Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 19

Concerns about some recent edits
Alas, one of my recent edits was undone by, with the summary "You removed the most relaible sources from the article. Please don't force edits being discussed". Which is baffling as it's encyclotadd "forcing" edits, and the sources removed by encyclotadd are by far the most reliable - for instance the sentence in the lede which is backed by Witkowski, Lum, Corballis, Stollznow, and Drenth. Perhaps there has been some mistake? It would be better to discuss instead of editwarring, especially if there has been any confusion over what a reliable source is. (Hint: A magazine article which doesn't even mention NLP does not count as a reliable source). I would also point out that good-faith attempts by other users to restore sourced content are not vandalism. Calling other editors vandals does not help your cause. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Enclylotadd seems unwilling to learn about WP:OR and the reinsertion of material based on their own conclusions about "evidence" has reached the point where it is edit warring. I have placed a warning on their user page.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So far the entire discussion by the three of you on this page has been about Wikipedia rules. I'm the only one steering our conversation towards discussing the facts, such as providing additional references and informational links to research on plasticity, which you can see from the references already provided and a simple Google search is an integral part of NLP. Please discuss plasticity. Or please discuss mirroring. Or please discuss any other component part of NLP. Please spare me your references to the "skeptics" bible etc, which have their bias expressed in theri title. Stick with references to ivy league faculty for a change. It would be truly appreciated.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WIkipedia is not a place where we discuss those issues, its one where we reflect reliable sources. You need to understand that.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the most absurd thing anyone has ever said! How can a group of people decide what to include and exclude from an article without discussing the importance of the inclusion / exclusion? That's the whole purpose of the talk page. --Encyclotadd (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be uncivil of me to call you a liar, but it's impossible to reconcile your latest comment with the actual discussion on this page - there's plenty of discussion about the merits of different sources and different words, as I'm sure any other reader can see above. Perhaps there has been some more confusion?
 * There is one principle, and one principle only, which determines your addition & removal of sources from the article: Sources which are negative about NLP are removed, and those which can somehow be spun into something positive are added (even those which don't mention NLP), regardless of quality. Please stop this pov-pushing. En.wikipedia is supposed an encyclopædia, not an advert for fringe theories. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bobrayner, It would indeed be uncivil of you to call me that. It's a shame you are suggesting ad hominem attacks. Please reread my comment above because it was directed to Snowded, who appears to own a conference business that very directly competes with the people being discussed in the NLP article. Because he is a competitor, naturally he will push the most negative POV. Please support a balanced approach to this article. Now that we have covered the POV issue, I'd like to turn both of your attentions back to the subject matters I have been trying to discuss with everyone, such as neuroscience, plasticity, mirroring and how language impacts us unconsciously, and away from the name calling. So far nobody has commented on the actual references that I introduced. Is that because you have not read them???? For heavens sakes. Please focus on some kind of contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your discussion of those subjects represents your own conclusions about the links between your sources and NLP. Have you got any third party source which draws the same conclusions?   Wikipedia reflects sources, it is not a place to debate the subject.  Oh and I don't compete with NLP by the way -- Snowded  TALK  21:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, Any discussion of any subject is going to represent the speaker's own conclusion. The changes to the wikipedia article did not reflect my own conclusions, however. They were the conclusions of the sources properly referenced including the leading people in the field such as ivy league faculty members. You have forced edits reflecting your own point of view, and you refuse to discuss the merits of my inclusion (except to yet again reference wikipedia rules) because you probably know that the facts support including them.

If you previously were not aware that your conference business advising business people competes with Bandler's conferences counseling the same people on the same issues was directly competing, now you know. That reflects an obvious bias and is clearly the reason you are POV'ing. It's academically dishonest. Shame on you.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, what Encyclotadd says - "nobody has commented on the actual references that I introduced" - is impossible to reconcile with what people have actually done - and there's no mention of why Encyclotadd keeps on hammering the revert button to get rid of sourced content which is critical of NLP. It's difficult to take such a mendacious argument seriously. Please, can't we get back on track? I fear the article is likely to get protected again if we can't have a productive discussion. bobrayner (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bobrayner, I would like to see the article protected again to prevent you from forcing edits and POV'ing. Snwoded claims his Practitioner training does not compete with Bandler's Practitioner training. Obviously he directly competes. Your support of him is totally unfounded, which is obvious from your deletion of ivy league university faculty references and your unwillingness to discuss the merits of inclusions/exclusions. --Encyclotadd (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Encyclotadd, your references from "Ivy League sources"  need to link their findings to NLP.  In fact you are making that link, which is why its WP:OR,  you are also reverting against a stable position rather than seeking changes here first,  that fails WP:BRD.  Sorry to keep mentioning the rules, but if you keep breaking them there is little alternative.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, Your comment that my inclusion was WP:OR is very misleading. It's similar to suggesting an article about Hong Kong by a leading expert on the city should not be referenced in an article about China. Not only should references to Hong Kong be mentioned but it would be incorrect not to include them. Do a Google search for the terms we are discussing such as "mirroring" and you will see there are over a million results online (a million!) of that term appearing in articles about NLP. The words we have been using are obviously part of the subject matter.

I don't know if you perceive yourself to be competing with the founders of NLP-- only you would know that. But your marketing materials suggest that you do. You describe yourself as a computer programmer. Bandler does too. Your conference business provides "cognitive practitioner training" (your words) and Bandler's provides "neuro-linguistic practitioner training" (his words). By your own admission, you present in some of the same locations. Enough already.--Encyclotadd (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Making LKK's "compromise" explicit
I think it's important to be explicit about what's occurring here. Several months ago, there was a very involved discussion (much like this one) regarding the word 'controversial' appearing in the opening sentence. Following that discussion, that term was removed. Authors who had argued in favour of the term being included let the issue go. Then, a few weeks ago, LKK unilaterally added the term back into the first sentence, with no discussion whatsoever. When objections were raised, the article was eventually locked with the change still present. Rather than following BRD, he followed BLD (bold,lock,discuss) - which, not surprisingly, does not have a corresponding policy page on Wikipedia. And now he is claiming that he is willing to "compromise" by removing the term 'controversial', and thus the lock (which should never have been there in the first place), as long as further criticisms of NLP are added to the first paragraph of the lede.

My opinion is that all criticisms should remain in the third paragraph (for the reasons stated). As for the new language currently being considered, I think it would be beneficial to use it as a replacement for the third paragraph (which does not read like an overview at all). Willyfreddy (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Willyfreddy. Here was the discussion last week .  I made the suggestion to re-add several weeks after you failed to make the respond to my previous question. I gave you space to respond. I did not directly subsequently add the term . Once again if anyone has reason to suggest I am a sockpuppet of User Snowded, then make a proper investigation WP:SPI.   If you could provide diffs of the “months ago” discussion then we can know specifically what to respond to. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no discussion prior to be it being added, as I mentioned when I first raised the issue . And you did in fact directly re-add the term subsequently . Willyfreddy (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Willyfreddy. Your account of what happened before the constructive pagelock is inaccurate. Here are the diffs just prior to lock:  User Snowded (restored claiming consensus), User Afterwriting (removed claiming non-consensus), User Snowded (restored claiming consensus) , User Afterwriting (removed claiming non-consensus) , User Lam Kin Keung (restored with additional citations claiming multiple reasons) , User IP  (claiming consensus too short) , User William M. Connolly (claiming citations good)  .  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, those are the diffs just prior to lock. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you provide a link to the discussion you claim took place some months ago? -- Snowded TALK  09:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * View History -> 500 -> older 500 -> Ctrl-F -> "controversial". It starts here: . Snowded was the first to respond: . It was, in fact, 11 months ago now. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember that (but I did look it up to check), I thought you meant there had been an agreement during my wikibreak.  No consensus to change was reached in that debate,  we do however have yet another small group of SPA accounts that briefly flamed before dying away, a pattern there.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I never used the words "agreement" or "consensus". Willyfreddy (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits
If we look at the recent changes (for which the editor concerned is now under voluntary restriction - a good solution there I thought as it allows for time to learn about OR) we have the following. If you view the diff on Off2riorob's self revert (high respect for that by the way) then I am following that sequence in reference to paragraphs Para one Para two Para three
 * 1) First line replacement of "if" with "comprises a communication model and psychological model that provide"
 * 2) Variously replace UK English with US English; behavior for behaviour
 * 3) Remove final paragraph of opening beginning "According to certain neuroscientists ...."
 * 1) Replace "addressing problems" with "helping to address psychosomatic problems"
 * 2) Replace "methods" with "persuasive techniques"
 * 3) Qualify the claim the cure the common code with the qualification of "in some cases" and also "what appears to be"
 * 4) Qualify amnesic with "be convinced to be" instead of "rendered"
 * 1) Qualify "reviews" by "some" and remove "numerous"
 * 2) Add a section linking  NLP to various aspects of Neuroscience

Looking the two large changes: the removal of material in para one which is properly referenced has not been explained and the additional linking material in para three is clearly original research per various editors. So without some justification for the first and references that directly link the neuroscience to NLP those changes both fail.

The spelling change should be accepted in para one, and I am inclined to accept the addition of "communication" as that more accurately reflects the use in consulting which dominates current use and is not fully represented in the article.

I am also inclined to accept the switch from "methods" to "persuasive techniques", all other changes seem to attempts to reduce the impact of the criticism and from memory are not supported by the text.

Comments? -- Snowded TALK  06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to achieve this because most of the great work on plasticity has been done without reference to NLP, and I understand that we cannot include it unless the author was talking about plasticity explicitly in context of NLP. But I hope everyone reading this understands the following basic point:


 * A fundamental claim of NLP since the earliest writings has been that we are physically impacted by our thinking. You may correctly point out that's obvious because of the way our sexual organs work.  The change in length and girth that a man experiences when aroused has not other explanation, right?  But we have more recently learned empirically that the brain changes shape as well.  This was the point that Droidge (from Columbia University made) that I attempted to include. It's a main stream view point, and earlier on this discussion page I included a reference to a Discover Channel video with 1 hour of interviews with leading scientists about this point.


 * From my lips to God's ears, I wish this was original research, because it would reflect a brilliant connection. I am humbled to readily admit that this is plain as daylight in the references provided, and will be obvious to anyone who reads them. --Encyclotadd (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Snowded. Yes, I think Communication would be an appropriate change.  Hello Encyclotadd. One inclusion of plasticity could be if Bandler and Grinder had made a significant contribution to plasticity research. Here is another video of an NLP practitioner claiming the penis size change:  (at around 10 minutes).  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * LKK, the link you posted took a very different position than what I intended to suggest. My point was simply that imagination can lead to an erection.  Penn, Teller and you are right to call b.s. on something magically additional happening in a short period of time. My original point stands. --Encyclotadd (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Pleased to see you indenting makes life easier for the rest of us. Otherwise as you say the work on plasticity has been done without reference to NLP, in part at least because NLP gets little respect in scientific circles.  I have read a fair amount on this and my opinion is that any link with NLP is a tenuous example of retrospective coherence at best.  However my opinion, and yours are not relevant.  If you want to persue this you need to find a linked reference, or as LKK suggests some acknowledgement of B&G's contribution in the literature, if that exists (I've never seen any but you might find something).  -- Snowded  TALK  08:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Any more thoughts? If not I will implement the changes proposed above (spelling change, use of "Communication" and "methods" to "persuasive techniques") -- Snowded  TALK  04:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the lede too long?
Sorry, the previous section seems to be a tennis match - is to, is not, is to, is not. Perhaps a new section could allow discussion by other editors of the subject, with an emphasis on stating an opinion, with brief arguments. Other interested editors?


 * No, the lede is fine. NLP is neither simple to describe (1st paragraph) or to characterize what is 'true' about it now. I think the lede is a little bit too detailed, but overall is just fine. If anything, the the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs could be paraphrased, assuming their specific comments are in the body. But generally, I think we have a duty to talk about the whole article in the lede, not just provide a definition (the first paragraph).Ratagonia (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lede length is okay, but needs significant changes. I think the lede is in bad shape. Previously I suggested that the second and third paragraphs should be removed. However, after looking at the Lead section guidelines, I no longer believe that would be appropriate due to: a) the 3 paragraph length follows the guidelines, b) the guidelines allow for citations, c) the guidelines allow for criticisms in the lede. Nevertheless, I think the text of both paragraphs should be re-written. For a summary, I would highlight that NLP was derived from the work of Erickson, Perls, and Satire. As for the criticisms, I believe the lede drastically overstates the case. I think it should highlight that certain aspects of NLP theory - as well as certain claims by its founders and specific practitioners - have been criticized empirically. I do not believe that any reference provided in the article warrants any statement stronger than that. Anyhow, that's my two cents. Willyfreddy (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the guidelines the length is fine, so I have removed the tag again because it is clearly unnecessary.  The criticisms are about right and represent the criticism in the main body of article.  The scientific view is very important, especially in the context of pseudoscientific subjects.  Any changes to it should be considered in the context of prior discussion: .  Quotes and citations were requested and they were supplied.  I did remove a large quote though.


 * The other paragraphs 1 and 2 could be balanced. I can add more citations regarding NLP as a controversial subject if requested.


 * Apart from that, there is more work to do to expand some of the other sections of the main body. There are a selection of new age practices and associations that can be added. The history section can be explained better with reference to historically associated pseudosciences that developed at the time (EST, Scientology, Emin etc).  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * P.s. User Willyfreddy, please learn to assume good faith: . No edits were forced, discussion was encouraged, and it is hardly difficult to re-add a previously threatened guideline-less tag. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I attempted to address you directly on this point numerous times. You simply ignored my reasoning and continued to act unilaterally. Please learn to engage other authors properly. Willyfreddy (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User Willyfreddy. You have still offered no guideline based reason for the tag. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again with the broken record routine - continuing to ignore what I actually said. Willyfreddy (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User Willyfreddy. Please stop the attacks. You argued, but not with reference to the guidelines. So there is no guideline based reason for the tags. Its as simple as that. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And again... ignoring my points completely. Obviously it's NOT that simple to others. Please learn that you are not the only editor here whose opinion matters. Willyfreddy (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User Willyfreddy. My opinion, or your promises, are not the issue.  The guidelines are the issue .  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, your behaviour was the issue. And let's not make the naive mistake of pretending that opinions aren't involved in editing articles. Anyhow, I'm done with this discussion point. Willyfreddy (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not pretending. Please WP:AGF.Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear friends, I came here to learn a bit about NLP, and found an extra-large lede that makes continuous criticism, and practically introduces NLP as a "pseudo-science". If "the criticisms represent the criticism in the main body of article", as Lam Kin Keung states, so maybe we have a problem with the whole article, which may be overloaded with criticism against NLP. Anyway I think the lede is too long (do I need to prove it by citing the guidelines?)--Xabadiar (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede references the criticism but its not the only thing in it and within the main article the criticism section does not dominate the article. I suggest you read it and the references before jumping to conclusions.  Proposals to reduce the lede are welcome as it could do with tightening up, but it does need to summarise the article so if you have concerns those should be raised first.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Xabadiar (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OED definition in opening?
Who removed the OED definition of NLP from the lead and simply changed it to Founders say "X". That is copyright infringement because it was a direct quote from OED and someone just changed the attribution! Who did it and why? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, see the discussion above regarding representation of controversy. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why exactly was the attribution to Oxford English Dictionary removed? Isn't that plagiarism? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You did not answer it above. I looked at the edit history and you (Lam Kin Keung) were the one who did it. Why did you remove the quotation marks from OED quote and then attributed it to Bandler and Grinder? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above concerns the discussion and suggestions for that line . Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You in effect plagiarized OED by removing the quotation marks and changing the attribution to Bandler and Grinder without altering the text. Just tell me how you plan on amending this. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case I suggest the line be changed to something more distinctly Bandler and Grinder's definitions, and less like the dictionary definition. Grinder says NLP is about modeling geniuses . Bandler says similar and talks of programming the mind reliably and quickly every time just like a computer .  I will look for the appropriate source quotes. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have to remind you that informal interviews are not reliable sources for formal definitions. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
"According to certain neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists, NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts.[4][5][6][7][8]" The cited sources does not support the statement. Did anyone actually check these sources? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above regarding representation of controversy. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Who selected these cited sources and why? Is that statement attempting the summarize the views of neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists? What notable neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists share this view? Are there any notable neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists who share a different view? If so, how do you plan on representing their view? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Either under this IP address, or your user ID (it would help if you logged in) you have raised this question (and those in the two sections below) before and considerable effort went into discussing them with you. If you have material from prominent neuroscientists etc. who take a different view of NLP (which means explicitly naming it) then present the information here for discussion.  Otherwise returning every few months with the same issues, without any new evidence is disruptive.  -- Snowded  TALK  01:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, what prominent neuroscientists have named NLP? To my knowledge your cited sources do not identify any prominent neuroscientists. So your requirement of me is not something your hold yourself to. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Corballis is quite prominent neuroscientist. Sergio Della Salla is also a professor of human cognitive neuroscience with interests in cognitive neuropsychology, in particular in amnesia, visuo-spatial and representational neglect, apraxia and the cognitive deficits of Alzheimer's Disease.   There are other critics of neuro-linguistic programming who have named it specifically and are well known neuroscientists such as Professor Steven Novella.  In addition many of the psychologists and linguists sources will have had significant neuroscience training as part of their master and doctoral studies. Many from the Norcross study of over 100 experts will be experts in neuroemotional conditions.  Some have even more significant expertise in neuroscience research. For example, Albert Ellis was one of the respondents in that research and related researchers such as David Lachar have published in top tier research neuroscience journals. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Corballis and Sergio Della Salla are cognitive neuroscientists or more accurately cognitive neuropsychologists because they use brain imagery such as fMRI and CT scans and study human subjects with deficits or naturally occurring lesions in stroke. To my knowledge these academics have only really discussed NLP in skeptic's books. Steven Novella is a neurologist who has mentioned NLP only in his skeptic's blog. Sure these fields straddle neuroscience but I question the accuracy, balance and weight of the cited statement. If you are trying to use Norcross study to support your position then please give me the source so I can check it. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that they have only discussed NLP in skeptics books doesn't seem relevant - that is a natural consequence of the fact that NLP as a fringe science is not considered a relevant target of criticism in most academic venues. Skeptics books is the logical venue for finding criticism of fringe theories - and when it comes from established experts it the criticvism is both weighty and reliable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are obviously not being trying to be impartial about your sources. You are also holding requirements of other editors that you do not hold yourself to. You are misusing sources.  That is unacceptable.  Acadeee (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A brand new editor, with an interest in New South Wales, making edit summaries like "You have been told before". The only real question is whether you are a sock puppet or a meat puppet -- Snowded  TALK  01:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's far from impartial Snowded. In your edit summary you tell people to discuss then you try to attack them personally rather than answer the question. See WP:NPA --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The requirement to avoid personal attacks does not require editors to be totally naive. For a start your questions have been answered may times before.  Your strategy is to wait a few months and then try again which is intentionally disruptive.  Would you like to make a statement about your relationship to Acadeee?  Or for that matter to any other editor here?   -- Snowded  TALK  03:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, Skeptics books can be reliable and weighty to represent the views of academic especially in the absence of peer-reviewed journals on the subject. But there are other academics who weigh in on the subject and have their views published in peer reviewed journals. We need to achieve parity of sources based. The NLP research group at University of Surrey has links to some academics who are not as skeptical. Its not black and white. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The group at Surrey are also NLP practitioners, and I don't think from memory that any of them are neuroscientists. They have also (again from memory) taken a position that any research would have to be phenomenological in nature which will create problems using them against the wider scientific community.  The solution remains, as it has always been, every time you raise this, for you to produce some sources that support your views.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Who claimed that "any research would have to be phenomenological in nature "? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the comment -- Snowded TALK  08:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did Mathison and Tosey make that claim? In their literature they stated that multiple research methodologies were recommended. I am not aware that they ever made the claim you have attributed to them. Do you have a reliable source for your opinion? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy?
What is the evidence for this statement: "NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level"? It appears unsupported by the cited source. On what basis does the author make their interpretation? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I check this source and it failed to support the statement attributed to it. Any better sources for this? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes
The article was protected a few days ago. As far as I can see the changes were made by 122.108.140.210 without agreement the talk page after they were reverted. Three editors appear to have opposed the changes. Aside from the IP we have one revert by a newly created account (see comments above). WP:BRD is pretty clear that discussion should take place if an edit is reverted so unless a case is made here (and agreed) it would be proper to restore the original text when the protection comes off. -- Snowded TALK  08:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Snowded is referring to this change: --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous text: "According to certain neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists, NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts"
 * New text: "Critics, including a number of neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists, assert that NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts."

What "neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists" are we referring to here? Are there any academics who would disagree with this statement? We should focus on peer-review literature first, if it exists, because this is much more reliable and weighty. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See multiple references provided now and in the past. You have consistently failed to provide any reliable and weighty counter examples in the last year of your intermittent forays.   -- Snowded  TALK  00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you accept as evidence of counter examples? An associate professor, perhaps? Is PhD enough? Does their opinion have to be published in a peer-reviewed journal? Can a book published by a respectable publisher ok? If no, on what basis do you include skeptic's books? So essentially I'm asking what are the minimum standards you would accept as evidence of counter examples from other academics from different fields? What did you choose "neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists" - why did you exclude other professions such as medical doctor, or radiologist? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you produce some examples and then we can see. Wikipedia policy is laid out in respect of sources and weight so its there for you to use, if you think they have been wrongly applied here then there are notice boards you can use.  However to date you have not produced evidence from counter sources that can be evaluated.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can run a literature search to help bring the article up to date but we'd need to decide on a method that is acceptable to all parties here. What academic databases (psycinfo, pubmed, proquest, google scholar, ...) should we search? What search terms should we use (e.g. "Bandler+Grinder", "neuro-linguistic programming")? Should we focus mainly on reviews? Should we include books? How do we cover different views and how much space do we dedicate to each view? We need to come up with a method that will prevent bias slipping in and make sure that everyone is on the same page moving forward. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

STRAW POLL: "Generally considered pseudoscience" or Questionable science?
This is a false choice. It's obviously not a science, and the founders poke fun at pseudoscience. It's simply a model. The creation of this false choice section suggests more reading is needed. --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to for this article to move forward we need to get some agreement at a higher level, especially regarding sources. Should this topic be treated as: ---
 * 1) "Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
 * 2) "Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." as per WP:FRINGE
 * Cast your vote


 * Questionable science: There is "reasonable" debate in literature from different fields (as published by reputable academic publishers and in peer-reviewed journals) so it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific. The article should summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. Any claims in the article must be attributed to independent reliable sources. Crucially all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a democracy! We need reliable sources, not opinions. This poll is a waste of time. Wasbeer 15:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem this poll was meant to address! Many editors here are trying guiding by their opinions rather than reliable sources. See what I said in my vote: "Any claims in the article must be attributed to independent reliable sources". You can give your reasons based on reliable sources. What do you consider to be reliable sources? Peer-reviewed journals? Skeptic's publications? Review articles of experimental studies? Positivists only? We need to establish some guidelines for sources in this article and ways of representing prominent viewpoints. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement is sourced. Do you have reliable source(s) that contradict the current sources? If you want to establish some guidelines for sources please do not limit yourself to just this article. Wasbeer 17:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we have a solid (preferably tertiary) source stating that NLP is "generally considered" anything? That would be required to that wording. My understanding is that generally NLP is considered a form of therapy not a science (pseuo or otherwise), and the controversy is about whether its claims to be scientifically grounded are well supported. Forms of therapy are not pseudoscience but they can be based on non-scientific (e.g. religious or philosophical) or pseudoscientific (claiming evidentiary basis) ways of motivating their claimed therapeutic effects.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "generally considered" quote is from WP:FRINGE, not from the article. Wasbeer 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur with Wasbeer and Maunus. You have failed to come up with counter sources in over a year, this looks like another attempt to avoid that necessity.  The sources used here pass WIkipedia's tests laid out in WP:RS so you can read that to answer your first question.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are the multiple reliable sources stating that neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific. There is also helpful explanation from those sources that come from clarifying science perspectives. The proposed straw poll is inappropriate and should not remove or obscure those sourced views. It could be concluded that the fringe development of neuro-linguistic programming would be generally considered by evidence oriented linguists and neuroscientists to be pseudo-science based on the fact that it is used as an example of pseudo-science for teaching in scientific literacy related courses. But I would not want to write that conclusion on Wikipedia without that conclusion being explicitly expressed by a reliable source. The current sources are good for the current information on this issue.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LKK, You use the key words "generally considered" here. Is that just your opinion? Because you have only produced a couple of individual linguists all from skeptic's publications and you have failed to name any pure neuroscientists. You named a few cognitive neuropsychologists but their views were also published in skeptic's publications. Theses skeptic's publications are fine but they often push the other way. Your sources do not support a statement of "generally considered" anything. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read LKK's last sentence, then revise your statement. I note that as ever y ou can't produce any sources that,support your papective.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What sources would you find acceptable? What's wrong with the NLM or OED for definitions? Is the "Journal of Coaching Psychology" acceptable as a source? There is a line of recent publications on NLP in the journal. What about qualitative oriented journals? Are they acceptable to represent that point of view? What about skeptic's publications? What sources are acceptable to show the views of practitioners or proponents? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS then WP:OR and WP:SYNTH then come back with any proposals for text changes that conform with those policies. Different types of source will sustain different changes to content. I suspect you already know this, but you now have the links. Continued broad brush questions and statements are simply a waste of everyone's time -- Snowded  TALK  00:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not clear how those policies apply to this article. WP:FRINGE tries to apply those policies to similar topics. Unless we can come to some high-level agreement editing this article will go around in circles. I think you would agree that a fair bit of cherry picking has taken place here. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think cherry-picking has taken place then you need to find examples that would demonstrate it. You have consistently and persistently refused to do that.  Until you do your questions are time wasting and constitute low level disruption.  -- Snowded  TALK  03:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it will save a lot of time in the long run if we can agree at a high level about what constitutes reliable sources for the significant points of view on this topic. The wikipedia policies are too general and difficult to apply to this subject. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't make policy here we follow it. If you want to take that position then go the the discussion pages of those policies.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the correct place to discuss how policies relate to this article. The WP:FRINGE guidelines helps a little combined with the relevant arbcom rulings but its still not clear. For example: how do we apply the parity of source rules and include all significant points of view when there are no impartial reviews or authoritative sources from either critics or proponents. Where is the middle ground? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are multiple sources, supposedly reliable, that may have conflicts of interest in declaring NLP to be pseudo-science. Those convinced against their will, as the saying goes, are of the same opinion still. [citation needed. ;) ] Psychology is an art, not a science. htom (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting to note that NLP does not appear on Wikipedia's Pseudoscience page . Willyfreddy (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification. There is also an issue with categories. The categories were removed by now blocked user BrendaLo88 with no explicit reasons given:. Then they were removed again by IP122… with no explicit reasons given: and no reasons given in immediate covering edits: . The category should be restored. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again Willyfreddy. I noticed your self-correction .  Neuro-linguistic programming also does not appear on the list of topics characterized as pseudo-science. Do you think there are enough citations here to include it on that list?    Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on the sources do you think it is unambiguous? What evidence would you accept to sway you? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If the authors of those sources stating neuro-linguistic programming to be pseudo-scientific retracted their statements and published those retractions in reliable sources then that could be represented as a retraction in the article. It would still be likely inappropriate to try to remove or obscure the category. There are also sources that could adapt the view. For example, there are sources stating neuro-linguistic programming to be cultlike or a cult.  Those sources could help explain helpfully on the pseudo-scientific status of neuro-linguistic programming.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that once any RS has declared something to be pseudo-science, that label and categorization should never be totally removable? Maybe we need a category of "former pseudo-science belief". htom (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The question of user 122... emphasized the issue of ambiguity. There are sources that can add information and nuance to the view of neuroscientists, psychologists, linguists, that neuro-linguistic programming is pseudo-scientific. The cult related sources may add explanation value. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You really failed to answer the question in a scientific way. A good scientist would say what evidence you would accept to sway your opinion. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You have produced a few sources but you do not have the weight to make a statement that your view (or their view) is a "generally considered" one. Frankly I think you just started your search with "NLP+pseudoscience" and got a biased selection as a result. Psychinfo has a category just for neurolinguistic programming - you can just do a reverse date listing. You will get much less biased view of the current research. You seem to have missed the views published in journals such as: Journal of Coaching Psychology, Journal of Transformative Education, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management... The vast majority of academic papers published on NLP are not as skeptical as some of the sources you have put here. Can you tell me how you chose the sources you selected? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The more recent publications on the discredited and pseudo-scientific nature of neuro-linguistic programming are a useful indicator. Witkowski (2010), Norcross et al (2006,2008), Roderique Davies (2009) are reliable and recent. There is more than just common sense that makes so many experts say that neuro-linguistic programming sounds pseudo-scientific. The researchers that have studied this fringe subject have some well published research behind their conclusion. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On what basis did you select those authors and ignore others? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who sees a difference between a source stating that "NLP sounds pseudo-scientific" and one that might say "NLP is pseudo-scientific"; and that using the former quote to verify our statement of the latter is SYN? htom (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No OtterSmith your point is valid. In addition to making Wikipedia slander NLP, Snowded and the other skeptics here are twisting the facts. A full review of sources is necessary.  This is just not good enough. There should also be a review of editor's behaviour.  I am informed that some persistent likely sockmasters here are under a block on behaviour order from the administration. When that is implemented properly this time the article will be far better.  Congru (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A sock puppet report has already been dismissed, but you are of course free to make another one. On the other hand it may now be time to request the community to look at the clear evidence of meat puppetry -- Snowded  TALK  06:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither. A false dichotomy. I have attempted to review the RS source for calling NLP Pseudo-science and have failed to find convincing RS's. The sources cited, when I can find them, tend to be weak, obscure, or mention NLP off-hand. Not strong evidence, certainly not strong enough to defame NLP on our beloved Wikipedia. Admittedly, I have not been particularly diligent in tracking down the citations, buying the books,etc... but the lack of clear statements from RS's indicates, IMHO, that labeling NLP pseudo-science or bad science is not supported by the sources, no matter how emphatically a few editors insist that it does. I have come to believe that labeling NLP as pseudo or bad science (or even controversial) in the lead is overstating the case, and unencyclopedic. Ratagonia (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think the sources are not reliable or do not support the proposition then you should layout those reasons by source, rather than make a generic statement accompanied by a admission that you have not been particularly diligent. Some of the sources address NLP directly, others along with other methods etc.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 30 minutes got me an accessible url for DeVilley - which is RS and exactly what the article says. That's one. Thank you for the prompting. Ratagonia (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good find, makes the point very clearly -- Snowded TALK  08:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That source is written from a skeptical point of view. Why did you select that source as representative? Did you perform a literature search? Did you find any impartial reviews of the literature? In the absence of impartial reviews or authoritative sources, how do achieve parity of views? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Find some sources of your own then we can compare, There is no requirement to achieve parity of views between NLP advocates and skeptics (to use your language). Our role is to reflect what reliable sources say.  As long as you fail to come up with any which support your opinion you are just wasting everyone's time -- Snowded  TALK  18:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a requirement to achieve a parity of views between significant views. What then are the significant views? How do you propose to impartially allocate weight to views? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a requirement to reflect what reliable sources say. So again we need you to provide sources -- Snowded  TALK  06:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you accept as a reliable source? What reliable sources would you accept for different opinions? Is the Journal of Coaching Psychology reliable as a source? Is Palgrave Macmillan a reliable academic press? How do you decide what is reliable and what is not for this article? What is a reliable source for the opinions of practitioners? What is a reliable source for the opinions of skeptics? What are the major points of view according to source? How do you propose to assign weight to various points of view? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Skeptics, please comment on this
How does this impact everyone's thinking about suggestions?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/?source=link_tw20111208news-color

--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see any NLP reference sol not sure what point you are trying to make here (silly section title by the way) -- Snowded TALK  14:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Snowded,


 * I suppose you're right that the section title was silly.


 * And I'm not suggesting we include this by reference.


 * Now I would just ask you to do a little thinking yourself about how suggestions and visual imagery (think VAK) are said to work in NLP, and now how they're said to work by this Stanford Psychologist in this National Geographic article.


 * You may not feel they two are saying exactly the same thing. But it may affect your point of view to realize how they are saying related things, as you, like me, are on a search for truth (I hope).


 * --Encyclotadd (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Our opinions are not relevant here - its not a discussion forum. Its the same as several earlier discussions you can't say "NLP says this,  Neuroscientists say something similar, so neuroscientists support NLP.  They have to do so explicitly -- Snowded  TALK  15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is a discussion forum, about improving the article. You seem to be able to mis-read skepticism of NLP into denunciation of NLP, and I'm beginning to wonder why. That some practictioners of NLP (in various forms) are charlatins and scam artists does not mean that all, or NLP itself, is or are scams or pseudo-science, but that seems to be a conclusion you are eager to leap to. htom (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands reflects what the reliable sources say. If you want to change that you either have to find new sources, or find a way to challenge them.  A general discussion about material in an article that does not even mention NLP has no place here. -- Snowded  TALK  23:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Htom and Encyclotadd. It would be better to address participants here by using the term Editors rather than Skeptics. Scientific perspectives are inherently skeptical but it is better not to presume factions in discussion here. It can be divisive and unconstructive.

Enclyclotadd, it is your interpretation of an article that VAK is valid. If you can find substantial research that says the VAK of neuro-linguistic programming is valid and a report that explicitly links the science journal's view with a solid finding then present it here. However, from my memory of neurolinguistics research, VAK has had not reliable support as a theory and there is substantial research that casts doubt on it already from both a conceptual and empirical results perspective. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to comment on the VAK(OG?) stuff except to say that you're confusing it with PRS; VAKOG is descriptive, not empirical. Many of the sources you've been using are self-described skeptics. Skeptics often exaggerate the other way to try to balance things. For example, Stallznow is clearly a self-described skeptic. You have often quoted her and run similar arguments. Based on published research this person is not a prominent linguist but may be prominent (or even a rising star) in the skeptic's community - I don't know. But it would help us all if we start identifying various points of view more accurately. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LKK and other editors, I really appreciate you are thinking about this even though you may not agree with every point that I'm making.


 * This article in the New York Times is important: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&emc=eta1


 * It's not about neuro-linguistic programming but can be thought about in this context. As an exercise to understand this perspective, consider Kahneman's "system one" in terms of the NLP concept of an "unconscious mind" and "system two" in context of the NLP concept of "conscious mind" (logical but rarely engaged, and lazily so).  Consider how these are similar ideas.


 * This is not something that I would try to get into the NLP article because it reflects my own thinking rather than that someone else's and would violate Wikipedia's rules of inclusion. I'm just sharing here simply to impact points of view of other editors.


 * The experiment in which Kahneman showed that judges give higher sentences just after seeing a high roll on dice speaks to indirect suggestions. Just focusing first on a high number led the judges to reply with a higher number later, even though the meaning of the numbers and context had changed.


 * Think about this in context of communication because it's powerful:


 * If a salesperson says, "You don't have to close this deal right now," that statement sounds logically like discouragement.  But Kahneman's research suggests it may actually be encouragement because of the way attention is directed in the sentence.  It may actually make deal closure more likely because the listener is focused for a moment on deal closure, in the same way the judges were focused for a moment on a high number on the dice.  The meaning and context change but the suggestion is received and processed nonetheless.


 * This is known in the NLP/hypnosis realm as an embedded command or an indirect suggestion.


 * If you, like me, believe that's true, then you may agree the insight can make an enormous difference in one's effectiveness in communication. It's part of what's missing from ivy league curriculum ... we teach undergraduates to write with proper spelling and grammar, and clearly expressed ideas, but we do not also educate them on the impact of language structure, or the impact of how our own emotional states can affect others (mirror neurons).  Focusing on these things is worthwhile because they impact every relationship (business or social) a person has in their lives.


 * One creative real estate salesperson I know always starts her newsletters with, "If you, like me, are interested in..." because the sentence contains a suggestion to "like me." It's a subtle application of what Kahneman in the New York Times article was teaching us about showing the high number on a dice to judges in order to encourage a higher sentence.  Even though the context/meaning was completely difference the suggestion impacted outside of awareness.


 * "If you, like me, would enjoy a city like New York completely," then you understand the power of suggestion: "you don't have to smile right now, do you not?"


 * Isn't it interesting that we can hallucinate our senses by virtue of suggestion? (See the National Geographic Article that quotes the genius at Stanford University: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111207-hypnosis-hallucinate-color-psychology-brain-science-health/?source=link_tw20111208news-color .)


 * Maybe it's not just colors that we can be suggested to imagine, as the National Geographic article showed.  Maybe it's the entire VAKOG set of senses that we hallucinate thanks to suggestions (Kahneman).  If you agree with that, think about how the sensory cortices of our brains are said by neuroscientists to be destabilized by experience before "higher" thought can be engaged.  What happens if the same process is taking place through imagination? How important does it become to consider how we activate and lead imagination?


 * To me these ideas are very interesting and not yet getting a balanced reflection on the Wikipedia. I hope others can work with me to make that change.


 * Cheers, --Encyclotadd (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LKK, Stollznow is a (redacted). Look it up! Do you really think Stollznow is a reliable source?  I think not. She probably isn't even a real researcher.   Congru (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User 122.... Please see the Wikipedia page on Karen Stollznow .  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Congru and would ask him or her to remove the comment because it can only cause trouble. A skeptic's magazine might be a reliable source for the opinion of a skeptic but it cannot be given too much weight and the source would need to be identified. You seem blindly accept what is written by skeptics and present it as mainstream scientific consensus. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking it up as suggested Skepbitch was the name of Stollznow’s blog . However that does not mean that her views should be attributed as Skepbitch. The same is true for other professionals and academics who can be represented simply by the family name or their professional titles, rather than skeptics .  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)(
 * It was the way you said it, "Stollznow is a X" - its not really necessary. Stollznow has been editing here for a while under her handle (I cannot disclose this). Let's just try keep things civil. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 122.... See WP:CIVIL. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We could all benefit from following that. Let's make a fresh start... --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes civility is important. It is also important to keep in the mind what has been happening during the weekend:  and previous weekends, and on related articles .   Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just remove the promotional edits and links? I don't have time to watch those articles. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition
As far as I can see the previous discussion validated the change from the OED definition], would those reverting please say whey they are rejecting the change -- Snowded TALK  06:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can agree on nothing else, surely we can agree that OED is a reliable impartial source. Do you have a better source? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Snowded doesn't look to interested in sources. Lets call a spade a spade. It seems he automatically outsources through LKK. Congru (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Congru, if you have any reason and evidence to suspect that any sockpuppetry is going on here, make a proper investigation WP:SPI. Your accusation here can be considered a personal attack. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its quite clear that you (Lam Kin Keung) and Snowded never disagree with each other. You only ever support each others edits and share a similar POV. I have no problem with this. They are reasonable people. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 122... So make a proper WP:SPI and stop making fatuous insinuations on the talk page. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be happier if you disagreed on some things so we can have a reasoned discussion. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its a bit difficult to disagree on anything when we are dealing with a very straight forward application of WIkipedia rules in respect of reliable sources.  There is no reason for this ongoing discussion as you have consistently failed to provide any valid challenge to the existing sources, or to supply new material to support your views.   This series of exchanges is a complete waste of everyone's time unless and until you make proposals in accordance with wikipedia policy so don't be surprised at the lack of disagreement.  I am not interested in having a reasoned or any discussion on a single article talk page about wikipedia policy, the place for that is elsewhere. -- Snowded  TALK  05:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no stand-out definitive source for information about NLP so we have to collect reliable sources and go from there. But how do we decide what are the prominent views and minority views? It would be nice if we could just look at the impact factor or number of citations of a journal article as a way of evaluating prominence in an objective way. Google scholar might be useful as a rule of thumb for prominence of different books/views. i.e. "Frogs into princes: Neuro linguistic programming" R Bandler, J Grinder - 1979 has the most citations (760) of any other book in NLP closely followed by the "Structure of Magic" with 690 citations. If you then look at the journal articles which cite these books, you can get an idea of the prominence of various commentators. I think we can agree that Sharpley's (1987) "Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory?" would be a good start point for reviews and commentary with a basic experimental / empirical focus. You can see that this study has 36 citations. We could apply a similar test to the sources in the current article to see if the views are prominent. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

first sentence of the lede

 * I restored the first sentence of the lede: . Lede guidelines WP:LEAD call for a sentence that introduces the subject to the reader in a way that does not obscure or confuse.


 * However, since looking around the literature, there is not much on organizational change in neuro-linguistic programming texts. I now suggest Personal Development as a substitute:


 * "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and self-development" Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me -- Snowded TALK  10:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How about: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication and personal development applied to areas such as psychotherapy, organizational change, and coaching"? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, good suggestion. Congru (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Neuro-linguistic programming seems to be applied to many things. It would be clearer for the reader and easier to handle if the opening sentence just stated broadly what neuro-linguistic programming is. I will re-post the line again as it was changed by Encyclotadd:


 * "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to psychotherapy, self-help and personal development". Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not really a form of psychotherapy in itself but it is applied as an adjunct to psychotherapy, and to other contexts of professional practice. Do you understand the difference? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 122... Read the line carefully and stop removing it. It does not say neuro-linguistic programming is a form of psychotherapy. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy." --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that will do. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You and I agree on something? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

These sources are all self-described skeptics
We should look more cloesly at the sources we rely on to support this statement: "According to certain neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists, NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts", We cite: Corballis 1999; Drenth 1999; Lum 2001; Stollznow 2010; Witkowski 2010. These sources are all self-described skeptics. I wonder if this should be followed by a line summarizing the views of supportive reliable sources? Again what is the minimum standards for including supportive points of views for balance? How do we ensure NPOV in this part? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is likely that science and evidence oriented researchers will describe themselves as skeptics, especially in the context of pseudo-sciences. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LKK, There is nothing wrong with having a science and evidence oriented point of view. In fact that's encouraged.  But there is a group that calls themselves the Skeptics who have a stated goal of influencing Wikipedia articles.  There is a collaboration taking place among them.  Here is my evidence:  http://www.slideshare.net/krelnik/promoting-skepticism-via-wikipedia  They appear to have been very successful in this article because a disproportionate number of Skeptic references and Skeptic group authors appear in it.  That is a problem NOT because of their interest in science and evidence, which I agree with, but because a handful of people are discouraging science and evidence by expressing a particular POV in this article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What about other less skeptical views in the academic literature? How do we handle that? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See NPOV policy on pseudo-science. WP:PSCI Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LKK, If anything, the founders of the subject go out of their way to poke fun of speudo-scientific words. Bandler says he came up with the term "neuro-linguistic programming" because he had books on those three subjects strewn about his car when he got pulled over for speeding.  He jokes about how Freud called his subject PSYCHO anlaysis.  If only this were correctly understood by the editors and reflected in the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not clear how that policy applies to this article. That's why I'm trying to approach this from a higher level. Your trying to claim that the views of a number of skeptics represent mainstream scientific consensus. Cite evidence, not opinion! --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources provided are reliable, the only "opinion" is your branding things that you don't like as skeptic -- Snowded TALK  06:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The academic research into NLP is sporadic and spread across different fields so its not clear cut. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As you keep repeating, skepticism is central to the science mind. So of course we can term their views as skeptical and call them skeptics. Congru (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction missing here. Skeptic can also refer to the debunkers like Penn and Teller:BS or Carrol's skeptic dictionary (cited in this article) where the articles are intentionally biased the other way because the existing practitioner or adherent material of the contested practice was far too promotional. A scientist can still be agnostic. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Congru, The article is filled with quotes from "Skeptics." I'm referring to the organization with a charter.  If those references were removed the point of view in this article would change completely.  According to their website, "If you are skeptical about everything, then you must be skeptical of your own skepticism." It would be nice if they showed such humility here, and would allow other perspectives to receive a voice in this article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that, especially hyped up promotional NLP, is pseudoscience. At the same time I think that many of the models in NLP are good. For example, mirroring and rapport. Grinder and Bandler coined the term mirroring to described what they observed in rapport and later on Arbib(?) discovered the underlying mechanism in the brain called mirror neurons. Bandler and Grinder do not get any credit for their observations of rapport (matching, pacing, mirroring, etc.) but it seems to be taught in nearly every management training program. But this is not the place for this discussion - please message me privately if you want to look into origins of this further. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes this is a problem with the Internet as much as anything. Some misguided NLP practitioners mix NLP with pseudoscientific ideas.  However authentic NLP is really just modeling.  Some might say it was boringly dry from a bare bones perspective. Its just the results can be spectacular (which is also why some people attach pseudoscientific ideas to it). Regardsless, NLP is popular and has spread powerful applications within the field of management and coaching. That needs far more space in the article.  Its notable and some might say a uniquely positive aspect of NLP. Congru (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There has not been any studies to say how widespread the use of NLP is in various professions areas like management training. But you can look at Google scholar or google book search and find NLP cited in thousands of books in different fields. "The Game" by Neil Strauss details some of the use of NLP by pick-up artists which spawned a whole industry of dating coaches using NLP. Strauss' is an investigative journalist who documented the "seduction community" which includes Ross Jeffries, an NLP trainer. This is the dark side of NLP that most people don't want to talk about. We don't even discuss Tony Robbins in this article. His book which is just about NLP, Unlimited Power, was a best seller in the USA. So why isn't there a section that highlights these popular applications of NLP? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well with Snowded and LKK autoremoving sections on anchoring, it looks unlikely that your constructive suggestion will be allowed a lookin till the skeptics are put in better order by admin. Congru (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This summary is extremely biased. Discuss
Reviews of empirical research on NLP showed that NLP contains numerous factual errors, and failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents. According to Devilly, NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 70s and 80s; “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”. Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology. NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions. In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al (2008) list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”. Frankly, this paragraph is redundant. There is already sufficient criticism in the first lead paragraph. Refer to the other objections such as extrem bias by skeptical magazine, self described skeptics and other comments. Congru (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of this paragraph? Is it intended to summarize the literature? Is this an unbiased summary? We need to have discussion about how to arrive at an unbiased. What other prominent views are discounted or left out? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, see lede section articleWP:LEAD. Also see previous discussions and issues of persistent vandalism .  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Lam Kin Keung, You are the author of that paragraph. Can you explain why you chose the sources that you did? Why did you structure it in the way you did? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I find this paragraph to include by reference a lot of misinformation and incorrect POV. I wonder how thinking people would not want to banish it. The problem is that it discourages additional research of some very interesting ideas that are supported by research and empiricism.  --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks guys (and I mean our IP and Encyclotadd) this strategy is disruptive. You are not directly challenging sources, not are you producing your own sources.  You are trying to get a conversation going which has nothing to do with reliable sources or you are making statements without support from a reliable source.  Its being going on for some time and along with the evidence of meat puppetry its going to end up at ANI if you don't get your act together.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Snowded, I have provided a variety of ** new ** reliable sources in the article and talk page ranging from Stanford to Columbia psychologists, National Geographic articles about hypnosis, and Discover Channel videos about imagination. You on the other hand have contributed zero ** new ** sources to this conversation in the past couple of months.  If you weren't financially motivated to express a particular point of view about NLP, and re-post sources that good people have been trying to put in the proper context for years, then I would question your thoughtfulness. --Encyclotadd (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Read what I said gain. My question was exactly about how the sources were chosen and why the lede was structured in the way it was. I want to come up with an objective way we can find reliable sources and assign weight accordingly as there is no agreed impartial review of the literature. What are the different points of view and how much space should be assigned to each view? LKK seems to give more weight to skeptic literature than journal articles or academic press and appears to ignore any supportive literature. So let's try to come up with a way to agree on what is acceptable as reliable sources for the different points of view. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The real problem with this paragraph is that it gives a very incorrect perception that NLP founders claim it's a science when they don't. They put it forward as a model. While the model can be used to create interventions, no model is an intervention unto itself. Also the skill of the person intervening will obviously affect results. Even though the sources appear to be reliable, many are not and they all miss these points. The paragraph is simply a well constructed hatchet job basically. That's why it has been hotly debated for SIX YEARS! Come on already. --Encyclotadd (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Encyclotadd, you have provided sources that do not mention NLP, your use of that material is called original research or synthesis. Also lay off the personal attacks, I realise its the line on your various web sites but it didn't stand up as an argument when it was raised with the community last year.  Neither of you have provided properly sourced material to back you claims, and you are the ones who want to change the article.
 * 122, you are trying to set up a conversation on a subject which is already covered by policy, I suspect this is a smoke screen for the fact that you cannot challenge the sources used or come up with ones that provide a counter perspective.  Until you do there is really no point in continuing -- Snowded  TALK  05:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm actually been trying to get you and LKK to think critically for yourself. Perhaps you should be "writing for the enemy" to help counter your personal bias which appears to be clouding your impartiality. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern, but I am happy to use existing Wikipedia policy. If you think we are beibng "impartial" against those standards then you should raise it at the apporpirate forum  -- Snowded  TALK  15:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What better forum than this? You are obviously biased against NLP and you should not be editing here. Apart from the likely conflict of interest and likely connections with banned editors, you are obviously trying hard to attack and wind up constructive members of the community here. You have been requested to try to write for the enemy. I suggest you follow that sensible suggestion (if you can). Congru (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't change wikipedia policy on a single page, you apply it.  If you want to change WP:RS or WP:SYNTH then go to the articles and recommend changes, or go the reliable sources notice board to involve the community.  Otherwise simply repeating the silly accusations of the NLP meat puppetry sites is a waste of everyone's time.  The very simple fact remains that you and the others who have been brought to this page cannot challenge the existing critical sources within WIkipedia policy, not have you been able to provide any counter sources.   All the above is simply verbiage to avoid that very basic issue.  When I get time over Christmas I am going to put the evidence together from said meat puppetry site, the conversations between various blocked and current editors and also the number of SPA accounts all repeatJing the same mantras and will lodge that with ANI.  Its gone on long enough  -- Snowded  TALK  05:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a the said meatpuppetry site - is that meant to be pro or anti-NLP? If your looking into promotional editors, then you might investigate "HeadleyDown" type reincarnations at the same time. Let me know if you need assistance. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very funny, links on your talk page over the last year as you well know. -- Snowded  TALK  04:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That lede paragraph may have the most references from The Skeptic Society per line than any paragraph on Wikipedia. It's a monument to The Skeptic Society's meat puppeting.  I can't believe the Oxford Dictionary definition was also removed. No wonder this article has been so hotly contested.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you do some analysis on the artcle and how much much space is given to skeptic's sources, other academic sources, NLP authors, etc. What are the prominent point of views on this subject? I don't don't think that "The Skeptic Society"=mainstream view. We should have a look at how psychoanalysis, chiropractic or EMDR articles are handled on wikipedia because they are similar in that there are staunch skeptics but many practitioners in the field and both are contested practices. There are also some rulings from the ArbCom on fringe theories that might help organize this article. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @122.108.140.210, I did some internet research over the weekend and found a dozen plus Skeptic Society references. By Skeptic Society reference, I mean someone who wrote an article for the Skeptic magazine, wrote the Sketpic Dictionary, or is considered a modern day hero of that organization.  For example:  Barry Beyerstein (described in the article as a Canadian Skeptic), Witkowski (featured in the SKEPTICAL Inquirer November/December 2010 issue), Stollznow (featured in The Skeptic January 1, 2010), Drenth P J D (speaker at 10th European Skeptics Congress), Heap (authored The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience), Lillenfeld (see Skeptical Inquirer Vol. 33 No. 5), Dunn.d. (The Skeptical Inquirer 1989 Spring; 13:260-3), Norcross (The Skeptic dictionary), Glasner-Edwards (featured in the Skeptical Inquirer), Della Sala (lecturer and contributor to the SKEPTIC magazine), Koocher (co-authored the SKEPTIC dictionary), Singer and Lalich (see children's SKEPTIC dictionary), William F. Williams (self described SKEPTIC in his book). There are more.


 * The Skeptic society labeled NLP as a pseudo-science on their website. Then they instructed their membership to write about pseudo-science on Wikipedia.  They did this by giving presentations at Skeptic Society meetings, and posting on their official websites.
 * http://www.slideshare.net/krelnik/promoting-skepticism-via-wikipedia
 * http://www.skeptic.com/get_involved/fix_wikipedia.html
 * http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/why-skeptics-pay-attention-wikipedia/.


 * Skeptic Society doesn't just apply their understanding of the scientific method to liberal arts models about experience. Some apply it to everything, including religion.  Here they ridicule people who believe in Jesus:  http://www.skepticcanary.com/2011/10/22/an-unexpected-guest-at-the-merseyside-skeptics-society-jesus/


 * The section of this page called "This summary is extremely biased" is largely about Skeptic Society references and may help you identify who rejects/participates in their behavior.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. Are you actually treating "skeptics" as a coherent group? I'm loath to disappoint you, but the Sceptic Dictionary, Skeptical inquirer, Canadian Sceptics, assorted people who call themselves "sceptic", European Skeptics Congress, Skeptical Software Tools blog, and Merseyside Skeptics Society are not all under the control of some single sceptical cabal. It's just an abstract concept used by people of different persuasions who - generally speaking - would rather consider evidence than take claims at face value. In any of a hundred different fields. I can't imagine why pareidolia in a photo of a Merseyside Sceptics get-together is relevant to this article. bobrayner (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am getting a little tired about hearing that sort of half-truth for the sake of POV pushing. The rest of the story is thus: There are a coherent and coordinated group of skeptics on Wikipedia working to slant articles towards a dismissive point of view. They are here and have been coordinating attacks on NLP all over the web. This is well known now in the NLP community and there is an effort to identify and bring attention to their sordid little game. Congru (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. The group is incorporated and well organized (including on Wikipedia):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptics_Society   They are a non-profit 501(c)(3), publishes a quarterly journal called "Skeptics," a newsletter called "eSkeptics" (to tens of thousands of subscribers) and a monthly magazine column called "Skeptic." The society states on the website that the 501(c)(3) owns that they fight so called pseudoscience:  http://www.skeptic.com/get_involved/skeptical_activism.html  Their website also encourages their readership of tens of thousands to wage this battle on Wikipedia:  http://www.skeptic.com/get_involved/fix_wikipedia.html Encyclotadd (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the useful information Encyclotadd. It is building into quite an overwhelming case. Congru (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled web we weave
For those wanting some mild amusement, this "evidence" based approach to collaborative working might amuse. And a revealing post from one James Donely on an NLP web site: "Interesting developments at the Wikipedia sock puppet investigation:. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheSkeptics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Looks like Scott and Inspiritive are doing a pretty good background check on Snowden. That Google Maps link is pretty stiff evidence. Lets see if Snowy can wriggle out of this one" -- Snowded  TALK  23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh please! If this is your idea of reliable information Snowded, then its the cherry on the POV pusher cake. Its about as reliable as that contrived skeptic claptrap you insist on pushing in substitute for reliable NLP expert and neutral encyclopedic knowledge. Your comment is frivolous and predictably erroneous. No doubt it will be roundly ignored by any discerning admin. So just pack it in. Congru (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors working on this page are mentioned in the link Congru, although they have not been notified. And its useful further evidence -- Snowded  TALK  06:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Congru, Snowded stated that he will accept reliable sources which challenge current sources. So they have shifted the onus on other editors. If other good quality sources can be produced which show significant other views, they can be included. I think your time would be better spent collecting reliable sources for prominent points of view. Google scholar is a good place to start if you don't have access to an academic database. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Some day everyone involved in this article is going to open their eyes and say to themselves you know what, Oxford English Dictionary is probably pretty reliable. A Davidian account by its own admission is not.


 * Entire sections of the article are deleted that are important to understanding the model so this isnt just about POV'ing it's about more than that- obfuscating the very ideas.


 * Unfortunately the admins of Wikipedia are either sympathetic to the Skeptic perspective, personal friends with the editors involved, or not taking the time to understand whats going on here.


 * I'm convinced it's hopeless.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The only way to convince Snowded or the administrators would be to compile a list of prominent reliable sources showing different perspectives and how prominent they are. Look at the relevant wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @ IP 122, One of Bandler & Grinder's contributions was to model Milton Erickson's language patterns in a way that could be written down and studied by others. Milton Erickson wrote the forward to their book on this subject, which created an entire additional field of Ericksonian hypnosis.  Here are the academic papers on those language patterns: http://www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Neuroscienceresearchgroup.html  Get them into the article on NLP I'll gladly stand corrected.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft high level outline for entire article
--122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction/lede
 * Origin of title, No single definition of NLP: give some examples of definitions from prominent sources including typical definitions from promotional literature, definitions from founders/prominent practitioners, definition from academics and critics.
 * Founding and development, history
 * Summarize the orientation: i.e. model v theory; interested in healthy functioning and learning, not pathology. Pragmatism v. Theory
 * Intellectual Influences e.g. dictim "Map is not the territory", Bateson, Chomsky, including criticism
 * Influence of Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls
 * Is it a technology, methodology, set of practices, or pseudoscience?
 * Argument concerning pseudoscience
 * Research literature: including empirical and other academic literature
 * Reception and uptake: Estimation of number of practitioners, number of books, where it is applied, how large is the industry, what professional areas?
 * Training providers and associations, level of accreditation, level recognition / level of discredit


 * That looks more like an essay on NLP than an encyclopedia entry, section headings for example would never be a question. -- Snowded  TALK  13:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Come on Snowded. Comment on the substance, not the format (if you can). Congru (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, what leads you to believe that thx outline presented above looks like an essay rather than a good wikipedia article? Do you have an good article or featured articles on similar topics? Are there any good articles on approaches to communication or psychotherapy that are well presented in your eyes? -ab you give any suggestions about his to improve it? Are there any missing bits? -192.148.117.101 (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well just look at the headings from "Summarize the orientation" to "Is it a technology".  These are the headings for an essay on NLP not an encyclopedia entry.  There are asking questions that the writer would answer, rather than summarising the field.   You also need to make a convincing argument as to why the current structure is wrong.  It looks OK to me  -- Snowded  TALK  18:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. So I need to demonstrate that there the current document structure misses important issues discussed in the literature? The current structure is missing some important aspects of the field. This will become apparent when I flesh out the above structure with reliable and prominent sources from various academic fields. The question whether the field of NLP is a "Is it a technology, methodology, set of practices, or pseudoscience?" is important and is discussed in the literature. That would not be the final heading. It would under a heading of definition or description of NLP. I'll flesh out this section with some prominent and reliable sources which matched or exceed the standards that you have accepted in the past from hardened skeptics. Based on the literature, it is not black and white as it is currently presented in the article. Can you please give me a some more time to gather the sources. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yu might be better suggesting where material is missing and establishing that with sources rather than conjoining that with a restructure. The question presents a false choice - it can be a method, a set of practices AND a pseudoscience.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not asking the reader to make a choice so there is no false choice. Its probably best to hold off judgement until I can complete a survey of the current literature. This will help identify what is missing. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In order for a claim of pseudo-science to stick better than day old jello to a wall, there ** MUST ** be an assertion a subject is scientific. That is ** absolutely ** a requirement, according to Wikipedia, for a subject to be considered such.


 * The founders of NLP never said they created something scientific. On the contrary, they suggested they create tools and techniques, a psychology and communication model.


 * Everyone knows these are liberal arts subjects (not science!) at the university level. Suggestions otherwise create a fiction.


 * The onus is very much on the accusers such as Snowded to prove their claim that the founders describe NLP as science--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Pseudo-sciences are not only identified by explicit claim to science by proponents. They are identifiable from a number of characteristics e.g.; the fake use of scientific sounding jargon, trappings etc, the characteristics of the proponents – confirmation bias, cherry picking, conspiracy theories, cultlike groupings, and other factors involving commercial promotion by exaggeration and censorship.  For purpose of Wikipedia editing it is the sources that identify neuro-linguistic programming as pseudo-scientific that count.  The sources in the article comply with WP:RS.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't think its black and white. Sure some promotional literature has defined NLP as the "science of communication" or "science of getting what you want". But the co-founders certainly never described it as a science. Both the founders had undergraduate degrees in psychology and one of the founders was professor in linguistics at the time. To say that the terminology is fake is an exaggeration so you LKK could be accused of dabbling in pseudoscience! We won't really know if the article applies with WP:RS and WP:NPOV until we do an survey of the literature using a method agreed upon at the front end. You appear to have picked some sources and ignored others to support your preconceptions. In NLP they call it perceptual bias - finding information in the world to confirm your belief or perceptual filters. In science its called confirmation bias. What about the meta model? All those questions: how do you know that? What is your evidence for X? How does X cause Y to happen? What X specifically? According to whom? What are you referring to by X? These are questions to promote critical thinking. The article needs to reflect the various points of view in the literature; not a single hardened skeptic's POV. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources are the important point here. Encyclotadd can identify or dissociate neuro-linguistic programming from pseudoscience using personal criteria. I can do the same using the criteria I stated.  But on Wikipedia it is the sources that matter.  If you want to see definition and more concrete characteristics of pseudo-science: Click the link to view .  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you create that video yourself? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeh right! It looks like you had help from Snowded or associated skeptics. Its totally unprofessional. Congru (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What method has been "agreed at the front end"?  As far as I remember the only response you have had to those ideas is a reference back to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any agreement at the front end yet but I'm hoping to get some agreement before proceeding with a survey of the literature. That way we could apply WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT policies somewhat impartially. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia definition of pseudoscience is very clear. It states that, "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific."  NLP has never been presented in this way by its creators.  On the contrary, the creators go out of their way to say it's not scientific.


 * For example, in Frogs Into Princes, the founders state that, "everything we are telling you is a lie." They make it explcitily clear they are just sharing a model.  They say elsewhere (repeatedly), "The Map is not the territory," again expressing that it's just a model.


 * It's a major flaw of the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Encyclotadd; NLP in Frogs into Princes, and in Reframing, is presented as a magic, not a science. It is considered an art that can be practiced, with somewhat predictable results (just as psychotherapy is as much, or more, art than it is science.) The description of the practice of NLP as a magical art is even stronger in the preface of their The Structure of Magic I & II. htom (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources guys, please.  Without sources you are just wasting people's time.  This is not an NLP chat web site  -- Snowded  TALK  18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We're citing Bandler and Grinder's works. You don't consider them or their books to be reliable sources on what they were teaching. This is futile. htom (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For statements about what they said, but not for anything evaluative.  That needs a reliable third party source.   I have read their work and I think they make a science claim, you think otherwise.   We don't resolve those differences here we use reliable third party sources -- Snowded  TALK  20:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're requiring that we prove a negative (specifically, that "NLP is not a pseudo-science"); we won't be able to do that, with or without third-party sources. htom (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's like asking for an explicit reference that a dog is not a tree. It's so obviously not a tree that no expert would bother making the point.


 * NLP is a model. Baner and Grinder present it that way throughout their writing.  Do a search in Frogs Into Princes for their use of the word "lie" and on the Internet for "The Map Is NOT The Territory."


 * It's misleading that this article suggests otherwise. It's time for the article to represent facts rather than references to unsubstantiated POV.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)  --198.228.232.16 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, if statements are made, in relation to NLP, that lend themselves to either scientific verification/invalidation, then evaluating them in such a manner is totally valid. That being said, a counter-argument could be presented, in defense of NLP, which suggests that the statements/methods evaluated do not take into account the subjective abilities of the practitioner himself (which would thus address the practitioner's "artistic" ability). For example, if computer software was used to read aloud a trance induction that often worked for Erickson, and it failed to hypnotize subjects, it would surely be inappropriate to claim that the trance induction is ineffective. Willyfreddy (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you back Willyfreddy. Looks like this weekend will involve some presents. Merry xmas mate!  Congru (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas to you too, man. Have a great holiday :) Willyfreddy (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources? How are we meant to represent polarized viewpoints?
Of the three articles below, how can we decide whether the following sources meet WP:RS and, if so, how much WP:WEIGHT so we give them? It is clear that Sharpley has weight because it has been cited by many times in academic journals and it was originally published in an medium weight "Journal of Counseling Psychology". The "Polish Psychological Bulletin" is not high ranking. I don't know about the other journals. But we need some way of assigning weight more impartially.
 * Lisa Wake, (2011) "Neurolinguistic programming: does it have a role in supporting learning or OD interventions?", Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 25 Iss: 1, pp.19 - 21
 * Paul Tosey & Jane Mathison "Neuro‐linguistic programming as an innovation in education and teaching" Innovations in Education and Teaching International Volume 47, Issue 3, 2010
 * Sharpley (1987) "Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory?" Journal of Counseling Psychology
 * Witkowski, T., (2011) "Thirty-Five Years of Research on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP Research Data Base. State of the Art or Pseudoscientific Decoration?" Polish Psychological Bulletin.

How are we meant to represent these polarized viewpoints? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You evaluate them in the context to the statements they support.  If the journal is peer reviewed then its a reliable source.   We also need to be careful when an article is written by NLP practitioners but that does not discount it.   Your question is not a valid one, we do not evaluate sources independently of the statements they support.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, we should evaluate sources independently of statements that they support, explicitly do not support, and those they say nothing about. Because a source supports a point we wish to make does not make it reliable, and because it supports a point we wish to refute does not make it unreliable. And whether or not it was written by an NLP practitioner or by a Skeptic doesn't discount -- or add value -- to it. We understand you have a point, Snowded, and it's expressed well in The Skeptic's Dictionary ( http://www.skepdic.com/neurolin.html ). The goal of this article is to reliably describe NLP, not to praise it, not to condemn it. Your attitude here seems to lack NPOV. htom (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to take that view, but it might help if you bothered to read what I said. -- Snowded  TALK  17:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My question was: "Of the three articles [above], how can we [evaluate] whether the following sources meet WP:RS and, if so, how much WP:WEIGHT so we give them?" Snowded is saying we need to look at the context in which the statements are made. But why was my question invalid? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 122.... You have already answered your own question . There is no need for any editor to waste time explaining to you something that you clearly appear to know already. If you continue such questioning you will exhaust the patience of other editors, if they have not had experience of your editing and approach to discussion. It is unconstructive and disruptive. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We probably all have to agree to Snowded's standard that references to "peer reviewed" journals be included. That seems inarguable, and I feel this way even though the references that meet this standard in the article are contrary to my own POV.  Snowded and IPP both are open to discussing context for references that do not rise to that standard.  Perhaps that's where some constructive conversation can take place as a result.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The question of this section is satisfied with reference to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Beyond that we need specific edits to comment on. Discussion of how-to can be conducted on the discussion pages of above policies. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's have some transparency here with our selection of sources. I'm looking for high-level agreement between the editors here who want to collaborate. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You have high level agreement to abide by WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT which define the collaborative environment.  I for one am not prepared to engage in an abstract debate which is not linked to proposed changes to the article - its a waste of time and space and you really are pushing the edge you know.  Constant comments no sources provide;  it is now verging on disruption. -- Snowded  TALK  00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look at those policies again. They are very general so we'll still need to discuss how to apply those policies to this article. I'll attempt to summarize those polices with reference to this topic. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free but I'm not playing that game and I am seriously considering an ANI report for long term disruption and meat puppetry if this goes on. You need to propose actual amendments to the article that can then be discussed in the light of those policies.  If you have general issues then you discuss those at the talk page of the policies themselves.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, I think my proposals will help prevent disruption and meat puppetry from skeptics or proponents in the future. We can survey the literature in a neutral fashion, identify the different view points, and then assign weight accordingly. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you make specific proposals for changes, properly sourced in accordance with policy you are wasting everyone's time -- Snowded  TALK  10:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your entitled to your opinion about the process but whatever has been happening on this article so far has not been worked. You must admit the article is lopsided. If we can begin with the broad brush strokes then we can move toward the specifics later. Have you had a chance to consider what academic databases would be suitable as a guide to the viewpoints on this subject? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands reflects the sources. Until you propose some more there is no future in this conversation.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Snowded is right that moving the conversation from abstract to specific will more likely result in progress and is the intention of the rules.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. I made some specific changes to the article.  They will have to get past our already growing consensus now;) Congru (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Three single purpose accounts a growing consensus?  Please.    Propose changes here first please.  I would be interested to see the Baxter 1994 article to see what explicit mention it makes of NLP.  There is a fair amount of evidence that any talking therapy can create serotonin changes, studies on meditation show the same sort of thing as I remember it.  Anyone got a copy?   I assume Encyclotadd that you did check it out, rather than simply cutting and pasting?  -- Snowded  TALK  07:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the full citation, I have not read it: Baxter LR Jr. Positron emission tomography studies of cerebral glucose metabolism in obsessive compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1994 Oct;55 Suppl:54-9. Review. 7961533. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Reorganisation of article - work in progress
--122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues missing. These are not really academic issues so they have been ignored by the literature and I'm not sure where they would be covered. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NLP in the popular culture (movies, television shows, seduction community)
 * Summary of popular NLP books and authors:
 * Anthony Robbins (US best seller: wrote first popular NLP book: Unlimited power),
 * Paul McKenna (Best seller in UK), ...

Relevant policies for reorganisation: see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/policy --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for initiating this conversation. Here are my thoughts.  The Milton Model and The Meta Model both deserve entire sections.   There has been substantial research into Ericksonian hypnosis by psychologists and neuro-scientists that can speak directly to the Milton (Erickson) model and should be included.  Also Notable Practitioners, NLP Theories and NLP Techniques all deserve their own entire sections of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 08:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Sections 4&5 appear to offer an evaluative approach (see my earlier comment on essays rather than encyclopedia articles).  The policy on prose is a good one, but if you look around has been difficult to implement in practice on many articles.  The section here is also about scientific reception (which just happens to be critical in the main).   I agree with you that NLP is mostly known these days as one of a myriad of management consultancy and self-help methods but we really need a source which makes that statement.   Overall I would expect two things in this quest of yours on a new structure.   Firstly a clear reason why the current structure does not work; Secondly a mapping of old onto new.   I also strongly suggest you use a sandbox to work on this and create a link here.  It makes the talk page less cluttered.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The evidence against the current structure finds voice in the disagreement throughout this talk page and number of edits reverted. The sandbox is a helpful suggestion after tentative agreement is reached regarding structural approach.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagreement by a small coterie of SPAs is not evidence of any defeciency in the strucuture. Also, as far as I can see that disagreement has not been to the structure, but has focused on removing anything critical of NLP.  So my request still stands for a summary of what is considered wrong with the current structure and a high level mapping from old to proposed new.   At the moment I don't see a case and I remain disturbed that the summaries provided seem to focus on an evaluative essay which will create multiple issues.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still working through the reliable sources and relevant policies. I will try to map existing structure into the proposed new one. I'm looking through the policies to try to explain what is wrong about the current structure. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I repeat my suggestion that you take any proposed changes into a sandbox where you can work on them in peace.   When you have the reasons and the mapping done you can always link here.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Eisner 2000
Do you think that Eisner (2000) is a reliable source for criticism of NLP? It is cited by Tosey (2007; 2010) in these papers. Eisner says "What is presented in workshops by Bandler and Grinder is unverified stories"
 * Donald Eisner (2000) "Strategic Systems Family Therapy and Neurolinguistic programming" In The death of psychotherapy: From Freud to alien abductions. Praeger. ISBN 0275964132
 * Tosey (2007) Fabulous Creatures of HRD: a critical natural history of Neuro-Linguistic Programming
 * Tosey (2010) Neuro‐linguistic programming as an innovation in education and teaching

Tosey (2007) states: "Eisner ( 2000) argues that as a psychotherapy NLP has no sound empirical or theoretical basis; Eisner’s critique, however, is levelled at many therapies and may be considered scientistic." --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It boggles my mind that a book about alien abductions found it's way into this article. It's a very silly source.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the source before making comments like that -- Snowded TALK  08:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Encyclotadd, don't get put off by the title. Its one of most comprehensive critiques of NLP from a positivist perspective. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than trying to balance all of those weak Skeptic Society sources with sources of only equal caliber, let's just remove them from the article or move them to their own section.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See the WP:FRINGE policy. It says "It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And just for the record, nearly all the sources are not from the Skeptic Society but from reliable sources. Encyclotadd, your attempt to claim meat puppetry didn't even pass first base on that one so you really should give up that line of argument if you can't sustain it.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling Skeptic Society source "weak" is also quite unhelpful. The place to challenge the reliability of sources is at the reliable sources noticeboard, and not here.  If you believe the sources to be weak, have them examined there. siafu (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Norcross 2010
The paper that was the source of the "certainly discredited for the treatment of drug addiction" was just a poster when it was cited by Glasner-Edwards but now it has been published in Journal of Addiction Medicine. Just a note that it is fairly poor science. They state that anything with average rating of 4.5 or greater was considered "certainly discredited". NLP was rated 4.52 in the second round but there was a large SD, a big error term, in the data. They did not use confidence intervals or significance test which is just poor science especially for a group claiming to having an evidence-based orientation. The methodology was flawed but unless a reliable source makes that statement we'll just have to take it at face value.
 * was ranked certainly discredited in treatments in the addictions. source: Norcross JC, Koocher GP, Fala NC, Wexler HK. (2010) What does not work? Expert consensus on discredited treatments in the addictions. J Addict Med. Sep;4(3):174-80. PubMed . --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of using reliable sourcing is so that we, as wikipedia editors, are not the arbitrators of scientific validity. This task is left to the editorial board of the journal, who, if the source passes muster as being reliable, are considered to be the experts in the matter. siafu (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

G. Brent Angell (2011) NLP Theory and Social Work Treatment
The above article is published in a reliable source, a university press. It might be useful for this article for perspective of NLP from a social worker perspective. I only briefly looked at the abstract and introduction. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G. Brent Angell (2011) "Neurolinguistic Programming Theory and Social Work Treatment" in Francis J Turner (ed.) Social work treatment : interlocking theoretical approaches. 5e Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195394658 worldcat


 * Well bring it here when you have a specific proposal, WIkipedia is not a place to keep research notes -- Snowded  TALK  07:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought it could be a bit more collaborative. You and other wikipedians were asking for reliable sources for this article. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No we are not, the content of the article is well supported by reliable sources. We are saying that if you want to change the article you need to provide reliable sources to support those changes.  You have over months now made general comments, sought to change policy on this talk page and carried out the odd minor edit war.  So far you have consistently failed to discuss changes on the talk page and failed (despite many requests) to propose changes supported by reliable sources.  The talk page is littered with your musings rather than any serious discussion as to how to improve the article.  Adding a reference here to an article which by your own admission you have not even read yet without any reference to any change is a misuse of the talk page.   If you want to do this sort of thing create a sandpit (I put some effort into explaining how you do this when you asked) and invite editors who are interested to access it.-- Snowded  TALK  08:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * because it is published by a university press, the source meets the criteria for a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. I want to talk about weight now. How does it compare with the other sources in this article in terms of weight? How do we decide that? --58.163.175.181 (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you 122.108.140.210 editing from a Victoria address?  You need to say what edit you propose which would be supported by that source.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * without getting into the specifics we should be able to agree that this is a reliable source for statements about NLP theory applied to social work treatment whatever that means. I was just replying using my iPad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.192 (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You really need to get an ID (or use your original ActionPotential), I am now up to four names/IPs under which you have edited. In response to your question, for the hundredth time, propose an amendment based on that source and we can judge it.   Without proposals for change you are, yet again, wasting everyone's time including your own. -- Snowded  TALK  11:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You must admit that the source meets wikipedia rules for reliable sources. The articles does not currently include a social work viewpoint yet. We'd need to discuss in general and agree that it is a reliable source before making any specific amendments. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You already know that you need to make a specific suggestion before anyone will be able to decide whether it is a reliable source for the statement made. You are currently being persistently disruptive. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Both Snowded and Lam Kin Keung are correct. The reliability of sources is entirely dependent on the context of the statement being sourced.  A journal on civil engineering can be a reliable source for statements regarding the efficacy of pre-tensioned concrete in modern bridge building, but not a reliable source for statements regarding the aesthetic appeal of cable stay versus suspension bridges, by way of example.  If there is no specific change, addition, or deletion you are proposing, it is not possible to say whether the source is reliable for the purpose or not. siafu (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But in general, can we agree that: a university press on social work CAN be a reliable source for statements regarding the application of NLP to social work treatment, but not a reliable source for statements regarding the empirical efficacy of NLP in the context of scientific psychology, for example. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's possible in theory, but not obvious prima facie. Any source can fail to be reliable just by being a crappy source, and in this case it doesn't seem like a university publication on social work should be ruled out categorically.  You would need to be more specific, just as other editors have requested. siafu (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Anchoring
Whether you agree with anchoring or not, it's mentioned in countless texts and at most leading seminars on NLP. It seems clear to me that the subject must be brought up more than just by reference in an encyclopedia article about NLP. A quick Google search for the phrase "NLP anchoring," for example, produces over a quarter million results.

Here is the definition of NLP anchoring according to Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_%28NLP%29   There are a lot of other explanations on the web but this is one that I like:  http://www.whitedovebooks.co.uk/nlp/anchoring.htm

Please discuss.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its one of several subjects covered by NLP and there is a pipeline. Why should it get more prominence than others?   -- Snowded  TALK  22:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It receives no prominence at all (just one word). Yet it's important enough to appear in Google search results close to a half million times, receive it's own Wikipeida article, and has even been the source of empirical studies, such as "A STUDY OF INITIAL RESPONSE AND REVERSION RATES OF SUBJECTS TREATED WITH THE ALLERGY TECHNIQUE" by Judith A. Swack, Ph.D


 * Surely it deserves more than a word. :) --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not where you were inserting it.  There may be a case to expand the descriptions of individual techniques, but that would need to be balanced so as not to emphasise one over another.  Generally where material is covered in another article then it would be linked, not replicated -- Snowded  TALK  23:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If it were simply a technique you wouldn't be wrong. But you'll noticed it's frequently described as a noun. That's because it's a theory -- often compared with classical conditioning -- in addition to being a technique.  That theory has been used to create many techniques.  The study by Judith A. Swack, Ph.D will be of interest to you as well. --Encyclotadd (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The edits you made, which were reversed, simply replicated material from another article at the end of a list of which anchoring was a part. Hence my comment.  That list contains several techniques, or theories if you prefer which are associated with NLP.   Normally the pipeline would be enough  -- Snowded  TALK  06:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion that the text may have been more appropriate elsewhere in the article is valid. I'd be glad for you or another editor to take charge of adding the information more appropriately.


 * It's one of the most important theories (perhaps the most important) in the model because a third of techniques (in "The Big Book of NLP Techniques" anyway) are based in some part on anchoring.


 * You did not notice that I added the information slightly differently than it appeared in the Wikpedia article on NLP anchoring. That was because many people are familiar with classical conditioning, the very famous psychological theory invented by Pavlov.  Anchoring can be easily understood in that context, as the same process taking place entirely within imagination.


 * One of the most famous "interventions" is the "Fast Phobia Cure." That technique involves anchoring a new more pleasant response to a stimuli that previously was associated with a negative one.


 * I hope the information can be added in the way that I'm suggesting. However, if it's added verbatim the way the definition appears elsewhere on Wikipedia, although that would be less clear, at least it would be added in some form and the article will be more complete.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The VKD procedure is sometimes referred to as the 'Fast Phobia technique or Fast Phobia Rewind''"(Simpson and Dryden 2011) See, Simpson S D R, Dryden W: Comparison between REBT and Visual/Kinaesthetic Dissociation in the Treatment of Panic Disorder: An Empirical Study. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 29(3): 158-176, 2011. Dryden seems to be a prominent researcher and practitioner in the CBT literature so this article about VKD (an NLP derived technique also known as the "rewind technique" or "fast phobia cure") might be acceptable under WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. You'd have to read the full text and ask Snowded who has a good grasp on the relevant wikipedia policies. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its a single study using a single experimenter student not a review of many such as with the Witkowski and Sharpley. Nothing is mentioned in that study about anchoring. Dryden may be notable.  In his book Psychotherapy and its Discontents, Dryden says that after 1988 when Bandler admitted threatening Corine Christensen with murder and leaving her alone to die after she had been shot in the head, then drowned his sorrows in gin and cocaine, he then moved on to continue developing neuro-linguistic programming.  That could be relevant to history and founding section.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.american-buddha.com/bandler.method.htm A much more detailed telling of the story. There are other versions. Note Blander and Grinder started publishing about NLP in 1975, so "moved on to continue developing " has a different meaning than the obvious one. htom (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? We are discussing cocaine instead of anchoring in this section?


 * Many NLP techniques involve anchoring. To fail to mention the theory at all renders this article very incomplete.


 * Please... how can we approach informing readers in a way that all Editors would support?--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See here -- Snowded TALK  07:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * VK/D involves anchoring. It is a dissociation of the Visual and Kinesthetic "anchors" that were supposedly formed during the traumatic event. This paper does include a up-to-date review of other background research. If you bothered to look - there are other reviews papers of VK/D in traumatology research. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no mention of anchoring in the Simpson and Dryden 2011 study. However, it does say that VKD is not original to neuro-linguistic programming. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are other papers that deal with anchoring more directly. But do you think the VK/D technique (A.K.A. rewind technique, fast phobia technique)is relevant to this article? How much space would you dedicate to it? It was featured in Devilly's critique as well as the Traumatology (e.g. C Figley) empirical studies and review articles. Most of the papers see it as a promising technique that requires further investigation. This shows that at least some researchers take VK/D seriously. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about VK/D it is an article about NLP.  Its like the stuff on mirroring that some editors tried to introduce.  You can't write about something and inpute an NLP link/validate.  You could in a paper that you wrote but not in an encyclopedia entry.  The only relevant thing here is NLPs use of VK/D.  Again try and make a specific proposal rather than asking general questions.-- Snowded  TALK  10:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know Bandler and Grinder coined the term VK/D to describe what was the active ingredient in the fast phobia technique, and other similar techniques used in NLP, that are supposed to remove or reduce the negative feelings associated to visual memories (visual sequelae) involved in specific (and complex?) phobias. But I'd have to check the literature for specifics. Don't worry, I'll make some specific suggestions after I've completed compiled a list of recent academic literature. I hope we can find agreement on selection of reliable sources at that point. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @ IP 122, that would be a huge contribution. This article is missing reliable information about anchoring and VK/D.  In fact there is no explanation of these subjects in the article.  Any references you can provide may add immeasurably.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again Encyclotadd. I added a link to the list of studies on NLP.  There is a huge amount of good stuff on the NLP related articles here.  I suggest we make better use of it.  If Snowded, LKK, and others in the skeptic society want to go against it, they will be contradicting Wikipedia.  Congru (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Presently anchoring is characterized in the article as a method/intervention, which is not correct. It can be but was also intended in a much more broad sense than is implied by those words. As stated  by Bandler and Grinder in Frogs Into Princes, "Anchors are everywhere."


 * Here is the way anchoring appeared in the article back in 2006 after one of the Wikipedia administrators cleaned up the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=57666114#Anchoring


 * To me this seems like a really obvious clarification that would help readers to understand the model substantially more clearly.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its the version after it was edited by an NLP practitioner who is also an admin but has been involved in a lot of controversy Encyclotadd so it has no special authority.  I repeat my earlier question.   Have you got a third party source which says what it is (if it is not a method/intervention) and gives us a better source for that general summary (in which anchoring is listed as one item)  -- Snowded  TALK  07:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fascinating.


 * The book "Frogs into Princes, neuro-linguistic programming" was written by Bandler and Grinder and published in 1979. In that book they describe anchoring the following way:


 * "Anchors are everywhere. Have you ever been in a classroom where there's a blackboard and somebody went up to the blackboard and went -(He pantomimes scarping his fingernails down the blackboard. Most people wince and groan.) What are you doing? You're crazy! There's no blackboard. How's that for an anchor?"


 * The key thing to notice is that they say "Anchors are everywhere." Clearly they are not describing just a methodology/intervention as it's currently portrayed in the wikipedia article.  That's why it deserves "special treatment" (as you call it) relative to normal methodologies or interventions mentioned in the article.


 * This version of anchoring does a good job of articulating the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=57666114#Anchoring   But I'm open to any approach to clarifying that everyone can agree upon.  So if you have a way of clarifying that you like better, by all means.... I'm open to it.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I am going to make one last attempt here to explain this to you. We currently have the following sentence in the article : "In addition to the first two models, Bandler, Grinder and a group of students who joined them during the early period of development of NLP, say that they developed techniques that they termed anchoring, reframing, submodalities, perceptual positions, and representational systems". That is not supported by a direct reference so its weak and we should look at it but that is a different matter. It lists anchoring as one technique amoung several and there are pipelinks to the articles concerned. So if you are happy with the wording at Anchoring then the pipeline is probably enough. If you want to add in summary material here then it should be a cut and paste but a summary and you will need to summarise the other listed techniques or provide a source which says why Anchoring is more important in some way. B&G saying that "Anchors are everywhere" does not even involve them saying that it is more important, You are drawing that conclusion and on wikipedia that means nothing. If you want to draw that conclusion then you have to support it with a third party reference. So you need to come back here with specific sourced proposals. Just listing your interpretation is a waste of your time and that of other editors. -- Snowded TALK  09:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the summary that I propose we add in the body of the article: "Anchoring is a term for the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. The stimulus may be quite neutral or even out of conscious awareness, and the response may be either positive or negative. They are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning."  This is the shorter summary that I propose we add in the lead:  "Anchoring is a term similar to classical conditioning by which memory recall state change or other responses become associated with (anchored) to some stimulus."   I recommend we reference Frogs Into Princes since that's one of the most important original texts.  If this is suitable to everyone, I'll do the research to reference this thoroughly.  --Encyclotadd (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me spell it out. W H A T    I S   Y  O U R   S O U R C E   T O   S A Y   T H A T   A N C H O R I N G   S H O U L D    B E   T R E A T E D   D I F F E R E N T L Y   F R O M   T H E    O T H E R    T E C H N I Q U E S   L I S T E D?  -- Snowded  TALK  17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to resort to yelling, Snowded. I'm hopeful we can agree on an edit through cooperation.


 * You keep using the word "technique" even though I have repeatedly shown that it's different from a technique. I've shown this three ways:  I've cited Frogs Into Princes, which is an original text.  That text explains that anchors "are everywhere" and describes anchors that have nothing to do with techniques, such as automatic responses to fingernails on a chalkboard, which are considered anchored responses in the original text.  I've shown you clarifying language in a previous version of the Wikipedia article predating either of our involvement in this article, and I've shown you an entire additional article on Wikipedia clarifying it.


 * You have asked for a third party source but that would not be as good as original writing about anchors by the founders of NLP, which I have already provided.


 * This is not a question of "importance" of anchoring. This is a matter of accuracy-- expressing correctly in the article what anchoring actually means in context of NLP.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that we have clarified that once again, I'd like to focus everyone's attention on the following proposed edits.  This is based on the original text, copy that appeared in the article years ago, and the article about NLP anchoring appearing on Wikipedia (acknowledging that the original text is the best source, and will be the ultimate reference used for this addition):


 * I propose we add this in the body of the article: "Anchoring is a term for the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. The stimulus may be quite neutral or even out of conscious awareness, and the response may be either positive or negative. They are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning."


 * I propose we add in the lede: "Anchoring is a term similar to classical conditioning by which memory recall state change or other responses become associated with (anchored) to some stimulus."


 * I can live with this being clarified in the body of the article without reference in the lede although I hope everyone can agree on both additions.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A statement that "Anchors are everywhere" does not establish that anchoring is anything other than a technique.  If we are going to expand the description of this technique then we need to balance it with descriptions of the other.  That gets too lengthy and the pipelines are more than adequate if people want to read more.  Using primary sources is permissible, but we should really use secondary or tertiary sources per policy.   You've been pointed to these many times before, but please again read WP:RS,  WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, your proposals in whole or in part fail those and as far as I am concerned are rejected unless and until you properly source them and answer the question about priority.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * He was describing a response to imaginary finger nails on a chalk board ! That's not a technique, it's a conditioned response taking place entirely within imagination.  PLEASE read the original source, which fully explains this.  You will find that what I'm saying is refelcted there (as well as virtually everywhere else NLP anchoring is described).--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anchoring is described as a technique in multiple NLP sources. Per the "theory" some anchors naturally exist, but others can (it is claimed) be "installed", "activated" etc. if you are trained in NLP techniques.  Various NLP sites and handbooks offer techniques to create "visual", "kinesthetic" & "auditory" anchors. Read the polices, research the sources and come up with some argument as to why anchoring should be given preference over the other techniques and/or that the description of those techniques should be expanded beyond the pipelines that are already there.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are expressing the ideas much more correctly now.


 * In fact your explanation is strong enough that your words could be used almost exactly to clarify anchoring in the article: "Per the theory, some anchors naturally exist, but others can (it is argued) be "installed", "activated" etc. if you are trained in NLP techniques.  Various NLP sites and handbooks offer techniques to create "visual", "kinesthetic" & "auditory" anchors."


 * I would prefer the explanation written by the previous Editor of the article:


 * "Anchoring is a term for the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. The stimulus may be quite neutral or even out of conscious awareness, and the response may be either positive or negative. They are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning."


 * But I could live with yours in the name of progress over perfection. So if you want, I'll support that change, or I'll be glad to make it if you agree to support it.  Finally a consensus can be born!  :)  --Encyclotadd (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to expand the current material. The pipelink is sufficient.  If we are going to expand it then the other techniques need parallel treatment and I would want to see a third party source which identified them as the main ones.  As to "more correctly", well words fail me.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a shame because as you well know now, there is an issue of factual accuracy at stake here, and your verbiage is acceptable to me.--Encyclotadd (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

VK/D
The following source says that VK/D was developed by Bandler and Grinder (1979)... We should note that Dryden is the editor in chief of that "Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy" and that I'm not sure of the rank of that journal. There are two viewpoints here: Herbert, Lilienfeld, and Lohr (2000) and Devilly (2005) argue that there is a lack of empirical research into VK/D and it has not been submitted for peer review. In contrast, Mohiuddin (2006); Carbonell and Figley 1999; DC Muss (2002); and Simpson and Dryden (2011) argue that it is a promising technique and requires further research. Simpson and Dryden (2011) agrees with Dietrich et al. that the VK/D technique was developed by Bandler and Grinder (1979) based on the work of Erich Fromm. According to a review by Dietrich et al., "the available evidence suggests TIR, the TRI Method, and V/KD are effective treatments for posttraumatic sequelae." [...] "Rigorous studies need to be conducted and replicated using comparison groups to demonstrate that the identified treatment is equivalent to another “well-established" treatment or superior to medication, psychological placebo or other treatment. Scientist-practitioners are encouraged to take an active role in this line of enquiry and to conduct research with combined components, using good experimental designs and standardized approaches." --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Academic book: JD Herbert, SO Lilienfeld, JM Lohr (2000) "Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Implications for clinical psychology"
 * Professional magazines in medicine: Mohiuddin (2006) What….. no medication? An introduction to the Human Givens approach - inside this issue
 * Simpson and Dryden (2011) Comparison between REBT and Visual/Kinaesthetic Dissociation in the Treatment of Panic Disorder: An Empirical Study Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy
 * Higher impact journal: Devilly (2005) "Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry"
 * Academic journal: Carbonell, C Figley 1999 Promising PTSD Treatment Approaches Traumatology
 * Academic press: DC Muss (2002) "The Rewind Technique in the Treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Methods and Applications" in Contributions in Psychology
 * Dietrich, AM., Baranowsky, AB., Devich-Navarro, M., Gentry, JE, Harris, CJH., Figley, CR., (2000) A Review of Alternative Approaches to the Treatment of Post Traumatic Sequelae Traumatology Volume VI (4,2)
 * Dietrich et al. (2000) A Review of Visual/Kinesthetic Disassociation in the Treatment of Posttraumatic Disorders: Theory, Efficacy and Practice Recommendations Traumatology June 2000 6: 85-107,


 * Reviews of neuro-linguistic programming tended to examine the conceptually pseudo-scientific concept of sense preferences such as VAK etc. As stated in the article, neuro-linguistic programming fails in those reviews. It is not our job to conduct reviews of multiple research papers, and there appears already to be conceptual overlap with the sensory predicates and VKD in the existing reviews. I will check again through the sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a review paper by Dietrich et al (2000) which was cited by Simpson and Dryden (2011) in their recent paper. VK/D appears to have spun-off from NLP and been evaluated a a "promising" technique in its own right. VK/D does not depend on any "sense preferences" or what the literature referred to as preferred representational systems (PRS). Charles Figley who was at FSU is probably the most notable proponent of this NLP-VK/D as a promising technique. Maybe we should create an article dedicated to VK/D -- it is notable as a technique by itself? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Gray (an assistant professor in Criminology at Fairleigh Dickinson University) has published a few papers on VK/D recently including one titled "Gray-Liotta PTSD Extinction Reconsolidation and VKD-RTM" published in Traumatology. It is available online for free:. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see a reference. Having read it the key phrase appears to be:  "Despite other explanations, the authors believe that a little known intervention originally described by Richard Bandler (1985) makes specific use of reconsolidation mechanisms and deserves serious reconsideration".  The author takes a perspective on a variant of a technique created by one of the NLP founders (i.e. it pre-existed) and suggest further research.  These seems a common theme in a lot of papers referenced and one really looks for the results of that further research.   I can see the material could have use in an article on VK/D which would logically have an NLP reference or two.   I can't see how it affects the criticism section which is properly sourced.  The pro-stuff is covered elsewhere in the article-- Snowded  TALK  08:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's amazing that this research doesn't appear in the article yet.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can write an article on Visual-kinesthetic dissociation and also have a reference or short description of it somewhere in this article and then linked to it. We don't really describe the major techniques in NLP such as rapport, anchoring, reframing, pacing and leading, etc. Is there a good academic article which describes the classic techniques in NLP? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"certain", "a number of" or "some" neuroscientists etc?
Also, why do we order "neuroscientst before psychologist" when most of the critics are psychologists, not neuroscientists? Shouldn't this be ordered with the strongest (by number) of critics first? There are no pure neuroscientists who weight in on the subject except for Corballis who is really a psychologist (cognitive neuropsychologist) whose work straddles neuroscience by way of neuro-imaging and neuropsychology. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lam prefers "certain"
 * I prefer "a number of"
 * A third person prefers "some"


 * The use of certain in this context is very clear. A number of is fine, but neuro-linguistic programming is considered to be pseudo-scientific, controversial, and discredited according to neuroscientific thinking as well as linguistic and psychological. Then I propose this compromise:


 * "According to a number of neuroscientists,[3] psychologists[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses discredited, misleading, and pseudo-scientific terms and concepts." Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a utterly questionable sentence in the article. None of the sources are neuroscientists for starters:


 * The Polish Psychological Journal isn't even peer reviewed among psychologists.
 * Stollznow is an Australian writer, linguist and podcaster.
 * Sergio Della Sala teaches psychology at the University of Edinburgh.
 * Corballis teaches psychology at University of Auckland.


 * Also there are plenty of esteemed academics who view Bandler and Grinder's work as worthwhile.


 * Dr. Ernest Rossi, who discussed elsewhere on this talk page, endorsed Bandler and Grinder's Milton Model when he edited their book, "Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson."


 * According to the APA, Rossi was a Fellow and Executive Advisory Board Member in the American Psychotherapy Association, is the author of numerous renowned books on psychotherapy, including The Psychobiology of Gene, received the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy from the Erickson Foundation in 1980 and from the American Psychotherapy Association in 2003. He also received the 2004 Thomas P. Wall Award for Excellence in Teaching Clinical Hypnosis. Today he conducts training workshops sponsored by his nonprofit organization, the Ernest Lawrence Rossi Foundation for Psychosocial Genomic Research.


 * Rossi co-authored papers supportive of this work with David David Atkinson, who was President of Grant MacEwan University. He was the former president of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and two Ontario universities, Brock University in St. Catharines and Carleton University in Ottawa. There is a full article about him on Wikipedia (as well as Rossi and Erickson): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Atkinson


 * The sentence should be removed from the lede entirely.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We all know how fraudulent LKK/Snowdens compromises are (hilighted very clearly by Willyfreddy). The line should go. Congru (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "We all know..." No, we don't. What *I* know is that you have made no edits outside this topic. — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the sources are neuroscientists, Jeraphine. None.  Zero.  Zilch.


 * You wouldn't ask basketball players to comment on cricket, would you?


 * Several of these references were removed by Administrators of Wikipedia as part of the arbitration ruling in the past. I share Congru's dismay that the proposed compromise is anything less than removal.--Encyclotadd (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know what's going on, I just got here. — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome. Its been discussed before  and the line was inserted under agreement.  Here is Corballis . The view is that of neuroscience or neuropsychology. There are significant neuroscientific views critical of neuro-linguistic programming Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Corballis who wrote two sentences about NLP on p.29, 41 of Are we in our right minds? (1999). In Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions about the Mind and Brain. Do you think that is an acceptable source, and why? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion requests
I'm probably doing this wrong, but I'm bold. I've requested a third opinion on the question "whether or not NLP is a pseudo-science or a psychotherapy method". htom (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right to raise this question.


 * Bandler and Grinder go out of their way to present NLP as non-scientific. They write in Frogs Into Princes, an original source about the subject: "Everything we are telling you is a lie." How much more explicit could they be?   They go on to write that, "The Map is not the territory."  I'm paraphrasing here, but this means their NLP model (map) is not reality (the territory).  They there is zero scientific claim whatsoever.


 * Psychological models, like Bandler and Grinders, are usually treated by universities (including Harvard and Yale) as liberal arts subject matters. Degrees in psychology are often not bachelors of science.  That's because psychological models are understood to be unscientific.  Freud created a lot of scientific sounding terms like psychoanalysis and his work is also not pseudoscience. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevant: Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

issue with citing Glasner-Edwards and Rawson in lead
Another problem is of this sort: "Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”". On what evidence is that interpretation made? If it cites a delphi poll of expert opinions just state that so people know some context. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that this has not been addressed yet. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake here. The Norcross paper that Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) cite has since been published in another good journal. In the second round of the Nocross 2010 poll, NLP for the treatment of drug addiction was rated at 4.51 just above the cut off for "certainly discredit". Its a crappy paper because no confidence intervals or t-tests were reported so we don't know if its a valid inference but that's not for us to comment on here. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I found a basis for concern about these references appearing without qualification.


 * According to the Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 32(4), Oct 1985, 589-596, "[There are] 6 categories of design and methodological errors contained in 39 empirical studies of neurolinguistic programming (NLP)..." According to the article, much of the research was simply flawed.  The article states these flaws, "...include lack of understanding of the concepts of pattern recognition and inadequate control of context, unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, lack of familiarity with the NLP meta-model of linguistic communication, failure to consider the role of stimulus–response associations, inadequate interviewer training and definitions of rapport, and logical mistakes."


 * In addition, this article disagrees with our Sharpley reference directly, saying, "A review of this literature by Sharpley (1984) failed to consider a number of methodological errors."


 * To me this seems like an obvious call for balance in the lede.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely need better balance here.Topgunn9 (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed reorganisation of lead section
I am proposing that we reorganise the lead section to over these main topics. This will also help us organise the rest of the article...

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Broad definition from source such as OED
 * Where it was create/co-founded
 * Origin of title
 * No single definition of NLP: give some examples of definitions from prominent sources, including founders, practitioners, academics and skeptics
 * include examples of more promotional definitions
 * including self description from Grinder, Dilts, Bandler et al.
 * Summarize approach/perspective: e.g. interested in healthy functioning and learning, not pathology.
 * dictim "Map is not the territory"
 * Is it technology, methodology, set of practices? describe the differences
 * Pseudoscience? briefly summarize the argument.
 * Origins with modeling Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls
 * Influence of Gregory Bateson - cybernetic epistemology
 * Summary criticism from academic researchers: summary research including experimental studies
 * Summarise uptake in professional areas: where it is popular/applied
 * Summarise training providers and associations, level of recognition/discredit


 * I suggest you draft something in a sandbox that can be looked at. That said, the lede is meant to summarise the main body so if you purpose is to change that, then you should start with proposals for changes there, not the lede -- Snowded  TALK  06:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is more of a top down approach. I'm not going to get bogged down arguing each change in the body. Let's do a high level summary and then revise the entire article. Is there anything that I've missed from your view of the literature? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We don;t start with the lede - provide a high level summary of how you see the main body then we can look at it. -- Snowded  TALK  06:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the article would certainly have the include the above topics, wouldn't it? Is there anything missing from your understanding of the literature? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Any reorganization of the lede or main body should remove references to literature containing the word Skeptic or to content by Skeptic authors. The Skeptics organization is obviously meat puppeting because this slide show was given as a presentation at one of their gatherings:  http://www.slideshare.net/krelnik/promoting-skepticism-via-wikipedia  The disproportionate number of references in this article to Skeptic literature obviously owes to this collusion.  Removing the references would be consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia rules and is the right thing to do (at long last).  The sad thing is that, if the Skeptics organization understood the subject matter better, they too would advocate for the removal of their references as well.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the list of subject matters suggested for the lede, I would advocate for including an explanation of anchoring. In particular, the explanation should include a comparison/contrasting with classical conditioning.  With classical condition there are physical elements present.  With anchoring the elements may be entirely within the imagination.  This is a particularly interesting idea that is important not only to this subject matter but deserves discussion among psychologists generally.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anchoring is not unique to the neuro-linguistic programming. Skepticism is inherent in scientific thinking.  Please refer to NPOV on pseudo-scientific and fringe subjects WP:PSCI.  Please make your suggestions in writing here or if definitional/descriptive, in the section below. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide a reference to anchoring outside of NLP and predating the founders use of the term. That would be very interesting to me and further my understanding.  The Skeptics Society is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization that has been meat puppeting on Wikipedia:  http://www.slideshare.net/krelnik/promoting-skepticism-via-wikipedia  There are so many references to literature by The Skeptics and containing Skeptic in the title that the impact of that organization in this article is transparently clear.  That violates the spirit and rules of Wikipedia.  Furthermore, if that organization understood this subject matter better, they would seek additional empirical / scientific evidence, and in doing so become partners in creating a substantially more informed world. --Encyclotadd (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No the burden is on you to provide reliable evidence that anchoring was originated by neuro-linguistic programmers. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bandler and Grinder coined the term anchoring to diswtinguish it from conditioning in behavioral psychology. Its would be hard to argue that they are different concepts. This is stated in Grinder's Whispering but you'd need to find it in third party reliable sources to verify this statement. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I created a page to draft a new introduction basedTalk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/revise-intro. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LKK, According to Wikipedia, NLP is responsible for the term anchoring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_%28NLP%29 . It's an important concept that receives almost no mention in this Wikipedia article except that tiny link. It barely receives a mention at all.


 * What's fascinating is the possibility that classical conditioning takes place without anything physical present. Pavlov showed us that a dog can salivate to the sound of a bell if he's shown food enough times while a bell is ringing.  But does that same process take place entirely within the imagination of human beings?  If you imagine a lover enough times and imagine yourself feeling good in her presence, does that feeling become classically conditioned to that stimulus?  Conversely, if a person imagines a hallucinates negative feelings enough times, is that how anxiety becomes associated with stimulus?


 * Regardless of your view on whether that process is taking place within human beings, or whether it's a helpful way about thinking of certain aspects of life, clearly the subject needs further explanation in this article. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We should stop editor views from creeping into the article.  A couple or more editors here have obviously hijacked the article for pushing their particular POV. Your info on the skeptic group is highly enlightening.  Frankly they have made the article extremely slanted. NLP does not get the credit it deserves for originating key innovations. Whether we tolerate skeptic sockpuppets here or not we should NOT allow such obviously biased editing.  Congru (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As Snowded has said for a long time, he will accept reliable sources that challenge the skeptical sources used in the article. If you have a access to an academic database then start compiling reputable/reliable sources. There are tools available that can help establish what are the most prominent sources for information about NLP. Google scholar is one that is accessible to anyone even if you don't have access to the full texts you can get an idea of how highly cited each article is. This will help weed out personal views. If someone is claiming the a skeptic journal article is a reliable source then apple the Google scholar test - how many citations does it have? If none, you can doubt the prominence of this article. The same test can apply to promotional or impartial literature. The amount of weight is assigned according to number of citations. Its similar to impact factor used in some research. As one of you said earlier, a real skeptic will be skeptical of his or her own view and will respond to reasoned discussion about evidence. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is more reliable, "The Oxford English Dictionary" or "The Skeptic Dictionary?" Snowded and LKK would have you believe the "Oxford English dictionary" doesn't belong in the article but "The Skeptic Dictionary" does. What tool do we need to recognize what's going on here?


 * Snowded reveals this POV explicitly by saying: "readers are commended to the skeptics web site This is one of the best sites I know on the web".  --Encyclotadd (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs)


 * The skeptics web site is a good source for anyone concerned about pseudo-science in general. Scientists are skeptical its part of the discipline not a PoV.   You need to get a grip Encyclotadd, we are not required to be neutral between NLP and skeptics,  we are required to reflect what reliable sources say.  Its a basic aspect of Wikipedia that partisan editors always find difficult.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we agree that "The Skeptic's Dictionary" (and similar Skeptic's literature) is intentionally not balanced? In the intro Carol (2003) says that "The Skeptic’s Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term “occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects. The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects. If anything, this book is a Davidian counterbalance to the Goliath of occult literature." Similarly, other hardened skeptic sources are trying to provide the Davidian counterbalance. Wikipedia is not a Davidian counterbalance, it aims for POV with the weight assigned based on parity of reliable sources. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No we can't, Science is skeptical in nature. If it properly uses evidence then it is fine. Also (for the hundredth time) we are not required to write a balanced account between NLP advocates/practioners such as yourself and reliable sources within academic literature. We reflect the latter. -- Snowded TALK  13:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Skeptic Dictionary says, "We are not trying to present a balanced account." Snowded disagrees with his own reference saying it is a balanced account.


 * The Skeptic Dictionary quotes a confusion language pattern without describing it as such. Then it argues the founder of NLP is a bad writer because he wrote something confusing.


 * That is why the author of The Skeptic Dictionary refers to his own articles as Davidian, meaning from the perspective of someone who survived torture in an inferno and describes the experience.


 * This is just hardcore POVing presented dishonestly by Snowded/LKK as balanced academic literature and science. Time for this article to reflect reliable sources, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, instead. --Encyclotadd (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Davidian" seems appropriate to describe what it is like trying to explain to you how wikipedia works. It always a danger with an SPA, as the focus on one subject means they don;t edit articles where they do not have a strong opinion and don't put the effort into understanding the basic rules of sourcing and NPOV.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop it with the wikibullying Snowded. You are supposed to welcome new editors.  Encyclotadd is making genuine efforts to put this article (and talk page) in order.  That even goes as far as making formal inquiries about extreme skeptical POV elements here.  I suggest you watch your step. Congru (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * S/he has been editing for three months, has received a welcome, links to rules on editing and a lot of advice. Despite this s/he has been subject to multiple warnings including one from an admin on personal attacks.-- Snowded  TALK  06:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I have seen what has been going on with the deletion of rather incriminating links and information. Its suspect. Again, tread carefully. The whole world can read what has been going on here you know! Congru (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Susan Gerbic gave a talk on "guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia and how important that is as skeptics for us to get the message out there". Despite assurances from Gerbic that "it's not vandalism, which it kinds of sounds like, because we are totally following the rules", concern has already been expressed that editors may attempt to give otherwise neutral articles a pro-skeptic slant. Although in the past there have been crackdowns on religious POV-pushing... Gerbic was clear that what has been left behind is not sufficiently pro-skeptic, describing the "skeptical content" on Wikipedia as "not very good".


 * http://www.territorioscuola.com/wikipedia/en.wikipedia.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-15/News_and_notes --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to make sure that we assigned weight according to prominence of views. There are some low grade partisan sources like skeptic's books and magazines that have slipped into the article. We need to aim for consistency. We don't want low grade promotional literature slipping in either. Snowded did say earlier that he allow other views to be represented in the article but he shifted the onus away from him or LKK. He wants other editors to find the other sources and ask him if they are acceptable. I did a quick search on psycinfo and proquest and found other articles which are more supportive. But we need to agree on a way of selecting the sources that all editors would agree with. Snowded and LKK are reasonable people and will respond to a reasoned discussion and evidence. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are the testimonials that one of the leading seminars (at which Bandler teaches) places on their website:


 * http://www.purenlp.com/people.html


 * The one that stands out to me is Ed Cox, owner of Sylvan Learning Center. For those who aren't aware, Sylvan Learning Center has close to a thousand locations that have taught more than 2 million grammar and high school students.  It's one of the leading for-profit educational institutions in the country, that hires NLP trainers such as Donald Gerard:  http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/piedmont/staff.cfm )


 * If Editors are truly interested in balancing the POV, why not include that among the Skeptic references in the lede?--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Current I do not know of any studies that have systematically investigated the uptake or reception of NLP in different professional areas. Estimations are sometimes made by independent sources. Do you know of any reliable third party sources for the information you presented above? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how "uptake" can be investigated and whether the results would be meaningful. But the Sylvan Learning Center endorsement is easily shown on other third party sites. Ed Cox's article for IPPR.org, for example, called "Growing Big Society" states, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) training had been delivered and found to be a valuable tool for staff development." He is listed on a third website as Master Practitioner NLP level: here http://www.nlptoday.com/webdirectory_us_i_p.htm


 * Pretty strong endorsement if you ask me and fair way to balance POV in the article, wouldn't you agree? We're talking about the owner of a school that has educated more than 2 million children. --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, so a "Master Practitioner' of NLP says that NLP is of value?  Hardly a reliable third party source is it?  And yet again,  please please understand that the article does not have to be balanced between pro-NLP and some supposed anti-NLP group, it has to reflect the reliable third party sources.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No that's obviously not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the following:


 * The Institute For Public Policy Research Limited (IPPR.org), the major independent charity known for work on public policy such as climate change, attributes the following quote to Ed Cox, the owner of Sylvan Learning Systems: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) training had been delivered and found to be a valuable tool for staff development."  Please see his article titled on their website titled "Growing Big Society." --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ed Cox is a master NLP Practitioner. Ed Cox has written an article which says an NLP programme delivered value for staff development.   OK?  Not a reliable third party source, but a NLP practitioner saying good things about NLP.   Source a web site.   Have you read WP:RS, please do  -- Snowded  TALK  23:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So if the President of Harvard University appeared on a website as a Master Practitioner, you wouldn't view his endorsement of NLP as significant?


 * Regardless of your answer, the owner of a for-profit school that has educated 2 million children at least deserves mention as a notable practitioner in the lede.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We don;t have a section to list notable practitioners and I think I would resist it as there would be major arguments about who should or should not be included. I can't see any case for the lede which is there to summarise the article -- Snowded TALK  00:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes we do have such a section. It's section seven.
 * So now there is a perfect slot to mention two million children were educated on this method.
 * --Encyclotadd (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Is everyone now agreed on this inclusion?--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes its fine, go ahead. Congru (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Per comments above you have not established a reliable third party source to support the "endorsement" so it can't be included, even with a source it might fail WP:WEIGHT. Section 7 is just a list of names, it does not include text about what they achieved etc. which is what you have been proposing.  If you want to include his name you would have to show references to him, your opinion about his notability based on ownership of school is not enough.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop with the wikilawyering Snowded. You know you have consensus against you. Congru (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That "endorsement" is just an otherwise non-notable NLP believer saying something positive about NLP. Doesn't mean we have to take it at face value or plug it into the lede. bobrayner (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bobrayner, How can you say a man who educated two million children isn't notable? --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead with this inclusion. The leaders of educational institutions, regardless of the trainings they have attended in their life, are of relevance in this situation. It seems Snowded has a personal axe to grind about NLP. No doubt if such a notable person were to provide a quote that was not in favour of the subject matter then that would be readily argued for inclusion. Could Section 7 be expanded to give examples of relevant Quotes that have been written by each person? This would make that section much more beneficial to the reader.Topgunn9 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)