Talk:Clean language

Untitled

Rewrote the article to have it be more neutral. Also took out the stuff about "client's world" because in my opinion that belongs better to Symbolic Modelling. I think of Clean Language on it's own more of being "just" a questioning technique, which could be applied as well in marketing research or just 3 questions in the middle of a classical NLP style intervention.

• Would be nice to have some examples of the clean questions soon.
• As well as something about presuppositions, especially those differenciating it from NLP. The similar German CL article was quickly categorized by others as belonging to "NLP", though also because numerous German NLP trainers mention Clean Language as another (NLP) language model (without knowing much about it).

Hope others will pick up, and I can borrow for the German article as well... -- MartinJR 12:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make this more readable and less jargon-laden, and less full of unneeded quotation marks. Also removed "hir" and replaced with "him/her", which standardizes usage for this article. This seems to me like a subset of NLP, but I'm not an expert. There's almost nothing that links here, and it might be more usefully located as a subset of another page. As it is, it sounds like a bit of a brochure.Accounting4Taste 22:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes quite. I'm on a mission to get this stuff out of Wikipedia. Peter Damian (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability = Size

We want to get the amount allocated to each subject in rough proportion to the importance of the subject. We do not want the size of an article like this, which is utterly non-notable, and has nothing linking into it, with, say, History of logic, which I am currently trying to make more notable. Enough said. Peter Damian (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find that in the policy areas, could you please provide a link? - SimonLyall (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE any of those things. Please avoid the reversed burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proving that X is pseudoscience or cruft or whatever is on you, not on me. I don't have to prove this is cruft, you have to prove it isn't. Find some reliable source or reference for this stuff and it can go back. I am reverting now. Peter Damian (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are changing you reason here. First you just vandalise the articles, then you say that less important subjects should have shorter articles and now you are saying that the particular material is not documented or is a pseudoscience. Since the article is about "Clean Language" the material is not an alternative theory it is about the article. I am going to request some 3rd parties look into this since you appear to have a history - SimonLyall (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means. I'm not changing the reason. Why remove 'cruft'? Because it is not notable. To prove notability you need to find reliable sources to back up your claim of notability. I am not vandalising, quite the reverse. What do you mean 'I have a history'? Peter Damian (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting an article to a talk page counts as vandalism, same with removing links, references and cats from an article. "history" means I'd prefer to have a more neutral 3rd party look at things - SimonLyall (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to put some cats back if you suggest. My main objective was to remove the bulk of the article. The alternative is to put up for 'articles for deletion'. Happy to nominate both of these. Peter Damian (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism

SimonLyall, editors should not call another editor's good faith edits vandalism. Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and allows for repeated reverting of vandalism and blocking of the vandal with little fanfare. Clearly, Peter Damian is not a vandal or engaging in vandalism. Labeling edits vandalism has the potential to stop collaborative editing. In the future avoid this please. Getting a third opinion is a good idea, though. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed PROD

Another editor proposed the shorter version of this article for deletion. Given the slow-motion revert war this article is suffering, it's inappropriate to do a PROD or AFD without getting both authors involved. Now that it's been de-PRODded, it can't be PRODded again. If any future editors send this up for AfD, please look through the article history for other versions that may be significantly different, and please attempt to email AND leave talk-page messages to all major editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I am not taking any stand on which version should be kept in the long term. I kept the longer version because it's easier to discuss deleting material than adding it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Damien banned

Just a note that User:Peter Damian, a significant editor of this article, has been banned from Wikipedia after multiple blocks. As a result, his viewpoints will be missing from this article. As is the case with any blocked or banned editor, to the extent that his viewpoints brought this article closer to WP:NPOV, other editors will have to take up the slack. To the extent that his edits moved this article away from WP:NPOV, his absence will not hurt. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

David Groves not an NLPer

David Groves was a psychotherapist from New Zealand. There is no evidence that he ever actually studied NLP. Clean Language itself is not an NLP model. A couple of NLPers, Lawley and Tompkins, wrote a book explaining their model of his Clean Language techniques which they called Symbolic Modelling. Clean Language does seem to have a certain cachet with NLP people, but that isn't the same thing as it being NLP. I'm not sure exactly sure what needs to be done to make this clearer. Fenris23 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I never commented on this page so I say "Hi" first. IMHO there are absolutly no evidence that clean language is a NLP technique as it is in no official NLP standard. So, if there is no ref supporting that, the first sentence must be rewritten. -- Damien Raczy (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the first mention of NLP as CL is not a neuro-linguistic programming technic even if some NLPers use it ~ Damien Raczy (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this a commercial product or a scientific method?

As far as I can tell CL is a proprietary method taught for a fee and trailed on the web, including this WP article, only enough to boost sales of a book. It seems to amount to training in a principle which was well known long before it was packaged as CL. If I am right and it is not an academically accepted and scientifically validated method fully in the public domain, the article should be short and make clear the commercial nature of the method. Martin852 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)