Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 20

Let's move the Skeptic Society references to a single section of the article
Skepticism is a word, philosophy and and theory often considered at the heart of all scientific research. It's also an organization called "The Skeptics Society" that is incorporated as 501(c)(3).

The Skeptic Society is a mostly well intentioned entity. It's very well organized, has a large readership, publishes a quarterly journal called "Skeptics," a newsletter called "eSkeptics," and a monthly magazine column called "Skeptic." There is an email newsletter readership of tens of thousands. Their goal is advancing adherence to the scientific method. The organization believes the method must be applied to both scientific and non-scientific realms (religion). This is all easily referenced from their website: http://www.skeptic.com/

As all well educated Editors of this article know, Ivy league and other top universities treat the field of psychology as "liberal arts" not "science." The field is comprised of psychological models striving to make sense of imagination and human experience, which are nebulous and complex. One can easily become confused trying to express them in simple or complex terms. Psychology receives treatment by academics as a liberal art as a result because that treatment allows discussion to take place without the confines implied by the scientific method.

Neuro-linguistic programming is a liberal arts psychological model that was created in on a campus in reaction to other liberal arts models. It has always been considered primarily in that context, such as when it was hailed in the 1980s as a significant breakthrough in psychotherapy, and when the organization of Freudian neuro-linguistic psychoanalysts was formed, which is described on Wikipedia. According to psychologists, "The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained."

Like all liberal arts psychological models, neuro-linguistic programming is not science. The Skeptic Society applies rigid scientific standards to it nevertheless, arguing that it's a pseudo-science and that specific scientific assertions create a basis for evaluating the field in that way.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion including The Skeptic Society. But theirs is not a main stream point of view. Only their POV is finding voice in this NLP article.

That's because the Skeptic Society actively encourages it's members to create interest in their organization and ideas by editing Wikipedia. They have an entire page dedicated to this on their website titled "Fix Wikipedia" http://www.skeptic.com/get_involved/fix_wikipedia.html

The Skeptic Society website advocates for gathering at meetings such as Skepticamp (www.skeptic.com/tag/skepticamp/) where people are further encouraged to edit Wikipedia according to their POV.

Here is the presentation that was given at Skepticamp on editing Wikipedia: http://www.slideshare.net/krelnik/promoting-skepticism-via-wikipedia

The impact on this article appears to have been profound.

Check out this list of references published by The Skeptic Society or closely aligned with their POV in this article:

1. Barry Beyerstein is described in the article as a Canadian SKEPTIC

2. Witkowski is featured in the SKEPTICAL Inquirer November/December 2010 issue

3. Stollznow is featured in The SKEPTIC publication January 1, 2010

4. Drenth P J D spoke at 10th European SKEPTICS Congress

5. Heap authored The SKEPTIC Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

6. Lillenfeld is featured in SKEPTICAL Inquirer Vol. 33 No. 5

7. Dunn.d. is featured in The SKEPTICAL Inquirer 1989 Spring; 13:260-3

8. Norcross is featured in the SKEPTIC dictionary

9. Glasner-Edwards is featured in the SKEPTICAL Inquirer

10. Della Sala is a lecturer and contributor to the SKEPTIC magazine

11. Koocher co-authored the SKEPTIC dictionary

12. Singer and Lalich appear in the children's SKEPTIC dictionary

13. William F. Williams is a self described SKEPTIC in his book

This is not consistent with main stream point of view rules on Wikipedia. There are millions of people who ave attended Anthony Robbins seminars (he took that business public for nearly a billion dollars) have been educated by Ed Cox who owns Sylvan Learning Centers and have read and loved Paul Mckenna, Richard Bandler and John Grinder books, which have sold millions upon millions of copies.

I suggest we move all of these references to a single section of the article titled "The Skeptic Society Objection to NLP." It's important for The Skpetic Society to be allowed their POV in the article because some of their members are notable academics. But that POV should not be the only one expressed by the article, or suggested to be main stream, because clearly it's not.

If you don't agree, or if you partly agree, please explain. If you agree completely with everything I'm saying, please speak up as well because it's important we achieve a consensus.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good account Encyclotadd. The information is also in need of condensing. Right now the narrow view of skeptics is being given free reign all over the article. It should certainly be "sectioned" because it is a fringe in itself.  It also needs to be qualified by the vast numbers of confirming studies that call for further research. .  Congru (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Skepticism is at the heart of science and the material cited is in reliable sources. You can't simply label it in this way and tidy it away.  The same requirement stands as it always has - you can augment the other sections of the article with referenced material.  But the criticism section (and lede summary) is properly referenced.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said above (check history), I think it's perfectly valid to evaluate relevant NLP claims empirically. I understand why you want to isolate the Skeptic's publications in that way, but I don't think that it's appropriate to come up with our own categorization of publications, based upon our own criteria. The academic community has already done this, in terms of labeling journals Tier 1-3 (Tier 1 being the highest quality). Undoubtedly, the journals that have contributions from your Skeptics group will be Tier 3. I believe it is important to highlight to the reader that the critical publications included in this page are the bottom-rung of the academic journal industry, or non-peer-reviewed books, and thus potentially not notable. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Skeptic Society is as pure as it's painted. They seem to want to become "The Deciders" of scientific value, which would be a horrible thing to have (the Federal government's allocation of research funding show what happens with that!) Other than opinion, I agree with Enclycoptadd. htom (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You can use http://www.scimagojr.com/compare.php to compare the weight of journals. We can use this tool to help decide what are the weighty articles when compiling a list of reliable sources. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "Polish Psychological Bulletin" (not listed in SJR) is scraping the bottom of the barrel. So perhaps Witkowski's paper does not really hold much weight.
 * 2) "Skeptic" - not listed in SJR
 * 3) "Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management" does not seem that weighty.
 * 4) "Human Resource Development Quarterly" has roughly the same impact factor as "Innovations in Education and Teaching International"... Both low but if we are including Bergen Von et al in Human Resource Development Quarterly then we should somewhat give equal weight to Mathison & Tosey in "Innovations in Education and Teaching International" for example.
 * 5) "Journal of Applied Social Psychology" has similar rank (Druckman's 2004 brief retrospective account).
 * 6) "European Psychologist" has better rank than the journals above but is not as good as "Journal of Counseling Psychology" which has more weight than most other journals I checked in this article. That one is similar in impact factor to "Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry" (Devilly's viewpoint article)


 * Please indicate which aspect of WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT you are referencing with this?  I've just reviewed both policies and I can't see anything which requires checking to SJR.  Are you suggesting that any of the sources are not reliable and/or not peer reviewed?  If so why have you not raised your objections?  You can't make policy on a single page, but I suspect you know that.  To expand a little,  if you had a body of material which contradicted some of the negative sources, and that material came from journals of greater standing then that would affect the balance of the article.  Material that references techniques that share language with NLP but does not explicitly mention NLP does not count as to use that would be original research or synthesis.   In practice NLP is a sideshow, and does not attract a large body of research.  We are lucky in a sense that there is any as most pseudo-sciences are generally ignored by the literature.   So I come back to a question you have been asked time and time again, where are your counter sources so that we can evaluate them?   You can only challenge existing sources per WP:RS not per some set of rules you want to concoct on this page.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to to apply this rule: "all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately"WP:FRINGE. I concur that "if you had a body of material which contradicted some of the negative sources, and that material came from journals of greater standing then that would affect the balance of the article." --122.108.140.210 (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas everyone!


 * @ Snowded, you suggested "peer reviewed" be the standard. He simply responded with a better standard.  It seems like an academically honest approach to me.


 * @ IP 122, I agree that the weak POV sources (tier 3, non-peer reviewed such as the self-described Davidian rant) from the Skeptic Society should be removed entirely. The Editors of this page who represent The Skpetic Society or have becoming unwitting supporters of their POV might not feel fairly by such a move.  That's why maintaining the sources but moving them to their own section strikes me as a smart middle ground most likely to receive a consensus.


 * According to the Skeptic Society presentations on their websites, they are very interested in promotional links appearing in references. This middle ground would even allow them to maintain those links.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than debating the reliability of each source individually, which will never lead to consensus given the history of disagreement about them, let's focus instead on moving the Skeptic Society references to a single section of the article.


 * Even the Skeptic Society advocates editing this page can agree on that because their voices will still be heard. It will give the society greater prominence in the article, which is their stated aim on as shown above. Meanwhile the rest of us longing for honesty in the article will feel placated.  It seems like an obvious solution to me. --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop making personal attacks on other editors. You have already been placed under caution for this.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a very strange statement you are making. I've been very careful and purposeful not to call anyone out specifically.  That's because I hope consensus can be reached here by all editors.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, its an attack and you really need to stop. I suspect that only a block will teach you the lesson if then, but lets see.   -- Snowded  TALK  06:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverted. It wasn't an attack but some of your sniping is approaching that. You don't own the article, and you don't own the talk page. AGF is not a suicide pact. htom (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My comment was to Encyclotadd (not sure what you are responding to there) who has now been warned on his own talk page about attacks on other editors. So feel free to think its an ownership issue.  I think its one of cilvity -- Snowded  TALK  17:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what advantage moving the Skeptic Society references into one section would provide. All I'm seeing in this discussion is a number of not-so-veiled digs at the Skeptic Society which seem to be based on little more than a dislike of their conclusions. If there is an issue with the reliability of the sources, it should be brought up at the RS noticeboard; we should keep in mind that we are not the arbiters of what is "good" science or not, since wikipedia is meant to reflect what is the consensus view of the sources. As to the specifics of combining all Skeptic Society sources together, this seems especially unhelpful as it would require the reader to jump back and forth between sections; it's better to keep the Skeptic Society cites inline with the other cites, and mentioned in the relevant places in the article as this facilitates easier reading and understanding. siafu (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We should note that very few of the references are to the skeptic society. There is a fair amount of original research in that list  -- Snowded  TALK  17:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Check out this list of references published by The Skeptic Society or closely aligned with their POV in this article:" I'm confused as to what you're even suggesting.  These are articles done by different people, at different times, and mostly by different organizations.  Are you trying to imply that these are all from The Skeptics Society?  Because that is completely unfounded.   --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Some here have tried to characterize scientific criticisms as opinion of skeptic society . There are also comments on a general skeptics conspiracy. You are correct, it is unfounded. The only connection with reliable sources is the recognition that pseudo-scientific groups tend to build anti-science sentiment and claim of conspiracy against their following. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Really?


 * The Skpetic Society writes on their website, "We know from our internal traffic statistics that people really do follow up on the skeptical resources cited in Wikipedia articles." They go on to say in a linked article, "This helps us... publicize the skeptic movement."


 * You don't have to be managing director of a marketing firm to understand what's going on here.


 * I'm not for identifying the Editors appearing on The Skeptic Society's project page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism ) or calling them out individually.  That would not be consistent with the spirit of cooperation.


 * But I am for reaching out to those people who know who they are, and saying simply: "Come on guys.... you can have your voice in the article. But let's call it what it is in a single section, Skeptic Society POV."


 * To me that seems like a middle ground everyone can agree upon consistent with the spirit of mutual respect and collaboration.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place where we section up the article for different interest groups. If you think any of the sources are not reliable, the raise them at the reliable sources notice board.   if you think their is bias or meat puppetry raise it an ANI, but think carefully before you do that.  Otherwise you do not have support for this, let it go.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I realize that you are just trying to help. But I really don't want to get into that kind of game of notice boards and hateful terms such as meat puppetry and boomeranging attacks.  Wikipedia rules advocate for discussion over allegation.  It would be way better if we can reach consensus here.


 * Towards that end, I'd like to appeal to any Editors who have not participated in the Wikipedia project page promoted on The Skeptic Society website to speak up.  Perhaps that way we can move away from simple ping pong matches that are tiresome and don't move us forward.  I'm sure all of us would welcome neutral reasoning regardless of perspective expressed.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "You don't have to be managing director of a marketing firm to understand what's going on here." Are you suggesting that the members of the wikiproject Rational Skepticism are also members of The Skeptics Society and thus have a conflict of interest?  Is that what you're saying? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to parse Encyclotadd's reasoning. Personally, I'm not a member of Rational Skepticism but it's not that simple - apparently the "skeptic society" problem also encompasses anyone who has a tangential connection to any organisation with "skeptic" in it's name; with such reasoning it's easy to set aside lots of different voices which think NLP is silly, and I'm sure my voice could be set aside too.
 * Why are we still wasting time on this? bobrayner (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If Encyclotadd can offer a reliable source that states the Skeptic Society is conspiring to write against neuro-linguistic programming particularly then it could be included. The associations, practitioner standards section needs expanding to include clearer material on neuro-linguistic programming as a cult or cult-like development. Such a source could be relevant there. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll dig around and look for more sources. In the meantime, here is a webpage about the "Hong Kong University Skeptics" indicating they were banned in 2006.
 * http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Hong_Kong_University_Skeptics


 * That's a different organization from The Skeptic Society. But it's interesting to read that apparently "Hong Kong University Skeptics" accounts were responsible for problems:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu


 * Here is the Administrator of Wikipedia explicitly calling out Hong Kong University Skeptics club:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57682854&oldid=57681161


 * Here is the way the NLP article appeared AFTER those accounts were cleaned up:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=57666114


 * That's a very different article than what appears on Wikipedia today. What's interesting is that many of the same sources we are now discussing (such as Sharpley) were deleted when those accounts were banned.


 * Per Lam Kin Keung's request, I'll look for even more sources.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK now those references are interesting. As the admins point out those editors were banned for incivility and meat puppetry back in 2006, NOT for content issues.  The current NLP web sites which are discussing the NLP page all make extensive references to that period and to the accusations of sock puppetry that Encyclotadd has repeated here.  One of the editors from that period, ActionPotential now editing here as 122.108.140.210 is still focused on similar issues.  I think there are problems here Encyclotadd in that it looks like you are using material from an off wiki site designed to organise proNLP editors here.  Is this the case?  -- Snowded  TALK  06:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not trying to organize anybody. I'm just responding to Lam Kin Keung's request for proof of a conspiracy by The Skeptic Society.  That's the first article that pops up in search results when searching for related terms.


 * Also, let's be clear here. I'm not saying the very same people affiliated with Hong Kong university and the Skeptic Society are still editing the article today.  Even if the very same people are here today, I don't care.  All I'm hoping for is that we can work together to create a more accurate article in a cooperative way.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Also, let's be clear here. I'm not saying the very same people affiliated with Hong Kong university and the Skeptic Society are still editing the article today. Even if the very same people are here today, I don't care."


 * Then what is even the point of bringing it up? I really don't follow the connection between the Rational Skepticism wikiproject, the American Skeptics Society, and this other Hong Kong based organization.


 * And to reiterate: The Skeptics Society has no formal or official ties to the Rational Skepticism wikiproject (as far as I know). In their Get Involed section, they list several ways that you can become an activist for the skeptical viewpoint.  One of them is Fix Wikipedia.  It lists several ways to improve wikipedia, and it lists the Rational Skepticism wikiproject as a worthwhile project to join.  That's it.  These two groups have an overlap in interest, but they are independent organizations.  One does not dictate what the other does.  And ultimately we want more people to join wikipedia.  The more people, the more diverse backgrounds, all playing by the same rules will result in a better Wikipedia.


 * Now if you truly wish for what we can all agree is an outside source to look at this issue, we can bring in some outside arbitration. That would settle this issue once and for all.  --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Harizotoh9, I don't know if that's necessary. Hopefully reasonable people will form a consensus, right?


 * I mean just think about it..... aren't thirteen Skeptic Society references a bit much? This is a psychological model not a scientific one.   There is also the issue of quality references being deleted.  For example, the Skeptic DICTIONARY makes it into the article but the Oxford English DICTIONARY definition has been deleted.


 * I would hope the Rational Skepticism wikiproject would join with us here and be part of the solution by supporting these edits or suggesting new ones.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are not 13 Skeptic Society references, there are 13 references from reliable sources constituting a board range of academic journals.  Reasonable people listen to arguments and read up on wikipedia standards rather than indulging in conspiracy theories.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 we have one SPA account who is not prepared to accept what experienced editors have told him/her even when several independent editors (such as yourself) have joined in to explain yet again what a very small amount of effort to read up on the 5 pillars would tell them. Mediation is overkill for one disruptive SPA. Further, said SPA has simply picked up a baton in terms of edit warring and personal accusations that were previously carried out by other SPAs over several year now. SOme of those have been blocked, some have simply withdrawn when the patience of the community ran out. Its a long term pattern, mostly fed by a couple of external web sites -- Snowded TALK  22:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are just personal attacks aimed at me, and it saddens me. Please, this isn't about you, Snowded, and it's not about you and me.  It's about the article.  It's about the way the article is being edited generally.


 * In fact, Snowded, I genuinely hope you can feel good about working together towards a better article. For example, I'm willing to accept your verbiage for anchoring.  We had quite a back and forth elsewhere on this talk page about that subject.  But the way you are now expressing the idea is accurate and a contribution.  Let's use that first agreement between us as evidence to each other that we can reach future agreements.  We can learn from one another.


 * Anyone reading these references can tell they represent a single point of view advocated by these skeptic societies. Skeptic societies deal with the scientific method.  Psychological models are generally discussed as liberal arts subjects rather than science.  The rigorous method is not ordinarily applied there.  I understand the skeptics want it to be applied there, and I have no problem with their taking that position.  But right now it's the only position expressed in this article and that's not accurate or fair.  Also valuable sources that were not consistent with this POV such as The Oxford English Dictionary reference have been removed.  That's not reasonable either.  We need some cooperation in how to handle this.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its about properly sourced material that follows wikipedia rules Encyclotadd. Until you find the first and read/understand the second we will make no progress and I've wasted enough time trying to explain it to you.   You do not have agreement to this change, its over.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If that were true the Oxford English Dictionary would receive greater prominence in the article than the Skeptic Dictionary. But as anyone can plainly see only Skeptic dictionary appears (prominently) in the lede and Oxford English Dictinary has been repeatedly deleted from the entire article.


 * That's not fair and it's this isn't a question of properly sourced material. It's a question of a few people encouraged by offsite society websites collaborating to express a single POV to the exclusion of any others.  Come on Snowded, join with me in addressing this situation.--Encyclotadd (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See previous comment -- Snowded TALK  17:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your previous comment was not responsive.


 * I raised the issue of NUMBER of Skeptic POV references, and how the Skeptic references totally dominate the article, not the QUALITY of them individually.


 * It's the other sections of this talk page (such as "this paragraph is extremely biased, discuss") that were started by several other Editors that examine the poor quality of the references mentioned in this section. You prefer the Skeptic's dictionary to Oxford's dictionary in this article.  Those sections would be the place for you to make that mysterious argument, I'm sure citing the five pillars, yet again where it would indeed be responsive.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The OED definition was rejected because it appeared under special. However, note that other OED editions have a shorter but similar definition under standard usage. What reliable sources challenge the viewpoint of Beyerstein, Witkowski, Stollznow, Drenth, Heap, Lilienfeld, and Drenth? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @122, The amount of academic work being excluded from this article is breathtaking. I'll explain one area as an example.


 * The Milton Model consists of twenty language patterns used by Milton Erickson that were written down by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. They wrote "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1" with a forward by Milton Erickson himself, and "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 2."


 * Those books are very important. Hypnosis was traditionally understood to mean sleep-like states and "direct suggestions."  Erickson, Bandler and Grinder popularized the idea of waking-state hypnosis and "indirect suggestions."


 * This is fully explained on Wikipedia in an excellent article about Milton Erickson where you'll find these books referenced.


 * Virtually every hypnosis school in the world informs students about this work. It's true that some schools favor the traditional approach of lulling a listener to sleep and issuing direct suggestions, while others prefer the more conversational approach.  But anyone who has studied hypnosis beyond an entry level has encountered this work.


 * Volumes of academic studies have been conducted on Milton Model language patterns. Ernest Lawrence Rossi, Ph.D., who won The Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy among other awards, authored a number himself.  Here are some download links:


 * www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Research%20Group%20Papers/1%20Atkinson%20Rossi%20et%20al.%20%20AJCH%202010.pdf
 * www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/LICHTENBERG%20Hyponotic%20Susceptibility%20IJCEH%202004.pdf
 * www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/keypapers/NN%20WHAT%20IS%20A%20SUGGESTION%202007.pdf


 * Cheek conducted a study with THREE THOUSAND participants. See Cheek, D. "Awareness of Meaningful Sounds Under General Anaesthesia." "Theoretical and Clinical Aspects of Hypnosis", Symposium Specialists, 1981.


 * Obviously this work doesn't make it into the article about neuro-linguistic programming even though the article clearly indicates that the Milton Model is a major part of NLP.


 * A handful of Editors have come up with bogus reasons for excluding it. They would have you believe that because the studies mention the Milton Model and not NLP, that they don't belong in the article on the basis that it's original research.


 * My point in bringing this up is that the problem with the article isn't just about the Skeptic Dictionary definition receiving preferential treatment over the Oxford English Dictionary definition, which alone should strike you as odd. It's about the the Skeptic society references being the only voice in the article to the exclusions of outstanding work.


 * I wish others would recognize what's going on here and call for a change.--Encyclotadd (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are paraphrasing what it says in reliable sources then you are not engaged in original research. You just need to show that Grinder and Bandler's (1976) "Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, MD" is discussed in reliable sources. It is more difficult to show how important it is relative to other models or techniques (or other issues) related to the topic of NLP. I think LKK and Snowded will argue that the views of Beyerstein, Witkowski, Stollznow, Drenth, Heap, Lilienfeld, and Drenth represents the mainstream scientific consensus. They will argue that any competing viewpoint must not obfuscate the mainstream POV. But read the policies carefully, if you can show that other viewpoints exist and are prominent then they can be represented based on parity of sources. This is not a mainstream topic so the rules are more relaxed. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @122.108.140.210, I'm already citing reliable sources.


 * Ernost Rossi is a reliable source. He's incredibly distinguished. The American Psychological Association for Psychotherapy gave him the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy in 1986.  The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis gave him a Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy in 2008.


 * Ernost Ross edited Bandler & Grinder's book "Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, MD." It would be impossible for him to give that work any greater endorsement.   He has created many wonderful research studies about Ericksonian language patterns:


 * www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Research%20Group%20Papers/1%20Atkinson%20Rossi%20et%20al.%20%20AJCH%202010.pdf
 * www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/LICHTENBERG%20Hyponotic%20Susceptibility%20IJCEH%202004.pdf
 * www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/keypapers/NN%20WHAT%20IS%20A%20SUGGESTION%202007.pdf


 * These papers were co-authored by other notable academics. For example, David Atkinson worked on one and was President of a university.   You'll find that other co-authors are equally distinguished:   Jane Blake-Mortimer, Salvatore Iannotti, Mauro Cozzolino, Stefano Castiglione, Angela Cicatelli, Erika Chovanec, Richard Hill, Claude Virot, Bhaskar Vyas, Jorge Cuadros, Michel Kerouac, Thierry Kallfass, Helmut Milz, Claire Frederick, Bruce Gregory, Margaret Bullock, Ella Soleimany, April Rossi, Kathryn Rossi, & Stanley Krippner.


 * You wouldn't have any idea that such notable people support these language patterns from this NLP article.


 * The Skeptic Society references, on the other hand, are totally dubious. The Skeptic Dictionary is by its own admission a diatribe.  (The author's exact words are "Davidian rant" in the introduction to the book.)  The Polish Psychological journal doesn't even show up at all in lists of peer reviewed journals.  These are joke references compared with The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and The American Psychological Association for Psychotherapy, supporters of Rossi.


 * There is a systemic problem with this article that I hope I'm successfully highlighting here.


 * This problem was sorted once before by Wikipedia Administration who simply deleted the same Skeptic Society sources we are now discussing.


 * Prior to the clean up by Wikipedia Administration, the article looked similar to today:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=56056003
 * Note Sharpley, Druckman, Beyerstein, etc.


 * Here is the way the article looked after the Wikipedia Administration got involved:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=57666114


 * According to the Administration, the problem in 2006 was The Hong Kong Skeptic club:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57682854&oldid=57681161


 * There may or not be the same Editors involved.


 * Regardless, I hope everyone reading this can come together as friends. It should be the Editors rather than Administrators that fix the article.


 * That's why I proposed a middle ground:  moving those Skeptic references to a single section rather than our just deleting them entirely.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) There doesn't seem to be any such thing as the "American Psychological Association for Psychotherapy" that I can find, and I can't find any evidence from he American Psychological Association (APA) that they have ever so honored Mr. Rossi; neither the APA website  or google have any such endorsements easily findable. Perhaps you meant some other organization? Also, the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis doesn't seem to have a record of a Lifetime Achievement Award either. These all are really the sort of specific facts that require a direct citation, and not just from the person himself.


 * The American Psychotherapy Association publishes the peer reviewed journal "The Annals."
 * They attribute those accolades and others to Ernest Rossi:
 * http://www.thefreelibrary.com/American+Psychotherapy+Association%27s+2005+National+Conference.-a0134955718
 * "Dr. Ernest Rossi, 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... He 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 clearly endorsers Bandler/Grinder's work on the Milton Model because he edited their book "Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson." (Erickson won many awards and wrote the forward.) --Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In which case it was good for me to call you out on this because of the two awards you mentioned originally, both have turned out to be unsupported, and are now replaced by a third one from a new organization: the American Psychotherapy Association-- surprise, another red link; I am somewhat familiar with the psychotherapy credentialing system, and I have to admit I'm not familiar with this organization, and the credentials they offer (BCPC -- no article on wikipedia) aren't ones I recognize (e.g. the vastly more common LCPC, LPC and LCSW-- see List of credentials in psychology). This is not the American Psychological Association, so you'll have to explain why this particular organization's endorsement is one that matters, and why we should not consider this to be a fringe group-- or at least, one with much less "oomph" than the (real) APA.


 * Certainly all that you've presented would make it seem that Rossi is an RS when it comes to what NLP is, even without that "Lifetime Achievement Award", but it's not obvious that he's reliable when it comes to whether or not NLP actually works, or whether or not its premises are actually based on scientific evidence. siafu (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the additional namedropping, you cited: "Jane Blake-Mortimer, Salvatore Iannotti, Mauro Cozzolino, Stefano Castiglione, Angela Cicatelli, Erika Chovanec, Richard Hill, Claude Virot, Bhaskar Vyas, Jorge Cuadros, Michel Kerouac, Thierry Kallfass, Helmut Milz, Claire Frederick, Bruce Gregory, Margaret Bullock, Ella Soleimany, April Rossi, Kathryn Rossi, & Stanley Krippner." I've taken the liberty of wikilinking them all; note how all but 3 are red; of the blue ones, Richard Hill is a disambiguation page that does not include any psychologist, and Bruce Gregory is about the new Zealand politician. I think the answer to your problem, namely: "You wouldn't have any idea that such notable people support these language patterns from this NLP article." The reason you would apparently not know is because nobody actually cares as they are not notable people.Only Stanley Krippner actually has an article on wikipedia, and a citation showing his support for the theory might be helpful or warranted, but the additional names don't do us any good for establishing anything at all.


 * LOL, I don't have to prove all twenty of his co-authors are notable for everyone to recognize that Rossi is himself reliable!


 * Rossi's co-author David Atkinson 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 . --Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-sequitur unless you were dropping those extra names in an attempt to establish reliability. I had thought that they were being presented as a list of supposed notables who support a particular theory, since that's what you said:"You'll find that other co-authors are equally distinguished:  [...] You wouldn't have any idea that such notable people support these language patterns from this NLP article.".  As I explained, this is meaningless; you wouldn't have any idea that such people support these language patterns because they're not notable people. siafu (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, statements like "These [Skeptic Society references] are joke references compared with The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and The American Psychological Association for Psychotherapy, supporters of Rossi." themselves speak only to a statement of personal bias. Hypnosis, over its rather colored history, has been the subject of a fair amount of charlatanry and hogwash itself, some of it formerly endorsed by the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis itself. The Skeptic Society may not be ideal as a reference, but certainly it holds as much credence to the ASCH, especially on matters of efficacy. siafu (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, no, no, I didn't mean that Skeptic society references are a joke generally, and apologize if my comment was perceived that way. Actually, I hold the Skeptic Society in high regard when the organization is focused on matters of science.  It's when the organizations stray into matters of faith, or liberal arts, where the scientific method was never intended to be applied, that there's an obvious issue.  I don't believe there is any benefit to applying the scientific method to the existence of Moses or Freud's Ego/Id.  I think the societies should heed their own advice about such matters and be skeptical of their own skepticism.


 * That said, many references we are discussing are absolutely a joke because they are unreliable. The Polish Psychological Association stands out for not being peer reviewed and at best third tier.  The Skeptic Dictionary describes itself as a Davidian rant.  That's a reference to burning in a sweat lodge, barely surviving, and then writing an account of it.  It's totally inexcusable such references have been allowed in this article to the exclusion of notable academics and peer reviewed journals.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Encyclotadd you seem to be constructing a strawman. You need to use independent reliable third party sources to be given much weight. Also, those sources you cite do not directly discuss NLP or cite Bandler/Grinder so they are not relevant to this article. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm confident that in a private email exchange you would find my evidence sufficient to withdraw the comment about the straw man. However, rather than making this about anyone individually, we are much better off making this about ideas, and coming together as a group to support the best ones.
 * Towards that end, please see many comments above regarding reliable sources.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What sort of persuasive argument could you provide via private email that you can't provide here? AFAICT, the only difference would be the use of your own credentials, which are valueless in this discussion and therefore not persuasive.  siafu (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Siafu, I'm sorry I brought that up. The information would distract us from the more important conversation about ideas because it has to do with a single account.


 * Regarding absurd POVing in this article, the following appears in the American Psychological Association's peer reviewed database PsychInfo and was written by a Professor of Psychology in Delhi University:


 * "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) as an effective interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy is used quite frequently in corporate, health and education sectors." The same article goes on to say that, "The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained. Till date, NLP is applied without a theory. The scientific community seems not serious, when its practitioners claim that "NLP is heavily pragmatic: if a tool works, it's included in the model, even if there is no theory to back it up….. "


 * Clearly there are reliable sources who disagree with the Skeptic view. You wouldn't know that from this article.  That quote is from 2011.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, it's kind of just you vs. everyone else. So there's really no hope for consensus. If you want, you can appeal to outside arbitration. Now the question though: will you accept their decision if you disagree with it?--Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got to object to that, Harizotoh9. I think Encyclotadd is closer to NPOV than the what appear to be a self-proclaimed "everyone else" gang of skeptics. He may be on the other side of NPOV, which upsets you, but your group has dragged the article far away from NPOV into denunciation, and it needs to be put back there. Can I write and ask the Arbitration Committee to set the article back to that last version in 2006 and put the article on probation? htom (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbcom only deals with behavioural issues of editors, not content issues. You can make the case for them to review that and name all the involved editors, but it won't change content.  I'd also caution you tobe careful with that route  -- Snowded  TALK  18:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably you meant WP:RFAR/G, since you cautioned me about going to WP:RFAR? Or was that carefully thrown Boomerang intended to invite the inference of a threat? Are you inviting me to just ignore the NPOV state of this article? What kind of editor behavior would that be? htom (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you were probably capable of getting to a guidance page from the request page so I think I had the reference right. Otherwise this article contains material which is properly referenced from reliable sources.  The argument of this section that a set of articles should be sectioned out has not been supported following the influx of some new editors following the RfC so as has been said this one is over.   If you think the article is NPOV then you have to show how by either challenging existing sources or finding counter ones.  Your opinion is not enough to establish its NPOV.  In any event Arbcom will not make the content change you suggest, thats wikipedia 101 -- Snowded  TALK  20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate threats and obvious cyber bullying.
 * Snowded's "wikilawyering" (as another Editor called it) is partly incorrect. In 2006, when the Administration of Wikipedia noticed what was going on here, they got heavily involved in the content by removing negative POV sources and implementing the Mentorship program, which was from my perspective very successful, because the article that resulted closely reflected the psychological and communication model:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=57666114   (N.B.  Note an entire section dedicated to anchoring! Where did that information go???) Most of the hardcore negative POV sources that we are once again confronted with, and I'm not saying due to exactly the same person, such as the Sharpley reference, were removed during the cleanup.  Mentoring meant any new additions to the article first had to be debated on the talk page under supervision of the mentors before any new additions could be made.  The result, IMO, was a fantastic article about NLP.
 * While the administrative intervention absolutely touched content, it was initiated in response to violations by individual "sock and meat puppet" accounts, which were called out to arbcom.
 * From my standpoint, that is unfortunate because it sets Editors up for that kind of confrontation once again.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Harizotoh9, Your comment that "it's kind of just you vs. everyone else" makes my point strongly. I'm very knowledgeable about NLP having read every original text and watched most of the commercially available videos out there.  (I studied psychology at an ivy league university - though my degree is in another field -- and have done substantial independent studying about psychological models.)  I'm researching and providing references from peer reviewed journals as well as highly regarded main stream publications such as National Geographic and New York Times.  But you would have no idea wonderful research by other academics is being done based on this article.
 * http://www.slideshare.net/krelnik/promoting-skepticism-via-wikipedia
 * http://www.skeptic.com/get_involved/fix_wikipedia.html
 * As you can read on the links above, vast Skeptic readerships (we're talking tens of thousands of people with a common viewpoint) are being encouraged by their websites and newsletters to edit articles like this on Wikipedia. Of course that will create an incorrect perception of a prominent viewpoint.
 * This behavior is marketing. The skeptic societies attract attention to their websites by creating problems for well intentioned Editors here.  Think how many links appear in this talk page alone.  That's a shame because Wikipedia has lost it's claim to NPOV in this article, and while it was very effectively sorted in 2006 by administrator intervention, this section of the talk page may show that NPOV can only be restored with administrative intervention again.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with creating a section for the Skeptic information or moving it under a heading of Criticism. Neuro-Linguistic Programming is *NOT* a science and it has never been created as one. The NLP body of knowledge isn't based on the same system as bodies of knowledge that are maintained by University academics. It is important to maintain the balance in this article as a large amount of criticism for NLP does exist. But at the same time there are a large number of people who claim to have benefitted from NLP and that needs to be represented too. Insisting upon high quality academic references will ultimately do a sincere disservice to the reader of this article as that isn't an outcome for (m)any of those in the NLP field.Topgunn9 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Related article creation
I just created Real People Press, the publishing company of the Andreas'. It had already been created on the German WP (some text translated from their article). their publication of Hugh Prather's book earns them notability beyond the NLP field. I'm notifying editors here out of respect for the ongoing editing issues around NLP. I wont put a link in this article (the name is in one reference now, and it seems that references usually dont have links in them), as i am not a contributor here otherwise. full disclosure: while i have no connection professionally with NLP, i have some tangential personal contact with the ideas (and i did sell their books, not on commission, along with 30,000 other titles, at a small press book distributor 15 years ago, where they were bestsellers). I had no idea when i started this article an hour ago that there was any issue here, though i was vaguely aware of issues related to nlp in general. I'm sure the article i just created can be improved. i have linked its appearances on WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That helps us identify hidden self-published sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Self-published sources should not be automatically removed. If a self-published source is cited by a number of independant reliable sources then it might be considered notable for this article. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries the publisher is quite reliable and certainly has more expertise in the field than the skeptics magazine references. LKK and possie don't have a let to stand on. Congru (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that battleground mentality is helpful. We should judge sources and publishers on their own merits rather than on an adversarial basis. bobrayner (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Congru, the publisher Real People Press is not independent of NLP so it is not reliable in wikipedia terms. If those publications like Frogs into princes are cited and discussed in third party reliable source (e.g. academic journal) then you can paraphrase those independent sources rather the primary sources from Real People Press. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Science of excellence, Heap
This edit may need some work. I see your point. The quote is from the 2008 Heap publication, rather than the 1988 written in the entry. That would be a simple correction. It is also very damning though. It could be re-written to reflect that. I will also look for statements from neuro-linguistic programming sources that make explicit or implicit claims to science. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Quotes need to be cited (with page numbers). I saw two uncited quotes (one in the text and one in the references) and removed them. I removed the rest because that claim isn't made in the article (as far as I could tell upon skimming; whoever added that stuff originally apparently couldn't be bothered to cite properly with page numbers). The bottom line is, that article clearly does not come out in support of neuro-linguistic programming and it's not correct to try and present it as a reference that does so. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked the 2008 source you linked, the quote isn't from there either. It's from an NLP book, which Heap is quoting. Referencing it to Heap (2008) would again be incorrect (in essence you'd be trying to make the quote look like it's from a reliable third-party commentator, when it's not). The longer quote from the footnote is still not in this source. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. I will look further to more reliable sources that state neuro-linguistic programming authors claim science or scientific status. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's lots of examples like that. I gave up because Lam Kin Keung and Snowded decide they would revert any attempt at correction I made. Look at the first sentence of the second paragraph written by Lam Kin Keung: "The founders of NLP, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, say that NLP is capable of addressing problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders, and helps people attain fuller and richer lives". The two sources failed verification. For example the footnotes states: "It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p. 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia, and can even cure a common cold (op.cit., p. 174)...(Also, op.cit., p. 169) Bandler and Grinder make the claim that by combining NLP methods with hypnotic regression, a person can be not only effectively cured of a problem, but also rendered amnesic for the fact that they had the problem in the first place. Thus, after a session of therapy, smokers may deny that they smoked before, even when their family and friends insisted otherwise, and they are unable to account for such evidence as nicotine stains." You cannot use seminar transcript or transcripts from individual sessions with clients as a primary source for claims. You need to find reliable third party sources which discuss the claims made by the originators. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The material was not included by Snowded or me: . Once again, if you suspect anyone of sockpuppetry make a proper WP:SPI instead of making tedious insinuations and childish accusations on the talk page. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * LKK, That wasn't responsive. IP 122.108 did not say you wrote that material originally, LKK.  He said he feels like you and Snowoded are auto-reverting his edits.


 * It's not for me to express whether that feeling is valid. I'm not an administrator of this website.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467514338&oldid=467500150
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467885010&oldid=467882309
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467716838&oldid=467687887
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467595779&oldid=467555629
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=467514338&oldid=467500150
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=469083918&oldid=469065680


 * But I can comment on reliability of sources in this recent reversion history:


 * I strongly disagree with your eliminating the Oxford English Dictionary definition in favor of the Skeptic Dictionary definition.


 * That turns this article into a Davidian rant, which is how the author of the Skeptic Dictionary describes his book in the introduction. Davidian rant refers to burning in a sweat lodge and then writing an opinion about the experience.


 * Obviously IP 122.108 is right that you should have allowed his edit.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly right. The amount of autoreverts going on here is ridiculous. Deleting the rather incriminating information you posted on skeptic COIs and obvious socking, locking the article when it should be boldly corrected. Perseverence is called for.  When it is unlocked, the 2006 version really does need to be the benchmark.  Congru (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like strawman argument. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a strawman argument. The Sharpley reference was a favorite of the banned accounts in 2006, was deleted under the mentoring (administration's supervision) period.  It's presence in the article is absolutely forced.  Nothing has changed in five years with respect to it.  The Journal of Counseling Psychology, which is highly regarded based on their peer review and inclusion in psychinfo, had the following to say about it:  "A review of this literature by Sharpley (1984) failed to consider a number of methodological errors."  (Vol 32(4), Oct 1985, 589-596).  In an article appearing this summer in another peer reviewed journal, the Psychologist wrote:  "The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained."     Yet the opposite is expressed in the article, forced by a few Editors.
 * It's wrong what's going on here. --Encyclotadd (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with a source then you should raise it at the Noticeboard.   If there is a properly sourced criticism of that source then it can be included and a form of words should be proposed here.     I'm not sure what you want to achieve with the Social Science International quote.  Like several sources it says that future research is needed and that there is no way to determine the efficacy of NLP.   It would support a statement in the article to that effect but I am not sure how much value it would add.  You and Congru also need to understand the 2006 episodes - any monitoring during that period (and I was not involved with the article then so have no direct knowledge of it) would have been of editors behaviour, it would not have been adjudication of content.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is about far more than a single source. This article is factually inaccurate and more polarizing than a Nazi review of Jewish music.  The most important concepts necessary for understanding the model have been removed or so obfuscated they probably should be removed, and one extreme Skeptic viewpoint incorrectly expressed as though it's mainstream.   It's obvious why that's happened:  the Skeptic dictionary definition is forced into the article, while the Oxford English Dictionary Definition is forced out.  No wonder this article is so confusing.  Some of the most fascinating ideas such as anchoring are removed entirely and expressed incorrectly.  When that's brought up on the talk page, the concept is obfuscated by the same trouble making Editors here as well.
 * What has taken place here is wrong and harmful to the integrity of this community.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A theme and accusations that you have repeated incessantly for some weeks with varying degrees of invective thrown in for good measure (Nazi review of Jewish music being the latest) If you think there is evidence of this then you should take to the NPOV notice board or to ANI for community resolution.   If you can't or won't do that then you are just going to carry on wasting your and other people's time here.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Heap was not claiming that NLP is a "science of excellence" or "science of communication" but he stated that this was how it was presented in the more promotional NLP literature. Tosey and Mathison repeated this in their papers when trying to describe how NLP is defined by various people in the field. See page 1 of [http://www.mheap.com/nlp5.pdf Heap, M. (2008) The validity of some early claims of neuro-linguistic programming. Skeptical Intelligencer, 11, 6-13.] under the heading "Definition and origins of NLP". --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind about including the edit that LKK is suggesting. He is right that NLP is marketed as "science of excellence."  There are examples appearing online, including a video of Richard Bandler using that term.  Also this point is confirmed by Professor Bishal.  I withdraw my objection to including it.


 * However, context is important to the way the edit is included. NLP founders Bandler & Grinder state in NLP in Frogs Into Princes the following way: "Everything we're going to tell you here is a lie.... Since we have no claim on truth or accuracy, we will be lying consistently through this seminar."


 * It's obviously impossible to reconcile the marketing message of "science of excellence" with Bandler and Grinder's statement that everything "[they're] going to tell you is a lie." Regardless of whether you feel as I do that science of excellence is meant figuratively, we should provide the reader with enough information to make up his own mind.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You could equally argue that "everything is a lie" is figurative. You really need to stop arguing from your opinion, and instead find a source or two before you expound.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Snowded, you're absolutely right.....


 * Bandler and Grinder write later in the same book that "all generalizations are lies." They go on to point out that even that statement is a lie because it contains the word "all," which is a generalization.


 * The Skeptics have a similar philosophical mobius. They write that, if you are to be skeptical of everything, you must be skeptical of your own skepticism.  That is as a result of the generalization in the first half of the statement, and the point Bandler & Grinder were making.


 * So you're right because all language is figurative. It's up to reliable sources, us and the readers to make sense of it.


 * There are different models for explaining how we make sense. Their are even software packages available to help us.  :)  We may be pattern recognition machines.  Or we may engage our five senses through imagination the way we do when experiencing reality, as Bandler & Grinder suggest.  (This has been measured and shown can be factually accurate, though no test can prove it's always the case.)  I personally find all viewpoints interesting and hope they are all expressed according to NPOV.


 * Sweet dreams guys. Sorry for wandering momentarily off topic.  Thanks for keeping this interesting.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

edit to Scientific criticism section
Right now a sentence of the article reads "Articles critical of NLP also appear in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (2000), and The Skeptic's Dictionary (2003)." This is somewhat misleading in that it might give a reader the impression that NLP criticism has only appeared in publications like this, whereas actually there are numerous articles in general psychological journals and stuff like that discrediting NLP. This should be reworded (after the protection ends; while I am able to edit the protected page, doing anything more than minor MOS-ish edits would be inappropriate, particularly something like this which some of the NLP fanatics might object to) to something that more accurately describes the situation, e.g. "" r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a bigger correction needed.


 * Let's start with the Sharpley reference for example, which appears in the lede without any qualification whatsoever, and expresses an extremely negative POV of NLP. Many other academics disagree in peer reviewed contexts.  One wrote that, "A review of this literature by Sharpley (1984) failed to consider a number of methodological errors." (Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 32(4), Oct 1985, 589-596).  A Professor of Psychology at New Delhi University, recently wrote, "The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained."  He went on to say that, "The scientific community seems not serious..."


 * Qualification is needed to restore NPOV according to Wikipedia rules.


 * I don't know if the following is also a reliable source, but it should impact Editors' POV. Ed Cox is a Master Practitioner of NLP and has publicly endorsed it.  That's important because his school Sylvan Learning Center has educated 2 million children. In an article for the Institute for Public Policy Research (see: ippr.org) titled "Growing Big Society," Cox writes, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) training had been delivered and found to be a valuable tool for staff development."--Encyclotadd (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Encyclotadd, You need to accept that Sharpley's (1984, 1987) critique dominates the empirical literature. Otherwise, it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Encyclotadd, there is nothing in your distracting rant that is a response to my suggestion above, so I will take it that you have no objections. In the future please refrain from trying to bludgeon the discussion with a deluge of irrelevant, distracting messages. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rjanag, That "Social Science International" is notable journal, is it? Never heard of it. What general psychological journals were you referring to? Polish Psychological Journal? Definitely not a high impact journal. There are not many citations to that journal. Come on.... The highest impact journal you cited was Journal of Counseling Psychology but that is not a general one either, it is applied to counseling. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to JCP as well as Journal of Applied Social Psychology. My point isn't that these are particularly high-impact or anything, my point is that articles on this topic have appeared in periodicals rather than just one-time publications for "skeptics". The present wording makes it sound as if only wacko skeptics doubt NLP. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @ 122.108.140.210, I'm not advocating for removal of Sharpley. I'm suggesting it's improper for that reference to appear in the lede without qualification.  The references I have already provided are adequate evidence, though there are many other easily identified in APA.org's pschinfo that say essentially the same thing.


 * This is also my concern about Rjang's suggestion for how to change the sentence we are discussing. He has a point about syntax.  But changing the sentence to be more critical of NLP moves us away from the balance needed in the article to address the more important issue of our abiding by Wikipedia's NPOV rule.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rjang's suggestion is a minor edit, but a good point. Criticism is not confined to one time skeptic journals.  Also you make two mistakes about Wikipedia in your comments above.  Firstly we are not required to be neutral between NLP supporters and critics, we are required to reflect what is said in reliable third party sources.   You need to read WP:NPOV where this is made clear.   Secondly your Ed Cox point is original research/synthesis.   For a start its not surprising that a Master Practitioner endorses NLP or claims success for his use of NLP; we can only use that material if its properly reflected in the literature.   Now both these points have been made to you before and it really is time for you to reflect policy in your comments here.   Your comment on the adequacy of the references you have supplied does not even start to address the point Rjanagir had made to you about the nature of those sources compared with comparative studies.   I suspect from his comments that 122.108.140.210 is concerned that your position here is making his more difficult to sustain by the way.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Druckman (2004 in Journal of Applied Social Psych.) just gave a retrospective account of the Enhancing Human Performance research. . There was just one paragraph on NLP in the article. It disputed the scientific basis of assumptions that eye movements were an indicator of thought process. At the same time, he admitted that NLP modelling methdology somewhat inspired future direction of the research into enhancing human performance. I think Von Bergen et al. (1997) is the other heavyweight paper. By the way the sentence currently in the article, "These studies, in particular Sharpley's literature review, marked a decline in empirical research of NLP, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology." is missing a reference to Gelso and Fassinger (1990) "Counseling Psychology: Theory and Research on Interventions" Annual Review of Psychology . Its just one paragraph again but there are not many references to NLP in general psychology journals. In line with what Snowded said, we need to aim for an accurate representation of what the literature says according to weight. This is not an easy task. I admit there are articles that shine a positive light on NLP as well (or don't dismiss it as pseudoscience and suggest further research) but I'm not sure how to best represent these different viewpoints. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OED definition
I added the OED definition back into the lead: It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour". It might help to note that there is no single definitive version of NLP and highlight the differences in definition between the major players. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your addition has been reverted to the version which complies with above discussions. Please see and . Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your diffs do not even support your position. On what basis did you remove the definition from OED? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also LKK, show us exactly what you mean by "discussion". Because frankly it looks like your version of discussion would be better described as extremely beurocratic and wikilawyering. Get your house in order. Explain! Congru (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User 122... There has already been discussion on this issue.  That is why I supplied the diffs. The material from Grinder and Bostic St Clair was added to satisfy the discussion on the lede section for representing the views of authors of neuro-linguistic programming and critical scientific viewpoints.  By my understanding of discussion, please refer to WP:TPHELP.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no agreement to quote Grinder and Bostic St Clair in your diffs. And once again you failed to address the question. But the OED definition is back now so I assume you've backed down on that one? Can we at least agree that OED is a reliable source? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, after your weekend of activities you still have to justify with reference to the previous discussions for its inclusion. and . Otherwise that edit can be reverted.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read that discussion and do not see any argument to remove the OED definition which has been there for years and has served as a stability point. If you want to remove it then you'd need to justify that edit with a better source. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 122... You made this edit on the weekend . It has been allowed to avoid edit warring. Without your justification it can be reverted. A long and not very clarifying dictionary definition is inappropriate as part of encyclopedic lede. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, OED does not define neuro-linguistic programming. It is included only as a special usage.  The edit is tendentious and misleading. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll check it and get back to you because my university subscribes to the Oxford collection. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So does mine. The OED has is a brief entry on "Neurolinguistic"; under a "special uses" subheading it gives "neurolinguistic programming", a noun. The four examples of usage are quite telling, I think. bobrayner (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So? We can represent it as that in the article then. Congru (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit has been reverted; . Please see prior discussions on the lede.  Your addition falls under the complaint that it is not clear or accessible to readers. It also misleads by promotion and associating with the term neurolinguistics. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot reject the definiton of NLP in the Oxford English Dictionary because you "just don't like it". Try to avoid searching for evidence to suit your own POV and ignore other reliable sources. I think we should get a third party comment on including OED definition again. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED entry for neurolinguistic, adj. has a "Special uses" section containing: neurolinguistic programming n. The sources supplied for this use are...

I.e. The "definition" is taken from Bandler and Grinder. This edit, cited above, starting with "It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary..." misleads the reader by dis-associating NLP from its creators and lends a false smear of credibility by referencing the OED. The definition of NLP should be sourced to its inventors or other secondary sources. The OED "definition" should not be used. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no way to define a communication model without quoting the people who created the model. The definition is from a reliable source which has reviewed the original texts here.  Thats fully consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia rules.  --Encyclotadd (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the definition of NLP should be cited to the original sources. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. The OED editors wrote a concise, accurate, reliable definition, and cited those who invented this use of the term. htom (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Any definition of NLP would of necessity reference original sources at some stage. I'm not sure where Encyclotadd's claim that the OED reviewed the original texts in this article comes from - can you show us that?   We don't normally just hike down a definition here, but we need to reflect the sources in the lede.   It maybe that we could change the final sentence to reflect the fact that NLP has been adopted in a range of fields and there are some empirical reports, but that comparative studies have shown no scientific base.  I'm thinking aloud here in an attempt to break the OED/not OED dichotomy -- Snowded  TALK  08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I got the impression from the OED sources another Editor posted a few messages above. Two of the references were original sources by Bandler and Grinder.


 * I appreciate the suggested change to the lede. I think it's a good idea.


 * I hope the OED definition can be restored as well. It would make a big difference to clarifying the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You can't use a special use statement in a sub-division of a definition and which only quotes direct sources no third party ones. Also you have not answered by question about your source for your statement that the OED had  "reviewed the original texts here"  -- Snowded  TALK  10:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The OED supplies information about words not topics and does not review sources accuracy. In other words: Do not use the OED as a reference in this article. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL @ checking for accuracy. Snowded, Bandler made up the term neuro-linguistic programming. He is therefore a reliable source on what it means. The OED refers to his definition in the original texts. What more could you possibly need? A peer review of a peer review of a dissertation about what the man meant? By the time all these peers finish reviewing each other's reviews the Internet will be dated technology. Allow the OED in the article already. :). --Encyclotadd (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really wish you'd read the five pillars sometime. You are not writing an essay here, there are rules about how it is done but I am done trying to explain it to you.   Now answer a question.  You said of the OED  "The definition is from a reliable source which has reviewed the original texts here".  Do you have any evidence of that review, or did you just make it up?  -- Snowded  TALK  22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read WP:OWN? The Oxford English Dictionary's review process is not ours and is not subject to our review. Writing them to ask them about it would be Original Research. They did their thing, we use their results. If your claim is that the OED is not a reliable source for the definition and usage of an English language phrase, that's interesting, but this is not the place to make that argument. htom (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't know you should not make a claim (see my quote from Encylotadd). Neither should you make a rather silly accusation of ownership if you are not prepared to back it up.  If you think that is the case raise it at ANI otherwise leave it alone; in other words put up or shut up.  Otherwise you misstate the issue with the OED,  You and Encylotadd really need to spend some time looking up wikipedia policy and looking at the arguments that have been put by other editors. -- Snowded  TALK  23:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D.? htom (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A variety of notice boards may be needed here, and as a result I hope it's transparently clear to everyone what's transpiring here.


 * According to the Oxford English Dictionary (capital letters added by me for emphasis), "[The] process of adding ANY new word, or a new sense of an existing word, is long and painstaking, and depends on the accumulation of a large body of published (preferably printed) citations showing the word in actual use over a period of at least ten years. Once a word is added to the OED it is never removed; OED provides a permanent record of its place in the language." The endorsements on the book jacket are extraordinary and broad ranging.  The Nation writes that, "[Oxford English Dictionary is] one of the monuments to the patient persistence of scholarship and one of the most sterling illustrations of that strange piety which only scholars can understand."


 * For those unaware of what the term "Special usage" in dictionaries means, it refers to the way a small percentage of words and terms can share multiple parts of speech. For example, some words are both "nouns" and "verbs."  It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with sources as was erroneously suggested.  If you do not believe me yet, grab a highly reliable source such as the Oxford English dictionary and look it up!


 * It's time for honesty an integrity to be restored to this article. This is not an isolated issue-- it's a systemic problem with the article at this point.  But admitting this edit would at least be a starting point.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I did mangle my edit above. It should have been: "...and does not review sources for accuracy on a topic." Regardless, in your haste to avoid WP:AGF you've missed the point about sources entirely. I suggest you propose the changes you wish to make (or just make them and follow WP:BRD) and see if you can get a consensus for them. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By reviewing sources over ten years for consistency, the Oxford English Dictionary does an incredible amount of work in arriving at definitions. How much more review for accuracy would you ask them for?


 * Both the Oxford English Dictionary definition and The Skeptic Dictionary definition have been discussed at length before. WP:BRD was tried and failed.  The auto-reverts of the Oxford English Dictionary definition out of the article and The Skeptic Dictionary reference into the article violates both the spirit and the letter of a variety of rules.


 * I absolutely assume good faith because of the rules, and because doing so is a personal philosophy of mine. It's the unreasonable behavior -- NOT the faith -- that intervention can change here.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (out) OED reference is not relevant in this article. Information should be cited from sources relevant to the topic, not from dictionaries (which are only qualified to provide information about what the term means, not information about the topic itself). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The OED is relevant because many different definitions of NLP appear online, and countless definitions have been debated for the lede of this article. OED reviews a decade plus of literature prior to arriving at definitions, striving for NPOV.  That means it's a sensible clarification for the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI: A case has been opened on the Dispute resolution noticeboard and can be found here Oxford English Dictionary definition —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A fresh start... a wikiproject?
I'm interested in talking to people who are really keen to work on a rewrite of this article starting with a fresh survey of the literature. Wikipedia has developed good articles based on topics far less controversial than this one so I think there is still hope. Please message me on my talk page if you are interested in working on this project. Editors here try to paint each other as skeptic or advocate. We want to find a middle ground. Think accountant or mutual observer or what they call a strong third position in NLP, rather than overzealous marketer or skeptical debunker. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started the WP:NLP wikiproject. Please see WikiProject_Council/Guide. This needs to be a collaborative effort between wikipedians. If you are interested, please sign your name on that project page under the participants heading and we can get this rolling. --122.x.x.x (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Neuro-linguistic programming is a fringe pseudo-science. It does not require many articles or a project. Cutting or deleting articles does not require a project. Deleting promotional phrases, commentary and links also does not require a project. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me first say that articles for deletion as well and removing any promotional or commercial links can be co-ordinated and tracked as part of the project. do you work In health? I need to remind you that arbcom ruled that wikipedia you cannot make assert that as a fact but should ascribe that view to a source. That said, you're welcome to join the project if you want to help clean up related articles. It will be a place where a more structured collaboration can take place. I've used our rational scepticism templates to get the project started. Again, Lam, you are most welcome to join the project if you would like to help. I think the project will help avoid some of the issues you faced here in the paste. At the project we can come up with some specific goals moving forward. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I doubt your newly created WikiProject will last long, as it seems to cover basically one article. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One? There are many NLP related topics like milton model, meta model, visual-kinesthetic dissociation, therapeutic metaphor, the seduction community, Ross Jeffries, Paul McKenna, anthony Robbins, Richard Bandler, john grinder, the game, ... Just have a look at the number of articles linking to this article on NLP. There needs to be a project to co-ordinate all of these articles. -122.x.x.x (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The most interesting aspects of the model are not yet finding expression in the article. You are right to raise these issues.


 * The Game sold a million copies. Sylvan Learning Center educated two million children.  Anthony Robbins took his seminar business public for a billion dollars.  Paul McKenna sold millions of books.  None of these are described in the article about NLP yet because they are positive facts, and a handful of editors collaborate to prevent including them.


 * The problem isn't limited to unbalancing. It's obfuscation that's even more problematic.  There is no way to understand NLP, for example, without understanding anchoring.


 * The question is how can this be overcome? It would be wonderful to include more information in this article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You could probably justify creating articles for each of the popular books as long as they meet the notability criteria for wikipedia. There is already an article for the game. You could probably argue that Paul McKenna's books are also notable given the high number of sales. What about Frogs into Princes. On those sub-articles you could really describe what the authors actually say and what the critics say. --122.x.x.x (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly books that have sold hundreds of thousands or millions of copies are notable. I'm not sure if Turtles is one of them because it went out of print. But Bandler and Grinder's Frogs Into Princes and all of Paul McKenn'as books clearly meet that criteria.


 * Would there be consensus for paraphrasing such new book articles in this main one about NLP? If so I'll proceed.  Our main goal with respect to this subject should be clarifying the model and expressing prevalent view in a more factually accurate way in this main article because so much is slanted and obfuscated.  For example, the statement "discredited" is clearly false when you consider how millions of children have been educated by Sylvan Learning, which supports NLP in a recent peer reviewed context, and recent peer reviewed journals express the need for additional research.  Yet the statement unfortunately remains unqualified in the lede as though it's the only POV.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The lede current states "NLP has been adopted by ..."
The lead current states "NLP has been adopted by private therapists, including hypnotherapists." This is far too narrow as it excludes management training and other areas of applications outside of psychotherapy. Should we add in the other main application areas? --122.x.x.x (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could live with that, as long as it's framed appropriately. It's hardly a cornerstone of mainstream management training, but there are trainers who use it. bobrayner (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the text in the body is expanded to include that, with references and with care not to over claim. Then we can look at the lede.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bobrayner, nobody would claim that NLP is mainstream management science or training. Interestingly, "management training" links directly to MBA. Is there an article for the seminar and workshop industry that NLP seems to be familiar in. Can we use the Von Bergen et al 1997 as a source? While critical of its lack of scientific grounding, they make claims how popular NLP has become in management training. Von Bergen, C., Soper, B., Rosenthal, G. and Wilkinson, L. (1997) Selected Alternative Training Techniques in HRD.  In Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol 8, No 4, Winter 1997. p.281-294. See also: Ashley Dowlen, (1996) "NLP - help or hype? Investigating the uses of neuro-linguistic programming in management learning", Career Development International, Vol. 1 Iss: 1, pp.27-34. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding sources: : Von Bergen et al 1997 describe NLP as among a number of ""Alternative" techniques" in HRD.   It is important to specify the type or category of management techniques.  It is misleading to say that neuro-linguistic programming is widely used in management .  Pseudo-scientific can be a science oriented term for this line.  Alternative is ok as a category or type.  Von Bergen et al go into detail describe neuro-linguistic programming as alternative and involving extraordinary claims especially to efficacy and are related to alternative medicine.


 * New Age and alternative medicine are descriptions of neuro-linguistic programming already in the article (Beyerstein 1990) and also in:


 * Beyerstein 2001, Fringe psychotherapies: The public at risk. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, 5, 70-79.


 * Heap. M. 1988. Neuro-linguistic programming, a British Perspective. Hypnos Vol XV. No1


 * Research neuro-linguistic programming is described more detail as a New Age technique (Swets and R.A. Bjork [1990]: Enhancing human performance: an evaluation of “new age” techniques considered by the U.S. Army. Psychological Science 1(2):85-96.)). Swets and Bjork state that those New Age techniques grew out of the human potential movement of the 1960s, were getting attention in the public press and were touted and sold to government and industry training programmes.


 * The article and lede should show the distinct nature of neuro-linguistic programming. Neuro-linguistic programming is distinct from mainstream therapies such as CBT, and mainstream management techniques which do not generally get promoted or adopted by new agers or alternative medicine practitioners.


 * This edit is more consistent with the sources:


 * NLP has been adopted by private therapists, including hypnotherapists and alternative medicine practitioners (Heap 1988), and is used as a New Age technique (Swets and Bjork 1990) and "alternative" training (Von Bergen et al 1997) in management workshops, seminars and pseudo-religious events (Stollznow 2010). Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe 'fringe' or 'alternative' rather than 'new age' then? -- Snowded TALK  05:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes fringe would work also. There is more to write about the new age/cult-like aspects of neuro-linguistic programming in the article. But as a technique, fringe is a good description for lede. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could live with "a system of alternative training and development" in the context of management training and consulting. The term "new age" is somewhat offensive in business. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for adverts or favorably promotional terms. There is a significant view that neuro-linguistic programming developed and is marketed to new age human potential contexts. The term "fringe" is suggested as a brief term to capture concepts such as new age. There is more encyclopedic material to write in the article about the new age nature of neuro-linguistic programming. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you acknowledge that "new age" is a pejorative term in the industry? Its a mudslinging term especially in management training and consulting. "Alternative" is different. Its can be a neutral terms which means it is another option other than mainstream techniques. You could not use fringe because NLP is used more widely than the term implies. Most critics even acknowledge that NLP is a familiar beast in the management training industry. --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I get a strong feeling that LKK doesn't understand the term in use. If we started marketing NLP as a new age method, we'd be laughed off the stage. LKK, my advice; get a book on common English useage or contact a tutor to help you out. Congru (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See . New age is a term used in peer reviewed sources. It can be used in the article. You may think it is pejorative or disparages neuro-linguistic programming. But it is the view in the sources that counts. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's called many other things in peer reviewed journals, LKK. We as a group have to determine which terms and journals to reference.  It's pejorative, polarizing, and only represents a single viewpoint, so I agree with 122 that it's problematic.


 * Right now only one POV is finding expression in the article. Something is amiss when seven million books are sold by practitioners such as Paul McKenna, and millions of children are educated by practitioners such as Ed Cox, yet this article neither mentions such facts and incorrectly characterizes the subject as though it's not main stream.  Fringe is clearly a false statement in context of seven million books being sold and Anthony Robbins billion dollar IPO of his seminar business, is it not?


 * I'm not advocating for making this a positive article. Just a balanced one.  It clearly is not.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes balance is important. With so many pseudoskeptics here though its unlikely to happen without some armed escorts from admin. Congru (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

the primary claims of NLP advocates
The current second paragraph says "The founders of NLP, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, say that NLP is capable of addressing problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders". There is no citation for this paragraph at present but I think it originally cited one of Heap's papers available on his web site. But this does not accurately represent the primary claims of NLP. There are two primary claims in NLP: So we need to make changes to represent this.
 * 1) enhance effectiveness through improved communication and influence (To quote Von Bergen et al: "NLP is a system of procedures that purports to enable people to increase their effectiveness in communicating with and influencing others.")
 * 2) modeling effective patterns of behaviors of exceptional performers (see for example: Druckman 2004)


 * Von Bergen et al. (1997). "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD". Human Resource Development Quarterly 8: 281–294. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920080403.
 * Druckman, Daniel (2004) "Be All That You Can Be: Enhancing Human Performance" Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume 34, Number 11, November 2004, pp. 2234–2260(27) doi:doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01975.x

Side note: there is some inconsistency between Von Bergen et al 1997 and Druckman 2004 with respect the the second point above. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As several of us have said to your previous incarnation. Please propose changes rather then trying to initiative long conversations about the general principles when choices as to wording and sourcing have to be made in context.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently the second paragraph says: I think these sentences can be revised to better reflect what the proponents of NLP actually claimed. They claimed to offer: (1) a set of tools and strategies to enhance effectiveness through improved communication and influence, and (2) a modelling methodology to acquire the successful patterns of behavior of effective people. --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * “The founders of NLP, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, say that NLP is capable of addressing problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders."..."Bandler and Grinder claimed that if the effective patterns of behaviour of exceptional people could be modeled then these patterns could be acquired by others";


 * Specific proposal with sourcing please -- Snowded TALK  09:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And please don't experiment with what you know are controversial edits. For example your recent change removes the references to some of the extreme claims of NLP, those are a part of the whole and need to be properly represented.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The text would be something like: "The founders of NLP, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, claimed to offer: (1) a set of tools and strategies to enhance effectiveness through improved communication and influence (e.g. Bandler and Grinder 1979 as cited by Von Bergen 1997), and (2) a methodology to model the successful patterns of behavior of effective people (Bandler and Grinder XXXX as cited by Druckman and Swets, 1988; Druckman 2004)." --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You have been trying to introduce the "claimed" or equivalents to modify some of the more extreme statements by the founders for over a year. I don't see any reason to move from the current text to the proposal above.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you got an independent source that outlines the more extravagant claims you were referring to? From my viewpoint, the main ones that tend to come up in advertising material are: rapidly alleviating phobias, reframing negative beliefs, and changing unwanted habits. We should probably focus on the main claims that are referred to (or tested) in the independent literature. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I have enough of this nonsense in your previous incarnations. Endless attempts to talk around a subject without proper context.  Its going to be part of the ANI submission.  In the meantime if you have specific changes to the article then propose them with sources.  If you think something is not properly sourced then list it.  Otherwise please stop wasting people's time.  Your desire to keep changing your identity when one pattern of attempts to moderate properly referenced criticism fails is already disruptive enough. -- Snowded  TALK  12:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Bobrayner, that's totally unfair towards 12.x.x.x. He has been very clear about the edits he has been proposing.


 * His exact words are, "proposed change would be something like this..." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=472579030&oldid=472570342  You also recently reverted a change originally made by him.  Your comment suggests that you did not read far enough back in the edit history to realize this.


 * I would also add that all of his recently proposed changes were thoughtful because they reflected understanding of the model, and it has only been met with obfuscation on this talk page, such as uneven application of Wikipedia rules.


 * Finally, please see biographies of living persons rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP  The article contains a great deal of information about living people.


 * The objections he is raising on this talk page regarding extravagant claims is important in context of those rules.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * More importantly, do you have an independent reliable source that says those are extreme or extravagant claims? htom (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowded, What do you mean by "without proper context"? I specified the exact sentence in question that was not sourced properly. I marked it with "citation needed" then asked you for an independent reliable source for the extravagant or extreme claims. I don't doubt that the claims exist but it needs to be discussed in a reliable source to be given weight in the article. --122.x.x.x (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Snowded, Rayner and LKK are coming pretty close to cyberbullying. Look guys I think you are getting too big a view of yourselves.  Stick with the NPOV view of NLP sources and stop badgering new editors. Congru (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (sign) by his own admission he is not a new editor Congru just the (4th I estimate) manifestation of a long standing SPA on this article.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the independent reliable source for this footnote: "It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p. 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia or cure a common cold (op.cit., p. 174)...(Also, op.cit., p. 169) Bandler and Grinder make the claim that by combining NLP methods with hypnotic regression, a person can be not only effectively cured of a problem, but also rendered amnesic for the fact that they had the problem in the first place. Thus, after a session of therapy, smokers may deny that they smoked before, even when their family and friends insisted otherwise, and they are unable to account for such evidence as nicotine stains." Primary sources (seminar transcripts) should not be used directly, we need these claims to be discussed by independent reliable sources to be given weight. By Bandler, and Grinder 1981, are you referring to "Grinder, John; Richard Bandler; Connirae Andreas (Ed.) (1981). Trance-Formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Structure of Hypnosis"... Seminar transcripts or transcripts of Bandler & Grinder working with clients are not reliable sources because they might be engaged in reframing beliefs or working with individuals, we do not know. At least if the claim(s) are discussed in third party sources then we are not using our own personal bias to guide us. Independent sources will also give weight to the criticism. --122.x.x.x (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The 1981 publication cited is ReFraming, but those quotes do not appear there in my copy; perhaps pagination was different in the hard cover. htom (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if that quote appeared in the original text, which you are right to question, original text does not count as a reliable source.


 * References to an original text are considered original research, which violates Wikipedia rules.


 * A search of the American Psychological Association's psychinfo shows zero reliable sources for this. --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Using a book as a source for the writer's claims now counts as original research? That's bizarre. If bandler/grinder claim something in a book, I think it's normal - and, in fact, desirable - to use that book as a source when the claim is mentioned here. Now, we might well need reliable independent sourcing if we were to use wikipedia's voice to say that the claim is objectively true; but it's not framed like that here. People are almost always reliable sources for their own claims. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we can't use it to make evaluative statements about NLP, that would need third party. I note the past pattern of inserting tags has now been taken up again by our serial identity editor.  -- Snowded  TALK  01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The source in question is a seminar transcript of a live hypnosis seminar. People can misspeak in interviews or live seminars so its not that reliable. You'd be best to use third party sources that discuss what Bandler and Grinder's claims were. We cannot look at what Bandler and Grinder says in a seminar and decide from our own viewpoint what to include and what to not include. That's what I think Encyclotadd meant by original research. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You recently argued the opposite by saying Bandler's definition of neuro-linguistic programming cannot be used because it did not appear in a reliable source. Which is it?--Encyclotadd (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the primary definition yes, but if you check back you will see that the use of direct quotes pr a reference to the Brandler definition in the main text was not opposed fi a suitable wording could be found. -- Snowded TALK  06:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowded, It's so obvious that the founders should be quoted that it's hard to believe any debate took place at all. Bandler invented the phrase.  Obviously he's going to be the greatest authority on what he meant by it.


 * Choosing suitable words is easy-- we simply use BANDLER's words. If you are committed to this, as you now claim, prove it by allowing the edit or making it yourself.


 * Anyone familiar enough with NLP to understand how terribly obfuscated the model is on Wikipedia will rejoice at that clarifying change six years overdue.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Encyclotadd, please read discussion carefully.


 * The citation of the 1981 information was Trance-Formations 1981. It was removed by User Action Potential  using a misleading edit summary.


 * Concerning extraordinary claims User 122… quotes Von Bergen here . That quote is in the same paragraph as:
 * ““The most powerful and effective technology in human communication and change” (brochure, Jacobson, 1995, no page numbers). Extraordinary claims, to be sure, but these are but a few of those being espoused for Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), the final alternative training and development technique we will review in this article. NLP is a system….” Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The standard must be to include original texts whenever possible. Quoting a third party is worse than the childhood game of telephone in which the meaning is lost in each telling.  It's a big part of the reason why this article has declined into the utterly confusing mess it is today-- the original ideas have been replaced with totally incorrect third party descriptions of them.


 * But if we are going to reject original texts on the grounds that it's original research and not a reliable source, then at least we need to do that consistently, including here.--Encyclotadd (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've been wasting people's time here just to make a point. That would be bad. bobrayner (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If the rules are to be applied consistently throughout the article, then he was right to make the edit. If the rules are to be applied inconsistently, then he was wrong to make the edit. I'm assuming we want to apply the rules consistently and that's a valid issue to raise here.


 * Snowded indicated he would agree to including Bandler's definition of NLP in the lede.  If that's the case, I would feel compelled to agree with his decision to revert 122.x change here because then rule would be applied consistently.


 * Snowded indicated some inclination in that direction. Perhaps a consensus can be built around that possibility.  Consensus building is what the talk page is intended for, is it not?--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I said that a case might be made to include a direct definition from Brandler in the main body of the article.  We can use direct quotes as quotes, but not to make any definitive qualitative statement for that we need third party material.  You need to make the case that any such quote would add to whatever is there at the moment.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Brandler"... was that a action slip? If we were to include Bandler's definition shouldn't we include a definition that is consistent with a third party source that says this is typical of Bandler's definition? ie. a reliable third party source says Bandler defines NLP as X. Otherwise, can we quote Bandler's web site directly where he says: "Neuro-Linguistic Programming is a method of influencing brain behaviour (the "neuro" part of the phrase) through the use of language (the "linguistic" part) and other types of communication to enable a person to "recode" the way the brain responds to stimuli (that's the "programming") and manifest new and better behaviours. Neuro-Linguistic Programming often incorporates hypnosis and self-hypnosis to help achieve the change (or "programming") that is wanted." And Grinder's self-description of NLP from his business consulting web site: "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is the process of creating models of excellence. Modeling is the complex activity of capturing in a learnable transferable code the differences that make a difference between an excellent performer and an average performer, between an excellent work team and an average one. NLP, then, is the process of identifying, coding and transferring precisely those differences in a learnable form to the interested participants and companies to allow significant upgrading of their performance to levels of excellence." That is taken from their own web sites. You can see their differing viewpoints quite clearly. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The differences indicate that neuro-linguistic programming advocates offer vague and changeable claims. That is consistent with the literature that criticizes neuro-linguistic programming for being pseudo-scientific.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would put it that the differences indicate NLP is an art, not a science. Is there any documented claim (preferably by Bandler or Grinder) that NLP is a science or even scientific? - Revision as of 17:58, 25 January 2012 OtterSmith


 * "The well known New Age motivational speaker Tony Robbins describes neuro-linguistic programming as a scientific approach to success and personal achievement." Lewis J.R. and Kemp. D. (2007) Handbook of the New Age.  Publisher: Brill. ISBN 9004153551.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Von Bergen et al (1997, p.290), "Bandler and Grinder stated that they were not interested in establishing scientific validation of NLP ... Hence, the authors only present anecdotal and testimonial data to support their suppositions and the relationships among NLP variables and concepts. Even an elementary text on scientific method ... details the myriad pitfalls of such s methodology and describes its irrelevance to legitimate theory building." I think its pretty clear that Bandler and Grinder were not interested in controlled experiments. They just tried different things based on what they observed worked for Perls, Erickson and Satir. They just did not care about the traditional theory to date which they thought was mostly BS. That's why they chose the term anchoring instead of classical conditioning. They did not want the baggage of existing theory. Instead they just focused on what worked based on feedback. --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are those quotes from Bandler and Grinder acceptable as self-descriptions of NLP? Should we quote them somewhere in the article? --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The founders of NLP state that they are not doing science and they do so in many ways. It makes a logical nonsense of this article when it is so full of pejoratives like new age, pseudoscience, and the like. At the very least there should most definitely be a much stronger representation of the founders view that they are not doing theory or science. Congru (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are critics who characterize it as pseudoscience. We have to ascribe these views to a source, not present it as fact. That was the arbcom ruling. We probably need some guiding advice from more experience wikipedians on how to best represent the views of the founders and other notable people in NLP. It would be good to have some guidelines regarding sources. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:PSCI and WP:WEIGHT. Also propose specific edits instead of discussing Wikipedia rules. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think he's proposing qualifying the term pseudoscience everywhere it appears in the article with words such as "critics argue that it's pseudoscience" or "critics such as the skeptic society argue it's pseudoscience." The problem with leaving the term unqualified is that it's factually inaccurate because there is both substantiating peer reviewed science AND not only no claim by the founders to science but claims to the opposite, such as their statement "everything we're telling you is a lie" in frogs into princes.  It's just a totally false comment in those contexts unless its qualified in some way.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tosey and Mathison state that as well as having an emphasis on modeling, Bandler and Grinder "also emphasised a pragmatic intent, saying ‘We have no idea about the “real” nature of things, and we’re not particularly interested in what’s “true”. The function of modeling is to arrive at descriptions which are useful’ (Bandler & Grinder 1979 p.7)." Is this Infed encyclopedia of informal education a reliable source? --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Turtles all the way down
I made a short reference to the NLP book of the same title in the "turtles all the way down" article under popular allusions. Let me know if you do not think its notable. The book has been discussed in a few independent source but I'm not sure about its notability. Please comment on the associated talk page. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's notable for it's focus on new code, which does not find expression in this article yet. So I think you're right to raise the question and on balance I would support including it.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not proposing to add it here but on the other article on the turtles all the way down acecdote about the infinite regress problem that was made famous by Stephen Hawkins in 1988. Both John Grinder and Robert Anton Wilson recount a similar story with a little old lady in a William James lecture on "Can One Prove The Existence of God?". I think the point is that you cannot go using reductionist methods forever because it will inevitably lead to the logical fallacy of an infinite regress. But we cannot discuss it here. I don't even know if the book is notable enough to be mentioned on that other article next to Hawkins. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

article for deletion New code of NLP
Just a note to let you know that the article titled New code of NLP has been proposed for deletion. The new code is described in by Grinder in Turtles all the way down and Whispering in the Wind. For it to be considered notable enough for its own article it would need to be discussed in reliable third party sources even if it was criticised in third party reliable sources that would be enough. I did a quick search in google scholar and it did not come up with many hits. There is a youtube video by John Grinder here with 20,000 views but that alone is not good enough. There are 23 citations to Whispering in the wind and around 35 references to Grinder (1987) Turtles all the way down: Prerequisites to personal genius.. What is the requirement for a book to have its own article? Turtles is listed in Library of Congress and worldcat. It is essentially a self-publication but that does not mean non-notability. So does the book mean this criteria for notability: "the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3]"Notability_(books) So if you want to have an article about the book you would need to establish that some of these works that discuss it are non-trivial: --122.x.x.x (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Norcross
The above line is an exaggeration. What is the context of this list and on what poll/study was it based? What paradigm do the authors of the study adhere to? --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Norcross et al. (2008)[18] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited"


 * Disputed text: NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.[5] In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [17] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2008)[18] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”.[19]


 * This disputed text above needs to be looked at carefully. On what evidence are these claims based? What perspective are these authors writing from? What are the other views about credibility and reception of NLP in various professions, not just evidence-based clinical psychology? --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before and at length. Its not clear by the way if you are a new editor or not.  Would you clarify.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is it still doing in the article if it has been discussed at length? Can you answer the question: On what evidence are these claims based? What are the limitations of the studies? --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed at length and the current wording agreed. Every six months or so it comes up again, look through the archives. Now please answer the question are you a new editor?  -- Snowded  TALK  09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the outline and purpose of that entire paragraph? Is it intended to outline the reception of NLP? If so, in what context? --122.x.x.x (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the prior discussion and critically answer the question - are you a new editor? -- Snowded TALK  10:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think a new editor would be able to indent his or her comments and use an IP address range like that? I cannot see these questions answered about the intention of that paragraph. What is that paragraph intended to outline? Could someone else enlighten me? --122.x.x.x (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No I don't, so would you please tell us under what IDs you have edited before -- Snowded TALK  11:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really need you (or other editors here) to answer the questions about the content here. My account was created with the sole purpose of working on this topic. I can disclose my other account(s), and/or qualifications to a trusted third party if absolutely necessary but I'm not getting drawn into the dog's breakfast that is this discussion forum. Now, can you try to focus on the article content? You must admit that it needs work. Can you give your purpose for that paragraph I quoted above? --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that if you have edited on NLP subjects under another name then it is misleading to come here without declaring the accounts under which you have previously edited. You may even have been involved in the prior discussions on this issue.  The patter of refusal is similar to another IP address which was clearly linked to an off site NLP web site which was generating meat puppets.  We also have a few blocked sock puppets around the issues you raise.  Given that history its a very reasonable question to ask before engaging in content issues with you.  Especially when you are raising nothing which has not been raised and discussed before.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you endorse the paragraph as it appears in the article currently? I'm just looking at the state of that paragraph right now. You must admit that it needs work. I'll ask again: what is the intended purpose of that paragraph? Can I assume that it is meant to outline the reception of NLP in the research literature and clinical psychology in particular? --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the previous discussions on this subject of which I suspect that you are all too aware. Please also respond to the question, if you have edited this article before under another name please declare it, otherwise you are just the latest in a series of SPA accounts who arrive here with very similar agendas. I'm not sure if its sock puppetry, but it is disruptive behaviour and prevents progress on content issues. Your edits also follow the pattern of 122.108.140.210 who of recent months has tried to have generic conversations in the absence of specific proposals for change coupled with sources. -- Snowded TALK  12:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You chose to shift the discussion from a specific disputed portion to a generic discussion about editing behaviour or sock-puppetry. I have already declared that this is a single purpose account for editing this article. So let's get back on track.. If it was raised in the past, it certainly was not addressed in the article as the problem text is unchanged. Can you answer the question above regarding the purpose of the paragraph I referred to. It might help to repeat this for each section in the article. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The section was discussed and the current text agreed. You consider the text to be problematic, others did not last time.  So I'm sorry I refer you to the previous discussion.  As to the behaviour issues these are now serious on this article.  Your refusal to respond is disruptive, for all we know you are a sock puppet of a permanently banned user. -- Snowded  TALK  13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Being anonymous is certainly disruptive to those who want to cyber bully or stalk. I'm not accusing you of that but you do need to be more careful with controversial topics. Critics and enthusiasts are attracted to these kind of fringe topics. Its hard to find balanced editors. I was very specific in the portion of text I was examining closely. Would you prefer that I suggest alternative text rather than highlight disputed text for discussion? I was really trying to find out your purpose for that paragraph seeing that you have curated this article recently. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with being anonymous, there is everything wrong with editing with multiple accounts.  I think you owe it to other editors to read the prior discussions on this,  If you have something new to bring up fine, but if you just want to rehash the old arguments under another name that is clearly disruptive.  Oh, and I always enjoy "not" being accused of something -- Snowded  TALK  14:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello 122.x.x.x. Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the second paragraph, I think there should be a number of definitions from various perspectives clearly identifying the sources. A close paraphrase of OED definition or a close paraphrase from Bandler and Grinder would be helpful. There are other definitions that can be highlighted such as how NLP is defined by Dilts, Grinder, and Bandler in NLP volume 1: "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (as it appears in the subtitle of that book). The definition from the US National Library of Medicine night be useful, it says: "A set of models of how communication impacts and is impacted by subjective experience. Techniques are generated from these models by sequencing of various aspects of the models in order to change someone's internal representations. Neurolinguistic programming is concerned with the patterns or programming created by the interactions among the brain, language, and the body, that produce both effective and ineffective behavior." That definition from OED or NLM could be paraphrased in the second paragraph. As for the final paragraph, I need to know what its purpose that paragraph before making specific suggestions. If its about the reception and credibility of NLP, we might note that "Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy Counselling Association" is an accrediting organisation for UKCP alongside the EBP perspective from Norcross. The reader also needs to know the limitations of the Norcross polls. That top ten list is more spin that substance. --122.x.x.x (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, the lead should summarize the body. It is much easier to add material in the body first then modify the lead as needed. I'm not sure how a list of definitions accomplishes this. Second, what other sources do you suggest would help us understand the limitations of Norcross? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) Given its unreasonable obsession with unnecessary definitions, and the fact that User:Encyclotadd and 122.108.140.210 just had a discussion about wanting to force these same definitions from the same sources into the lede, I presume this IP is one of them. Better to just ignore it. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well 122.108.140.210 is a pretty obvious replacement for ActionPotential (who also ran an NLP consultancy business) and the style of 122.x.x.x is very similar - including the non-denial language. 122.108.140.210 is also linked to at least one indefed meat puppet through an apology on his talk page just before the banning.  Its all there for a sockpuppet/meat puppet report but the general pattern over the last year or so has been to push and push, then just when everyone else is getting frustrated and ready to file the formal report, to back off for a few months, then come back again with exactly the same arguments usually supported by one or two newly created SPAs who take a more extreme position.  Evidence of off wiki co-ordination is circumstantial, but the accusations against other editors are a common feature of all and can be found on a couple of external web sites.  So its a pattern and it may be time for a formal report to ANI if the disruption continues.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A formal report to the ANI is appropriate whether the disruption continues or not. As an uninvolved editor, I have been somewhat surprised at how long this has been allowed to continue. ISTB351 (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I've been assembling the evidence over the last year or so. I agree its probably time, but I don't have it until next week.  I keep hoping a neutral admin or experienced editor will take it up and track through - I am demonised on a number of the external NLP sites.-- Snowded  TALK  06:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And your response to your demonisation on external NLP sites appears to be to demonize NLP here? Do you really think you can manage to edit with a NPOV after such treatment? htom (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowded certainly seems to be trying to do so; demonization by NLP partisans is hardly evidentiary regarding one's ability to follow WP:NPOV. The truth is that there is a pattern of disruption happening at this article that needs to be addressed officially, as the usual methods of discussion are being subverted by sockpuppetry and external canvassing. siafu (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting possible tactic for you there htom. You set up a web site and launch attacks on any editor who disagrees with you.  You then say that as a result of that disagreement they can't edit the article.   That aside if you have an diffs for me editing in "demonisations" as opposed to material supported by reliable sources please provide them.  From the other comments here I think it is probably time to make the formal report.  If no one else picks it up I will do in sometime late next week assuming work does not overtake me -- Snowded  TALK  18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're the one who claimed to have been demonized. Care to point at the website you claim I've put up, please? htom (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I keep forgetting that some people/cultures don't understand irony. Please note the use of "possible", its the second word in the post.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Htom. Please take time to read discussions carefully. The tactic in general for demonising can be seen here as one example: . The pattern is keeping repeating so its certainly time for formal report. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just ignore it mate. Its not nice that people here are accusing each other of off-site canvassing or sockpuppeting. NPOV and reliable sources will prevail in the long term. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Implications or expectations of bad faith don't seem to me to be especially ironic, Snowded. Perhaps that is something you expected? htom (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not let the discussion get disrupted again. Can you return to collaborating on the article? If that means getting third party comment or using administrator noticeboard then great. More experienced eye balls the better. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TBH, discussion of this article should come to a halt, until the sock/meat puppetry situation is taken care of. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested, 122.x.x.x has decided to make an ANI report about the bad atmosphere his 4th incarnation is receiving on this talk page. -- Snowded TALK  23:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

RS Notice Board
A request relating to this article has been made at the RS notice board by 122.x.x.x The link here. 122, its normal practice to notify people of a reference to any discussion board. I assume this was an oversight on your part. Its also normal for the reference to be in the context of a proposed edit. -- Snowded TALK  02:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Witkowski
There are several references to Witkowski in this article...
 * Witkowski (2010) states that NLP uses impressive sounding yet questionable expressions such as; pragmagraphics, surface structure, deep structure, accessing cues, non-accessing movement etc.
 * Witkowski (2010) writes that "NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever."
 * Witkowski (2010) also states that at the neuronal level NLP provides no explanation at all and has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming.
 * According to Witkowski (2010), NLP also appears on “the list of discredited therapies” published in the journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.

These are quite extreme statements which are inconsistent with other papers. I'd first think we should remove the line "According to Witkowski (2010), NLP also appears on “the list of discredited therapies” published in the journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice." and just cite the Norcross poll directly. At the moment it is misleading. Witkowski cites a delphi poll carried out by Norcross et al in 2006. Adding "according to Witkowski..." adds nothing to the article. He is not notable and it is not published in a high ranking journal. Witkowski adds nothing to the article on this point. So just cite Norcross directly, briefly describe the method, conclusions and any limitations. --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that "According to W" was added in by one of your previous identities but I could be wrong.  Citing Norcross direct without the "according to .." is fine.  However I don't see any need to "describe the method/limitations" unless there is a source which does that and can be referenced.  I also see you have returned to the ranking arguments you advocated before.  You might want to remind yourself of the discussion then.  There is no question that the journal referenced is a reliable source, and remember NLP is fringe at best and that will be reflected in where comparative studies or evaluations are published.   -- Snowded  TALK  08:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you need to mention Witskowski at all. Just let Nocross poll speak for itself. I'll make the edit and see what you think. --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No objection to removing "According to W", every objection to your repeating past attempts to qualify the research findings. So for anything more than that simple removal please discuss here first. I see you are now returning to all the same subjects and sources that you went through in your previous ID.  Repeating patterns ...   -- Snowded  TALK  08:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Witkowski statement was added to satisfy a repeated request from other editors for a view on what the Norcross research can be called. Witkowski calls it a list of discredited treatments. Considering the history and the explanation value I think it should stay. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There must be something lost in translation here. I am proposing that we remove the Witkowski comment about Norcross' 2006 poll and just describe the method, results and conclusions with any limitations if relevant as identified by the authors. Its a two stage poll using the delphi methodology. In the first stage NLP scored X and in the second stage it scored Y. blah blah... You get the idea. Would that sort of thing be acceptable to you two? --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Witkowski is a reliable source for the statement. It should stay. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Witkowski is actually a VERY poor reference. Again the language is poor with a bad translation that may have lost a lot in the change. There should be a MUCH more serious effort going on in this article to deal with dreadful badly written sources that misquote and plagiarize research.  Congru (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion, if you think its not a reliable source then raise that at the appropriate notice board. You might want to moderate your language a bit if you do so,  its pretty poor but it may I suppose be badly translated.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nocross 2008?
Text in question: "in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2008)[19] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited"

I think the current reference to Nocross 2008 is wrong. What does the source actually say? What study was it based on? It currently cites "Norcross, John C., Thomas P. Hogan, Gerald P. Koocher (2008) Clinician's Guide to Evidence-based Practices. Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 978-0-19-533532-3 (Page 198)" but I could not find any reference to NLP in that book. Perhaps the reference was meant to be:
 * Was the source meant to be: Fala, N. C., Norcross, J. C., Koocher, G. P., & Wexler, H. K. (2008, August). What doesn’t work? Discredited treatments in the addictions. Poster presented at the 116th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA. --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is in Clinicians Guide..(2008). That is a reliable source. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good call, LKK, on it being in the Clinician's Guide. You're right.  122, you're right that the reference appears incorrectly.  Norcross does not state that NLP was discredited.  The list it appears in has a different title, and shows NLP to be more successful than other main stream methods such as certain kinds of Fruedian and Jungian analysis.  How do we handle such an incorrectly expressed reference in this article?--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What exactly does it say in the "Clinician's Guide" and what is the evidence? Can you give a quote and page numbers? --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your request has been asked before:, and answered before . Your activities here appear to be disruptive. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a "Neurolinguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence" under the title "Top 10 Discredited Substance Abuse Treatments" (p.198). There are two studies cited at the end of the table: one was "Norcross, Koocher, & Garafalo (2006). the other was an unpublished study by Norcross, Koocher, Fala, & Wexler, (2007). The 2007 paper has since been published as Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C. and Wexler, H. W. (2010) "What Does Not Work? Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions,   Journal of Addiction Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 3. pages 174-180. So discard your "Clinician's Guide" and go with the one published in Journal of Addiction Medicine. --122.x.x.x (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

we went through all of this with you before and removed the compRiaon to others on the list such as dolphin therapy. You are raising no new evidence over the last time you raised the issue, just doi g the same thing under your new ID. That is highly disruptive behaviour -- Snowded TALK  14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really think we should get a third party opinion on this because I don't think you checked the sources before making your revert. You claim that there is no new evidence but that is not correct because I have provided new evidence: Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C. and Wexler, H. W. (2010) "What Does Not Work? Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions,   Journal of Addiction Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 3. pages 174-180. I have also checked the sources and found that the "top ten" list that you cite was based on two polls run between 2004 and 2006: One study focused on Mental and behavioural disorders: Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., & Garafalo, A. (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll.  Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37. 515-522. The second study was not published in a peer-reviewed journal until 2010: Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C. and Wexler, H. W. (2010) "What Does Not Work?  Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions,   Journal of Addiction Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 3. pages 174-180. Please address the actual evidence. --122.x.x.x (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No editor is preventing you from raising the evidence (again). It is the fact that you are unilaterally adding material to the article while no consensus has been reached here that is the problem. That is what is being labeled disruptive. ISTB351 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And you are edit warring again, just like last time.  Also you are (again) presenting your interpretation of the material, that is original research and/or synthesis.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I offer no interpretation of the sources. What do you mean by that? It is just a statement of fact. There are two studies by Norcross that included NLP. Can you accept that basic fact? If not, I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You started this discussion with this "Text in question: "in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2008)[19] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited" I think the current reference to Nocross 2008 is wrong. What does the source actually say? What study was it based on?". You were questioning the source by asking what was it based on, that is not what we do at WP, see WP:OR. Furthermore, the reference to Norcross et al (2008) is correct, and can be verified here at Table 7.2, on p 198. The source is reliable and verifiable. I will assume that your claim that you "could not find any reference to NLP in that book" was made in good faith, but if you continue with this line others may conclude that you are hoaxing. I will close this discussion in consequence. ISTB351 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was able to get that book out and verified the page numbers. If we do not ignore the fact that the link you posted is copyright infringement, we can say it is easily verifiable. I'm not denying that NLP appear on the second list concerning alcohol and drug abuse. On my original copy, if you look at p.199 of Norcross et al (2008) it says "From Norcross, Koocher, & Garafalo (2006). Norcross, Koocher, Fala, & Wexler, (2007)." The first one is Norcross, Koocher, & Garafalo (2006) which is: Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., & Garafalo, A. (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37. 515-522. and the second one was an unpublished study that was finally published in 2010 as I stated above. I will take you word for it that this is also in the plagiarized version. What I am saying is that we should cite the studies directly. To my best of my knowledge, my position is in line with wikipedia policy in terms of reliable sources and verifiability as both studies have a DOI and can easily be found at any university library. --122.x.x.x (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes good point. In fact we should be able to cite ALL sources, not just the ones that suit the pseudoskeptics. Congru (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All sources? I don't understand your point. The authors are essentially the same, just the ones I cited had better weight because they were published in good journals. --122.x.x.x (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I am talking on a slightly broader point. I mean several of the cites here  should be allowed into the article.  Many of them are positive and from good sources.   Congru (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The top ten claim is now cited to Norcross et al. (2010), although it makes no difference to the substantive material in the article. I will close the discussion. ISTB351 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't close the discussion yet. We still need to discuss the change in wording. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

--122.x.x.x (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposed change: Polls by Norcross et al (2006; 2010) sought to establish expert-consensus concerning discredited psychological interventions ranked NLP between possibly or probably discredited for the treatment of mental and behavioural disorders and certainly discredited for substance and alcohol abuse.


 * You could then also mention the lists work in the evidence based practice clinical manuals because they are also notable. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your proposed edit attempts to qualify research findings with language such as "Polls that sought to establish". We do not question research findings here, we only report them. Your language falls foul of WP:Weasel in any case. There is no reason why the top ten claim should be removed. NLP is ranked seventh with a mean of 4.24 on p 177 of Norcross et al. (2010). If absolutely necessary, Norcross et al. (2006) can be cited in support. I see no compelling reason why the edit should be made, and you have given none. Let's see if any other editors take a different view. ISTB351 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Requests that have already been satisfied : User talk page accusations .  It's the same repeat pattern of disruption that is ongoing. There is no reason for the proposed edit to be made.  There is also less reason to spend effort on trying to satisfy disruptive requests. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ISTB351: I think you are misguided on that point. Try this wording: "Polls by Nocross et al (2006, 2010) sought to establish expert-consensus...". This wording is fine according to the WP:Weasel. The guideline gives and example: 'It is, of course, acceptable to introduce some fact or opinion and attribute it in an inline citation. e.g. "Research by Wong et al, 1996, has shown that rabies can be cured by acupuncture".' --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "has shown" per your example is not the same as "sought to establish". Sorry you keep trying to modify this text to imply that there is something wrong with the research.  If you have a reliable source which says that then we will need to balance over the range of sources.  Without such a source your opinion does not count (not would anyone else's).  I think we can close this now -- Snowded  TALK  19:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a weasel word. These are the actual words used by the authors of the study in their abstract "In the context of intense interest in evidence-based practice (EBP), the authors sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments and assessments using Delphi methodology." --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is at the start of the paper, they then went on to do it which is what we report. -- Snowded  TALK  06:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not at the start of the paper. The abstract is normally written after the results are in and the paper is completed. --122.x.x.x (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough with a fair amount of my papers to my name I know that. The abstract summarises the process they went through.  This is a real waste of time, in your last incarnation (I will find the reference next week) you wasted a huge amount of editors time on exactly the same references.  Please stop. -- Snowded  TALK  10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that we just need to report the conclusions without providing any indication of the aim, method or results? I think we need to give just enough detail so that the reader knows what the results mean. I'll get some advice from some more experienced Wikipedian and report back. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Previously discussed, it is not legitimate to return to a resolved issue just by changing your name -- Snowded TALK  13:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a change that tried to take into account your objections --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism by Witkowski
Just looking into the wording "sought" to see if it was used widely.... Someone should have run Witkowski's paper through turn-it-in before submission. This must be embarressing for the integrity of the journal because Witkowski also plagiarized one of Heaps papers by copying and pasting large chunks without using quotes and page numbers.

Compare this: "Norcross, Koocher and Garofalo (2006) sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments and assessments using Delphi methodology. A panel of 101 experts participated in a 2-stage survey, reporting familiarity with 59 treatments and 30 assessment techniques and rating these on a continuum from not at all discredited (1) to certainly discredited (5)."(p.21)

with this from Norcross (2006) abstract: "In the context of intense interest in evidence-based practice (EBP), the authors sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments and assessments using Delphi methodology. A panel of 101 experts participated in a 2-stage survey, reporting familiarity with 59 treatments and 30 assessment techniques and rating these on a continuum from not at all discredited to certainly discredited."

Snowded said that the reliability of Witkowsi was not a question. Think again. You cannot have it both ways. Can you trust a journal that does not even use turn-it-in to check for plagiarism? I ran it through and it had a huge plagiarism count - copy and pasting text from web sites and other papers rather than quoting, paraphrasing or synthesizing. --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Raise it with the journal, its not our place to do this sort of investigative work -- Snowded TALK  06:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we ignore the blatant plagiarism, we can see that both the author and a third party (Witkowsjki) use the term sought to describe their attempts at ascertaining consensus. The authors warn us in the article that any results need to be taken "carefully and humbly". In this context "sought" is appropriate and is not a weasel term. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are making an accusation of plagiarism and that is your affair, but I caution you against doing it in a public forum. If you have concerns raise them with the author or the journal concerned.  Other than that there is no need to use "sought"  the conclusions should be taken carefully and humbly, but they are still conclusions.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did they make any conclusions specific NLP? --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User122xxx. You have already posted a link to the article .  Please stop your disruptive time wasting behaviour. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have the full text here. But I want your scientific opinion on what the specific conclusions were made regarding NLP in this paper: Norcross et al., 2006. I can see it there in the results but cannot see it mentioned in the conclusions. Snowded said we need to report conclusions and is the reason I asked for clarification. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop your disruptive nonsense. Editor opinion is irrelevant in this the matter.  Witkowski reports on Norcross et al 2006. This has been covered before under one of your previous non-denied incarnations. You already know this. You appear to be persistently wasting editor effort deliberately in this matter.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to divert the discussion into accusations of sock-puppetry - I'm not failing to deny, I'm just not taking your bait. I'm not interested in Witkowski really. As far as I can tell, the author has no credibility as a scientist. In contrast, Norcross is a notable professor. I'm interested in what you, as a scientist, understand to be the conclusion made by Norcross et al. 2006 specific to NLP. We need to just establish some basic facts here. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not the opinions of editors, you have been told this before as LKK says. -- Snowded  TALK  13:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for an opinion. I'm asking for the facts. --122.x.x.x (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion -- Snowded TALK  21:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a quote from that paper showing the conclusion specific to NLP you speak of. That way we can be sure that it is not just my opinion or yours. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's laughable that a non-peer reviewed Polish journal with probably plagiarized (but clearly duplicate) is being defended here. Highly dubious is an understatement.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very dissapointed tbh.
Hello, I am enemesis I have studied NLP and I am very dissapointed at the direction of this article at the moment. I was involved in editting this article about 6 to 7 years ago when we were trying to put together an educational piece. there was one user who sought to demonise the NLP article and had infact used aliases to give more credibility to his plea and have his way. he was subsequently caught and banned from the article. I was happy with it about a year ago when it was educational and there was a small section questioning the validity of NLP, this would be fair, right now the article is tatterred with personal opinion. I feel the article is tainted with personal opinion and should be re written. as it stands it says absolutely nothing of value. I feel if your objective is to be manipulative in the context of the article then you have no business here, your intentions will be considerred impure to me. I have no wish to get involved right now, however if this matter is not corrected I will fight for a fair article by any means necessary.

Hello and greetings to all who would like a decent article on the mountain of knowledge that is Wikipedia :D.

enemesis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemesis (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please declare which user account you edited under "about 6 to 7 years ago". Otherwise, you may be open to accusations of sock puppetry as yet another spa involved with this page. Unless, you have any specific changes which you would like to make to the article, rather than general complaints about it, this thread is liable to be closed per WP:NOTAFORUM. ISTB351 (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

JuzzyFett. I am pretty sure was my name and yes sock puppetry was the term used for the offender, he was banned from editting the article. Specific changes would be to make an educational article that articulates what NLP is, Not what other people have said about it. that would be a completely different thread or a smaller piece of the puzzle imo and not of worthy note for the main attraction. in other words this article closes options for the reader as far as true learning is concerned. Upon seeing the article in such dissaray I feel I must begin another account to defend it. accuse me of sock puppetry if you like. this is the truth and you will find no such evidence to support it. also the member involved with the page many years ago also claimed NLP to have lost it's timeliness, such comparisons are completely bizzarre to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemesis (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask a question? Is this a thesis or an article? Is it historically correct? is it filled with opinionated third party propaganda that leads to a judgement of the subject matter? Does the text represent the subject it describes? What is the true genesis of NLP? Are the other documents really by the way side and have little relevance to the subject as a whole whilst also having their corner in the article? Who are the people involved and what is their importance? wow thats a few questions really but you get it. again is this a thesis or an article? Enemesis (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the rudest exchanges I've seen on Wikipedia
I'm looking at you, ISTB351; cast your eye on WP:FACTIONS : "... Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. ..." htom (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not rude to point out that this is not a forum and to ask for full disclosure when someone admits to having edited before under another name.  Snowded  TALK 07:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was merely pointing out to, who is, by that user's own admission, not a newcomer so cannot be bitten, that WP:SOCK and WP:NOTAFORUM apply. I did so civilly and without being rude. The fact that you are merely quoting policy at length rather than highlighting any specific instance of alleged incivility is telling. It has been made clear time and time again that what should be discussed here is specific changes to the article that are controversial. This is not the place for rambling general discussions about NLP as that user was starting. ISTB351 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What you two see as concise, precise, and efficient by-the-rules interacting I saw as an abrupt rude silencing after a hostile, interrogative question, without the warning your closure references. Your responses to me confirm my opinion of your closure; you are welcome to your opinion of it. htom (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think there is a behaviour issue then take it to the appropriate forum, with evidence. Otherwise this page is for discussing changes to the article, its not for a general discussion of the subject, or of other editors.   Snowded  TALK 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * By all means, leave on a note of threat and refusal to engage. Says it all, really. Obviously, I can't be responsible for your attitudes. Could you provide - what's the word - diffs for these problematic edits, so I can see what you mean? If others are provoked, it seems to be because they impute to me a set of opinions that I have never indicated I hold, and that I do not in fact hold, but that they find intolerable. It's an interesting conundrum. ISTB351 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rudeness is frequently in how something is said, rather than what is said. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANeuro-linguistic_programming&action=historysubmit&diff=476595483&oldid=476595289 (Not sure I know how to do diffs correctly.) I felt, and still feel, that that closure was an undeservedly rude response. I haven't gone anywhere, and deny making any threats. Did my complaint about the closure you inserted make you feel threatened? How so? I haven't said I was going to report your behavior. I was aiming at making you feel guilty or ashamed; did I hit, and those feelings, and the consequences if they were reported are what you perceive as a threat? Report yourself, or me, if you want. htom (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not feel I treated this like a forum tbh, the sugestion was made as to the direction for the article by istb351 to which I responded in kind. I don't think he would have minded if he had found what I had to say to be agreeable to his cause. I did not speak of NLP in General istb351 you will have to do better if you are going to miscarry my words in defense of yourself. I was talking about the article and editting. In this case the article seems to be way off track. what I said was a suggestion for editting which I believe to be right. The information I have seen presented has very little to do with the subject in general and has a mass of documentation that that are opinions on NLP and not about NLP itself, Is this the soap box they are talking about in the article you sent me istb315? voicing a view that is yours through an article. This is a part of the article but not the article itself. How else could I say it other than to blatantly point out the obvious? There should be if you like a small body on the validity of NLP and the rest should be about the origins important events, people, the genesis and so forth. I will absolutely refuse to go searching for documentations that prove the contrary to the subscribed documents of opinions as this is a tedious task and you will end up writing an article that has a for and against sort of style, like a debate and the intention will be unclear to the audience.

We really should know what the structure of the article should be. It was fine the last time I checked it about six months to a year ago. this new version is anti NLP. and excludes learning from the reader. It says to me as an objective reader in total. in plain big red capital letters "STAY AWAY FROM NLP. it is not good for YOU all the professionals say so"(Of which not all of them are doing that surely?). Now I know this is not right. This is opinion which seeks to manipulate the reader into not following the subject up any further and to create disinterest and probably even gossip if the subject arises. It also purports to vandalism of the article even if they are using their rights within the confines of Wikipedian rules and regulations. What happened six or seven years ago is a fill in for the people involved here that do not know and I think it is relevant to what is happening now. All the writers points in the article from back then are the same as what has been described now. Completely the same. He was also totally uncompromising and ruthless in his approach to getting his way and making unscrupulous edits. I do not believe this is treating the talk like a forum. I have come to you with new information that you should deem as important. This article has been under threat previously. We had a similar threat and if you have saved past posts in talk regarding conflict with this article you would see that it is true. I think it is relevant to what is happening now.

I feel I cannot proceed into something that was also back then seemingly a futile task and also blatantly obvious to everyone else accept for the editor involved and his sock puppets( although I'm sure he knew what he was doing). We will need some executive decisions or someone to concede all their wishes for the article and only use a few to balance it out and give his/her words their proper tribute and decide what the most objective and educational format should be, only then can we move forward with knowing what to write. This will require fair thought in respect to the subject matter and the reader. I find the article to be important and of value on Wikipedia there are over 500 thousand students who have studied NLP and a lot of them practice it world wide. They will not feel the article respects the field and will feel that NLP is highly misrepresented on Wikipedia of which with its current prevalence the article definitely deserves its place. On any other site I would not be bothered so much, However this is Wikipedia and it reaches millions of readers all over the world every day. Each subject must be treated fairly with respect to the information, the people involved, and the audience. Without a shared outcome there will be NO outcome. Is this not all about editing direction? If this is not the place to say it then where else could I point out the blatantly obvious? Tell me and I will go there too. Thank you.

And yes istb351 I did find u to be rude on our first encounter. you were quite curt and unwelcoming. also the page you sent me said something about soap boxes. I am pretty sure the article was pertaining to Wikipedia articles and not talk unless there is something I have missed...

A couple of questions for snowded if I may: Hello snowded, My name is enemesis and I would like to ask... Should this article rather be called "The efficacies of Neuro Linguitic Programming" rather than "Neuro Linguistic Programming" as a more apt title that describes the nature of the article? It could be linked as a follow up document at the bottom of the NLP page as it is done with so many other wikipedia pieces. It could also possibly end the dispute amongst the editors here.

@ Ottersmith: Could you please direct me to a place I can talk about the content of the article if this is not the place to do it as my comments seem to be offending people. However I must say that the article offends me and probably a lot of other people who would like the subject fairly represented. Thank you for your time. :)

Those of you who would like a fairer article is there somewhere to commune other than here to discuss.

This also could be considered as my introduction. Hello everyone I'm enemesis, good to be back. :)

I am a writer, I have studied at two universities one in theatre and the other for screenwriting. I have written in many different tones to a pretty good effect (I can only hope) on many documents short stories, stage plays, letters, essays. :) I also hope that I can help here too :)

regards to all.

Enemesis (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss improvements to the article. Doing so elsewhere will probably get you accused of other Wikipedia sins. Sorry you've had such a reintroduction to Wikipedia; this has become one of the most contentious articles we have. htom (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In answer to the one question you ask Ememesis, No I don't. Otherwise please read the advise on your page, this is not a soapbox and you post above has little to do with the article.   Please also try and remember your previous user name.   The one you give above does not appear a valid one.  A link would be appreciated and ideally you should link on your talk page so that there is no question of sock puppetry.  This is especially important as you are (in indirect language) repeating the accusations against other editors promoted on what appear to the NLP sites set up to organise meat puppets, and there are other stylistic commonalities.  So a little honesty and recall please or you will just get swept up in a list of Especially as you are (in indirect language) repeating the accusations against other editors promoted on what appear to the NLP sites set up to organise meat puppets, and there are other stylistic commonalities.  So a little honesty and recall please or you will simply get swept up with a lost of SPA accounts when the mean puppetry report goes to ANI Snowded  TALK 06:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Snowded what a trooper you are. I do not remember my account details other than juzzyfett. I think I have you worried right now. very worried. admins can check my ip and see it is nowhere in the vicinity of other editors. they can also try tracing it, it is only two suburbs away from when I last spoke here. I have I should say just been reading some stuff to get up to speed on the players in this entanglement. and yes headlydown was the culprit back then. I will try and find my lost account. Yes, I will always and forever speak the truth on this matter and theb people involved and more importantly I will prove that Headlydown is back. have a nice day sir. — Preceding Enemesis (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Devilly,[15] NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics.

Who editted this into the article?

Given the claims made by proponents of NLP, this adds little to the credibility debate and would produce reports concerning the experience from the perspective of the individual rather than confirmation of the claimed efficacy.

and this one?

Enemesis (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Its amazing how many new SPA accounts here can't remember their previous names and then start up on the old themes.  Ah well, another one ..
 * Please use the talk page for proposals for changes to the article not for general discussion of the subject. If you carry on the material will be collapsed or deleted.   Snowded  TALK 09:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You fail to answer any of my my questions with any great depth snowded. Why? This theme is current people already think you and Lim are a fraud. funny that. Empirical was what Headly argued back them and efficacy which to me seemed an odd descriptive word to use although quite proudly used by headly at the time is used again and also quite proudly. If you wish to know what I would change specifically, it would be all of it. I could write an essay on what the problems are which could be quite a tedious task in itself however that would be by the way side of what the article should be. I can feel the cops the fbi and the cia surrounding headly right now hes panicking and in his panic he has short moments of grief, "why was I so bold?" he asks himself. Why does he even try anymore? is what I ask myself. It will be over soon. And I will ask admins to let no-one follow Headly's work if wisdom will persist. this article will be protected. You got that snowded and Lim!?! Now who editted those passages into the article?

Enemesis (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)