Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 22

Edit request on 21 December 2012
The entry starts with a highly objective statement "NLP is largely discredited" without any references that back this up. As a student studying counselling, hypnotherapy and NLP, I find this biased opening statement should be deleted unless the view can be substantiated with reputable references.

Redmarti (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For other editors - this is the ninth new account created in the last six weeks on this subject, all making similar requests. A meat farm is obviously in operation  Snowded  TALK 10:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No snowded as I have said above "Snowded, when I first started looking for an NLP school to commence training I did read that there had been over 500,000 people with formal training in NLP at that time. The likelihood that you are going to experience resistance on this article because of the POV tone is and always will be very high." Enemesis. The fact that there are many people involved with NLP training and stand by it's paradigm you will have people come to view one of their favourite topics and decide that is not written correctly. They will want to be involved in clarifying the article. This is as you would expect. Enemesis (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny how they only come in clusters around when Comaze attempts to edit again isn't it? Snowded  TALK 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well snowded, since you agree that the norcross is representative of the whole article and you believe you can use it's phrase to summarize it, maybe we can find a more amenable solution by using "possibly or probably discredited" or something similar to it. By the way, I was just waiting till some one else came along to comment again so I can have some consensus with others on the page as well (incase you were wondering why i am commenting now). It certainly seemed to be a ghost town for a while there. An adaptive system (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * ":Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The information is well-sourced in the body of the article; the lead does not need to repeat the sources in the body, and since it's a broad summary of many sources, trying to put sources there would just be cumbersome. Plus, of course, all of the article's history. Qwyrxian (talk)


 * That may be the case Qwyrxian, however the article is written in such a way that people will come away with the feeling of "well ok, lets stay away from NLP then." and really be none the wiser about the subject. Wikipedia is a place of learning and fun to come away feeling like we know a little more about the world because of what we have read. because of the serious and dour tone of the article and the reluctance to represent NLP in a NPOV light. I feel there is a severe manipulation of wikipedia policy and beauracracy to get what you want. This article is not a review. It is a description of NLP and all its components. Please write it in a non pov style to satisfy the needs of the reader. Enemesis (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As you have been told a hundred times Enemesis, its neutral as to the sources. You solution has always been to find other sources, not to repeat Ad Nauseam your opinions and rather foolish accusations.  All independent editors who have looked at it are happy with largely discredited.  The compromise is to move it to the second paragraph, but only if you will agree that ends the matter until you have new sources  Snowded  TALK 07:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I dont mind you saying what you have to say in the article but you must listen. The format is wrong it is not descriptive. The information is used to create judgement from the reader. Now please can I ask and instruct you nicely to please reformat the article to something that is both informative and educational as well being descriptive of your views? Enemesis (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No editor can instruct another Enemesis, neither should be article be representative of either my or your views. Both those comments reveal your level of ignorance about WIkipedia.  You really need to read up on WP:NPOV and WP:RS.  When you have something other than your opinion to offer present it here, otherwise you will just be ignored.   Snowded  TALK 08:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:PSCOI have you followed this? Enemesis (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and two previous reviews by the community have confirmed that I have. Try addressing the need for references, although I suspect you constant opining and now your attempt to undermine other editors indicates you can't.  You might also like to read up on how to format your comments if you are finally starting to look up wikipedia process; a trend I would like to encourage.  I did it for you this time to help out   Snowded  TALK 09:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * sample article of npov or COI
 * NPOV article
 * NPOV article
 * These are known as good npov examples from the COI page. Can you use some of these ideas and model them into the the articles formatting so that it is more clear for the readers what the subject is about? Enemesis (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The compromise is to move it to the second paragraph, but only if you will agree that ends the matter until you have new sources" What gives you the authority to make that claim? I don't see how you could guarantee the out come of such a negotiation. An adaptive system (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system

This is my proposal for the first paragraph: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, USA in the 1970s. The title refers to an asserted connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic"), and behavioural patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") that its proponents say can be changed to achieve specific goals in life. Among certain neuroscientists, psychologists, and linguists, it is considered discredited due to a lack of empirical support for its claimed effectiveness, methods, concepts and terminology." --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Making a proposal is good, making the changes directly when you know there is disagreement is wrong but you know that only too well as its a pattern repeated over your different identities. Your wording compromises the criticism too much and there is not a clear agreement yet on if discredited should be removed to the second paragraph.  I'm prepared to support that if it ends the dispute, but not if it is just the first stage in a series of changes you plan to make.   At the moment we still do not have citations that say it is credible.  The qualification of "certain neuroscientists, psychologists" etc. is thus misleading as it implies there are sources in those academic fields or others which say differently.  Todate when challenged on this you have simply listed the results of google searches without critical consideration of sources so please don't do that again.  Find some comparative studies that seek to evaluate NLP, not self reports or material that requires original research or synthesis to support your view. Snowded  TALK 13:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "certain" is also ambiguous: are we referring to "certain" as in specific professionals or are they "certain" as in confident in their view? I'll wait for others to comment on your other points because I've been away. --Reconsolidation (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo are as ever avoiding the question as to other sources. I suspect we need to revert to the last stable version before you continued your slow edit war Snowded  TALK 16:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm on holidays at the moment. When I return I can review the sources for you. I think we need to put together a working group for this article. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The introduction needs to say that NLP consists of step-by-step techniques for achieving change for self and others. That is a crucial aspect of NLP that has been omitted from the opening section. For example, Professor Wiseman says "Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) consists of a diverse collection of psychological techniques that aim to enhance peoples’ lives [3]." . --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing changes?
As we are all editors here of equal value, I do not understand why we are looking for approval from Snowded when editing this page in total. I would like to suggest that other editors here would be free to edit the page within the bounds of wiki policy without such approval from one editor but as a colaboration of opinion as to what changes should be made toward the article. The way this could work is for someone to suggest an editing decision those that are against can provide reasoning those for can also provide reasoning for the proposed edit and only one submission from each editor. perhaps at this time any tweaks could also be suggested. Then a vote system of either aye or nay on both the edit and the tweak's to the edit to reach some mediation on the subject. Enemesis (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Open up a Rfc & send out 'neutral' requests to random editors, to particpate. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And the changes you have made have been reversed by multiple editors Enemesis not just me. Wikipedia is not a democracy, they have been reversed because they are not founded in reliable third party sources but represent a personal opinion of the editors making the changes.  If you suggest a change here it will be discussed based on wikipedia policy which is to summarise the reliable sources.  RfC (as GoodDay suggests) and also dispute resolution can be invoked.  However Wikipedia will look with suspicion when every time discussion on this article arises we can a spate (5 so far) of SPA accounts freshly created.  That suggests meat puppetry and probably needs investigation (something else that Wikipedia allows for)   Snowded  TALK 08:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, when I first started looking for an NLP school to commence training I did read that there had been over 500,000 people with formal training in NLP at that time. The likelihood that you are going to experience resistance on this article because of the POV tone is and always will be very high. Enemesis (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This WP:IDHT approach, is quite frustrating & to be blunt disruptive. Why are you avoiding the advise given to you? OPEN A RFC, in the manner I suggested. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @ GoodDay, I thought you had no interest in this article. Snowded made a comment mentioning spas and meat puppets that claim is easily defendable by saying the truth. There is an absolutely huge community of NLP practitioners you can expect with the current state of the page that there will always be people who will want an NPOV article. Now whilst you have had a little tirade at me, had you noticed snowded's little rant to scare people from the idea of an RfC? of which I would have to research to know what that means.
 * OPEN A RFC, What are you afraid of? Right now, you & the other editors who want to make the intro NPoV, are only repeating yourselves. I have little interest in the article, but I do get annoyed with SPAs when they continue on a tentative course. IF you feel there's no way to get the changes you want? then just leave. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The internal motivations of other editors are not available for your perusal; this is an inappropriate comment. Please keep the discussion to the article itself. siafu (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Enemesis, I am sure that there are many people who are trained in NLP, it really doesn't matter. What does matter is what third party reliable sources say.  Until you address that issue you are wasting people's time.   Snowded  TALK 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

COI, all around?
FWIW, I suspect there's COI on both sides in this dispute. However, I've neither the time 'nor' ability to handle the headaches that would accompany me, should I investigate those suspicions. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The accusation has been made before GoodDay, twice, and rejected by the community each time. It comes from external NLP sites which contain some crazy conspiracy theories about sock puppets as well.   Snowded  TALK 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the one who levied the charge and was rebuked by the Wikipedia administration. That was a waste of time.  The only way to move this article forward is by respecting the editors and building a true consensus.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Probability of finding a source saying "NLP is not a discredited method"
Any one want to start a pool on there ever being such a statement in a reliable source? htom (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd rather we work together and put a post on the reliable source noticeboard to get comments from uninvolved editors. Have you read this book: The Clinical Effectiveness of Neurolinguistic Programming: A Critical Appraisal (Advances in Mental Health Research) Lisa Wake (Editor), Richard Gray (Editor), Frank Bourke (Editor). Routledge (October 24, 2012). It is published by Routledge, a reputable academic press. The editors include an assistant professor (Gray) and two PhDs (Wake and Bourke). They present a discussion of the evidence base including a discussion of its credibility as a mental health practice. They have also published in peer-reviewed journals. I think that book might be acceptable as a source to present another point of view. Gray has been investigating NLP in the treatment of PTSD. Wake has been involved in the UKCP. Bourke has a background in psychiatry. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This article has been the subject of so many noticeboards that some admins are surely already exhausted. But regardless we can still build consensus for reliable sources among the editors on this talk page.  For example, I've spent a great deal of time studying the peer reviewed journals in the American Psychological Association's psych info database.  That is a fantastic resource. Some of the results of that research are visible on my talk page and are similar to the one you mention.  But what I think we need is a review of these articles from a reliable source (since there are several highly regarded reviews that span the latest literature expressing the current POV in the article).  That would move the ball forward and encourage the other editors to reflect what I would feel would be a more balanced perspective.  In the meantime I would caution against edit warring again.  --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reconsolidation in his current and previous guises has a long history of periods of inactivity followed by slow edit warring.  Hopefully that will stop.  Otherwise if there are sources then we need to see what edits are proposed based on them, and the text which is being used to support those edits; BEFORE changes are made to the article Snowded  TALK 07:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And just while we are at it Lisa Wake runs an NLP Consultancy and Training group, again this is the Surrey link that has been discussed before. Snowded TALK 07:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Wake was chair of UKCP so she is notable. Will you admit that Routledge is a reputable academic publisher for this topic (per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE) compared to some of the others sources used in the current article? This source goes into the issue of credibility in more depth than many of the other research papers. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * the value of a source depends on what it is intended to support.  If you are seeking to  third party sources with a review written by someone whose main business is now an NLP consultancy and training business it's dubious.  To be honest you keep referencing the Sussex group which again while in an academic environment a also running an NLP consultancy business.   I suggest you try and find some third party material.    Snowded  TALK 11:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Routledge is a reputable academic publishing house ("Commercial Academic Press" ) and is acceptable according to the verifiability policy. It is listed here] as reputable. "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas."WP:FRINGE, See also: Verifiability Can you please quote the relevant policy you are referring to? --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reconsolidation, You can't answer peer reviewed sources with non-peer reviewed ones with COI and expect there to be a consensus. I'm in favor of your POV and yet you're even testing my patience at this point.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the section below where I ask about majority, minority and tiny minority view points per WP:UNDUE. A reputable commercial academic publishing house like Routledge is not as strong as an university press or peer-review journal article but it is still acceptable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes its good you found a source but my experience tells me you will run into a lot of trouble with other editors making vague statements that don't involve a specific edit request. Start with an edit obviously correct and then defend it with peer reviewed journals.  My concern is that if snowded brings an arbcom request against you that your edit history will fully support his assertion. That would take us away from the POV you are supporting.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For the very last time Reconsolidation, I am making no comment on any source you propose until you say what edit you want it to support. Snowded TALK 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we agree that Routledge is a reputable commercial academic source? -Reconsolidation (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See my last answer Snowded  TALK 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will assume that Routledge is a reputable commercial academic press. It has less weight than a university press or a high ranking peer-review journal but more weight than other publishing houses, industry magazines and low-rank journals. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just remember to propose changes here first, or if you must edit direct then respect WP:BRD rather than just edit warring (making minor changes still makes it edit warring). Your Arbcom restriction enjoins you to use the talk page remember.   Snowded  TALK 23:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

further reading section
I think we should clean up and improve the further reading section and add some external links. I separated the further reading list into critics and proponents - oversimplified but it makes it clearer. I think this should be just have a few well selected texts that discuss NLP more deeply. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * there is no basis for you to devide the sources into two categories.  That is original research.  By making that division without any authority you are in fact trying to make indirectly a point you have argued for elsewhere, trying to position anti and pro denigrating third party reviews.   Reducing the number could have utility and I have left some of those in place.   Snowded  TALK 11:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're not happy with proponents/critics/research reviews then could you give an alternative? I think it is quite helpful for the reader to have a few articles from proponents and critics at the end of the article. The difficulty will be selecting which ones to include and which ones to drop. --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a well balanced area of the article. Naming books "pro-NLP" may lead fo accusations by editors of Original Research and adds nothing as long as the reliable sources are there.  Good to see the list includes Frogs Into Primces so folks can experience the complexity inherent in the early communication.  --Encyclotadd (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reconsolidation, please try and get a grip on the original research and synthesis policies. We cannot decide that some books are pro and others are anti unless there is a reliable source which does that.  Also you are trying (again) to position the article as between those who are for and those who are against NLP.  That is not our function, our function is to reflect what the sources say.  Please stop this, and also stop edit warring as you did earlier.  Read WP:BRD, again and respect it.  Snowded  TALK 18:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reconsolidation, Make your arguments in context of the sources rather than based on your personal opinions. You'll find that there are plenty of peer reviewed journals that agree with you but you seem not willing to make your argument to the others based on them.  Non-peer reviewed opinions of people with obvious conflicts are the wrong starting point for this, and if you get banned that will confuse this situation. --Encyclotadd (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you quote the relevant wikipedia policy? --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It may help you to start by noticing the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources on "Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources." You have been violating the primcipals of Combinatorics, Synthesis and Original Research. Once you familiarize yourself with the rules we can begin to discuss the sources that support your point of view, which I would like to get included, but the right way, hopefully before the other editors lose patience with you..--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Encyclotadd, There is a proposed guideline on WP:further reading section. It suggests that books be topical, reliable, balanced and limited. Some articles actually combine the further reading with external links section. I think your point is that the further reading/external links section needs to be balanced: "Balance is not merely a matter of listing the same number of sources for each point of view, but should be measured relative to the views held by high-quality and scholarly sources. If a large number of high-quality sources reflect a given view, then the Further reading section should normally reflect that tendency. Significant minority points of view should usually be included, subject to the same quality guidelines on reliability, topicality, and the limited size of the section. Publications about a tiny minority view need not be included at all. Notable and important works should not be excluded solely to achieve numerical balance. Further reading sections are not to be used for pushing a point of view." So, how do we determine which books and links to include "relative to the views held by high-quality and scholarly sources"? --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By familiarizing ourselves with the sources. This is, in fact, not at all complicated in principle, though you may wish to refer to WP:UNDUE regarding the relative weighting. siafu (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reconsolidation, That's a main roadblock that I ran into trying to get the article to provide a more favorable POV. Editors provided multiple reliable sources that reviewed available literature and reached the conclusions expressed in the opening and elsewhere.  What we need is another source reliable by the same or better standards substantiating the contrary position.  You have to understand that some in Wikipedia community has come to view NLP as a cult in part because of the disruptive editing behavior here.  Your time would be well spent in the APA's psych info database identifying new sources as a result.  Regardless, please don't continue edit warring and/or imposing your own POV on others because you will just end up banned like the other SPAs instead of creating consensus.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Siafu and Encyclotadd, Help me out here by making this policy a bit more concrete with respect to this topic. According to Jimbo, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"..."In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject."WP:UNDUE Can you give examples of what would be considered majority, minority and tiny minority view points with respect to NLP? --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reconsolidation, The problem isn't your behavior with respect to the minority viewpoint, nor is it your viewpoint, which I agree with and hope can succeed. The problem is that you appear to be using a series of SPA accounts to edit war.  You have to knock that off and stick to discussing reliable sources.  If you persist without building consensus you'll just end of getting banned and do harm to the effort of the rest of us trying to improve the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Encyclotad. I'm not sure what game you are playing but I think you should stop. Reconsolidation appears to be making sensible moves using sensible processes. You need to assume good faith here. The only verified sockpuppets here are of the skeptic society who has been systematically downgrading this article for years by pushing a negative view of NLP. The critics and opponents section sounds like a good idea. That should be persued. LTMem (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree the skeptic POV is predominating, a point I raised at length before. To change that requires a discussion of the sources. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, as far as I am concerned the issue is you adding in headings without any source to support them. Feel free to propose other material and/or deletions BUT I strongly suggest you accept WP:BRD if any changes are opposed. LTMem, for a brand new SPA account you exhibit remarkable knowledge of the past history of this article and are making accusations that indicate a complete lack of good faith on your part. Have you ever edited wikipedia before? Snowded TALK 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

eye lie detection myth
There is a recent article which tested the myth that eye movements can detect lies: "The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming". The authors established that this lie detection myth is still quite prevalent on the internet (based on youtube and google searches). They found that eye movements failed to predict lies. Can this be covered in the current article or should it be covered in the representation system subarticle under the subtitle "lie detection myth" or something like that? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * lol, who in the NLP commounity is making that claim? as far as I know the teachings are that there are habits formed from eye accessing cues. http://www.nlp-practitioners.com/interactive/nlp-eye-access-cues-game.php . as in this example or there is another which refutes the lie detection myth. Lie detection myth as explained by Nlpers in England   In essence you are writing about fringe claims. Please tackle the mainstream. Enemesis (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll just quote the article I cited above: "Although the originators of NLP didn’t view ‘constructed’ thoughts as lies, this notion has become commonplace, leading many NLP practitioners to claim that it is possible to gain a useful insight into whether someone is lying from their eye-movements". --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * http://coachingleaders.emotional-climate.com/another-nlp-claim-debunked-but-was-anyone-claiming-it/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system11:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * tbh mate I have never read that, infact the literature is usually the same summary of eye accessing cues. The idea that you could detect lies with NLP is considerred bad practice and is not existent in mainstream NLP literature. common ideas on eye accessing cues . The idea that you can detect lies seems more like a weak hook to gain clientelle by fringe Practitioners an opinion on eye accessing cues not found in mainstream or the creators intent. infact it further states in the first article and in regards to mind reading abilities or being psychic as referred to by article reference 10,12 it states "Learning to read eye-accessing cues will not make you a mind reader but will give you a clue to the way the other person is thinking." This directly debunks those articles claims of what the creators have said NLP can do in terms of developing "psychic" powers or and I have to ask. What is sleep learning? I've never heard of this tbh. Visually constructed eye accessing cues are primarily to see someone become imaginitive  usually with outcomes in mind this is a very pleasurable experience of viewing and constructing a future or seeing how they would feel with new emotional resources. You would then layer it with audio constructed resources that will build congruency in the feeling and the momentum of the new action and mindset that will take place with the client. This is never really explained however it becomes part of the outcome of learning eye accessing cues. the reason it is not highlighted as the outcome I guess is because you take the tools and make the connections between each part yourself that is making the neural connections within your mind takes a deeper hold and a great reference point for putting a system of parts together in which the world is full of systems to be explored found and improved upon. That is just my opinion. Enemesis (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Using eye movements, state shifts and calibration to allegedly detect lies is often traced to NLP. It was not a claim made by the originators but it has been claimed by other proponents of NLP according to the study. I really think it should be included in this article supported by the study by professor Wiseman and other points of view if covered by reputable sources. "Proponents of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) have long claimed that it is possible to tell whether a person is lying from their eye movements. Research published July 11 in the journal PLoS ONE reveals that this claim is unfounded, with the authors calling on the public and organisations to abandon this approach to lie detection." --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

While it may be traced to NLP, as early as 1986 Richard Bandler said in front of a US Government enquiry that using eye accessing cues as a lie detector has nothing to do with NLP. Most serious NLP trainers and practitioners also reject the concept. To blame NLP for something a few misguided practitioners and writers support would be akin to me calling car drivers killers because a few drivers have killed others with their cars. Both are ludicrous generalisations and examples of flawed logic. NBOliver (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this point being made by the SPA accounts is more or less right. Would be helpful to have a more reliable third party secondary source than doubtfulnews.com because the sources in the article were deemed reliable after substantial discussion.  Perhaps a new source can be found that clarifies.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

statement not supported by references
The following statement appears in the lead: "NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level." None of the references (Lum 2001; Lilienfeld et al 2001; Dunn et al 2008) directly support the statement. Please provide additional references that actually support the reference or remove it from the article. I think this was intentionally to see how long it would take for someone to check it. --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In one of your various previous identities you might recall the conversation about this one Snowded  TALK 07:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're attempting synthesis. If you are supporting the statement as it stands, can you provide quotes from those references or provide alternate references that directly support the statement? --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As a serial editor you have some responsibility to remember previous conversations, mind you constantly changing your ID is not very responsible in the first place so maybe its asking too much? Snowded  TALK 08:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We can wait for someone else to check it then. Its just not in the reference as far as I can see. I think it was deliberate joke to test if people actually check the sources. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * False memory syndrome? It was a MIT professor as you well know.   Snowded  TALK 08:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you remember the professor's name? That does not explain why it is not supported by the current references. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Scott I do, and if you check your previous ID's edit history you will probably find the discussion. As I recall there were several but Pentland was the MIT one.   Snowded  TALK 08:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alex Pentland at MIT? Do you have a reference for that or any of the others? I cannot find it in my database. Seems like double standards. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, look thorough your previous IDs editing history and you will find the material. You have only ever edited on one subject so it shouldn't be difficult.  Just to be clear, what you are doing is highly disruptive.  You periodically change IDs in order to be able to raise again issues which have previously been resolved.  Its not technically sock puppetry as you only, briefly had an overlap but it is disruptive. How to deal with it awaits advise.  Snowded  TALK 09:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowded, I've already answered the sockpuppet case. Please don't harp on about it which I feel is a kind of harassment. As you know a vital aspect of wikipedia is wp:verifiability: verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. If the issue had been previously resolved as you claim, then the references would be correct. If you have evidence that Alex Pentland at MIT said something about NLP then it should be verifiable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've not accused you of sock puppetry, but of using different IDs to allow you to raise resolved issues and of meat puppetry.  I'm waiting for advise as to where to raise that behaviour issue.  If you want to fact tag that section feel free.  I am more concerned at this stage at the long term disruption that is associated with you.   Snowded  TALK 04:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppet investigation was closed because I was unrelated to the accounts you accused me of. The clerk cannot comment on IP addresses for privacy reasons anyway. My door is open if you want to engage in dispute resolution. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To repeat, I have never accused you of sock puppetry but of serial name changes, and on at least once occasion meat puppetry. The last time you backed off when the community was about to investigate and stopped editing for an extended period, then returned with yet another name change and a cluster of new SPAs.  If you want to make a clean breast of your past names then it might be possible to work with you  Snowded  TALK 05:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If snowded is right this is the most disruptive behavior since the Headley Down fiasco in '06. Guys, it would be a much better use of everyone's time if we could just focus on sources again.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

obscure sources
"[6][15] NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level."

6 is a bunch of reboots to the NLP page with no other links, how does it qualify to be a source? 15 has a short blurb about a study into bad psychology practices. The full text costs 11.95 and the rss feed does not mention NLP. Neither seem to be related to the subject matter "facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level" unless I'm missing something. Enemesis (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"[20] However, Noam Chomsky does not himself practice or recommend NLP. His original work provides theory and terminology for analyzing language, but was never intended for therapeutic purposes." [20] has only a reference to a book which may or may not have the information that you have described. Please use sources that can be validated and confirmed by all editors without paying exorbitant fees on books, sites etc... Enemesis (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"According to Clancy and Yorkshire (1989), Bandler and Grinder say that they studied Perls's utterances on tape and observed a second therapist, Virginia Satir, to produce what they termed the meta model, a model for gathering information and challenging a client's language and underlying thinking."

Who are Clancy and yorkshire? are they prominent? featured on wikipedia even? There is no link therefore no way to say that the correct terminology is "challenging a clients language" or that these people exist much less the dialogue. The source is erroneous and the wording and motive is deeply questionable. challenging would not be the word to describe. Enemesis (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

scientific criticism a whole section of the article practically devoid of any source citations. Enemesis (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is more. I will get to it in time. Enemesis (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When raising an objection about specific part of the article here please refer first to archives for relevant issue. It has usually been dealt with already often many times before by possibly same editors.  Present those links here to make discussion productive..  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. which parts would you like me to look at? It's all garbled nonsense to me about past edits unless you can spell it out for everyone. much like the obscure sources section I have just started. No I do not think it has been handled as the wiki article has been edited since then and also has a different tone since that time. If your attempt is to daze and confuse you have succeeded if it is to clarify it has failed. Enemesis (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read carefully those archives.


 * The links of the present article go direct to Lum.C (2001), Lilienfeld.S, Mohr.J., Morier.D.. (2001), and Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008) clearly stated in the references section. Those are references that teach scientific literacy at the professional and university level.


 * The Chomsky reference is Stollznow.K (2010). "Bad language: Not-so Linguistic Programming". Skeptic 15 (4): 7. Clancy and Yorkshire appear to be reasonable sources.


 * The Scientific Criticism section does not necessarily need to include statements by founders or promoters of the neuro-linguistic programming. The existing citations of the section appear to be fine.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry maybe you dont understand, I dont want (and from now on) I do not want subtle sources or nought concrete definitions. in case you do not understand I want it explained to me in full and in this context. right here or I feel when you leave links I am in a totally different conversation. leave your stuff here please so I and others may understand please. Enemesis (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You would of course have to givre notice of where this takes place to be clear ---> The links of the present article go direct to Lum.C (2001), Lilienfeld.S, Mohr.J., Morier.D.. (2001), and Dunn D, Halonen J, Smith R (2008) clearly stated in the references section. Those are references that teach scientific literacy at the professional and university level.


 * "Bad language: Not-so Linguistic Programming". Skeptic 15 (4): 7. Clancy and Yorkshire appear to be reasonable sources.  clear but to whom? according to ur links it does not exist and is not accesable  but only on your say so. please give reliable links to your sources or as far as I know it does not exist. Enemesis (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I think you need to clarify on which sources exactly you think do not exist and why you do not think they exist? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * About 10 seconds of research is all that is requried to determine that the source is, in fact, real: . siafu siafu (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Siafu, 1. If editors want me to chase down all their sources when editting wikipedia every time thats going to be a hell of a lot of 10 seconds adding up. 2. I can't read that source to validate it. Enemesis (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. If you are going to claim that a source "does not exist", it would be entirely appropriate to take ten seconds to see if that statement could be plausibly true first. 2. WP:OFFLINE. siafu (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And there is no reason why you should be exempt from the duties on any editor to do basic research and to read the archives if necessary.  Snowded  TALK 11:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Which source is more reliable as a source for the early history and origins of NLP: Clancy and Yorkshire (1989) "Bandler Method" or Robert Spitzer's "Virginia Satir & Origins of NLP". --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have told before that asking general questions outside the context of proposals for change is inappropriate  Snowded  TALK 06:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The context would be the section on the history and origins of NLP and the collaboration between Bandler and Grinder and the three psychotherapists they studied. It could also cover how they met Bateson through Spitzer who introduced them to Erickson. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to propose text for a judgement to be made about sources. I am pretty sure both your Action Potential, and the last IP identity were told this.   Snowded  TALK 14:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You lost your sockpuppet investigation because the accounts and IP addresses were unrelated and on separate convenient with different behaviour. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm all for improving the sources, but this is a pretty source-rich article. We'd be better off prioritizing and targeting our work. The first question I'd ask is if there are any sources that are promoting obvious falsehoods or fringe POVs. If there are none, and it's just a matter of having decent information with obscure sources, we can try to find additional sources for each point one by one. But we're better off going a section at a time, or a few points at a time. Vcessayist (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody seems to agree on content changes. That's why I'm suggesting we work on improving the sourcing method in the meantime. I will do it if nobody else wants to. It will be much easier for new editors to check existing sources and collaborate. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A big part of the reason for content disagreement has been the persistent category mistake of new editors. You can have a more reliable third party primary source that is inadequate to defeat a third party secondary source if the review of the available literature by the latter includes the former.  THAT has been the very successful basis for creating the negstive POV in the article.  What's needed is sources of the same category that are newer and more reliable.  Otherwise experienced editors will be right to dismiss this and accuse the SPA accounts of edit warring.  We'll just go in circles.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"a largely discredited approach"
In the lead sentence of the lead paragraph of the lead in the article ... such a POV statement needs a citation, not SYN. htom (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * lede summarises the article, it not normal for there to be citations. Snowded  TALK 05:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The leading paragraph has seven citations. Add another for that phrase, or I'll have to remove it as SYN. htom (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be better to remove the other references, they don't belong in a lede. Lets see what other editors think, so far attempts to remove it have been reverted by several different editors so you are in a minority and would be edit warring abainst consensus (again)  Snowded  TALK 06:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The current version looks representative. Htom, I can have a search through the newer literature on the subject. Did you have the particular request?


 * The current citation at the end of the lede states neuro-linguistic programming to be "certainly discredited". An alternative could just be simply; discredited. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone actually saying "largely discredited approach" would be appropriate. Another alternative would be to leave the name-calling adjectives for later in the paragraph. htom (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "a largely discredited approach" This statement is vague and unquantifiable. I believe this falls under the weasel words category. I am shocked no one has questioned the neutrality of this article maybe some one can help me I'm new to this side of Wikipedia.
 * I questioned it and consequently read it. Its fine. "a largely discredited approach" might be inferior to "discredited" though. Karbinski (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the best response would be to name the number of qualified academics who claim nlp to be discredited. something along the lines of "according to..."   An adaptive system (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, the sentence wouldn't have to open with "according to".
 * There is no requirement to do that, unless and until you can produce some real sources to support a contrary view. Todate you and the latest cluster are all making the same general statements  with no supporting evidence.   Snowded  TALK 04:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with "htom"s original point that "discredited" in the beginning of the article, all by itself with no explanation, is a very strong and mysterious statement. I am brand new to NLP and came here first, and it immediately struck me when reading the opening.  On the one hand I really appreciate the fact that scientists are trying to protect people like me from being gullable, but the term "discredited" alone seems too direct and even attacking.  It would be like having an article about UFO chasers, and starting said article "UFO chasers are a delusional group of people who try to find...." I think it might sound better if it said, "NLP is a technique that has been officially discredited in university studies but is still practiced by a smaller group of believers...."  Not to be more lenient on NLP, but simply to explain.  Then again what do I know, I'm just a browser and new to NLP as well.  edit -- on further thought I see that the third paragraph does a better job of deeper explaining.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.21.146.241 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK - show me one expert who discredits the core of NLP, which is about modelling excellence. Modelling is used in systems analysis, high level sports coaching etc. As a start, consider this quote by John Grinder, one of the co-founders of NLP: "The inability to distinguish either behaviourally or cognitively the consequences and applications of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) from core NLP itself (modelling of excellence) is extremely commonplace." You and many of the "experts" have fallen into the same trap, which leads me to question their legitimacy as "experts" and your credibility for editing this article. NBOliver (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This really needs to go to the POV noticeboard to get an independent opinion. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the most important thing one should know about NLP is that it is largely discredited. The most important thing should be in the opening definition. Probably we should also say up front that it was part of the human potential movement. Saying that it's a pseudoscience might be going to far. It's not a POV statement if it's what the experts say. Treating NLP as a legitimate discipline would be POV because the experts say the opposite. Leadwind (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That depends upon what you consider to be "NLP". "The inability to distinguish either behaviourally or cognitively the consequences and applications of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) from core NLP itself (modelling of excellence) is extremely commonplace." John Grinder, Co-Developer of NLP. Most of the so-called "experts" make this same mistake, usually focusing on one small NLP application, eye accessing cues. In doing so they demonstrate a very narrow view of what constitutes NLP. I have yet to find any "expert" who discredits the core of NLP, the modelling of excellence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBOliver (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You've inserted exactly the same comment in multiple sections so I will respond once. Find a reliable third party source which says that and we can look at it.  Otherwise its just the opinion of the eleventh SPA account created in the last six weeks  Snowded  TALK 20:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Had you considered that if 11 people created accounts to complain about the poor editorial approach to this article, then perhaps there may be some value in taking their views into account?

The United States National Research Council, stated in it's investigation of NLP led by Daniel Druckman that they""were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors... This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modelling in the second phase of its work." There are several places where you can find details of this research. Would you accept Wikipedia as a reputable source?

The Grindler quote can be found at http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/5/1/Symbolic-Modelling-an-overview/Page1.html, 78.145.240.107 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment regarding 11 people creating accounts is off the mark: wikipedia does not poll the entire world, but rather a self-selecting subset of people who are interested and able to edit wikipedia. This is why simple majority is the governing principle.  Consider if we were to initiate an RfC on this question-- I don't doubt that we could canvass significantly more than 11 "people" (keep in mind that we have no proof that any two accounts are separate individuals) to complain about giving NLP too much credibility.  Additionally, "Rapport, the journal of The Association for NLP (UK)" may be a good source on what NLP is, as described by NLP professionals, but is not a reliable source on whether NLP is considered a valid technique amongst psychological professionals, as it represents the community of those who already accept and support NLP, rather than a dispassionate or disinterested investigator.  I would similarly not accept the Journal of Astrology for sources about the validity of astrology as a science.  Lastly, wikipedia is not a source for itself, ever; see WP:OSE and WP:RS for explanations of why this is the case. siafu (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, that I have got to snark about. Do you find the Skeptics Society to be an unbiased source of invalidity of psychological methods? htom (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Snarking seems to be the entirety of your contribution here, so I suppose I should not be surprised at the tenor of this comment. But, to address the question directly, I would say yes, the Skeptics Society would be a better source for the validity of a psychological method, assuming they have investigated it.  Contrary to your apparent belief, skeptical organizations do not exist for the purpose of simply denying everything, but rather separating those claims that are supported by evidence from those which aren't.  I'm sorry if it upsets you that NLP fails to pass that test, but this is not a matter of a fringe group pushing their POV.  Also, for the record, organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA) would be more fruitful sources since their specialization means that they are more likely to have treated the issue in greater depth than the Skeptics Society, but there is in fact no a priori reason to suppose that the latter is somehow biased in this regard.siafu (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I think this page has become an attack page targeted at NLP, and the owning consensus is that it has no POV problem and insists on third party peer reviewed articles that explicitly refute the data points they've found before allowing changes or rewordings ... snark is what there is, just so that other editors who happen along can see that someone's objecting. Your opinion, obviously, varies. So it goes. htom (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Snarking will not advance the discussion in any direction, except to make other editors disinclined to hear out your views. If that's all you intend to do, you would be much better off not bothering, as wikipedia talk pages are about finding ways to improve their respective articles, not winning battles. siafu (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

first line
Maybe someone could change it to something along the lines of: "a small amount of evidence purports NLP to be possibly discredited". This is very rough and you would have to put the " NLP is" part at the beginning. Also, I think the Drug interventions, including alcohol, might belong somewhere else as they intent seems to be that they are commenting on NLP as a field on a whole which, they are not. This of course, is not a comprehensive solution but maybe it could reduce some conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An adaptive system (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Good ideas in part. The small amount of research on discredit is just not valid for the first line.  It should be kicked totally from the article as its fringe, and certainly from the first line.  Actually research by Tosey and co at the University of Surrey is still going on. The research is often positive and that is just not given any space here on the article.  Of course the pseudoskeptics here are going to disagree, but HD and team may be gone before long especially if they keep pushing for arbitration. LTMem (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I was thinking it could be there short term, as a compromise. I'm glad more research is being conducted, but to my mind it'll take a lot for NLP's efficacy one way or another. That's just the nature of Fields that involve the human mind and or human behavior. I'm surprised that no one has written a response to the secondary research that is on the page. I seem to recall that someone criticised Sharpley though, maybe some one could source that. An adaptive system (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * Yes the Einspruch research was never properly answered and some subsequent reviewers really still don't understand what NLP is about. The criticisms in the article are basically criticising the wrong thing. Thats not what most people learn about NLP proper. When Wikipedians have learned to deal properly with HD and co the article may get a proper re-writing that takes into account its real nature. LTMem (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why can't the Einspruch research be put on the page if it's a valid source? I'm guessing that the research in surrey is primary research. Either way could you provide a link for curiosity's sake? An adaptive system (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * Remember that Tosey et al at Sussex are also an NLP Consultancy Group and are arguing that only phenomenological evidence is available. If there are proposals then raise them here as proposed edits in the main body of the article - remember the lede summarises that. Snowded  TALK 09:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, That Tosey thing is a whole other ball of wax and wouldn't be allowed on the page, though at the same time I think some of other research here may be suspect for competitive bias, but that's getting off topic. Are we not allowed to solicit suggestions here? If so, maybe someone could draft a lead that contains the idea suggested in the beginning of this section. Snowded, I'm not sure where you're going with the lede body issue. An adaptive system (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * The lede summarises the article. So if you want something there it has to be in the main body of the article. Your opening paragraph is your opinion of the literature.  To include that in any way you need to find a reliable third part source which makes the same point.  Read up on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and you should be able to see the issue.  Also be aware that community is likely to be suspicious of eight new SPA accounts (at the last count) appearing on a controversial article.  Especially when some (like LTMem) repeat accusations from sites which have been known to recruit meat puppets and have obviously edited or engaged before.  On controversial articles, and this is one, its very important to focus not on the opinion of editors but on what is said in reliable third party sources.  Speculations about what is or is not NLP by editors are a waste of time, what matters is what the sources say it is Snowded  TALK 11:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "largely discredited" is equally a matter of opinion. How can you prove that the small amount of secondary research = largely discredited? If you put the research in this field at parity at parity with other fields It is on the fringe level (of research). Furthermore,  I deserve the same amount of respect as anyone else. It sounds like everyone here is suspected of something by someone. It's too bad we can't be innocent until proven guilty. Why is that so? p.s. most of the research on the page doesn't even talk about NLP as a field and a lot of it is just opinion, professional  or not. That hardly justifies the synthesis already being made in the opening paragraphs. How do you suggest I proceed to avoid suspicion? An adaptive system (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * You proceed by finding some sources that support your opinion. The lede currently reflects referenced material in the body of the article.  As to opinion, I am afraid "profession or not" is hardly the point.  Wikipedia reflects published "professional" opinion, not the opinions of individual editors.  Respect our need for sources and you will gain respect, continue to simply state your opinion and you won't  Snowded  TALK 02:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The "largely discredited" wording should indeed be deleted from the intro, per NPoV. BTW, I noticed 'yet' another newbie in the mix. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Same comment applies to you GoodDay, find some sources, don't opine!   Otherwise yes and there will be more, the meat farm/network is obviously in full operation  Snowded  TALK 11:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A source isn't needed to remove a blatant Pov from an intro, anymore then excluding something like "evil, terrible human being" from the Adolf Hitler article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The lede reflects the main article, and the sources there support largely discredited (possibly wholly discredited). That is a fairly common form of words for a pseudo science.  It's not the same thing as the sort of invective you reference.   As ever you are simply providing us all with the benefits of your opinion rathr than focusing on content. Snowded  TALK 16:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would oppose "largely accepted" in the intro aswell. Anyways, I'm in agreement with the meatpuppets, concerning the anti-NLP slant to the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidence GoodDay please. Are there third party sources which counter those already referenced?   Snowded  TALK 17:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sources linked to the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be acceptable naïveté from a newbie but not from someone with your experience.  You know the lede summarises the article and is not usually referenced.   I suggest you read the article and the sources there and then see if there is anything in the referenced material there which would support your opinion.   Snowded  TALK 17:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I must depart the intro discussion, for Wiki-personal reasons. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is not naive at all. Yes, the default is that the lead needn't be referenced, but keep in mind what WPWHYCITE says: "...although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead". It is clear that this is controversial. -Rrius (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead includes no fewer than 19 citations. Number 18 is for the Norcross study, of which the "largely discredited" is a fair paraphrase; you can see the abstract without any special access here.  Is this just a matter of the placement of the reference? siafu (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Then make add a name= and put it after the claim we're talking about. It is not enough that some ref somewhere backs up the claim. It is a controversial comment, in that it looks like a POV comment. -Rrius (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur, as far as I can tell only one study actually says "discredited" in context to NLP as a whole, the rest is synthesis if I'm using the right term. Does not the burden of evidence rely on the editor to prove that one study = largely discredited? Isn't This undue weight? An adaptive system (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Siafu, in fact I think there are far too many citations in the lede as it is, so removing some of them would be a good idea! However if its really needed then the Norcross one would do. Adaptive system, I and others have been asking you and your compatriots for citations to reliable sources that say other than Norcross. Many of them have harsher words than "discredited". One might say "unsupported by scientific evidence" or any number of similar phrases (open to that sort of change). However the lede needs to summarise the article, and the overwhelming evidence is against NLP as any type of science. Now it is probably correct to say that NLP has more or less given up on its early claims and has fallen back to being a self-help cult like practice. The only papers any one has ever been able to find supporting its claims relay on self-reported events rather than any repeatable experiment - something that it a characteristic of all cults. However we don't have sources which describe that transition, if we did we could include it. Snowded TALK 10:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "unsupported by scientific evidence" is probobly more accurate. NLP is not broadly supported or disconfirmed  by scientific evidence. I think more accurately you could say "currently unproven". As far as I can tell none of the founders considered NLP to be a hard science. How can you prove that not being science equates to being largely discredited. where is the research to support these claims. An adaptive system (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * Per multiple previous requests please list the research that supports the claims, only then can your comments be taken into account Snowded  TALK 12:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that should have been a question mark at the end of my last statement. I was questioning your synthesis of the evidence. maybe someone here can provide a citation about NLP not claiming to be a hard science. I do understand that is hard on Wikipedia to prove a lack of some thing in terms of lack of claims and/or lack of evidence. It seems that a "factual" statement could be obtained based on one  piece of research (or a very small amount) if there were none to the contrary. Is there not a mechanism win Wikipedia to address this this? An adaptive system (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * You need a comparative study and one that identifies a change from the general claims made when it all started. It needs to be from a reliable source, not an NLP one and must not be original research (ie you cannot take it from a statement by one of the NLP founders).  When you have that please come back with proposals, until them this is just wasting people's time. Snowded  TALK 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will look into the rules and evidence. I still see a lot of varying subtle claims but only one that says discredited. It appears that you believe all these other statements equate to being "largely discredited", but that is your claim and not explicitly stated in any research. You still haven't shown me where it actually says or talks about NLP as a field being discredited other than one source. "Largely" is a  measure of comparison. What are we comparing it to the one research piece that says that? How many pieces of research do the wikipedia standards require to satisfy the generalization of a field with respect to this? As far as I can tell one source is undue weight. You can think that being characterized as unscientific can lead to being summarized as discredited but it's not up to us to make those conceptual distinctions. It must be in the research. To say that being unscientific is akin to being, or contributing to being discredited, is a synthesis and a matter of opinion. If you want to replace the first statement with "scientifically unsupported" I would recommend using quotes) An adaptive system (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * Using a phrase from one source which summarises the rest is common. Please point to one of the existing sources which contradicts that.   Snowded  TALK 06:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the phrase form the source to summarize the lead then do that, but you'll notice that even that uses a caveat as the actual phrase is "possibly or probably discredited". An adaptive system (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * It is not defensible in any article to make such claims about the subject of the article at the very beginning of the opening sentence even if there are reliable sources to support such claims. It is a blatant misuse of the purpose of the principles of an encyclopaedia article and a manipulation of the policies.  Of course you can state that NLP has been largely discredited in research but this belongs in a subsequent place.  The opening sentence should only summarise what the subject of the article is ~ NOT any assesments of its validity. Afterwriting (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article and the material there supports the statement. That said I think your suggestion that we should say it has been largely discredited in research is a good one as its more accurate. I'd also be open to moving that to the second paragraph of the lede if it would silence this controversy. Snowded TALK 11:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Largely discredited in research" is fine and clarifying according to the sources. The first line is fine.  However, I suggest the last line of the first paragraph is also a fitting alternative for integration. e.g. "NLP has been largely discredited in research, and according to certain neuroscientists,[3] psychologists,[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts" Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What about largely unsupported by scientific research? An adaptive system (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * With respect I suggest you read those sources. Or maybe look again at the titles of the sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a new one, Argument by Title. htom (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would this then be an example of argument from ignorance, or just misdirection? siafu (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what am I missing from the titles that state NLP isn't unsupported by scientific research? An adaptive system (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * Also, originally I meant to say "largely unsupported by current scientific evidence" as I think that's more accurate.
 * The suggestion was that you read the source material and that if you were not happy to do that then the titles of the papers themselves would make the point. Otherwise you continue to state and restate, then state again the same opinion without offering evidence.   Snowded  TALK 12:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The only situation in which "unsupported by current scientific evidence" and "discredited" are NOT synonymous is when a scientific investigation hasn't been conducted. Otherwise, as with NLP, these statements are completely synonymous. siafu (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before. Let's not mince words while kicking a dead horse forever guys. We have to agree that what's written is supported by reliable sources since those sources have even been vetted by editors including in notice boards by administrators.  What's needed is NEW sources and specific dialogue about text changes that can be made to reflect them.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the tardy reply. I read all the titles at the bottom and if I were to draw a conclusion based only on what the titles say there would be one, as far as I can tell, negative statement directly on NLP. So some people are misreading things. Why shouldn't I question editors conclusions when they make statements like these? AS far as the "only situation in which" statement If you think really hard I'm sure you'l realize at least one exception to that. These inductive mis-leaps are exactly why we have to be careful about the language on the page. An adaptive system (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * It's a bad strategy to waste everyone's time. Focus on suggesting edits supported by reliable sources because the whole meat farm and off topic opining could set back a serious effort to improve the POV in the article. You've got to play by the rules because the admin have dealt with countless years of drama.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In this section, I did make suggestions supported by evidence on the page. As for my last statement I was just responding to the off topic suggestion made to me. I am NOT part of a meat farm please stop accusing me of that (if that's what you are implying). An adaptive system (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * Norcross et al. (2006) This ref is used to label NLP as globally "discredited". Reading the paper shows that the subject is not about "treatment of behavioural problems" but about "treatments for addictions" as everyone can read in the paper and in the abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21769032?report=abstract&format=text). I suggest finding another reference and modifying the article, rewriting "treatment of behavioural problems" -> "treatment for addictions". About addiction, there are numerous papers showing (moderate) efficiency of NLP. As an example showing reality is not so clear cut, I suggest reading "Gray, R. M. (2010). The Brooklyn Program: Applying NLP to Addictions. Current Research in NLP: Proceedings of 2008 Conference, 1(1): 88-98 (2010)." which demonstrates a positive effect, which is exactly the contrary. There is a free draft here http://home.comcast.net/~richardmgray/NLP2ADprepub.pdf.

how popular widespread exactly?
Even the critics have noted how widespread or popular NLP but it is difficult to say firmly. There are some estimates on how many people have been trained in NLP to "practitioner" level but there are no firm figures. We could also get some indication from book sales. The introduction currently states "NLP has been adopted by private therapists, including hypnotherapists, and in management workshops and seminars marketed to business and government.[5][6]" but we give no evidence and do not say in what countries people engage in NLP training. We could also comment about the structure (or lack of it) within the NLP community of practitioners. Could we please add some more detail to the body of the article with some estimations. Heap gives some estimations of NLP uptake in the UK but it is now dated. How many people have attended training in NLP? Witkowski (2009) comments on its prevalence in Polish universities - is that a reliable source? --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add something like this: "The study and practice of NLP grew rapidly both in the United States and globally, and there are now NLP training providers in many areas of the world. It is estimated that over 100,000 participants have attended NLP training courses in the UK" -- --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not without a reliable source we can't and I don't see how you will get them given the number of training agencies and lack of any central authority. Snowded  TALK 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any figures other than the estimations given by sources that you've previously accepted as reliable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And as you say they are out of date. your edit makes no sense as it is not supported  Snowded  TALK 19:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any better sources for this information? The widespread use, and growing popularity of NLP, is often repeated even in the pseudo-skeptical literature. --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Review: NLP and phobias
Is the following review of research into NLP treatment of phobias acceptable as a source here? Another older review (of VK/D, the NLP rewind technique) is here: See also (not a review): Are there other reviews of NLP and phobias that counter these supportive findings? How do we determine relative weight for these sources? In the context of the effectiveness of NLP as a treatment for phobias, do these sources represent majority, minority or tiny minority views with reference to WP:UNDUE? --Reconsolidation (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dietrich, A. (2000). A review of visual/kinesthetic disassociation in the treatment of posttraumatic disorders: Theory, efficacy and practice recommendations. Traumatology, 6(2), 85-107.


 * OMG you are doing it again. It entirely depends what edit you want to make which would then depend on the source.  Lists in the absence of proposals for edits are a waste of people's time. Snowded  TALK 06:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The main source is the first one listed which is the most recent and is indexed on pubmed so it is verifiable. If so, is that a majority view, minority view or tiny minority view in terms of the description and effectiveness of NLP in the treatment of phobias? Depending on how relative weight, the proposal would be to add a sentence, paragraph are or even a subsection describing the treatment of phobias using NLP (e.g. the rewind technique) with a summary of the evidence supportive or not. --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Proposed the edit you want to make here and then its possible to answer the question. Oh and we will need some extract from the article as is only available on subscription.  I assume you have it and are not just arguing from the abstract?  I can't find any reference to the author other than this article by the way  Snowded  TALK 07:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is probably enough material to have a subsection for "treatment of phobias". If the source is acceptable then I'd summarize the approach to treating phobias as described in the article including anchoring, the rewind technique, reframing and dealing with objections. Then would give a short summary of the supporting research evidence. The weight of the article is no very high given that the author is unknown and the Journal Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice is not highly ranked. That said, it is indexed by PubMed and has an fair SJR impact ranking. Here is an outline of the article: 1. Introduction, "One area of psychotherapy in which NLP has proved particularly promising due to the claim of a cure in one hour or less (Bandler and Grinder, 1979, as cited in Ref. 12) is the treatment of phobias."; 2. Phobias; 3. NLP and ‘Anchoring'; 4. The NLP phobia cure; 5. Evidence in research: "Despite the experiential evidence and case studies attesting to the efficacy of NLP in the treatment of phobias, the research literature base supporting the use of NLP techniques in this area is limited.16 However, there is some research regarding the efficacy of "NLP in curing phobias."; 6. Further applications; 7. Reframing phobias; 8. Resistance. --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Section headings are no help and again, you need to propose an edit which the source would support. I can't see it being worthy of more than a sentence myself if that. Snowded  TALK 10:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Look more closely, I included the headlines as well as some excerpts. It would take more than a sentence. My proposal was to summarize the approach to treating phobias as presented in the source as described in the article including anchoring, the rewind technique, reframing and dealing with objections. Then would give a short summary of the supporting research evidence. I'm not going to waste my time summarizing it if you are just going to reject it because the source is not reliable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked everything closely and its not enough to form any judgement about what it actually says. All I can gather is that an author whose name does not come up on a web search has reviewed and summarised a body of material and concluded that NLP has some efficacy in dealing with Phobias.  I have no idea what it says about the specific techniques unless those happen to be mentioned.  I am suspicious about "experiential evidence" and your past history in stitching together sources makes me secure in the belief that any source you reference needs to be checked.  Snowded  TALK 12:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reconsolidation, I don't see how a new section could receive support from editors based on low weight sources that are first party and not necessarily independent. But I do think you have an argument for an additional sentence at the end of Applications: Other Uses.  Why not propose one sentence that could go there and seek feedback from the other editors?--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd and Snowded, These are the main sources reviewed by the article. All these sources are verifiable. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Allen KL. An investigation of the effectiveness of neurolinguistic programming procedures in treating snake phobics. Dissertation Abstracts International 1982;43(3). University of Missouri at Kansas City.
 * Andreas S. Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP): changing points of view. The Family Journal 1999;7:22.
 * Einspruch EL, Forman BD. (1988) Neurolinguistic programming in the treatment of phobias. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6, 1.
 * Konefal J, Duncan RC. Social anxiety and training in neurolinguistic programming. Psychological Reports 1998;83(3).
 * Krugman M, Kirsch I, Wickless C, Milling L, Golicz H, Toth A. NLP treatment for anxiety: magic or myth? (1985) Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 4
 * Stanton HE. Treating phobias rapidly with Bandler's theatre technique. Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis 1988;16(2).
 * Walker L. Consulting with NLP: Neuro-linguistic Programming in the Medical Consultation. Radcliffe Medical Press; 2002. For review see PMCID: PMC539523
 * Walker L. Changing with NLP: A Casebook of Neuro-linguistic Programming in Medical Practice. Radcliffe Medical Press; 2004.
 * Liberman M. The treatment of simple phobias with neurolinguistic programming techniques. Dissertation Abstract. Dissertation Abstracts International 1984;45(6B).


 * I think it's safe to say that the Liberman dissertation (though not peer reviewed) warrants a sentence at the end of Applications: Other Uses in support of our POV.  I don't know whether other editors would allow it.  Probably you would have to propose a specific edit for everyone to consider, because listing sources is not responsive to the concerns expressed many times elsewhere on this talk page, and the multiple SPA accounts you established and edit warring have created a credibility problem for you.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking there should be a description of the technique as well as a summary of the evidence supporting and unsupportive. I think that would take at least a paragraph under either a section titled Applications or Techniques. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think everyone would be glad at this point if you would simply propose some specific text on the talk page for consideration.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we also need to contrast the definition and application of NLP in treatment (e.g. anchoring, rewind technique, reframing) of phobias with the mainstream definition of phobias (e.g. DSM) and treatment (e.g. systematic desentization, exposure therapy)? per WP:UNDUE --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes that would make sense. It would be interesting to notice the differences in definitions and approaches.  I think that would be a major contribution though other editors have not understood the significance of anchoring in the past in part because there is very little academic research on anchoring specific to NLP, and there can be different uses of the term anchoring in different contexts.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

--Reconsolidation (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposed text (working draft, final version will replace quotes with paraphrases or summaries from sources): Karunaratne (2010) says "The acquisition of a phobia is an example of rapidly acquired Pavlovian classical conditioning, and is a consistent response based on learning over a single trial.9"..."In NLP, a stimulus which is associated with and triggers a physiological response is termed an anchor."..."Anchors can be kinaesthetic, auditory or visual e.g. certain songs, images or smells can be extremely evocative of emotional states." Karunaratne describes a technique called "collapsing anchors" but says it is only appropriate for simple phobias. The rewind technique is also intended for treatment of traumatic phobias "in which even thinking brieﬂy about an event causes a physiological emotional response, are stored as synaesthesias, where two representational systems become linked so that accessing one representation always results in access to the other"(Walker 2002 p. 147 as cited by Karunaratne 2010) "The NLP visual/kinaesthetic dissociation (V/KD; Bandler and Grinder, 1979) phobia cure dissociates this link." She then goes on to briefly describe the swish pattern. Followed by a section titled "Evidence in research" A number of studies are reviewed including Furman (1999) who "describes a study comparing the efﬁcacy of four different brief therapies for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder." Einspruch and Forman (1988) "evaluated a program for curing phobias based on NLP" Liberman (1984) conducted a "pretest-posttest control group design study [where] twelve subjects meeting the DSM-III criteria for Simple Phobia were treated using the NLP phobia cure." Konefal & Duncan (1993) investigated "the effect of NLP training on social anxiety in twenty-eight adults was measured following a twenty-one day trial." According to Karunaratne (2010), "Both the NLP phobia cure and collapsing of anchors have been proven to be therapeutically effective individually, and Stanton15 investigated results when the two are used in conjunction."... Allen (1982) "explored the efﬁcacy of NLP in changing the behaviour of  thirty-six students  with snake phobias." In the review Karunaratne (2010) concludes that "further research with larger populations and different phobias is needed to assess the efficacy of NLP in curing phobias." Karunaratne (2010) also describes reframing of phobias and dealing with resistance.


 * I think anchoring is the strongest part of the model but that's based on OR. I think this is a bit wordy but a few sentences would be worth adding in the Other Uses section.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'further research' is needed is characteristic of the Sussex School; working with small samples of self-reported effects over short time periods, that is inevitable. It sounds like this source is the same,  I suggest a single or possibly two sentences.  No way does it warrant a whole section and I think we might need a qualification given that selling NLP training is the main occupation of the author who is selecting the studies. Over dependence on a single source is always an issue on Wikipedia, even before the COI issue.   If any other editor had read the book or has seen the studies referenced, then their views would be welcome  Snowded  TALK 08:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is something interesting, Reconsolidation, about your point that phobias may mean different things in NLP than in traditional psychological circles expressed in DSM IV. That might suggest the criticisms expressed by the sources in this article are wrong, and it might suggest the claims of the founders were right.  The problem we have is that conclusion would represent original research and we would need a reliable source saying as much.  Additionally success in making that point might detract from the view that the techniques are successful for addressing traditionally understood disorders since what we would have to agree was being treated would be something other than main stream psychologists understood.  Thus better to drop the DSM argument when slimming this down to the sentence Snowded has indicated willingness to include.  Make sense?--Encyclotadd (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Encyclotadd, You make no sense to me because you failed to cite any sources to back up your position. I'll wait now to see if anyone comes up with any stronger sources for NLP and its applications in the treatment of phobias. Or to see if anyone wants to challenge my summary of that review. Otherwise, we can then proceed to collaborating on some text for the article to describe the technique and the evidence supportive or not. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Already challenged. Your proposed text is excessive for a single source from an editor with a commercial interest in NLP.  The best you can do is a couple of sentences that says some support has been found for the use of NLP in treatment of phobias, that requires further research (per your own citation).  For the avoidance of any doubt there is NO agreement to any change on that source without a draft presented on the talk page.   Snowded  TALK 23:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Side note there is an entry on NLP's VK/D rewind technique in The Encyclopedia of Trauma and Traumatic Stress Disorders, Infobase Publishing (Facts on File Library of Health & Living). The author is Ronald M. Doctor is an emeritus professor in psychology. To be honest, I was surprised that this review cited Krugman et al (1985) for some definitions but did failed to mention the nonsupportive findings of Krugman et al (1985). They compared an single-session treatment NLP technique for anxiety with a kind of self-regulated exposure therapy. They used a 1 hour waiting room control but there was no difference detected between single-session treatment NLP technique, exposure therapy and the control group of waiting in the room for an hour. We can only speculate why they left Krugman et al (1985) out. I'll check back in a week or so. --Reconsolidation (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When you check back please have understood the rules on synthesis/combinatorics. You can be right in your own mind and viewed as edit warring by everyone else if you are constantly making arguments that have no basis in the way everyone else is discussing the article.  Using meat puppets to then support the arguments I'm sure is raising hair on the back of admin by now.  You obviously understand how to use google scholar and the apa psych info database - not sure why the Wikipedia rules would be so hard for you.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to summarize reliable sources according to weight. It is not original synthesis. We just need to decide on weight and how much space in the article the sources can support. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The main negative POV footnote is a third party secondary source. You are wasting everyone's time by attempting to refute it with an individual first party primary source.  It's very frustrating. Familiarize yourself with the rules and the nature of each source or we will get nowhere.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To what edit and source are you referring? Please provide diffs. --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the introduction, the sentence that begins: "Reviews of empirical research on NLP show..." relies on third party second sources, which were deemed reliable in past notice board dispute resolutions. That is a problem for the pro-NLP perspective that cannot be resolved by identifying reliable first party primary sources.  The correct approach is to notice the category of source needed. --Encyclotadd (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Karunaratne is a literature review published in a peer-reviewed journal. It does not hold as much weight as the more weight journals. It is specific to NLP and its application in the treatment of phobias. We need to discuss which noticeboard would be best. --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes its a constructive suggestion and very clear and specific. LTMem (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012
I would like to remove the word " a discredited" and replaced with "an" in the first line. Discredited implies that there is absolutely no merit in an idea. Whilst there is legitimate commentary in the article about the weaknessess of the NLP approach in the article, the inclusion of this word in the first line is unhelpful since it is presented before the evidence.

Whilst there is doubt about its effectiveness therapeutically (as are other brief therapeutic techniques such as SFBT and EMDR) its use in sport and increasingly in education is the subjce of positive research output: reference: paper given at an internaitonal conference in 2003:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003319.htm

Granville60 (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Sorry, but I'm not convinced a single paper presented only at a conference carries sufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify the change, given the multiple higher quality sources cited in the lede. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 15th brand new SPA account created in the period since Comaze started editing again with a new ID. All making the same points ....
 * And for the information of editors unfamiliar with the field, the authors of the paper referenced also run an NLP consultancy and training business  Snowded  TALK 12:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys don't realize the damage you are doing to the pro-NLP perspective in this article by violating Wikipedia rules. Whoever is orchestrating this meat farm please stop-- you're just perpetuating the myth that NLP is a cult. We can make improvements based on honesty and reliable sources instead. --Encyclotadd (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well there is some evidence of meat puppets being run from Sydney so I can see why you would make that reference.  Snowded  TALK 22:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see any real difference between them and you to be honest, but happy to be proved wrong. They are simply saying they don't like some of the words.  Given you have already edit warred on those words with no more grounds than they, you have you have little case to insult them.  Are you really suggesting that editors opposed to your changes are organising multiple new IDs to discredit you?  Why bother?  Snowded  TALK 23:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's probably Grinder's trainers selling new code or something. Huge mistake... will just end up circling back-- dishonesty always does.  It never made sense that Grinder disavowed old code anyway.  How was that a good idea?  Conflicts of interest have needlessly cost the model credibility.  The uphill battle on Wklipedia is absurd when it doesn't have to be.  Honest people playing it straight is what we need coming together around reliable sources.  That's what Wikipedia admin need to see.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I dont mind the sources as long as they are legit and properly referenced. It's just written horribly, from an outsiders perspective I would come away from the article being none the wiser about the subject matter. I believe it needs a reformat to give clarity. since the sources are ok and wikipedia relies on a consensus by the editors can we agree that it does need to be rewritten to provide a clearer understanding of the subject matter, rather than being a seemingly opined piece. also it appears snowded or someone has deleted my last request and discussion. why would they do that? Enemesis (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

diff for the deletion you are accusing me of please. Otherwise please feel free to draft a rewrite and post here or in a sandpit. I don't think it needs rewriting but happy to look at something concrete. But just repeating you opinions is not wheat the talk page is for - jousts wastes everyone's time Snowded TALK 07:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

yes it is snowded, it is a place to discuss the article and gain consensus for edits. A consensus by definition is a decision made by the majority of the populace not ALL of the populace. if you are outnumbered then a new status quo for the article may take place and that will be regardless of your opinion. Enemesis (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Consensus. Simple majority is not at all what consensus is about on wikipedia, and particularly the bulldozing of legitimate concerns and opinions by numbers alone that you are threatening is not acceptable. siafu (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you just say legitimate concerns? snowded the point is the decision is not up to you exclusively. That link that siafu left sort of backs up what I was saying in a few ways as well. siafu it is not a threat, it is more a reminder of how multiple editors work on a wiki page. Enemesis (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The talk page is for discussing the article Enemesis, and then for discussing changes in accordance with wikipedia policy. Your "outnumbered" threat is interesting given the number of new editors who have suddenly appeared.  The community does not take kindly to meat or sock puppetry or canvassing so be careful.  Otherwise, when you have specific changes supported by references bring them here.  Until then stop wasting other editors time.   Snowded  TALK 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And please provide the requested diff or strike that accusation Snowded  TALK 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Even though you may all be a bunch of snarking meat puppets arguing about the application of calculus to language in violation of just about every Wikipedia rule in every iteration each have existed (you know who you are), I want to wish you guys an awesome New Year. Cheers everyone.  --Encyclotadd (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If ANI does not go anywhere, may I suggest the Dispute resolution noticeboard next? That helped with the dispute over whether or not to use the OED definition of NLP. --Reconsolidation (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you guys should come clean about the SPA/meat puppet thing first because as long as that's transparent to admin they are unlikely to take your edit requests seriously. Also there has to be an acceptance of past sources deemed reliable since most of the sources have already been vetted by admin in a variety of notice board disputes in the past.  Then the POV can be made more balanced to reflect your perspective with new sources provided.--Encyclotadd (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ANI will not go anywhere as its not the place for content issues and your refuse to come clean about your previous IDs will not help. I really don't see the point of dispute resolution as you have not really done anything here to work with other editors.   You have not addressed the issue of the fact you main source runs an NLP business and you have not responded to suggestions that you draft a one/two sentence amendment for us to look at.   Until you do the basics I suggest you stop forum shopping.   Snowded  TALK 20:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I really cannot do anything about your meatpuppetry. I cannot see any way forward other than by using forums to resolve content disputes one by one. That is what is suggested by the policies. Anyway, I will come back with renewed focus after skiing. I'll try to come up with a way that we can find a way to work together to improve the article. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's too many new SPA accounts. Obviously some kind of recruiting going on.  It would be better Reconsolidation if you guys would play by the rules so that we can get the article POV corrected.  It's a drag going in circles on this.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:NPA --Reconsolidation (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When you come back (assuming you keep the same ID) try starting with some basic honesty Snowded  TALK 08:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

change to lead - expert-consensus lists
I made the following change based to simplify the text in lead and I think it is clearer. It is a bit of a compromise too because it maintains all the sources including Witkowski which has been pushed here for a while. If this is reject then I'll take it to a content dispute resolution noticeboard. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From: "NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.[8] In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [13] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al. (2010)[17] list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as "certainly discredited".[18]"
 * To: In research designed to establish expert-consensus[8] of "what does not work" in mental health evidence based practice (EBP), Norcross et al. (2006) [13] rated NLP for treatment of behavioural problems as possibly or probably discredited, and Norcross et al. (2010)[17] rated NLP for addiction treatment as certainly discredited.[18]"
 * Your proposals should be ignored, until you come clean on your past IDs & the meat-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The accusation that I was abusing multiple accounts is a distraction to allow others to contintue to push their more extreme POV. Note that this change was reverted and again without reasoned discussion. Note that my change includes multiple comprimises including keeping the Witkowski reference which has been pushed for some time. --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reconsolidation, you have previously used different IDs to make an edit that removes and marginalizes the evidence based view that neuro-linguistic programming appears on lists of discredited interventions . That is an abuse of accounts. This has been dealt with before Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've offered a compromise here. I think it captures the findings of the two studies. At least you sneakily reinserted the qualifier, "In research on discredited addiction treatments" which was a gross misrepresentation. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your recommendation is an improvement, Reconsolidation. htom (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I will second that. Its a better version. But considering the skeptic soc POV pushers its hard to know how this is going to go. LTMem (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reconsolidation, we are not required to have multiple discussions on the same issue with an editor just because they change their ID. As far as I can see you are changing accounts simply to allow you to raise the same issues again and again. If you have new evidence then raise it. bit it has otherwise (as Lam Kin Keung has pointed out) been answered before. Snowded TALK 08:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Reconsolidation suddenly decides to go on holiday, then a dormant account LTMem shows up & supports his position. How long are administrations going to let this charade continue? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Grinder's work or Chomsky's?
According to Grinder, the linguistic aspects of neuro-linguistic programming were based in part on previous work by Grinder using Chomsky's transformational grammar.

vs.

According to Grinder, the linguistic aspects of neuro-linguistic programming were based in part on techniques developed by Chomsky.

To me, the "simplification" has changed the work from Grinder to Chomsky. I think it's an over simplification that is not edit-warring.htom (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Either way, referring to Chomsky's transformational grammar as a "technique" is quite misleading. Chomsky is a linguist not a clinical or applied scientist by any means, and his descriptions of grammar are just that, descriptions, not techniques for anything. siafu (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm open to either version of this sentence.


 * BUT, please understand first that Siafu is right that Transformational Grammar is not a technique. It's a field taught at MIT (among other top universities) developed over well over seventy years that has become quite vast and comprises a wide array of both theories and techniques.


 * No Transformational Grammar theories were applied that I can find mentioned in any reliable sources. Only one technique seems to have been applied.   To suggest a larger connection between transformational grammar and NLP would be very misleading.


 * Furthermore, in the forty years since NLP was created, Chomsky has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to associate himself with it. He has managed to shun the subject completely. That should also give us pause when considering how much weight Chomsky's field should receive in this article. Transformational Grammar has to be mentioned but in my view only as concisely as possible.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is the claim by Grindler and the desire to exonerate Chomsky from any responsibility for NLP. I suggest we simply note the claim and reference the lack of any endorsement  Snowded  TALK 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, clear thinking.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How about :


 * "According to Grinder, the linguistic aspects of neuro-linguistic programming were based in part on previous work by Grinder using Transformational grammar."


 * With the link, there's no need, really, to mention Chomsky at all; people are not responsible for what is done with their published works. The other, repeated references saying Chomsky is not involved are not needed; there are many many uses and users of transformational grammar (including me) who are not endorsed by Chomsky. I doubt he's ever even heard of me. htom (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Chomsky is not an applied scientist by any means? Huh? What do you think applied science is? Computational linguistics. Machine translation. Artificial Intellegence. Some of his political stuff seems a bit wacky ... but that's a different corner of his mind. htom (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing Chomsky might be a better way to approach it. Whatever consensus forms on this is fine with me. --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any RS for Chomsky's not endorsing? Is there a RS for his even having been asked to endorse NLP? Has he just ignored it, like so many other shoots from the tree he planted? Why reference him at all?htom (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The view is from the linguistics perspective. The linguistics researcher Stollznow explains that NLP authors are doing the namedropping and that Chomsky's theories and research have no authentic relation to the neuro-linguistic programming. I will look for related sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Its just another straw man. Grinder no longer works with any of the so-called discredited aspects of NLP. LTMem (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Grinder still teaches the discredited alcoholism treatment aspect of neuro-linguistic programming Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can almost guarantee that is not the method that the researchers tested. Plus there are no sources that I can see which say that New code should or can be lumped in with the same research of classic NLP. I think that we are getting off topic though. An adaptive system (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system.

ANI
For those editors not following the original posting by Reconsolidation at ANI you may wish to read this in particular the warning about a low tolerance for SPAs. Very happy to work with editors to address concerns now we have got the disruption out of the way Snowded  TALK 22:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It really is a shame for the pro-NLP perspective.


 * To change the POV, clearly everyone has to respect the sources and play by the Wikipedia rules. There is waaay too much history with this article to overcome otherwise.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Its not about pro or anti NLP, that has been the issue. Its about a NPOV based on third party sources!  Snowded  TALK 00:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, NPOV is the goal ... but that doesn't mean editors can't research something they believe to be true and present sources for consideration. Certainly that's consistent with NPOV.  But the recent SPA and edit warring clearly has to stop- regardless of POV. Disruptions really took us away from improving the article. People should know better. --Encyclotadd (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I think there will be the cases where the adherents believe in the effectiveness of NLP and want to show sources here for that. That relates partly to the cult nature of NLP. But now with the recent ANI notice it can be easier to identify the difference between good faith suggestions and the long term disruption. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but isn't there some kind of guideline against characterizing people and their actions in such a manner? An adaptive system (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * Wikipedia is managed through behaviour not through content (that is to editors on articles to sort out). There is no reason not to call NLP a cult it is not a personal attack and in any case there are third party sources that say exactly that.  In addition long term disruptive behaviour has been established and various sanctions applied, so again its a reasonable term to use.   Encylotadd my point was that as long as we talk about pro and anti NLP we get into this idea that the article has to be balanced between those two positions, which is not the case.  It has to balanced across the sources. Snowded  TALK 06:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * please site the specific passage that says NLP is proven to be a cult. It is not disruptive behavior to want to show a legitimate sources (which I believe Lam was talking about rather than disruptive behavior). further more disruptive behaviour has been committed on both sides of the fence at various times does that make the other people part of a "skeptic cult". Lam is not just addressing content but implying personal motive to potential editors on this page who may want to show legitimate sources for NLP. Snowded, since you have made similar comments about NLP I think A third party should judge and resolve this matter. An adaptive system (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." Also I'm not sure about the rules have to say regarding the religious overtones of the word cult. --An adaptive system (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * Neuro-linguistic programming is considered to be a pseudo-science and a cult. These often go together. This is a sourced fact and probably needs the clarification.  Barrett (1998) covers neuro-linguistic programming in Sects, `Cults' & Alternative Religions: A World Survey and Sourcebook. Hunt (2003) classes neuro-linguistic programming as a self development development aspect of new alternative religions, in Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction. He states that it is an alternative to Scientology within that category.     There is also the classification of cargo cult (Roderique Davies) already within the article, and the related characterization by the linguist Stolznow as "NLP is an Amway for the mind".  I will look for more sources on this matter.


 * Barrett (1998). Sects, `Cults' & Alternative Religions: A World Survey and Sourcebook
 * Hunt, Stephen J. (2003) Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction, London: Ashgate
 * Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's borderline information I see no references actually calling NLP a cult. Although, it's pretty bad to file it under Those sections. The cargo cult term is used out of context It was used as a metaphor by Richard Feynman describing certain members of a scientific community. That metaphor was then applied to members of NLP in the article you're referring to. Regardless,one can't use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. I'm assuming it gets even worse if you involve religion. An adaptive system (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * The sources to an extent explain why there may be the such long term disruption on this article and related articles. That information and today's ANI conclusion on SPAs will likely help to make disruption here easier to deal with. It can also help clarify explanations in the article. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Adaptive System I have no idea what you are asking a third party judge (not that any such thing exists on wikipedia) to engage with. Snowded TALK 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lam,disruptive activity aside, what about NLP practitioners who "believe in the effectiveness of NLP and want to show sources here for that" is that partly due to the "cult nature of NLP"? Snowded, who regulates personal attacks. are notice boards involved? An adaptive system (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)AN adaptive system
 * Its not a personal attack, stop wasting people's time Snowded  TALK 05:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Quit the wikibullying Snowded. An adaptive system made a fair comment and Keung should be far more careful to avoid accusing NLPers of being a cult. Abide by civil discussion please and drop the cult smear tactics. LTMem (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cult aspects of neuro-linguistic programming

 * I made an edit to suggest how best to reflect the sources provided by LKK. If that approach meets with everyone's approval, we can footnote it to the sources and consider the change permanent.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would just add that in the edit I was careful not to say "NLP is a cult" because I don't believe that to be true, and such a change might be resisted by some who would require a higher standard of proof. But saying "NLP has been characterized as a cult" is undeniably true and reflected in the sources. It's a compromise position. --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If others believe it is a cult and they can verify the sources why don't they put NLP is a cult in the lede? An adaptive system (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * One could make an argument for doing so; are you suggesting that this would be a helpful addition? It seems to me that this issue is sufficiently captured in the "discredited" claim as it is, without unduly cluttering the lead. siafu (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest it would need more coverage and explanation in the main part of article before summarizing in the lede. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FTR, I'm not suggesting at all that this belongs in the lead, not least because it seems to violate WP:UNDUE, but merely pressing An adaptive system as to why they would be suggesting such a change, as it seems rather pointy. siafu (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs well referenced material in the main body before its even considered for the lede and I agree with Siafu, even then its overkill. I  think this is tied up with one part of the article which is not adequate at the moment, but for which there are few third party sources, namely the move of NLP into the self-help/management training markets where it is very cult like in its manifestation.    Snowded  TALK 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be one of the most significant facts regarding NLP and it's identity making it lede worthy It could be explained in the body in more detail of course. I don't know how legitimate academics managed to characterize it that way though, If it can be demonstrated through reliable sources. The difference between being classified as discredited vs cult would of huge qualitative and factual significance to most readers on the page. Snowded I thougt you implied there was enough factual evidence to state unequivocly that NLP is a cult. An adaptive system (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * I thought it was clear - my point is that there are insufficient sources for the shift of NLP into self-help and (to be more explicit) the cult end of management training where its quasi religious at times. Now I say insufficient, but that means I have not found material despite looking.   I half thought about writing something myself for one of the journals I am associated with but there was little interest.   Snowded  TALK 05:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Then it sounds like explicitly calling or presuming NLP,to be a cult is more a matter of opinion and best left off the talk pages. I don't see the connection with self help and being an actual cult though. If you want to have aserious discussion about your management training on my talk page I'm all ears An adaptive system (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system

its sourced but not enough I think for the article. Self-help and cult are not mutually dependent. Why would I want to have a serious discussion on your talk page? Snowded TALK 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cult is really a subjective description like pornography. it's the kind of thing you know when you see it.


 * As long as cool-aid isn't served at Grinder's events, I agree leaving aside the new sources LKK presented makes sense for now.


 * An Adaptive System, it's wrong and bordering on a personal attack for you to have brought up snowded's computer consulting in this context. Not a swift move after there has recently been so much bad behavior from SPAs requiring admin intervention. Be a team player and follow what the sources say, always assuming good faith.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in general, is it that (a) NLP is a cult, or (b) is considered to be a cult, or (c) is it that NLP techniques are abused by cults on their members (which would seem to indicate NLP's effectiveness!) htom (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it in a hostile manner, Snowded was the one who brought up his consulting. Believe it or not I am actually curious about it If you don't want to talk about it that's fine, I'm sorry if that came across as sarcastic. If NLP is characterized as cult like that's one thing but taking that to conclusions outside of what is relevant to the page may not be appropriate, especially when referring to editors. I made the mistake of not being clear as I was referring to earlier comments like "There is no reason not to call NLP a cult".  Not your last comment That seemed to be a professional offering of information which was interesting to me obviously you don't have to discuss that if you don't want to, I was just saying that If you wanted to talk more about it you were welcome to do it on my talk page.An adaptive system (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)AN adaptive system
 * I think we're beating a dead horse. We seem to have a rare consensus (cherish this moment). We are all agreed not to refer to NLP/Grinder as a cult in the article unless additional sources are uncovered suggesting as much.  Also, AnAdaptiveSystem, I stand corrected about your intentions with respect to conversations on your talk page.  (He has a link to his website on his own Wikipedia page-- might be a better way for you to ask him about his consulting.)--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I would not right now add a section on cult characteristics of neuro-linguistic programming. Concur with Snowded, sources say neuro-linguistic programming has cult like characteristics and that can help clarify parts of the current article.


 * Htom, b is more correct. c is also correct. Cults use pseudo-scientific concepts and rituals. But they are effective for recruitment not really for the purpose advertised . Eye contact rituals, copying movements, group jargon use, pseudo-scientific distortions of terms are common . The distinction can be made more clear in the article Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The author of that lecture uses a clear fallacy of equivocation when discussing submodalities and probably does not understand the etymology of the term. His own use of the term seems very obscure I doubt that the person who coined the NLP  homonym would be aware of it little loan the people learning NLP. Do you consider this a credible source for the Wikipedia article? An adaptive system (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * No, Lum (2001) Lilienfeld et al (2001) and Dunn and Smith (2008) already in the article show that neuro-linguistic programming is used as an example of pseudo-science for teaching professionals the difference. The links are for clarifying discussion here. It is not equivocation just comparison.  Engram originated in neuroscience not scientology.  Same with submodality.  The cult aspect of this is more related to the other link (How to sell a pseudoscience).  The points there are similar to that of Devilly (2005).  Just so you can read them online.   Point 4 "Establish a Granfalloon" is particular relevant. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The author claims that NLP used the term submodality to sound scientific to increase it's credibility. How can the author prove both awareness (of the preceding term) and intent? most Homonyms or coincidental terms have one that came before the other. I fear that this discussion and the links are better suited for a forum though An adaptive system (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * Adaptive system, please read more carefully. My point was that NLP is more used in management, self-help, coaching etc. these days as its credibility has been lost.   In those respects it manifests as a cult (think fire pit walking).  However there seems little material in the literature about those changes.  I haven't raised anything about my own work here and have no intention of doing so.   Snowded  TALK 05:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that first conclusion is a little ethereal but I will not get into the possible logical and taxonomic implications here.

I never thought you intended to raise your work o this page. What I meant is that you made an offering of information within the context of this discussion, about writing for journals (potentially or otherwise) -related to management training I assume-, like one would offer an anecdote in a conversation. Not that you were intending to offer information regarding your work for the Wikipedia article. An adaptive system (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * AnAdaptiveSystem, You're wasting everyone's time on non-content issues. It's tiresome to read your off topic comments on Aristotle. LKK, if you want to include a paragraph outlining how the cult aspect is more related to how to sell a pseudoscience (ex. group jargon), that works for me.  But we would have to convince snowded who believes addressing the cult aspects of Grinders training is not yet needed, and the article makes plain the discredited pseudoscience nature.  So perhaps this edit can be tabled for now.--Encyclotadd (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * you're right Aristotle was off topic sorry, I was hopeful for a James source though An adaptive system (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system
 * AnAdaptiveSystem, I believe James is mentioned by Grinder in an anecdote in the opening of Turtles All The Way down.  But he didn't make explicitly clear his reasons for referencing him, and I think we would be unwise to include it anyway because that would violate the spirit of Wikipedia's rules about synthesis and original research. Even without those rules it would be a huge stretch to reference Aristotle in this article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

PRS
I seem to remember reading somewhere that William James came up with the concept of a primary representational system and possibly coined the term. Aristotle I believe, spoke of people being mostly visual but that could be a whole different ball of wax. I was wondering if any one had sources for the James reference? An adaptive system (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)An adaptive system


 * That would be original research and/or synthesis.  Snowded  TALK 15:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was asking for a legitimate source that would document it's inclusion/inspiration regarding NLP. However, after looking around I don't think he actually used the term but just spoke of similar concepts. An adaptive system (talk)An adaptive system —Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous conclusion in article Neuro Lingustic Programming
I request a change in the article neuro linguistic programming. Sentence 1, paragraph, word 'discredited' is completely unfounded. See the book: The Clinical Effectiveness of Neurolinguistic Programming - A clinical appraisal. Lisa Waek, Richare M Gray, Frank Bourke. The 2 references 1 & 2 marked on paragraph in no way conclude what is stated. Remove the word. After a long and frustrating chat with a Wikipedia representative identified as Huon, I got a refusal to take any action and an insistence that the 2 sources used were more credible than the mountain of references I supplied. I don't believe any credible source would make such a value judgement on an entire field of study that can be found in any good Psychology library as a subcategory of Psychology, listed right next to 'Psycholinguistics' and using more or less the same body of research. To use the word 'discredited' is antithetical to scientific method, and to the purpose of peer review or any literature review. There's a serious problem with the credibility of Wikipedia based on the refusal to consider evidence. In addition, previous versions of the article on Neuro linguistic programming did not have such inflammatory and erroneous conclusions.

Nlpskills (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Bill Thomason


 * That book is available in a grand total of 14 libraries worldwide, according to WorldCat, none of which I have easy access to. What exactly does the book say about NLP's status? Does it explicitly mention and contradict studies such as those by Norcross and Glasner-Edwards? Can you provide page numbers and maybe a relevant excerpt?
 * As an aside, I fail to see how "supported by multiple peer-reviewed articles" is the same as "completely unfounded". Huon (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Houn. Its a reliable source from a properly certified NLP practitioner. If you think thats not fit for an article on NLP then I really cannot help you. Also please try to understand what real live evidence means. Its not just about - looking it up in books. Learn some NLP first if you are going to pass judgment on it. LTMem (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet another puppet (Nlpskills) has arrived. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm not saying the book is a bad source, but it is contradicted by multiple other sources of at least equal quality. Are we misrepresenting those sources? And yes, Wikipedia is precisely about "looking it up in books", not about original research. Huon (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Its a source from a NLP practitioner and does not have the same status. Its also only one source against many.   Snowded  TALK 05:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a waste of time. This edit was discussed at length and supported by a mountain of references in the article. Just look earlier on this talk page and there is volumes about it- never mind archived.  The source provided now is a practitioner with a conflict of interest.  And I'll assume good faith and resist accusing anyone of meat puppeting but, given the confusion over fifteen SPA accounts banned last week, I reccomend we move swiftly on to edits reflecting RS.--Encyclotadd (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Freud
My edit stating that the founders of NLP made no reference to Freud's writing in the bibliographies of their books was reverted as original research, and in looking into sources I found an RS suggesting a connection between NLP and Freud's model: http://scientliteracy.wordpress.com/article/neurolinguistic-programming-2j6nlcky7q5vo-2/   So I stand corrected about the edit.

That said, I remember reading that Bandler disliked Freud, calling him "Sigmund Fraud." Anyone aware of RS that would make sense to reference in the paragraph of the article about neuro-linguistic psychotherapy?--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is that you have to have a reference that says there is no link, just saying there isn't (even if you are right) is original research Snowded  TALK 18:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I concede the revert and accept it. Based on the third party RS we presently have, you're right.


 * What I'm saying also though is that I believe the founders disavowed Freud directly. That may be based on OR. But it nevertheless leaves us with the practical consideration that readers mayvincorrectly believe otherwise from the article's mention of neuro-linguistic psychotherapy.


 * It's an area where additional research into third party RS could clarify helpfully.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well there is a difference between no referencing at all, and disavowing, but either need a source. Not sure its critical, your other change was an improvement  Snowded  TALK 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2013
Much of the beginning of this article is written in a subjective style and therefore is not fitting for the content of an encyclopedia.

Please could you delete the following:

1) The word "discredited" from the first line of the first paragraph. 2) The word "unsubstantiated" from the first line of the second paragraph. 3)Delete the following from the end of paragraph 3 "Norcross et al. (2006) [13] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al. (2010)[17] list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as "certainly discredited".[18]"

Many Thanks

Bobbollard (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ❌ How exactly is it subjective to report what experts have written about the technique in peer-reviewed scholarly journals? We have multiple reliable sources stating that it is, indeed, discredited; we do not remove sourced content just because we may not like it. Huon (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Bobbollard, Yours is the 16th recent SPA account (of which 15 were banned just last week) to say this. You may not be aware of this history, and may not be intentionally associating yourself with that behavior.  But please do review the rules and this talk page rather than creating circular conversation.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right that I was not aware of the history of this article and I am not intentionally creating work for people, I came across this article as I have developed an interest in this field and was astonished to find that rather than telling people what the subject is about, this page seems actually more concerned with offering an opinion, albeit backed up by references to academic journals. Surely the role of an encyclopedia is to provide fact rather than promote and distribute opinions. What about all the references to articles written by people who have reported positive impacts from understanding some of the concepts of NLP?

I will give you one of thousands of references that I could use. Ian Woosnam, ex world number one golfer said in the foreword to the book Masterstroke: Use the Power of Your Mind to Improve Your Golf with NLP ""What I have learnt from (Adler and Morris) books on NLP and from several discussions with Harry since has reminded me of the techniques, the thought process and the state of mind that I enjoyed in my best years and which I feel I am rediscovering now " . "The time I have spent with Harry and Karl has opened my eyes to the importance of the right mental approach.."

I have no association to the authors of this book, but they teach certain techniques of NLP in a golfing context that top golfers the world over now employ. NLP is not discredited in this field nor in many others, so citing academic references to discreditation of a whole field is expressing a bias surely is it not?

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbollard (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The number of brand new editors who claim to have just come across this article beggars belief. If you are interested in editing here then please read up on the rules for evidence.  Experiential reporting of effect not backed up by scientific evidence is a characteristic of pseudo-scientists and cults in general, not to mention self help books, dietary fads etc. etc. Snowded  TALK 11:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's just move on-- this is a waste of time. The article already says (in the second paragraph, no less) that, "[Grinder] claimed that, if the effective patterns of behaviour of exceptional people could be modeled, such as those of famous surgeons or world championship athletes, then those patterns could be easily acquired by anyone."  Sports modeling is already there and reliable sources referenced. --Encyclotadd (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The wordings are clearly non-neutral and do not fit an encyclopedia. We do not need to write in every mention of every claim whether it is substantiated, or of every argument whether it has been discredited. This is clearly an article that has been a POV battleground and where one side won and went overboard. We do not write in the article on catholicism that "the pope has made unsubstantiated claims that Jesus resurrected", or on the article on Freud that "he has made unsubstantiated claims that women suffer from penis envy". Similarly her the NPOV way to write this is to say that Bandler and Grinder claimed X and Y found it to be unsubstantiated. The other is cleartly skeptical overkill. Same goes for the "discredited" in the lead. The NPOV way to write it is "NLP is a approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy. It is considered to be pseudoscientific by mainstream psychologists." ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the wording "NLP contains factual errors" is ridiculous and uninformative. NLP is not a container. Is what is meant that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be erroneous? Is so the informative thing to write would be to describe which. This is really terrible POV writing. It has to be possible to write dispassionately about false or un-scientific theories or practice systems. This article is an example of how not to do that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Manus, please review NPOV within Wikipedia's rules about pseudoscience. Please also review the various notice board resolutions for this article..  --Encyclotadd (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not an acceptable answer. You cannot respond to a specific concern with a vague reference to some larger set of rules. I am familiar with the rules on articles about Pseudoscience, they do not ever say that articles on topics called pseudoscience should not confirm to NPOV. I do expect that when I make specific edits and voice specific concern that I be answered in specific terms. It is not the case that there is a general policy that determines the lead of this or any other article should be written. It is also not the case that WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE gives editors the right to brush off editor's concerns with general vague remarks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Manus, I share your desire to change the POV. But what you are requesting has been discussed so many times before that you're just going to rile up experienced editors again.
 * Also, please assume good faith. Your demanding language like "unacceptable" and "I do expect" are frankly unnecessary, especially when you would discover with even a cursory glance at my edit history that I share your POV.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your response to my concern was unhelpful and amounted to saying "go away we've talked about that" - that is the tone I am reacting to, I have shown no bad faith against you, nor made any speculations about your POV. When people tell me to go away when I am acting in good faith and there is a clear problem to be solved I tend to do the opposite. Let the "experienced editors" be riled up, also experienced editors are supposed to follow basic content policy - also in articles about stuff they don't like. I don't have a POV regarding NLP, I tend to be fairly disdainful of selfhelp/selfdevelopment "techniques". But I am pretty serious about NPOV.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:32, 20 January 2013 (
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. Your comments do not reflect an understanding of past diecussion on the talk page. I certainly NEVER told you to go away-- that's a very inflammatory suggestion.  In fact, to the contrary, I said I would review the source you provided on my talk page.   Whether you realize it or not, I'm trying to be helpful. --Encyclotadd (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Past discussion on the talk page is ... past discussion on the talk page. Consensus can change, even on hotly debated topics. htom (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Last paragraph
I'm not sure how relevant this fact is, and if the third party source is adequately reliable. Therefore, proposing this change here rather than making it directly. See bold sentence fragment below.

Today, there are many competing organizations offering varying forms of NLP training and certification in what can be a very lucrative seminar business. Although NLP Life Training LTD was liquidated in 2011,  the Guardian reported that in 2006 that just a seven day course by Paul McKenna's company for 600 delegates produced £1m of revenue. Many variants of the practice are found in seminars, workshops, books and audio programs in the form of exercises and principles intended to influence behavioural and emotional change in self and others. There is great variation in the depth and breadth of training and standards of practitioners, and some disagreement between those in the field about which patterns are, or are not, actual "NLP".

Let me know what everyone thinks. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Redundant sentence fragment
In the lead we say the same thing twice:

Second paragraph: ... failed to produce reliable results for the assertions of effectiveness made by NLP's originators and proponents.

Third paragraph: .... fails to produce reliable results asserted by proponents.

The edit to keep both instances is correct because the sources are distinct between them.

But I recommend we adjust the wording for stylistic purposes. Perhaps the words "completely undependable" can be used synonymously with "failed to produce reliable results," or there is another equivalent adjustment, that would achieve consensus.--Encyclotadd (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You need something a little less perforative than "undependable"  Maybe combine the two sentences?  Snowded  TALK 10:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I had previously added the words "is unreliable" earlier in the sentence containing the first instance. But I'm open to whatever wording everyone feels best reflects the sources -- "completely undependable," "failed to produce" etc --Encyclotadd (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to attempt a good faith revision. If you disagree with wording and revert, please provide your own suggested wording to address the redundancy.--Encyclotadd (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Entire article is highly biased
I know very little about Neuro-Linguistic programming and I went to this article because I wanted to get an idea about what it was.

I found the first section of this article completely shocking as it never describes what NLP is about, but simply focuses on it being discredited and why. I have never seen any other subject dealt with like that in an encyclopedia. Even in Wikipedia, other contentious issues are dealt with with a lot more objectively: Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Astrology, and even Scientology are all described first before one get to the critical sections such as "Controversy" or "Criticism" or "Scientific Appraisal".

As a reader who was simply a little bit curious about NLP and just planning to only spend 5 minutes on this issue, I felt like I had stepped into a rant by an angry person when I started reading this article. I continued reading, and found that the ranting, sniping, sarcasm went on and on, permeating nearly all the sections of this article. What gives? This does not read like an article in an encyclopedia, it feels like the personal soapbox of a very unpleasant person and it is completely unprofessional and not what I expect from Wikipedia.

I don't know about decision-making at Wikipedia, but if ever there was a case for some heavier than usual handedness in editorial matters, this is it. Please take ownership away from whoever has it right now, locate this person's opinion in the "Controversy" section where it belongs, and rewrite the rest of the article in an informative way. As a reader I am always very interested in reading about the controversies surrounding any particular topic, but I want to be allowed to develop my own INFORMED opinion on the matter.

Saquigley (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)saquigley
 * I basically agree with your point, but I also have to note that it is a little odd that this comment is your fourth edit after having registered in 2008. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What does the number of edits Saquigley has made since registering have to do with anything? I agree with Saquigley's take. The article should be renamed to Debunking NLP. This is clearly a very biased article.Ljfeliu (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is not only controversial, it presents a distorted view: the references are often wrong, misunderstood and misused. I suggest complete deletion and rewriting of the entire article. --Damien Raczy (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then argue your case. If the references are wrong provide equivalent authoritative sources that challenge them  Snowded  TALK 07:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many ref missing. There arealso fake refs like those from american-buddha.com. --Damien Raczy (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To move this article closer in form to that of the astrology article, it may require the statement that neuro-linguistic programming is in fact a pseudo-science. That is what Wikipedia states about astrology. There is also issue of the statement that astrology is a belief system, which some astrologists will dispute and not like. Some may prefer it to be described as a science or similar. The article should not be written according to what we "like" but clearly and according to the most reliable sources. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While I have no intention to edit this page, the point made earlier in this section -"Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Astrology, and even Scientology are all described first before one get to the critical sections such as "Controversy" or "Criticism" or "Scientific Appraisal"- point to weaknesses in those pages rather than strengths. Those pages should follow the great example here of getting to the meat of the subject, and stating it clearly and unambiguously. Please do not change the words that rather nicely show what pseudoscience is really about.Roxy the dog (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As an example of numerous possibly biased refs. In the article it is claimed that Bandler & Gringer claiming the exact sentence "if any human being can do anything, so can you". The references can not cite any valid source. IMHO, this is a not valid quotation as there is no evidence the quotation is correct. I suggest suppressing the quotation --Damien Raczy (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple third party references which is what we use here. Snowded  TALK 09:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * so-called "multiple third party references" are acceptable if these refs are not fake. IMHO, this one is fake. If not, prove it --Damien Raczy (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read up on WP:INDENT it will make life easier for all of us. If its a fake (despite appearing on tousands of web sites including NLP ones linked to the founders) then I assume Brandler has issued a denial?  If we have third party reliable sources and no contradiction we take it.  Read up WP:RS   Snowded  TALK 09:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bielefeldt, K.; Zamboglou, N.; Bender, H. (2008). "Syndrom des spastischen Beckenbodens". RöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren 152 (1): 105–106. is not a valid reference because it is not close enough to the process described --Damien Raczy (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll need to expand on your argument a little there, at the moment its an assertion of your opinion Snowded  TALK 09:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The paper is simply not about the topic which is "classic interaction in NLP". There are numerous good references like "Richard Bolstad (2002) Resolve: A New Model of Therapy", or "McDermott, I., & Jago, W. (2001)Brief NLP Therapy", "Esser M. (2003) La PNL en perspective". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raczy (talk • contribs) 09:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To understand why it far away from NLP, have a look at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19711591 and you'll see it is definitely not about "classic NLP interaction" :-). I suggest to remove this ref. --Damien Raczy (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...according to one study by Steinbach (1984)... This not a reference. What is the study ? Without date, title etc. it is only a fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raczy (talk • contribs) 09:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, please read WP:INDENT and format your comments with proper indentation. OtherwiseDrive by tagging is not good practice on wikipedia.  If you want to propose an alternative wording with references for that section then do.  At the moment you are simply opining and tagging   Snowded  TALK 11:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll assume good faith and that this section isn't just a continuation of the meat farm banned recently. But for all new (SPA) accounts editing, please read wikipedia's rules on reliable sources and pseudosciences, because this talk page is intended largely for content discussion within the reliable source framework.  Laundry lists of usupported personal opinions -regardless of your intentions- will stall progress.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Before begining writing here, I read the comments and I understand mistrust. What I can not understand is that the references are often weak, non factual 3rd party, false or completly fake. May I quietly correct references which are approximate, weak or fallacious? Or do you prefer I create a special section for bad references and proposals? --Damien Raczy (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The existing sources have been vetted by dozens of noticeboards over the past six years, and found to be reliable. That's the problem.  You are just launching us backwards into already concluded conversations.  If you want to contribute, focus on identifying new reliable sources particularly from peer reviewed journals.  That would help.  I hope you aren't sock/meat because, if this is more of the past disruptive behavior, the admin will just protect the page making this conversation yet another waste of everyone's time.--Encyclotadd (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the discussion is old and that you may feel bad. If you think my behaviour is disruptive, tell me how specifically it is disruptive --- In my humble opinion, the fact is that there are good refs, and there are also refs which are weak even inappropriate. As examples, pay attention to my posts about "Norcross et al. (2006)", "Bielefeldt, K.; Zamboglou, N.; Bender, H. (2008)" etc. I strongly suggest reading these refs for close evaluation. --- I also suggested alternative refs, like "Gray, R. M. (2010)", "Richard Bolstad (2002)", "McDermott, I., & Jago, W. (2001)", "Esser M. (2003)" which are recognized experts (Esser is Professeur Emerite http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monique_Esser) . Is there any problems with these refs? --Damien Raczy (talk)


 * Its not clear what changes you want these "better" references to support.  If you have better references for existing text I can't see many objections to you putting them in.  If however you want to change the text propose it here first  Snowded  TALK 01:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I second that. The Norcross refs are only a survey and they don't support what appears in this ridiculously biased article. This article falls foul of a couple of pseudo-skeptic tactics:


 * First, NLP practitioners state very clearly that NLP is not a science. So it cannot be a pseudoscience. Much of the article has been set up to make sweeping unqualified statements and amount to an army of straw men.


 * Second, there seems to be a concerted effort to remove passages that describe NLP from NLP sources, in the way NLP sources describe NLP. NLP is a complex subject that requires expert handling, including the description of NLP.  It should be described as NLPers describe NLP, not how pseudo-skeptics would like to describe it.  The majority of this article is written from a negative point of view.  The lead should include at least two paragraphs with NLP descriptions from NLP articles.


 * This article does indeed need a very heavy hand from administrators. Mostly to clear up the mess that has been generated by pseudo-skeptic rants that have been allowed to stray from the discussion page to the article. LTMem (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Got ant third party sources to back up that set of opinions? If not you are just wasted people's time.  We use third party reliable sources as you should know by now.  Also you cannot simply tag a section as PoV without providing material that conforms to Wikipedias rules for evidence on the talk page.  you have not done that and your tagging (and personal tracks) constitute disruptive behaviour,   If you haven't provided such evidence by the time I get uo in the morning I will remove that tag and will make a disruptive behaviour report to one of the monitoring admins if you reinstate it. Snowded  TALK 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There's obviously a reoccurrence of the sock/meat farm. --Encyclotadd (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Possible but regardless, LTMem demonstrates a continued ignorance of how Wikipedia works.  Firstly NLP is called a pseudoscience in reliable sources so it doesn't matter if an NLP advocate wants to argue that it is not a science, we work from the sources.  Secondly we are neutral as regards the sources and we use third party ones, we are not neutral between pro and anti groups.  Third party sources are in the main negative hence the tone of the article.  Thirdly administrators only deal with behaviour issues (which I think will soon include LTMem's disruptive editing) they do not resolve content issues.   Snowded  TALK 07:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Added POV template, which should not be removed until consensus is reached on article's neutrality. My personal recommendation is that the article be written to state NLP's history and philosophy and have a section dedicated to criticisms, debunking, and empirical testing. Of course, specific criticism could be placed at the appropriate paragraph anywhere in the article but the way the article reads right now has a debunking tone.Ljfeliu (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * that's all your opinion and you have raised nothing which has not been discussed extensively before by multiple editors. All the sections you mention are present.   If you don't raise specific new facts, proposals or evidence then the pov tag can and will be removed.  Snowded  TALK 06:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I will do a detailed review of the article and raise any issues I may find. I will also go through the history of the talk page. For starters, I checked the references (there were two) for the following statement "Scientific reviews of NLP show it contains numerous factual errors" and found that the references did not support the statement, so I removed them. The statement, as it stands, requires a source that can be verified.Ljfeliu (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be useful and should really go before putting a PoV tag on the article.  Most of those references have been discussed extensively so if you coud build on previous discussions rather than us having to repeat them it would be appreciated.   That statement is a summary remember.  It's what the lede is for.   Snowded  TALK 07:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ljfeliu, I appreciate your good intentions in promising to review the talk page. But you obviously didn't do it.  You removed reliable sources that were recently discussed at length.  Understand that we have been overwhelmed with meat puppet accounts vandalizing the article (nearly twenty in the past two months now, out of which 16 were banned).  So it would really be appreciated if you would follow the rules.--Encyclotadd (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be a bit harsh and I suggest you withdraw the "vandal" statement.  However we did have a PoV review and we did reach an agreement on amendments only a few days ago.  Given that I agree that Ljfeliu should really outline what his/her issues are BEFORE tagging the article.  The citation request also misses the point.  That phrase summarises the article so I'd be happy for the reference to be removed.  If its felt to be an unfair summary then other wording should be proposed.  Snowded  TALK 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The changes weren't vandalism. But Ljfeliu, please use the talk page before removing sources from the article -- especially long standing ones that have been discussed at length.  That's a reasonable request.  Thanks.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Discredited citations
Although the last two citations use the term "discredited" they refer to specific interventions and probably don't belong in the opening section. Anyway, they don't offer any evidence for NLP (bieng discredited) as a whole. I'm sure there are people who would have a problem if positive results were posted for specific areas of intervention in the opening section. As far as the other two sources that use the term "discredited" the first one is based on the delphi method which has been "discredited" itself - "The most extensive critique of the Delphi method was made by Sackman (1974) who criticizes the method as being unscientific and Armstrong (1978) who has written critically of its accuracy." One systematic analysis based on a hand full of studies can hardly be conclusive. regardless even if you include both studies how can one claim scientific consensus based on these. They are a drop in the bucket compared to the field(s) of therapy intervention and most importantly experimental psychology. I thought I read the burden of proof is on the editor to prove the veracity of their clams. A small number of studies is just fringe research compared to the discerning whole of the field(s) of psychology.

p.s. Just out of curiosity who thinks Deep structure constitutes a pseudoscience term, And if so, can you explain it in the both the NLP and linguistic aspects? (this question is bieng asked for direct and civil answers only)
 * Is NLP using deep/surface structure in a scientific way? Definitely not as there is no NLP research about it. Take in account the fact that NLP is not an academic or a scientific research field except in some countries as Germany, Belgium, Australia, Nicaragua.... Is it pseudo science? Only 3rd party sources could tell. Have a look to http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/1193/1/fulltext.pdf, and then to http://theletterworthpress.com/nlpworld/7-3ROBBIE.PDF . Even if theses refs are not the best (scientifically), they say that meta-model (related to deep/surface structure) is related to Chomsky's earliest work and fail to take in account later developments. But, as it was evaluated by 3rd party, as this research was accepted by part of NLP community (especially 7th world congress of NLP, ANLP annual conference etc.) it fails to meet at least one of the main criteria of pseudoscience. / Damien Raczy (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Acceptance of a pseudoscience by the community that created the pseudoscience obviously does not connote credibility, especially when that community has a vested financial interest in promoting the ideology.  (That would be like letting Vorilhon write an encyclopedia article about Raëlism.) Please look up the meaning of original research as well.  I think after the meat farm banning a few weeks ago, we are all a little fed up that you are taking the same positions without regard for the reliable sources rules.Encyclotadd (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Is the lead currently sufficiently neutrally written?
This RfC is to pose the question whether the lead in general is sufficiently neutrally written. Specifically the use of the qualifiers "a discredited approach" and "unsubstantiated claims".

Survey

 * not neutral The question is complicated by the fact that this is clearly a fringe theory, and the majority view should come clearly across. Nonetheless the lead as it stands to me reads as a clear POV piece, and I believe it is both possible and desirable to conform to WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE while maintaining a more neutral and non-editorializing writing style. I believe that currently the article is not conforming to finding 3 of the arbcom ruling on NLP - because in adding qualifiers to statements it uses wikipedia's voice to make evaluative claims that should be ascribed as a point of view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * About as far from neutral as it gets. (I came here via WP:NPOV/N.) So you can see where I'm coming from: In my opinion, NLP is ultimately a label for popularisation of numerous effective and ineffective methods from the psycho-sciences. NLP is not concerned with science at all but with the art of manipulating people. NLP has no mechanisms to prevent the application of this art to the people attending NLP courses, and in fact I am under the impression that this is universally condoned and general practice. As a result, NLP has in some respects strong similarities with multi-level marketing schemes and with self-improvement religions such as Buddhism. NLP is very popular among business people. For many, the first contact with NLP is in courses organised by their employer. This, in turn, is for many the first/only contact with practical, hands-on psychotherapeutical methods as opposed to the much better known, largely ineffective and genuinely pseudoscientific psychoanalysis. I wouldn't consider my view on NLP as a positive one at all, yet I was shocked when I just read the lead. "The balance of scientific evidence reveals it to be a largely discredited pseudoscience." Such a statement only makes sense for something that aspires to be a science. I don't know if anyone within NLP claims that, but even if someone does, it would be unfair to NLP to take this seriously. Similar claims can be found from advocates of Buddhism, Christian Science, various pyramid schemes etc. That does not make these pseudosciences, because they are primarily something else that is quite a bit off the science-pseudoscience scale. The same applies to NLP. There are no doubt pseudoscientific elements in NLP. NLP has taken the state of the art of certain schools of psychotherapy in the 1970s, has run away with it, and is not updating it to newer research – or at least not to the extent that one could expect. I suspect that the methods taught under the NLP label are selected at least as much by their effect on the audience as by efficacy. That's pretty bad, but it doesn't justify giving only an extremely brief description of what NLP is and using the rest of the space for debunking it. The lead treats NLP exclusively as a pseudoscientific school of psychotherapy and so measures it by the standard of scientific research and medical interventions. That's not a fair standard for overall assessment. A fair standard would be that ordinarily used for popular non-fiction books and for motivation courses. A correctly written lead would still be very annoying to read for NLP fans, but it would be a lot fairer than the present one. Hans Adler 08:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Apparently I misunderstood the note at WP:FRINGE/N. This RfC is clearly over and is supposed to have been implemented. That doesn't seem to have lasted long. I am leaving my comments anyway as there has been very little input overall. Hans Adler 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this RFC was closed and resolved successfully with a consensus. (If you look more carefully, the change that resulted persists in the article as well.)
 * I'm sure everyone appreciates your sharing your personal opinions about NLP. But Wikipedia rules require us to reflect third party reliable sources.Encyclotadd (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the detailed explanation of my personal opinion was to demonstrate that I am not here as a fringe POV pusher but have a thoroughly negative opinion about NLP. And yet I consider the lead way out of line and much too negative. Even after the changes. Or maybe because of the changes? In any case the text that is in the lead now is worse than the text that was approved in the RfC. Hans Adler 15:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes
Specifically I propose the following changes of wordings in the lead:

1. proposed change

 * 1."Neurolinguistic programming is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy. It is considered to be pseudoscientific/discredited by mainstream psychologists/psychotherapists."

1. Survey - Support
 * 1) as proposer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) if we remove the qualification of "by mainstream psychologists/psychotherapists" with (say) "in psychology and psychotherapy"  Snowded  TALK 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) and "...is a approach..." should be "...is an approach..." :) GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the first part but the second sentence makes no sense LTMem (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, the proposed lines are an improvement. A fair approach.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Good step in the right direction. Hans Adler 09:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

- Oppose
 * 1) GoodDay is right that we need an 'n in the sentence for grammatical correctness.  But this change and Snowded's suggested qualification "in psychology and psychotherapy" are just flat wrong.  You guys are setting us up for problems with other editors down the road because the existing sources do not limit the criticism to psychology and psychotherapy.  Many are skeptic society and reflect scientific consensus.  Eye accessing cues have been rejected in a variety of other contexts.  New reliable sources are what's needed here to avoid this coming up repeatedly.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This can be remedied by changing "psycologists/psychotherapists" to "science". I have added an ALTernative wording.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Manus, Your proposed edit would be a step closer to my view of the subject. But it would not reflect the sources cited in the article.  Read some of the sources in the lead all the way through -- they are diatribes.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that that necessarily means that the lead has to be a diatribe. I think that logically we should put the tone of the article somewhere between the warm recommendations of the proponents and the diatribes of the opposition - I realize of course that we should put it closer to the opponent side as that does seem to be the majority view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it does if we are to accurately reflect the existing sources in the article. A week from now other editors will read the sources and we'll be back to the same conversation again, and again, and again, as we have now for several years.  New sources, however, which can balance the article, would be a smarter approach, and will receive my full support.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT1: "Neurolinguistic programming is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy. Its validity is contested and the scientific consensus is that its effectiveness and assumptions are not supported by empirical evidence, and it is frequently classified as a form of pseudoscience.

Survey - Support - Oppose
 * 1) as proposer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) as discredited has been removed. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) We'll be debating this weekly because the existing sources cited say directly that the subject has been discredited.  The right way to change the article is by identifying new sources.--Encyclotadd (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) too many qualifications  Snowded  TALK 17:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Certainly much better than the current first paragraph. Hans Adler 09:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually as far as I can see they only say that there is a majority of experts who consider it to be discredited as a form of evidence based therapy. Even Witkowski says that there are a significant amount of studies that report positive evidence - he just doesnt consider them sufficiently rigorous. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was always happier with largely discredited so I have reflected that in alt2 below Snowded  TALK 17:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT2: "Neurolinguistic programming is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy. The balance of scientific evidence sees it as a pseudoscience and largely discredited"

Survey - Support -Oppose
 * 1) as proposer  Snowded  TALK 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC).
 * 2) Also works for me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes this is also a good alternative. Largely discredited is fine. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Where are you getting the word "largely" from in the sources?  Norcross lists NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson list NLP as certainly discredited.  Let's not kick the can down the road again, and stick with what the sources say, until we identify new third party secondary ones addressing Norcross and Glasner.  Obviously only then will a change be stable.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well as far as I can see at least one of Norcross studies state that the results are preliminary and should be used cautiously.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing like a convert for zeal :-)  By removing the psychology and psychotherapy qualification we are extending the field and that includes management and organisational studies.  There are also papers in reputable journals that cover self-reported effects.  Better a mild qualification that continued controversy.   Lede summarises the sources by the way it doesn't have to ape them  Snowded  TALK 17:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for improving the POV in the article but the right way. If we misrepresent the current sources cited, they will become confused by what we mean, and that's not an intelligent way for us to clarify a complicated subject matter.  So far only one new source has come up in context of this conversation and Wake was refuted correctly for COI.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it always pays to be cautious in summarising material on controversial subjects. But we may have to disagree.  Its about time some other editors got involved (although please not the meat puppets)  Snowded  TALK 20:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) as discredited is being used. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, "discredited is in the sources, you have to have a reason for opposing it, just opining is as we know bad. Its also the current text so I suggest you consider something which is less stark that the current.  Removing the word is unlikely to gain acceptance.   Snowded  TALK 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in the source, but having it in the opening paragraph still comes across as breaching NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't breach NpoV if you reflect what the sources say. Please  Snowded  TALK 20:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you can, if for example sources disagree and you give one pov in wikipedia's voice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you wouldn't be reflecting the sources Snowded  TALK 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, that's why we're going about this the wrong way. If we try to rightly soften the criticisms of existing sources, we'll end up back there again.  Only new sources can be the basis for change.  Even if we agree now, a week from now other editors will simply check the sources we were discussing and disagree with our thinking.  We'll be right back to having "discredited" again.--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a very odd argument for not improving something that it is in our power to improve that in the future someone else is likely to undo it. If we currently do not reflect the sources, but overstate them and we all agree about that then the only possible course is to propose a wording that better reflect the sources. Now about the sources: No source says that NLP has unanimously been rejected or discredited - not even hardcore skeptics like Witkowski. Some sources say that out of an array of approaches that they have surveyed among a group of experts NLP has had a high dissapproval rate - i.e. a majority of practitioners (or are those experts scientists?) consider it to be discredited. Its rate of "discreditedness" is not on the level of creation science or flat earth theory, or the vaccination/autism hypothesis because as Snowded points out studies still come out in reasonable journals that report positive findings. They are a clear minority, but they are still there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't understand maunus. As long as these are the sources in the article, we will always be discussing how best to express the precise level to which NLP has been discredited, because that's how virtually all of our present third party sources frame the subject.  That's how Wikipedia rules work.  One person on this talk page will say more discredited.  One person on this talk page will say a little less discredited.  But discredited pseudoscience will remain.  I'm advocating for new sources rather than this circular game we're playing.  With the sources we currently have, the article obviously already correctly reflects them.--Encyclotadd (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But how can you argue for new sources if we don't have any? And I disagree that the current lead accurately reflects the sources and I also don't think it follows our NPOV policy. That means I can't just sit back and wait untill someone publishes new sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a steeply up hill argument Maunus if I've ever heard one, because the sources in the article state very clearly that it's a discredited pseudoscience. According to our present sources, it fails the "quack factor test" etc.  Those sources have furthermore been supported by noticeboard after noticeboard, and even by administrator intervention, if you look back at some of the history.  What would move us forward are NEW sources.  There are a world of them out there that we can add to the article, including many in the American Psychological Association's psych info database.  Had you started there (not with a COI suggestion like Wake, but reliable third party secondary sources without conflicts) we might be having a very different conversation than the circular one we are engaged in now.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also don't buy the argument that sources written by practitioners are necessarily COI sources, the book by Wake, Gray and Bourke is published by a respectable publisher and must have been through peer review. If you were to apply that thinking to other scientific theories then all articles would have to be based on sources written by people who don't believe in the theory. Proposing a theory does not give you more of a COI in relation to that theory than the scholars arguing against it. Science progresses through dialogue and only once a viewpoint has left the dialogue entirely can it be said to have been rejected or discredited. Now the article clearly should mention the fact that it is a prominent viewpoint that NLP is discredited pseudoscience, but it does not need to characterize it as such in wikipedia's voice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. You can't have it both ways Snowded.  Its either discredited or useful for cult mind control. LTMem (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

2. proposed change

 * 2. "Bandler and Grinder claimed that NLP is capable of addressing problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders. Reviews of the empirical evidence have found these claims to be unsubstantiated."

2. Survey - Support - Oppose
 * 1) as proposer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) (agree with Encyclotadd below)  Snowded  TALK 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) if we say "reviews of empirical research" rather than "reviews of empirical evidence" because the third party sources have not looked at the data directly but are responding to research reports.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes its fine.  You could add "The founders, ", or Originators, but just optional if it is not clear from the previous sentences. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I take it that this is meant to replace the first two sentences of paragraph 2. In that case it is certainly an improvement. (I am assuming that the assertion by LTMem is incorrect, though I am prepared to be convinced otherwise by hard evidence.) Hans Adler 09:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) You have got it wrong altogether.  NLP is a process for modeling.  That is all. Can we please have someone qualified in the subject to edit for a change. LTMem (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

3. proposed change

 * 3. "Reviews of empirical research on NLP show that NLP is based on counterfactual and disproven assumptions, and has failed to produce reliable results for the assertions of effectiveness made by NLP's originators and proponents."

3. Survey - Support - Oppose
 * 1) as proposer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  Snowded  TALK 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) We would remain closer to the sources by using the terms "false" and "invalid" rather than "disproven," which incorrectly suggests the assumptions were empirically evaluated.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, this is also a good line, clearer than the above. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) This sentence will need a lot more qualifiers. Already it is clear that it is from cherry picked sources.  There are just too many sources that say NLP has support. LTMem (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — User:LTMem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You realize that opposing this proposal just means that the current text stands?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And more ove LTMem has never produced these sources so its all puff and no content Snowded  TALK 07:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

- Neutral/undecided
 * 1) I can't make out what existing text is supposed to be replaced by this proposal. Without that information I can't say if it is an improvement. There may be problems with the identification of NLP's underlying assumptions. (I don't know if major NLP authors agree sufficiently what they are, or whether that has any connection to the actual underlying assumptions as opposed to being lip service.) After identification I would have to check that they have really been disproved. And I am uneasy about the claim about the assertions of effectiveness, i.e. virtually all of them. That seems unlikely, especially when one applies the relaxed standard appropriate for something like NLP. It is likely that a number of qualifications are required to make the sentence correct. Hans Adler 09:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Close Rfc
May aswell close it down, as the puppets are back. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not helpful GoodDay, we have one established editor who consistently breaks WP:CIVIL and newly created one time SPAs can legitimately be ignored. As far as I can see we have agreement on the second alternative if Encylotadd will agree "largely" which hopefully is a minor issue for him.  LTMem has already made enough personal attacks and disruptive edits to warrant an ANI report if s/he persists and is in a minority anyway.  Lets get this one done.  Snowded  TALK 07:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll accept editor consensus on the word "largely."--Encyclotadd (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK then I think we can implement those changes and remove the PoV tag Snowded  TALK 06:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ACTIONED Snowded  TALK 07:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)