare, though you were, as you know, advertising your actions in regard to this page less than a week ago. I'll say no more even though that material was accompanied by both your user name and your real name. I wonder what, in your mind, is the difference between here and there? And are you seriously claiming that you have only discussed your views on "NLP" and "pseudoscience" on your blog, twitter and Wikipedia? You do surprise me.

As for not encountering NLP-related techniques in "the world of management" - which I presume includes management training? - you cannot be serious. Various NLP-related techniques are being taught to managers all around the world, and (going by my personal experience) have been since at least the mid-1980s. Only to avoid pointless discussions with people like yourself they often aren't described as "NLP". One good example would be what NLPers call "pacing", in particular "mirroring", which now turns up regularly as "mimicry". There was an interesting article on persuasion which included a section on mimicry and institutes where it is being researched (Duke University, Durham, USA; INSEAD business school in Fontainebleau, France, etc.) in NewScientist magazine: Jones & Motluk, 8 Ways to Get Exactly What You Want (Section 1: Be A Mimic), Issue 2655, May 7, 2008).

Later on in the same article (section 4) there is a discussion of "framing" - which is closely akin to what NLPers refer to as "reframing".

And please note, Snowded, I am NOT, repeat NOT, claiming that the researchers originally got their ideas from an NLP-related source. All I'm saying is that the NLP-related techniques and the descriptions in the article suggest (regardless of the original sources) that the authors of the article and the co-creators of NLP are all talking about the same things.

Having said that, this does, by implication, offer mainstream support for the validity of the relevant NLP-related techniques. And it's no use saying that doesn't matter because it may have been the co-creators of NLP and the FoNLP who did the borrowing, because your central claim consists of nothing more (correct me if I'm wrong) that NLP is pseudoscience because it claims to be based on scientific principles. (Always remembering that this is itself a logical fallacy - reification - because "NLP" is a specific modelling technique and not a sentient being and therefore cannot "claim" anything.) In the first place Bandler, Grinder and Pucelik have always been entirely open about where they got many of their ideas. And in the second place, if borrowing a technique meant it was no longer valid then the NLP-related technique of "anchoring" would suddenly become invalid just because it was "borrowed" and slightly adapted, from the "conditioned reflex" process identified and studied by Pavlov. And even though we all experience "anchoring" every day, by smells, sounds, etc.

By the way, that seems to be three NLP-related concepts/techniques which have been validated by mainstream researchers. But don't worry, I'm building a list, and that's just a beginning.

Just one other thought: Since neither Bandler nor Grinder, singly or jointly, had an article published in a peer reviewed journal (I don't know about Pucelik), by Snowded's logic they do not have the right to comment on the field of study which they created!

By the way, I wonder just how rigid your personal policy is, Snowded. I have had a fairly lengthy article published in Michael Heap's journal "The Skeptical Intelligencer", Vol. 11, 2008, in response to his three main articles, so it covered most of the points I would make here if you didn't keep reverting them (see http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/response.html). My book "Develop Your NLP Skills" (originally entitled "NLP for Business Success") was first published in January 1997 by a reputable publishing house specialising in business books - Kogan Page, It went through 4 editions and was translated into at least 15 languages, before I withdrew it from publication earlier this year. Wherever possible I have submitted my evaluations of the academic criticisms to the original author(s) for them to correct any mistakes or misinterpretations which I might have been guilty of. So far the only corrections I have been asked to make were in relation to (1) a Professor who is in fact fully tenured, though the entry on the university website said she was still only an associate professor; and (2) the information from members of the team behind the Druckman and Swets report (1988) that the actual report on "NLP" had been written by just one person - the sub committee chairman - without being vetted by the rest of the team.
Not one item of information regarding the contents of my critiques has been corrected due to author feedback, though I have made both of the corrections to the author details that were asked for.

But according to Snowded none of that qualifies me to make edits of the highly one-sided material HE has entered. Even though I have no requirement that anything be removed, only that some counterbalancing information be introduced so that readers can judge for themselves what the so-called "scientific evidence" is really worth.
Hmmm. I wonder what that tells us about the NPOV rule as applied to this page?

AndyzB (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

AndyzB, keep on fighting the good fight for the sake of this encyclopaedia. In my opinion, you should not hesitate to report these wanton contraventions of Wikipedia policy (including, but not limited to, WP:NPOV, WP:Censor, WP:Civility, WP:IRS and WP:V) by Snowded to the administrators' notice board. As a latecomer to this dispute, I feel reticent about reporting it myself, but will be happy to support you in your patient, temperate and peaceful attempts to resolve this dispute in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Earlymorningcans (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello AndyzB. Norcross (2006 p515) states Crazy Therapies as a source that covers “pseudoscientific, unvalidated, or “quack” psychotherapies”. There is the consistency of view between the critical sources on these matters. Concerning your view on claims to science vs pseudoscience, it is view of critics that NLP/proponents make claims to science. However, but your view on NLP=not therapy is something I read before somewhere. Do you have the reliable sources in this matter? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've only just chanced upon this discussion but further comments further up this talk page such as: "You are unlikely to get any changes to this article - Snowded does not have a NPOV and will revert anything you do to make the article more neutral. I've tried to make changes in the past but, in the end I've got better things to do with my time than argue with a person who doesn't get what NPOV. The mere fact that he describes getting trained in NLP as 'wasting money' shows, I think, that he does not approach this topic with an open mind." - make it quite clear that the consensus of the wikipedia community is against Snowded in this instance and that perhaps we should pursue having Snowded blocked from editing on this particular page as he seems unable to retain a neutral pov. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) 11:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpkin (talk • contribs)

It is with great trepidation that I must firmly support Trumpkin (talk) in this matter. Snowded's hostility to WP:NPOV has been demonstrated time and time again on this talk page and elsewhere. I think it is time that an appropriate remedy was decided upon by a competent administrator. There is a clear consensus in support of AndyzB. Earlymorningcans (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment our friendly neigbour hoaxers. AndyzB a few simple points:

1. You are a new editor, working on a page in which you have subject matter expertise and strong beliefs, that is never an easy position.
2. You really need to read up on WP:RS and WP:OR, no matter how strong your argument or experience is has no validity unless it is in a reliable third party source. This is a simple lesson that any subject matter has to learn, and its hard. However that is the way things work around here
3. If you find reliable sources to support aspects of NLP they may be relevant, but they would not counter the pseudo-science sources. Forming a conclusion from those sources as to NLP which is not in the sources if original research
4. I am very serious when I say that I have seen little evidence of NLP in either the academic or client circles in which I work. 15 years ago a little more but now none. I am not proposing to put that in the article, I simply pointed out that I have little engagement with the subject, I don't move in those circles. You made the accusation that I was campaigning all over the internet to discredit NLP, well if that was the case there would be some evidence - and under a dozen mentions in my blog over several years hardly counts. You might also note that I carefully waited until after the new text in the criticism section was agreed before I tweeted. I was been vary careful not to canvass. Also you and I are free to advocate whatever positions we want off wiki, as long as when we edit here we do so in accordance with the rules.
5. Bandler and/or Grinder can be used as an authority for what they have been created (again see WP:RS) even if they have no papers in refereed journals (although that is telling if true). If you check elsewhere we can use the web site of a political party as a RS for what they say about themselves, but we cannot use it to make definitive statements about that party's political position, for that we need those good old reliable third party sources.
6. Lam Kin Keung (who has done most of the work here to acknowledge the effort) has suggested you find some third party sources that would support the position you want to take. I've said the same thing. No editor regardless of what they think of NLP is going to refuse a reliable source, but original research, your own blog as a source, these are simply not allowed. I'm not wild about it, but its the way things are. At least on NLP we do have sources. On other pseudo-science part of the problem is that we have a complete absence of sources as the scientific community more or less ignores them.

Hopefully that helps, I'm not going to respond to the various accusations you have made, I simply encourage you to read up on the policies, then come back with sourced proposals for changes to the article. Those can be from papers you have written which have been published in professional journals. Although again there is some advice under WP:RS about referencing your own material if I remember aright that you should check out. --Snowded ^TALK 17:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Snowded reminding other of wp:agf, I sense a wikipedia boomerang! Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Trumpkin, I have warned Snowded about his most recent comment at his talk page. If he continues with this behaviour, I propose that he should be reported to the appropriate authorities without further notice. Earlymorningcans (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Snowded followed me to the talk page Talk:Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland in an attempt to undermine my efforts there and I have also reminded him that wikihounding constitutes harassment under WP:HA. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Earlymorningcans permanently blocked as a sockpuppet --Snowded ^TALK 07:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are no further suggestions, I suggest the paragraph above can go into the lede. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you paying attention? The bit about "mainstream psychotherapy and counselling" is wrong, at least in Europe where NLPt is a recognized professional modality - I've given you the journal reference. Your last sentence also fails to distinguish between the results of a professional survey in the USA and professional practice in Europe. AJRG (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The same question could be asked of you. You have found a reference which lists NLP, but makes no commentary so your statement is original research --Snowded ^TALK 06:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Try reading the title as well - Legal status and training of psychotherapists in Europe. Per WP:V, for the UK see also the UKCP entry here.

This paragraph is to summarize the empirical and criticism sections. It is written more clearly below with the reference to Roderique-Davis, Norcross et al and Beyerstein's characterizations. Norcross et al (2006) does not limit the results to northern America. Do you have any further suggestions to make?Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science in part due to a lack of professional credibility and insufficient empirical evidence to substantiate its effectiveness, and is characterized by critics as a fringe or cargo cult psychotherapy. NLP is seen from certain scientific, linguistic, and neuroscience perspectives as having a pseudo-scientific name, concepts, terminology, and characteristics. NLP is used as an example of pseudo-science for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on consensus based expert-derived lists of discredited therapies and interventions.

My apologies, Lam, you made a comment earlier that really did deserve an answer, not least because it made an invalid point, but has appeared in numerous places as though it constituted a complaint:

"This might be relevant for the fourth of the paragraphs of the criticism section 'Critics are silenced with the retort that one must be part of the movement to make a sound judgment'." Drenth, 1999 page 235"

The reason the comment is invalid is because, as in every example I've come across, it claims that the argument is that "one must be part of the movement to make a sound judgment". But this is certainly NOT what I said.

My point was that the critics don't know what NLP is about, NOT that they aren't NLPers.
Surely it isn't rocket science to understand that you can have accurate knowledge of a subject without wanting to have a part in it?
I'm quite interested in the Scopes Trial of 1925, but I don't have any desire to become a lawyer.

Let me give an example of my point.
Lee F. Owens claimed that "NLP" offered three ways of assessing a person's PRS - by watching their eye movements, by self-reports and by listening to their verbal predicates.
But this was plain wrong. Neither Bandler nor Grinder ever made such a claim, and Owens didn't (couldn't) produce any evidence that they had ever made such a claim. But they DID make the claim that in order to detect a person's PRS (in 1976 they were still calling it a "most highly valued representational system) one ONLY needed to listen to a person's use of verbalized predicates.

Now Owens didn't need to be an NLPer to understand that. Nor did he need to agree with anything Bandler and Grinder had said. He just needed to read the relevant books (and in 1976/1977 there still weren't many such books around, so it really wasn't a mammoth task).

And let's take this one step further.
In his 1984 article Sharpley included The Structure of Magic I, The Structure of Magic II AND Frogs into Princes in his list of references. And yet he still ignored what Bandler and Grinder had said and agreed with Owens. Moreover he observed that: "Perhaps least accurate [for determining someone's PRS] is eye movements (strongly advocated by NLP)" (page 246).

Now Sharpley obviously managed to read at least a bit of Frogs into Princes without being any kind of NLPer, or he couldn't have made the mistake I've just mentioned, namely that he looked at the diagram on page 25 (UK edition) - which was clearly labelled "Visual accessing cues for a normally organized right-handed person" - and somehow concluded (maybe he didn't actually read the text?, I don't know) that this was a guide to how to determine a person's PRS.
Which is kind of strange, because the diagram has two eye positions for "visual", two for "auditory", one for "kinesthetic" and one for "auditory digital", also known as "self-talk". It had/has NOTHING to do with determining a person's PRS. One would have thought that someone who knew that the five representational systems were visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory and gustatory would have noticed that:

• two of the labels were redundant,
• one wasn't a representational system,
• two representational systems were missing, and
• the words "remembered" and "constructed" (attached to the visual and audirory labels) weren't part of the standard descriptions of any of the five representational systems.

He really didn't need to sign up as a life ling adherent to the FoNLP in order to spot the differences between his assumptions and the evidence in front of his eyes. Did he?

In fact there was absolutely no need for Sharpley to be involved with NLP to avoid these or any of his other mistakes - he just had to read the original material and get an accurate understanding.

So, no matter how Drenth's comment has been repeated, I guess it is in fact totally irrelevant. Innit?
(By the way, what did Drenth write in 1999 that you were quoting from? According to the Wiki rules, references should include sufficient information for readers to check the source being referenced. And I'm sure you wouldn't want to violate a rule. Now would you?)

Snowded, just one more question before I take any further action: According to you (please do correct me if I'm wrong) only "reliable" information should be included on the NLP page, and the only people who can be reliable sources on the subject of "NLP" are those who have had their work in a peer reviewed journal.
Disregarding, for the moment, my response to Lam which proves what a nonsense that is - all I would like to know is were abouts in the Wikipedia rules I can find the one you are referring to.
Thank you. AndyzB (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS is very clear. Your various commentaries on the material in peer reviewed journals, while interesting are your opinions and thus class as original research. Feel free to check that out --Snowded ^TALK 17:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Drenth citation is given in full in the above discussions. Regarding the issue; a main complaint by critics to pseudo-science is the critics don’t know what practitioners are talking about and practitioners don’t know what they are talking about either. It goes partly to issue of false concepts and use of obscurantic language. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting.

If you quote Norcross et al's surveys (2006, 2009) - which is quite obviously "original research", and equally obviously reports on collections of OPINIONS - that's apparently OK because the two surveys appeared in peer reviewed journals. Likewise it apparently matters not one jot that both surveys were carried out so incompetently, including calling for "expert" conclusions about two "NLP treatments" which don't exist.
If I offer detailed, ptoperly reference evidence that any of your evidence is at the very least deeply flawed, then according to you, this is "original research" and therefore inadmissable. In fact you have even removed an "external link" to the relevant FAQ on my website to ensure that people can view the counter evidence which, as you well know, utterly demolishes the erstwhile validity of everything you offer as evidence.
Of course I realise that you have been beating this drum for quite some years now, but your determination to misrepresent the facts (i.e. by presenting your evidence (which is genuine) as though it were unquestionably correct and undisputed (which it most certainly isn't)), seems *to me* to utterly undermine Wikipedia's claim to be a medium for at least reasonably accurate information.

Incidentally, I notice there has been mention of dealing with other NLP-related techniques such as anchoring and future pacing.
Since there is no critical peer reviewed material on these subjects, how are you going to address these subjects?
Will you then accept comments by NLPers? And will you acknowledge that peer reviewed research has heretofor addressed NOT NLP, but just three topics out of dozens of concepts and techniques?
AndyzB (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You might like to read up on how to format your comments and try to address content issues rather than constantly attacking other editors who are simply following wikipedia policies. WP:RS is very clear, Norcross etc are OK because yes they appear in peer reviewed journals. I've told you this before, but I will repeat, that is wikipedia policy if you don't like it then this article is not the place to change it. Comments by NLPers or anyone else for that matter are original research. If you have a source for that final claim (only addressed three topics) then we can include it. You claim to have presented a detailed reputable of the various sources (its not my evidence, its the evidence from those sources), well the solution is very simply go and get it published then, subject to WP:WEIGHT its valid material. --Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, snowded - two answers to your previous messages to me:

1. With regard to WP:RS - I have read this item and I would remind you that I have already mentioned that (a) my book on NLP was continuously in print, through 4 editions and 15 or more translations, over a period of over 14 years (January 1997) until a month or two ago. The book being published by the well-known published of business books, etc. Kogan Page, in a series under the auspices of the Sunday Times. And (b) that I had a lengthy rebuttal of Dr Michael Heap's three reviews of alleged research into NLP (1988, 1989, 2008) published under the title "Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Time for an Informed Review" in Heap's own yearly magazine "The Skeptical Intelligencer" (the magazine of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry), Vol. 11, 2008, pages 14-27. You can find Heap's comment on this article on his website, and a copy of the article on mine.

So, what is it that you want to claim is "not reliable" about Kogan Page, the Sunday Times, The Skeptical Intelligencer or Dr. Michael Heap?

2. You also said: "The B&G statement about intention would clearly be notable, but needs to be directly sourced." Sorry, I'm not sure which particular statement you are referring to. If you mean in relation to NLP not being therapy both Pucelik and Grinder made their comments in face-to-face conversations. Other people will have heard the comments, but nothing was written down. Would e-mails confirming the statements be of any use here? Bandler made his comment in a radio interview last November on s Radio 4 programme, it went like this:

"Bandler: “NLP is not a form of therapy, it’s not a self-help tool – I look at NLP as an evolutionary tool and that people who are really doing NLP as opposed to people who are just using it for self-help things are the people who are exploring how to improve the educational system, they’re coming up with ways to make the best of people better. I think the best thing NLP offers is how to optimise athletes, how to optimise artists, how to get business men to function more efficiently. It does a lot of what psychotherapy was supposed to because we don’t look at people as being broken but we look at them as people who could learn if given the right tools”.

This is on page 7 of the complete transcript @ http://www.carolesimmons.com/storage/The%20Power%20to%20Persuade%20The%20Story%20of%20NLP%20Radio%204%20Documentary%2029%20November%202010.pdf You'll see that the programme name and title are in the URL.

Or were you thinking of something else?

BTW, what editors have I "attacked" at all?

I question your behaviour because of point No. 1 above. There is clearly no absolute requirement that information can ONLY be included if the author(s) have contributed to "peer reviewed journals". The requirement is reliability, and again I invite you to point out which of Kogan Page, The Sunday Times, The Skeptical Inquirer and Dr Michael Heap you regard as unreliable. That isn't an attack. It's a requirement for you to play by the rules that you keep hammering on asbout. As to attacking "other editors", WHAT "other editors"?

AndyzB (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:INDENT Andyz, it makes life easier. As far as I can see you have strong opinions on the various academic commentators but you have not had those views published in a peer reviewed journal. You have had comments published with responses in Skeptical Inquirer, which look to me (happy to be corrected) as a "right to reply' type entry rather than something subject to peer review. In respect of your book; does it contain specific reference to the pseudo-science or other issues contained in this article? If there is something there lets have a look at it and it may be valid. The Radio 4 transcript is interesting in terms of reporting what Bradler thinks where that is relevant to the article. A transcript on a NLP practitioners blog is probably not a RS, but a link to the original BBC interview would be. Reading it through I'm not sure it adds much, but more than open to suggestions. Otherwise the advise remains, please confine your comments to content issues --Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of your failure to operate a NPOV policy, Snowded. You include the "top level" quotes - which have already acknowledge exist, but you refuse to include anything that qualifies the reliability of those quotes.

For example, in referring to the surveys by Norcross et al you say nothing about the fact that in both surveys they cite "NLP treatments" which DON'T EXIST. Is that NPOV? Can Norcross's articles still be regarded as "reliable" when they ask their "raters" to rate non-existent treatments, an organization that ceased to exist two decades ago, etc?

You ignore the point in WP:RS that peer reviewed work is not regarded as being automatically reliable, and that you have a duty as editor to check whether the sources you use are indeed reliable. You also ignore the very specific and crucial point that Norcross et al did NOT provide a description of what they meant by any of their "labels" so that it is absolutely impossible to tell - from the articles - exactly what it was that any of the respondents was actually rating (this applies to all of the treatments, not just those where NLP is mentioned). So even if there were "NLP treatments" which corresponded to the labels we still couldn't treat the results as being reliable. In fact, Mr Snowded, you seem to have failed to verify the reliability of ANY of the research you reference, clinging simply to "was it in a peer reviewd journal"? Then you try to justify your action by constant cross-referencing: Norcross said such and such about Singer, and Witkowski said such and such about Norcross et al, etc., etc. What you fail to consider is the fact that all this cross-referencing - which does indeed take place - is not a strength, it the fatal flaw in the research, because no-one is providing evidence for any of their claims other than someone else's opinion, who based their own claims on someone else's opinion, and so on.

Now, I repeat my earlier points - whilst scholarly sources are possibly over-rated by the Wikipedia rules, it is clear that they are NOT the only basis for inclusion. They also allow for comments from people with established expertise. As for your comment about my article in Heap's magazine seems to me to throw your whole claim to be "following the rules" into serious doubt. If you think that: "You have had comments published with responses in Skeptical Inquirer" is an accurate description then I can only conclude that you have not read the article. Far from being a list of comments and responses it was a review of Heap's previous articles. This, together with shorter letters, is a standard form of published discussion in the kind of journals you place such a high value on. It was, in fact, the outcome of several months of e-mail discussion between Dr Heap and myself during which is was decided that we should each write our own current understanding of the very limited (in scope) material that Dr Heap had published in the 1980s. I would point out that although Dr Heap's magazine might not be peer reviewed, Dr Heap's reviews are (in my experience) amongst the most frequently cited references in the academic literature on "NLP", and his magazine most certainly qualifies as a reliable source in the sense that WP:RES uses the term.

By the way, if you read Witkowski's article you will find that he acknowledges that all 12 of the top universities in Poland include course time for "NLP". A growing number of UK universities are likewise going in that direction. Are you seriously suggesting that they are ALL wrong? Wikipedia users deserve a useful, NPOV article on this subject. Not the completely one-sided material that that is on offer at the moment. AndyzB (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to address some of the NPOV concerns. Perhaps some of the current research into NLP can be incorporated into the article to balance things out: see [2] --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the deeply flawed "pseudoscience" section has been removed (or have I just caught the page before it is reverted back in?) Nevertheless, the "Academic Criticisms" section is still carrying the twin flags of bias and bigotry. Bias because only evidence which supports a negative point of view is included, with NO QUALIFICATIONS, and bigotry because I see no evidence that anyone who is allowed to contribute to the page has much idea what they are talking about.

Let me give some specific examples:

It has been claimed that only peer reviewed sources can be used, but since when has "Mother Jones' Magazine", "Anchor Point", or the Guardian newspaper been peer reviewed journals?

Bandler and Grinder are cited at least twice as saying that they can do thisd or that with NLP and hypnosis. Which is entirely true. What isn't made clear is which part of the combination is therapeutic. I do this myself, but the FoNLP elements are not therapeutic in themselves - they enhance the hypnotherapeutic technique. I don't know why this distinction is missing, but it shouldn't be.

Lum and Singer & Lalich are still included - but why? Neither of these sources were peer reviewed and Lum's entire criticism (all 7 words of it!) seems to have been based on the author's inability to understand that "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" and "neurolinguistics" might actually refer (as they do) to two very different fields of study.

see http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/singer.html and http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/lum.html

AndyzB (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following text because it misrepresents the source. The source does not make any comparison between NLP and any other therapy. We do not know the error term and do not know the reason why Norcross did not discuss it in the paper. It just appears in the list of raw results. ... removed text: “Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) for treatment of mental/behavioral disorders” was included in the study and was rated on average “3.87 (standard deviation 0.92)” a similar level of discredit as dolphin assisted therapy, equine therapy, psychosynthesis, scared straight programs, and emotional freedom technique (EFT)." If you want to include this sort of statement then find a reference to the list from a reputable EBP manual. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

122.. You were here during the discussion[3]. The quote comes from Witkowski (2010). The other therapies in the category are given so the reader has some idea of the meaning. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

statement about teaching scientific literacy in ledge

The following statement ""NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level" appears in the lead but is not cited and does not appear to be supported by the references. It is written as if it is more common that it is in. Please provide a source for this to establish its notability. There are several questions with this statement. Who said this? Did they have a particular bias? What is the evidence? What university or professional courses used NLP in this way? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede summarises the article. References for that statement are given in the main body of the article and do not need to be cited again in the lede. If they are reliable sources then what you think about their evidence or bias is neither here or there per WP:RS. Please also see comments on your talk page, this disruptive editing has gone on long enough. --Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, show me the evidence! Provide a quote and page number from a WP:RS that makes that sort of statement. Maybe you use NLP as an example in your teaching to makes this distinction between science and pseudoscience. Your personal experience is not a reliable form of evidence. Even if the sources are reliable then we still need to make a decisions regarding relative weight and parity of sources. It is certainly not black and white. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I ever talk about NLP in any of my teaching - why would I. Nothing in the above statements says anything about my or anyone else's personal experience. You are attempting to create a smoke screen. The sources are quoted in the main body as you well know. Those support the factual statement. You may not like it, but that is not relevant. --Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You have avoided the question again. I asked for a source to establish the notability of that statement. You are supporting the statement so the onus of proof is on you. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources are in the Scientific Criticism section, lede summarises the article. Mind you, an editor who adds citation needed tags right by a citation is unlikely to understand something that simple. --Snowded ^TALK 09:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When I claimed that LKK was being purposefully obtuse (search for the word, and judge for yourself), Snowded deleted my comment and wrote this in the changelog: "Delete personal attack - please focus on content issues". I fail to see how calling someone stupid is focusing on content issues. I simply see a double standard being applied, which is surely important to highlight. Willyfreddy (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

the seduction community

We should incorporate some of this material into the article somewhere:

• The seduction community's origins date back to Ross Jeffries, who promotes a collection of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) techniques called speed seduction (SS). Other gurus established themselves, but lacked contacts with each other. In 1994, Lewis De Payne, then a student of Jeffries, founded the newsgroup alt.seduction.fast (ASF). This then spawned a network of other Internet discussion forums, email lists, blogs, and sites where seduction techniques could be exchanged.

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 122.108.140.210. These are all very constructive suggestions. Its nice to see there is somebody making sensible moves here.Brenda Lo88 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You think we should include some reference to the seduction community? What about other popular NLPers such as Paul McKenna, Derren Brown and Anthony Robbins? How would we cover this material within wikipedia policies? Most of this is covered in newspapers and books. How would we establish notability? It is not covered by peer-reviewed sources as far as I know. Can it still be covered here? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Any objections? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty in Maintaining an NPOV

One needn't spend all their time here to see the pattern of how the article repeatedly moves away from an NPOV. After the last fruitless debate, NicholasTurnbull came along and greatly improved the article. Since then however, Snowded and Lam Kin Keung, who are perhaps the most consistently active users on the page, have slowly moved the article back to its 'coat rack' status (as first mentioned by NicholasTurnbull). Accordingly, to ensure that an NPOV is kept after the next outside improvement (which is surely on its way), there would need to be two objective users (or even NLP zealots - thus cancelling out the extreme on the other side) who are willing to spend as much time on the page as those two previously mentioned. Of course, since two such users do not appear to exist, the page will simply find itself being edited back to a 'coat rack' article. As I am ignorant of Wikipedia's administrative policies, is there anyone who can suggest a solution to this problem? Thanks. Willyfreddy (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe instead of making personal attacks you should read wikipedia policy on reliable sources. As far as I can see both myself and LKK are working with sources, you on the other hand just seem to be sounding off. --Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Characterize it however you like, but I do believe it's clear that outside intervention is necessary to move the article forward. I am well aware that you are (and have been) displeased with my approach to the article - as I, and many others, have been with yours. Of course, given your admitted extreme bias towards the subject, this is to be expected. Regardless, the wikipedia policy on reliable sources has no relevance to this comment of mine, as I am attempting to address a broader issue. Willyfreddy (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes again Willyfreddy, a good suggestion. This article needs more eyeballs on the subject. The NLP community is more than able to work constructively with non-sockpuppet Wikipedia administrators. Looking at the timing of the earliest edit of Snowden and the recognition of his sockmaster status in the NLP community an intervention is a good idea. Brenda Lo88 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you suspect any sockpuppetting file a sockpuppet investigation WP:SPI. Please use the WP usernames on the talkpage. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Brenda Lo88, would you care to explain this statement: "the recognition of his sockmaster status in the NLP community" --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Willtfreddy, WP:RS has every relevance to this, you are not using sources you are expressing personal opinions, and substituting personal attacks for reasoned argument using sources --Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. As I said, you can characterize it however you like. I am appealing to other, more senior and experienced users, such as NicholasTurnbull, and it certainly comes as no surprise that you disagree with my approach. Willyfreddy (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that any experienced editor will tell you same thing - use sources. --Snowded ^TALK 08:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it would be clear that they had not actually read my question/concern, or my related comments. I am going to stop running around in circles with you now. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockmaster Snowded. Cut it out. You know precisely what I am talking about. Go google yourself. Or I can out you in your own threatened investigation. You turned up on wikipedia just after HeadleyDown was banned. So where is the boomerang now? Brenda Lo88 (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

lol, please please make the report with that accusation, please --Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Go and play with your boomerang HeadleyDown/Snowden. Brenda Lo88 (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately HeadleyDown will keep coming back under different names. Sometimes he or she even pretends to be proponent of NLP. It would be useful to do another survey of the current literature on NLP and revise the entire article. Snowded is a good editor who I disagree with but is a reasonable person. We definitely need those NPOV tags to get some more editors. I think Snowded is worried that an NPOV tag will attract more NLP proponents rather than skeptics. What we really need is neutral or impartial editors. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has to be justified, it is not a way of bringing in more editors. If you list the issues you have then they can be handled. However you have not done that, and its evident you have been canvassing. If you reinsert the tags without justification then I will make a request for arbitration enforcement against you. Your persistent refusal to comply with this most basic of requirements would justify doing it now but I have a flight to the US today and will not have time to do this until tomorrow. Remember you were also named in the HeadleyDown case in a previous incarnation.

You would be better employed seeking to improve the main body of the article. The criticism section does exactly what it says, it summarises the criticism. The way to "balance" that is to find properly cited material to support the other sections. --Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See the edit comments and diffs for justification. The suspicion alone that HeadleyDown has returned under a new alias is enough to jusify the need for NPOV tagging. You almost blindly accepted all of HeadleyDown's edits even the most biased ones and then reverted attempts to NPOVize them.. Canvassing for experienced neutral editors, not skeptics or adherents, would be a very good idea. -122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been through your edit summaries and none provide reasons, they either make statements or accusations. If you think another editor is a sock puppet then file an SPI. You evidently don;t want to follow proper process here so you leave me with little alternative but to make a formal report on you for canvassing, running at least two meat puppets and possibly sock puppetry given your changing names over time. Remember that under a former ID you are also subject to Arbcom injunctions. --Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not bound by any arbcom rulings and never have been. I am editing anonymously and have no plan on creating account at this stage. I will tag statements in the article itself because your plans seems to be endless discussion that goes in circles - it just does not work. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Someone has to keep you honest. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

However you edit you are required to say WHY you think something is wrong. You are failing to do that. There cannot be a discussion if you don't state your objections. Failure to do so is disruptive. What is going in circles is your daily tagging of the article without justifying those tags on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 09:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summaries are quite sufficient. Its clear what the edits are about as long as edit summaries are given. There is a lot going round here and its a bit confusing. Perhaps we should all assume good faith at least until we get more information to expose the main problems. ANJPL (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then please provide a diff to the edit summaries which say anything about the content, objections have to be specific not just general statements. They should also be laid out here --Snowded ^TALK 09:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The only case made for the tag is WP:JDLI - that is, there is no case for the tag. There is no discussion - other than back and forth between editors - on the merits of having the tag. --Karbinski (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I've been waiting for weeks for someone to list what they think is wrong so we can deal with it. Other than not liking it, and several accusations against editors not backed up by SPI reports I see nothing. --Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll tag more the of POV statements directly in the article. Here are some examples of things missing:

1. Basic Techniques and models - rapport, anchoring, submodalities, etc.
2. Typical interaction in NLP
3. NLP in the popular media - movies, television, etc.
4. Notable people in NLP
5. Popular applications: e.g. seduction community is not even mentioned but is probably most popular application based on the media attention and popular books like The Game and dedicated televisions programs in the USA (e.g. The Pickup Artist on VH1).
6. ...

The omission of a section describing a typical techniques and interactions in NLP along may just justify an NPOV tag. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't see that any of those justify a NPOV tag - all that has happened after all is an improvement to and proper citation of one section, that on criticism. If you think material on the above subjects is relevant, and can be added with proper references then please do so. I see the above as, for the first time in weeks, a positive move on your part. If you agree not to insert tags without full justification here and to stop removing properly sourced material without discussion then I will hold off making ANI report and/or requesting enforcement of Arbitration Rulings --Snowded ^TALK 10:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a to-do list, not evidence that the article isn't NPOV. If there is verifiable, reliably sourced content to be included in the article, it is welcome subject to all usual wikipedia editing practices. --Karbinski (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we agreed on the expansion tag, I think it addresses the stated concern - ? --Karbinski (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Concur (and its not often we agree twice in a row if at all). I've tagged the appropriate section as needing improvement. 122, your best strategy is to work on improving the article overall, getting the balance right between describing what it is, representing the controversies and criticism and generally creating an article which will inform the reader. --Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll leave main NPOV tag out for now will just tag specific statements that violate NPOV. Expansion might just work

1. For the section on techniques, let's only include techniques that have been published in peer-reviewed journals
2. Requirements for sources that sources the seduction community or claims that Derren Brown uses NLP in his television series is going to be different than those use for applications of NLP to psychotherapy or coaching. What sources would be acceptable for that sort of section? It was covered by mainstream newspapers and magazines - are these acceptable sources?

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, remember its not POV because you disagree with the RS, unless that disagreement is in comparative RD. As to the techniques agreed that third party sources are needed for those. For the use in a television series I suggest you open a section on this page with an outline of what you say and sources that support it. If its notable then the primary source (ie the web site of the television programme) might suffice. --Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be POV if the source is misrepresented, taken out of context or made to appear more strongly, or more widely, supported than it actually is. POV can creep in in the way the information is paraphrased or synthesized. This occurs for both skeptics and adherents. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's my two cents: I believe the criticisms should be completely removed from the lede. I do not accept Snowded's constant claim that the "lede summarizes the article". For example, the articles for Eliminative Materialism and Psychoanalysis (two subjects with which I am familiar) do not contain any criticisms in the lede, although they do contain a significant number within the article itself. Even Dianetics does not contain any criticisms in the lede (although Scientology does). Willyfreddy (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Willyfreddy. Or at least the summary should be toned down? ANJPL (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of you should read the welcome notices on your talk page. You might also want to broaden the scope of your editing to other articles. One of the dangers of being an SPA is an over narrow perspective. The criticism of NLP is notable and some aspect of that therefore belongs in the lede. Feel free to propose changes --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your advice is well-intentioned, but let's just focus on the issue at hand please. "The criticism of NLP is notable and some aspect of that therefore belongs in the lede. Feel free to propose changes." I have proposed a change, and given my reasoning behind it. Your claim that the criticism of NLP belongs in the lede because it is "notable" is simply your opinion, and does nothing to undercut my stated reasoning for why it should be removed. Due to their controversial nature, surely the criticisms of any of the three articles I mentioned are also "notable", and yet they do not appear in their respective ledes. Willyfreddy (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead use to imply that NLP was discredited and this was a widely held view. This might be true for evidence-based practice but even in this field it is only discredited for specific interventions namely treatment for drug addictions. The proponents of evidence-based practice are fairly strict on the type of evidence they accept and often preference CBT. This criticism only applies to the application of NLP to therapy, specifically as an intervention for drug addiction. So if this was put back into the lead, it would need to be more specific. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone can produce some reliable sources that support NLP as a scientific discipline to balance those which say it is not, then the notability argument might stand. However at the moment we have a body of sources that say it is discredited and/or a pseudo-science. That criticism is not confined to therapy for drug addictions. By any wikipedia standard this is notable. --Snowded ^TALK 01:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not concur. NLP may have "SOME" criticism in therapy but it is booming in management. Authentic NLP is about modeling not therapy. You cannot make discredit in therapy stretch to business, communication, goal setting, or others. ANJPL (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to see specialist editors. NLP is a very complicated subject. Editing broadly obviously does not equal reading broadly.ANJPL (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want support for inclusion of your first statement, then find some sources that back you. As to your second statement I'll repeat my earlier advise to read the welcome notice. I also find it interesting that an editor with fewer than ten contributions moves to make accusations of sock puppetry against another. You should read up on meat puppetry as that particular accusation is pretty clear evidence that you are linked to a couple of other newly created SP accounts. I thought things had calmed down, but it looks like I may have to make that ANI report anyway --Snowded ^TALK 07:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'd love to see how that turns out. ANJPL (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if you can help out with some more evidence like the San Francisco question which links you to this you will make my job easier --Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your job easier as a sockmaster? I don't think so. ANJPL (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets try not to make this personal. Just act as if everyone is a sockpuppet and then make your decisions based on the strength of the evidence presented. That way it does not matter how much sockpuppets someone does or does not have. Everyone seems ok at the moment. --203.206.230.207 (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know how you can be so tolerant, IP. You are probably right though for the sake of stability. ANJPL (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to polarize the views of editors here but skeptics and NLPers alike should respond to demands for evidence. It would nice to have some impartial editors here. So let's create a warm welcoming place for new (impartial) editors. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Separating Theory From Practice

I believe the lede (and perhaps some other parts of the article) need to be completely re-written. The Oxford dictionary definition highlights two aspects to NLP: (a) "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" and (b) "a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour". The lede, and the article, deal almost exclusively with (b), as IP:122 has highlighted. I believe we need to separate these two aspects more clearly within the article, as a criticism against one is not necessarily applicable to the other (e.g., an individual NLPer making ridiculous claims about its effectiveness.) In my opinion, the lede should focus mostly on (a), rather than the claims of its founders about (b) and general criticisms. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying, although the lede does already start with those quotes from Oxford dictionary, however it would be good to remove the leading words of psychotherapy and organisational change (that can come later) - it is intended firstly as a mechanism for us to understand how we process stimuli and react, understanding that we can create choices in this (i.e. change our conditioning), and modelling those choices on those who have had outstanding success in different fields - hence its widespread use in sports, sales, management, etc. etc. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  18:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lede summarises the article so you need to start with changes to that text then we can look at the Lede. If you want to privaledge a over b then you need a source which says this is the case. Similarly claims of widespread use need to be supported. as with the criticism section, text should be proposed and discussed here first. --Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the 'NPOV Tag' section, I reject your constant claim that "the lede summarizes the article" (reasons given there). As for your statement "If you want to privaledge a over b then you need a source which says this is the case.": On its face this sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps it's just not clear what you mean. What would such a source look like? Could you give a hypothetical example? And if b is currently privileged over a, what source do you have that "says this is the case"? Willyfreddy (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve been watching with some interest for a while and though I don’t have much time, I have some suggestions. Popularity and popular applications are not mentioned enough in the article. The Paul Mckenna Derren Brown information should certainly get some prominence. The empirical research shows mixed results and the jury is still out. We need to represent the balance much better. Direct quotes are given too much attention. I think we need to focus on a few very well written articles about NLP from high quality sources. The opening summary is far too judgmental. We need to be more careful with judgmental words there. A good review and exposure of biases is a productive way forward. ANJPL (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you suggest that it is a move to promote a over b -- by it's very nature, a comes before b, which grants it a natural precedence, some might say. The point is not that one is naturally more important than the other, but more that the disputes tend to be more over the latter, so if we introduce the topic on the personal development aspect first (the initial definition in the Oxford dictionary) without colouring it with the early comments about psychotherapy and organisational change then we can better position it, to then later explore those aspects -- or is that totally hairbrained? Greyskinnedboy  Talk  08:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The initial statement in this section says that the lede should focus mostly on "a", I'm simply responding to that pending any actual proposal being made. --Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

While there is currently too much focus on b at the moment, I see what you mean in that the initial suggestion says it should focus mostly on a. A more balanced approach would be to have a more even focus on both. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  10:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you look through the early books on NLP. NLP is a pragmatic approach. Theorizing is not the game at all. If it works use it. There are really no theories to test in NLP because its just a practical art. Some mistakenly call it a science, and thats why some call it pseudoscience but its working from a false base. Librazee (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

proposed techniques section

• According to Steinbach (1984), a classic interaction in NLP can be understood in terms of several major stages including establishing rapport, gathering information about a problem state and desired goals, using specific tools and techniques to make interventions, and integrating proposed changes into the client's life. The entire process is guided by the non-verbal responses of the client. The first is the act of establishing and maintaining rapport between the practitioner and the client which is achieved through pacing and leading the verbal (e.g. sensory predicates and keywords) and non-verbal behaviour (e.g. matching and mirroring non-verbal behavior) of the client. A common method involves the focus on eye movements or eye accessing cues, for example in the diagram shown:

  

  The most common arrangement for eye accessing cues in a right-handed person according to the NLP model.
  
  

• Once rapport is established, the practitioner may gather information (e.g. using the meta model questions) about the client's present state as well help the client define a desired state or goal for the interaction. The practitioner pays particular attention to the verbal and non-verbal responses as the client defines the present state and desired state and any resources that may be required to bridge the gap. The client is typically encouraged to consider the consequences of the desired outcome may have on his or her personal or professional life and relationships taking into account any positive intentions of any problems that may arise (i.e. ecological check). Fourth, assisting the client in achieving the desired outcomes by using certain tools and techniques to change internal representations and responses to stimuli in the world. Other tools and techniques include indirect suggestion from the Milton model, reframing, and submodalities. Finally, the changes are "future paced" by helping the client to mentally rehearse and integrate the changes into the his or her life. For example, the client may be asked to "step into the future" and represent (mentally see, hear and feel) what it is like having already achieved the outcome.

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As you are saying, NLP has not changed much [4]. That is common with pseudosciences. The eye accessing chart is common in NLP books today as the old ones. That should be included. It shows what is unique from NLP. The section is unacceptable without other overviews being present. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could include eye accessing cues in the discussion of preferred representation systems but its not necessarily part of the "present-state (DS) -> desired (DS)" state model. Eye accessing cues and predicate matching is still part of NLP even today. But its more attention on calibration of the person's state and thought process as well as building rapport. What I described there is really just the classic code intervention. ie. establish rapport, define present state and desired state then find resources to get some present state to desired outcome. If we start describing all the possible variations there's going to be too much detail. Most new code practitioners would reject such a rigid step-by-step procedure. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"establish rapport, define present state & future state and close gap" is very very generic and common to many approaches. The section needs to bring out what is unique to NLP as originally described/practiced and then look at any modern variations. --Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, not that you would know, but the eye accessing cues recommendation is seen as passe in the field of NLP. The process described above may seem generic, but remember that many organizations and consultants have had time to integrate the basics of this NLP model into their own training and management consulting. Perhaps more could be mentioned about ecology, but apart from that its spot on. ANJPL (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent books are showing eye accessing cues in diagrams. This is a common theme. The research also covered the eye accessing cues. The diagrams are simple and clear. It would give a clear impression of NLP on the section. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is to show basic baby steps. Misinformed managers and novice NLPers who use them continually are often referred to as zombies. The quality of the section above is already far above that. ANJPL (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The section is to present what is unique about NLP. Now it is too obscured. The reader needs to easily see what NLP is about. Sensory predicates and specific body movements could be made more specific to the NLP. Submodalities look specific too. But there is need to make distinction from neuroscience concept. The eye diagram is easy to find. But the section also needs a comment or view about what the techniques are or can be categorized as. I will look through the sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for a start it should be presented in clear English. I think the suggestion above does that quite well. New code is important here because there have been significant developments since the beginning of NLP. Its a systematic approach. Submodalities could get more coverage in that section though. Perhaps balance Grinder's with Bandler's developments. Librazee (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Librazee. I agree. New code is the latest development that is recognized in the field. The eye accessing cues information is just too outdated. ANJPL (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to support your opinion? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I added Stollznow and the diagram. It needs more such information to make it clear for readers. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check your sources before using them. Did you read the Fala NC, Norcross JC, Koocher GP, & Wexler HK, 2008 source? On what basis did they make their claim that NLP was certainly discredited in the treatment of addictions? The onus is on you to check your sources before referencing them. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion by Lam Kin Keung for summary of techniques in NLP:"According to Stollznow (2010), "NLP involves fringe discourse analysis and “practical” guidelines for “improved” communication. One text asserts “when you adopt the “but” word, people will remember what you said afterwards. With the “and” word, people remember what you said before and after”. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you add this information? It does not make any sense to me. Do you think we should define the techniques in term of skeptics? Wouldn't it be simpler to just present the basic techniques descriptively and then criticise them later? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It would help to give an expert overview of what NLP is about. Stollznow is a PhD in linguistics. NLP makes the claims about linguistics. An expert linguist view is relevant. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So what? Grinder has a PhD in linguists too. The point is your source does not support the statement you added. It is a passing comment and does not discuss NLP at all. You are not using references correctly. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Stollznow is currently a researcher in linguistics. Grinder is not. He is the proponent of NLP. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, the linguists in my group are generally hostile towards NLP. I imagine some of that is jealousy of Grinder's financial success at leaving the ivory tower but that is just rumor. In the source you cited, Stollznow says nothing substantial about NLP and it certainly did not support the statement that you added. It was nothing more than a passing comment. Do you have any better sources for Stollznow's (or other linguists) opinion about the approach used in NLP? Do you really think that is the place to have the opinion of a skeptical linguist? Shouldn't we define the techniques in the terms of its practitioners or someone a bit more neutral before criticizing it? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

watch out for misrepresented sources

• The reference to Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) just cited a conference paper by Fala NC, Norcross JC, Koocher GP, Wexler HK (2008). Just watch out for misrepresentation of sources. Attempting to give a claim more weight than it has. I don't have the Fala et al paper but this should be checked to see what evidence was used to make this claim. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So? Citation trails are common in academic papers. --Snowded ^TALK 06:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears Lam Kin Keung is using misrepresentation to push POV. That (dishonesty) can be a reason to stop assuming good faith. You are constantly defending this potentially dishonest activity. What are your affiliations with Lam Kin Keung? ANJPL (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop making accusations and provide some evidence. --Snowded ^TALK 01:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are providing evidence for us. Thanks. ANJPL (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not "us" versus "them". We all have to be impartial here. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, So? The way the information was presented was made to appear to be more general than the source justifies. Please check carefully any sources used in this article because some of them just don't check out. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well any summary is going to be general. We have references that say it is discredited for addiction treatment and for mental/behavioral disorders. We can't impute from that a generic discredited in all fields, but neither can we assume it has been validated in others. The current wording says that is has appeared on a number of lists which seems OK to me, but we can look at changing the summary sentence. Maybe something like "NLP has appeared on lists of discredited approaches in two application areas" or similar? --Snowded ^TALK 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a controversial statement so even the summary needs to be supported by a reference. I think you'd need to specify the context of evidence-based practice (EBP) and the specific treatments. No inference was justified level of discredit of NLP for the treatment of mental/behavioral disorders. It does appear in the raw results but there was no statistical inference made. The standard deviation was large so there may have been too much variation in the data to make an inference. Can you provide a reference with page numbers in case I missed something? --203.206.230.207 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 203... The context of EBP is not relevant to this the NLP article. It has its own [5]. It could link to the article. The 2006 Norcross et al article page is 518. The 2008 reference is p198. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also interesting that this has been discussed on EBP article [6].Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And more [7] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell me how the page numbers you provided support the statement you wish to add. What statistical inference is made by Norcross: regarding NLP within evidence based practice? Is this inference specific to a certain type of treatment? If so, what type of treatment? If no inference was justified then we cannot make any such inference here. There may have been too much variation in the data. We just do not know. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

They provide sources for direct reporting. Your objection is both the nonsense and selective. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Direct reporting of what? You tell me. No statistical test means no inference is justified. No conclusion was drawn. So you tell me why you think it is justified in the absence of a statistical test. Also, could you provide full citations for those two papers you reference. Do you have read the full text of the original Fala, Norcross et al (2008) conference paper cited by Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) where NLP is meant to be "certainly discredited" for the treatment of addications? Its a section on scientific criticism, we must base our criticism of NLP on solid evidence. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are commenting on the paper itself, rather like Andy before you. If you want we can restore the other approaches which scored the same as NLP to provide context --Snowded ^TALK 01:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What source are you referring to? I was commenting about whether the statement attributed the various sources was accurate or not. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Then propose a different statement. Further you should use a failed verification tag not a citation needed tag if you can substantiate the statement. That means you should lay our here for each case why you think it does so fail. Please do that promptly otherwise your tagging is clear evidence of disruptive editing. --Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just asking for inline citations so the evidence can be verified quickly and easily by others. If it is verifiable it adds weight to the criticism too. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, you said that "If you want we can restore the other approaches which scored the same as NLP to provide context". You cannot just look at averages and say that it looks similar without a test statistic. That would be horribly post-hoc and we could not control the error rate. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You are commenting on the text again, that is not our place. Critically I see not justification above for the failed verification tags. If this is not forthcoming in the next 24 hours I will remove them. --Snowded ^TALK 12:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I had issue with what you said here: "other approaches which scored the same". How do you know they "scored the same" without appropriate analysis? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If they have the same score in the source its not our place to challenge the method --Snowded ^TALK 07:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

But how do you know if they got the same score if there was no test? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the source we simply report those which got the same score, commenting on the tests etc. is not our place --Snowded ^TALK 14:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the shoddy methodology. I'm asking you how do you know if it got two or more treatments same average? What was 95% confidence interval or equivalent for that set of comparisons? If the paper did not make a comparison we cannot make a comparison even if you feel they are the same. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

{od}Let me ask a different way... tell me what treatments scored the "same" as NLP for the treatment of behavioral and mental disorders in the Norcross paper. That way we know what we're referring to and I can verify it. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And let me remind you that I was happy to remove the comparisons until you decided to challenge the statement. One or the other really --Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

proposed new sections

I created a few new sections including a section for definitions where we can provide definitions from supportive and dismissive literature. Its clear that different authors have wildly different ideas about what NLP is so lets not pretend that there is a single definitive definition. The other sections I added include a stub for techniques and a section for current research and criticism. We probably also need a section on popular literature and media but I'm not sure where that would fit. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Draft them in here. Please stop mixing lots of the minor, major and controversial changes. Please edit from a single IP. Your recent edits are confusing, disruptive and unhelpful. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You can easy see my edit comments and diffs and notes in the expand tags. I do have one question though, rather than a section on "Notable practitioners" do you think we should have a section on Notable people in NLP then we can include notable skeptics and researchers too. What do you think of that proposal? Did you see the Skeptic's dictionary definition I put in the definitions section? Is that a good definition for a skeptic's point of view? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

They are major and controversial changes. Please draft them here. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The NLM is a fairly reliable source, don't you think? I gave you the benefit of the doubt and worked with you when you added your section on scientific criticism so I'd appreciate the same. Do you have any specific objections or suggestions? I made notes in my edit comments and in the section expansion tags. I added views of both skeptics, neutral and practitioner sources so you cannot say its biased. Do you think the definitions section is promising? Its interesting to see the different points of view next to each other clearly. Contrast the skeptic's dictionary with NLM Mesh Controlled vocabulary for instance. Perhaps we could have a sort of overview of the definitions that states there is no definitive agreed upon definition of NLP and then just list a number of different definitions. We could even link to a sub-article where we could have a definitive list of definitions from different authors from different perspectives: practitioners, researchers, skeptics, pseudo-skeptics, etc.--122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined the move the text from the article to this talk page for all the new sections. Its how we developed the criticism section after all. Anyone see any reason why these should be different? --Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the recent edits of IP.. are likely to cause disruption in current circumstance. IP.. should draft them here on talk page, and stop making veiled innuendo attacks, and stop using multiple IPs and groundless tagging...... Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. My intention is not to cause disruption at all but I am not creating an account unless it is necessary. I'll try to make my proposed changes more clear so you can collaborate. I'd welcome your input especially given your apparent PhD in linguistics. Are you able to confirm that somehow, perhaps to Snowded? I trust his word. My knowledge of linguistics is somewhat limited but I did take linguistics as part of a second major. I also took an electives in psycholinguistics in my psychology major. I do have access to the linguistics full-text databases if you want me to check any sources for you. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get off on the right foot then you should withdraw some of the sillier accusations you have made and stop implying connections between editors that do not exist. Neither your qualifications or those of Lam Kin Keung are of any relevance here. --Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The sillier accusations were made by someone else who I have nothing to do with. Its difficult to assume good faith when it looks like editors have an agenda to either disparage or promote NLP. From now on I will only comment on evidence and things relevant to proposed changes to the article. I will ignore everything else. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you keep to that promise things will improve considerably --Snowded ^TALK 05:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a deal. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't last long did you? I have deleted the accusation on my talk page, either report your suspicion via an SPI or shut up, continued accusations are disruptive and constitute a personal attack if you aren't prepared to back them up. --Snowded ^TALK 04:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

propsed new subpage: list of definitions of neuro-linguistic programming

Proposed Text

"A set of models of how communication impacts and is impacted by subjective experience. Techniques are generated from these models by sequencing of various aspects of the models in order to change someone's internal representations. Neurolinguistic programming is concerned with the patterns or programming created by the interactions among the brain, language, and the body, that produce both effective and ineffective behavior."

— United States National Library of Medicine (NLM)

"We concur with Dilts and DeLozier’s assertion (2000:849) that NLP can be seen as involving three layers; an epistemology, a methodology, and a technology or set of practices. NLP was originally claimed (Bandler & Grinder 1975:6) to be a methodology known as `modelling’. Bandler and Grinder’s earliest published work (Bandler and Grinder 1975, Grinder and Bandler 1976) was based on `modelling’ Fritz Perls, the founder of Gestalt therapy, Virginia Satir, the family therapist, and Milton Erickson, the hypnotherapist (Grinder et al 1977)."

— University of Surrey Neuro-linguistic programming and research group[8]

"It is a difficult to define NLP because those who started it and those involved in it use such vague and ambiguous language that NLP means different things to different people. While it is difficult to find a consistent description of NLP among those who claim to be experts at it, one metaphor keeps recurring. NLP claims to help people change by teaching them to program their brains. We were given brains, we are told, but no instruction manual. NLP offers you a user-manual for the brain. The brain-manual seems to be a metaphor for NLP training, which is sometimes referred to as 'software for the brain.'"

— The Skeptic's Dictionary[9]

Comments

I propose we create a sub-page with various definitions of NLP from different authors. I started with quotes from different source but we should carefully paraphrase keeping the original meaning them rather then quote them verbatim. Here's a start:

Personally I can't see any value in this and its not common practice. We have one reliable third party source that is enough --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you think its preferable to paraphrase than quote verbatim? I'm just not willing to paraphrase many definitions if its going to end up being used. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I simply don't think we need to either quote or paraphrase multiple definitions. We have one from a third party reliable source that is enough. --Snowded ^TALK 05:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As you have said previously, there are no impartial sources so how the hell can we arrive at an acceptable third party definition? Just contrast the definition from the NLM and skeptic's dictionary. Then contrast that with self-characterizations, popular press and scientific community definitions. No single definition can capture this. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, DO NOT RESTORE TEXT WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED PER WP:BRD, wait for an agreement on the talk page. Revert agains and its another example of a growing body of evidence of petty long term disruptive editing. Otherwise you see to be under some misconception that Wikipedia should be balanced between pro and anti-NLP positions. That is not the case. What we have to do is to accurately report what is contained in the reliable sources. For those purposes the current definition is more than adequate. If we have multiple definitions then its original research or synthesis. --Snowded ^TALK 14:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not accept your reasons for not having multiple definitions. What's the problem? As you said earlier unfortunately there is no impartial third party source so how could we ever have a definitive definition? Having multiple definitions highlights this disparity and frames the rest of the article. I'm having trouble accepting that you and LKK are unbiased impartial editors. But I'll assume good faith for now. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The OED is impartial in wikipedia terms and we are using that. Selecting which definitions to use is either synthesis or original research. Please stop the personal attacks, innuendo included and focus on wikipedia policy in respect of content. --Snowded ^TALK 16:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OED is fine for now. Glad I did not waste my time on paraphrasing those definitions! I never said that this article needed to be balanced between pro and anti-NLP positions. That would be painting a black and white view of the subject. I am suggesting it needs to be neutral according to parity of sources. But that comes from selecting appropriate sources - there is just no other way. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We use third party sources not primary ones (your definitions). That means you can find something like the OED and we can consider it as an option. --Snowded ^TALK 17:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think the definitions I suggested are primary sources? They are all third sources.--122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Only the first really counts as a potential source and the OED is better anyway. Selecting multiple quotes inevitably leads to OR, which are chosen, which are excluded. If someone has written an article comparing quotations then material from that might be included --Snowded ^TALK 04:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not consistent. When we were working on the scientific criticism section I raised the same concern. How do you select what to include and what to exclude there? You and LKK keeps inserting statements from skeptics - is that OR too? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In a section on criticism you would expect to find material from skeptics and scientists which is summarised. If there is material we have missed then add it in, just follow WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT ideally proposing changes here first as we did. Definitions are a different thing, the article needs to lede with what it is talking about - the OED does that.--Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

History section

This section requires expansion with: updates to bring it up from 1970s->90s to present. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Methodology, concepts and theory

Comments

This section requires expansion with: describe methodology and set of practices used in NLP from the perspective of developers, researchers and critics. descriptions of the typical methods used in NLP. E.g. Rapport, pacing and leading, anchoring, submodalities, language patterns, reframing, well-formed outcomes, future pacing, etc. We don't need too much detail.. Use sources from practitioner, researcher and skeptic literature. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Techniques or set of practices

Proposed Text

According to one study by Steinbach (1984), a classic interaction in NLP can be understood in terms of several major stages including establishing rapport, gathering information about a problem state and desired goals, using specific tools and techniques to make interventions, and integrating proposed changes into the client's life. The entire process is guided by the non-verbal responses of the client. The first is the act of establishing and maintaining rapport between the practitioner and the client which is achieved through pacing and leading the verbal (e.g. sensory predicates and keywords) and non-verbal behaviour (e.g. matching and mirroring non-verbal behavior, or responding to eye movements - see chart) of the client.

An "eye accessing cue chart" as it appears in Bandler & Grinder's Frog into Princes (1979)

Once rapport is established, the practitioner may gather information (e.g. using the meta model questions) about the client's present state as well help the client define a desired state or goal for the interaction. The practitioner pays particular attention to the verbal and non-verbal responses as the client defines the present state and desired state and any resources that may be required to bridge the gap. The client is typically encouraged to consider the consequences of the desired outcome may have on his or her personal or professional life and relationships taking into account any positive intentions of any problems that may arise (i.e. ecological check). Fourth, assisting the client in achieving the desired outcomes by using certain tools and techniques to change internal representations and responses to stimuli in the world. Other tools and techniques include indirect suggestion from the Milton model, reframing, and submodalities. Finally, the changes are "future paced" by helping the client to mentally rehearse and integrate the changes into the his or her life. For example, the client may be asked to "step into the future" and represent (mentally see, hear and feel) what it is like having already achieved the outcome.

Comments

A large part of this summarises primary sources which is dubious we need reliable third party sources --Snowded ^TALK 07:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain everything there is also available from third party sources. Otherwise we make it clear when it is primary source (ie. this is how the method is self-described). A description of the same technique from critics would provide balance. This is better than having the criticism isolated to the criticism section. I think it needs to be integrated into the rest of the article. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Then lets see the material from those sources. Primary sources are problematic. Disagree on integration of criticism section but I'm not totally closed to it. Lets get the rest of the text correct then we can look at it. --Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Integrating criticism throughout article will lead to more disruption. What it can have is explanation from experts (linguist, neuroscientist, psychologist) throughout. NLP is an obscurantic subject on its own. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to integrate criticism in a NPOV way. Have a look how fringe "alternative medicine" article is handled. You have a mixture of self-description and criticism from experts from different points of view. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously misleading direction [10]. History of extreme disruption: "As you know, this article has been a war zone many times". Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right its going to be difficult but it has to be done if we're going to achieve NPOV. But its not war. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Applications expansion

Comments

This section requires expansion with: More detail is need on the applications outside of psychotherapy. For example, the game, life coaching, popular books, etc.. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Experimental and psychological research section expansion

Comments

This section requires expansion with: include description of supportive and non-supportive studies. Also include a description of current research. Make clearer distinction between evidence and commentary and different perspectives on research.. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Associations and Practitioner standards

This section should not be in the criticism section. It should both describe the current state of affairs with respect to certification from different perspectives including criticism. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable people or practitioners section

Proposed list (work in progress)=

List should include notable practitioners, researchers and critics established by sources

• Richard Bandler
• John Grinder
• Paul McKenna[11]
• Ross Jeffries[12]
• Anthony Robbinsdoi:10.1080/00050060108259660
• Stephen Gilligan
• Charles Faulkner
• Steve Andreas
• Connirae Andreas

Critics (inclusions under discussion)

• Barry Beyerstein

Comments

I stated a section listing "Notable practitioners" but I think we make this a list and just put the most notable people in NLP including developers, practitioners, researchers and skeptics. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a citation is needed for each individual listed that has not warranted mention elsewhere in the article. Currently Anthony Robbins falls into this category. --Karbinski (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur that each entry would need a citation to a reputable source for each to verify notability. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a critical source for Robbins doi:10.1080/00050060108259660 from a third party researcher[13] here at USyd coaching psychology.[14] --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this list should be a end of page template like on the psychology page. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is likely that the list will be another trap for disagreement and disruption. Notable people will appear in citations and the links already. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the list does bring attention to some articles which seem to be written as puff pieces. If there is a list then no one without an article counts I think, and then there needs to be some third party source to demonstrate notibility. I can't see any reason to include critics --Snowded ^TALK 05:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you include critics? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If a critic devoted their work to being anti-NLP it might be notable, however in the cases you propose its simply one of a number of targets. Listing them together is also misleading --Snowded ^TALK 04:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all names that either do not have articles here or where there is no mention of NLP in the article --Snowded ^TALK 04:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit premature to remove notable entries that have not yet made it into the article. If they are notable then they might need to mentioned in the article. Neil Strauss (journalist) for example wrote a best selling book and got a lot of media attention. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If they are notable then create articles for them, or amend the existing articles with the NLP links --Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time but someone else might. The red link will encourage others to write the missing articles. As long there are two or more independent sources which indicate notability then we can still list the person. The link will be red until the linked article is created. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious argument, but lets look at the evidence. Remember NLP sites are not third party to establish this --Snowded ^TALK 06:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge of New code of NLP

I've suggested that New code of NLP be merged into this article --Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is a good idea. It could take up a few lines possibly in the IP disputes section or the methods section. Many of other associated NLP articles could be merged the same. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Then please support the proposal on the article page --Snowded ^TALK 04:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we need more third party sources for that to be an independent article anyway. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Nav box

Is is a sample template for a Nav box for the NLP-related pages... Template:Psychology. This well help navigate the associated pages more easily: concepts, models, people, organisations, etc. The side nav should use the new format too. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The place to discuss that is on the talk page of the template --Snowded ^TALK 04:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The template does not exist yet. I'm talking about a horizontal nav box at the bottom of the page. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresented citations

This seems to be a huge problem on this page. The citations often don't match the text they are citing. Often the citation will be valid for half of a sentence, but not the other half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.30.80 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Provide some examples then they can discussed. General statements here on in the edit summary really don't help--Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science" is not reflected in the text's cited. Indeed, one of the cited texts is a discussion of numerous studies by 'conventional science' in relation to NLP, which directly contradicts this statement. If you believe I am wrong, please show where this statement is reflected in the text. --Jpjans (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Lack of professional credibility" -- I read both of the cited texts, and did not find anything that backed this up. If I missed something, please put a snippet here showing what I missed. --Jpjans (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote by Corballis isn't in the book cited. In fact, there is no reference to "Corballis" in the book at all. Maybe there is a different book with a similar title?--Jpjans (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations are optional in the lede section. Its preferable to have none. The lede is a summary of the main article. The Corballis statement is as it is written in the citation. It is on the page 41: The book is edited by Sala, the chapter is written by Corballis.

“NLP has been ignored” refers to statements by researchers such as Devilly, who’s statement can be seen in the main text. The “lack of professional credibility” statement comes from Sharpley 1987 and it is a reasonable summary of the empirical validity and scientific criticism sections. It could be expanded more in proportion though. Von Bergen et al. (1997) state that "the most telling commentary on NLP may be that in the latest revision of his text on enhancing human performance, Druckman (Druckman & Bjork 1991) omitted all reference to Neurolinguistic Programming."[55] These studies, in particular Sharpley's literature review, marked a decline in empirical research of NLP, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology.

I read the entire Devily article. There are no statements in it about NLP being ignored. It does, however, discuss issues related to the credibility of NLP. This statement could be modified to reflect the Bergen quote, keeping in mind that it was Druckman who ignored NLP, according to that quote. I don't have access to the Sharpley paper, so I can't comment on that. Alas, my time is limited. --Jpjans (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We summarise material here and as far as I can see you have only made a case for one of the tags. If no case is made I will revert them tomorrow --Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you tag the line “and is characterized by its critics, mainly psychologists, as a fringe psychotherapy or as having pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts, and terminology?”Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It implies that all critics of NLP characterize it in one of the specified ways, which is not supported by the cited texts.--Jpjans (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)