Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 25

NLP description and suggested rewrite of first two sentences in lead.
As stated previously, the lead doesn't currently have any meaningful description of what NLP is. Reading Sturt et al, there's a reasonable description. I suggest changing the lead as such:

''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. It is "a communication framework using techniques to understand and facilitate change in thinking and behaviour" . Bandler and Grinder (...)''

This makes some kind of sense to me and matches my limited Googling. What do our editors with an NLP background think? NB, there are plenty of other sentences in Sturt which are a lot more readable than this article. WykiP (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to be accurate in recognising the original claims of NLP, not just modern apologists such as Sturt. I'm open to change, but the essence of the current paragraph needs to be there.  Also I am afraid I simply don't agree that the lede does not have a meaningful description.  Its pretty accurate and reflects sourced material  Snowded  TALK 16:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that we've gone full circle, after generating pages and pages of talk page text. Back in early May, this started out with WkyiP questioning the description of NLP in the lead of the article, followed by Snowded's reply. What proof, or evidence is there that the same, well, a similar cycle of fruitless argument and disagreement, won't be reiterated? As proof substantiating my question, I'll resurrect the original verbiage from archive.


 * One could say that most processes are memory-less i.e. are not martingales, thus the probability of the same exchange being identical is negligible. I'll agree to that. However, the likelihood of an essentially similar drawn-out debate is NOT negligible, because no participants will be convinced to change their viewpoint about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of NLP. So even if the next round of debate focuses on a slightly different, tangential aspect of the disagreement e.g. something other than "claim" versus "say", the end result will be the same.


 * One might then inquire, "Well, what's the harm in it?" Let's put aside the issue of accurate summarization of current mainstream science regarding NLP. There are more pragmatic concerns.
 * First, this sort of activity (I consider it to be analogous to "churning" or even thrashing, if each editor were in fact behaving like computer processes in a poorly configured queue of batch jobs, and thus in contention for limited CPU or storage resources) sorry, I digressed. Okay, first, this sort of debate is wasteful of Wikipedia resources. I'm sure that if I were to invoke one of the German Wikipedians who have expertise with toolservers, or better yet, the Wikimedia Lab folks, we could find out exactly how much this has cost in server time and electricity. Even if it is not that great in monetary value, it is wasteful. Let's say you don't believe in climate change, and are among those who believe we exist in a state of post-scarcity grace. It is still unconstructive, as the computing resources could be used on other articles and projects for purposes more consistent with the goals of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.


 * Secondly, and I referred to this earlier, in a passage that remains extant on this very version of the NLP talk page, not yet archived to Volume 22, this sort of contentiousness is not conducive to editing Wikipedia. It is very frustrating to see one's efforts, in my case, hours and hours of reformatting crummy citations and looking up proper DOI's (digital object identifiers) for scholarly journal articles, be for naught. Even with the assistance of a helpful toolserver for citation work, there was tons of time required. Also, these talk pages are a waste of your intellectual capital, your essence and vitality! It makes me so sad! You (plural: WykiP, Snowded, Another Pseudonym, as well as David Gerard and the Dog Lady too), whether wrong or right about NLP, write beautifully, cogently, even when combative or accusatory regarding trifles, or blatantly dissembling! It is heart-breaking to see such effort expended on Wikipedia talk pages (not articles).


 * A prior editor whose name I don't recall (he said that English was not his first language) noted that he hadn't seen such heated debate elsewhere on WP, not even in the talk pages of articles about political topics of his native New Caledonia. It occurred to me, at that moment, how wonderful it would be if any of you were participants in the PRISM article talk page. Your poise and eloquence would plow through all the ridiculousness and cut to the chase. They would stop their quibbling and do as told, follow your lede, no, lead. --FeralOink (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to every Wikipedia article on a popular pseudoscience! Here's your accordion - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WykiP, I think the description of NLP in the lead is satisfactory, I'm not saying it can't be improved, but it is accurate. I would not use Sturt as a source for a description of NLP becuase it is a tertiary source and I agree with Snowded that it is best if the description comes directly from Bandler and Grinder.  I know (from firsthand experience at NLP seminars) that many NLPers themseves can not agree on on exactly what NLP is.  The moment you introduce a description of NLP that is not from B&G someone will likely step in and say that is an inaccurate description.  Your proposal also flouts fundamental principles of sourcing.  We can be confident that B&G are authoritative regarding what is an isn't NLP because they are its originators.  Further we also want to prefer a description that is sourced from texts that were jointly authored by B&G because post-split a divergence commences.  In Whispering in the WInd (a book not co-authored by Bandler and written relatively recently), Grinder provides an extended description of NLP but that is of Grinders so-called New Code NLP and judging from Bandler's seminars, Bandler is not in agreement.  Partly as a reaction to Grinder's New-Code and partly because of his trademark revocations Bandler trademarked [Pure NLP] and that is how he refers to his NLP (and this is also why the section on IP is important because it has much explanatory value).  So in summmary we want a definition of NLP that:
 * is authoritative; and
 * is descriptive of the NLP that Bandler and Grinder created and shared.
 * A definition that is sourced from the primary texts meets these criteria. There will inevitable be some degree of paraphrasing because B&G don't clearly and unambiguosly define NLP in the primary texts -- but the elements are all there.  We can use a secondary source, perhaps one authored by one of their students in the early days as a supplementary source to confirm our reading of B&G.  Sturt however is entirely unsuitable for the preceding reasons. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to provide an alternative. The current version is unsatisfactory to me and at least two other people who've mentioned it since I've been following.
 * I'm not about to go to the public library to find an original book on NLP. The version I wrote is better as far as I'm concerned and if anyone complains, well no change there then. WykiP (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL, I think you should write a song about it. Your eloquence stands out above us all.
 * I've often wondered whether I should bother with this article. I did say I'd look up Sturt et al though and did find something positive to contribute to the article.
 * Might take you up on the PRISM thing. At least I know what that is... WykiP (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're still interested, WykiP, it's not too late! PRISM has calmed, but there's a very lively debate on the Edward Snowden biography article talk page ;o) I'm going to back away from NLP for now. Although... I am curious whether it is mere coincidence, or intent, that one of Sal Khan's most prominent videos, or maybe books (Sal Khan of Khan Academy and Bill Gates Foundation renown) shares a common title with a leading NLP book, "Turtles All the Way Down". --FeralOink (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

WykiP the description "a communication framework using techniques to understand and facilitate change in thinking and behaviour" is entirely generic and can be applied to many things, it contains less information than the current lead. A description is better if it better describes, i.e. if it is more specific and creates identity, if it distinguishes a thing amongst other things. The description "a communication framework using techniques to understand and facilitate change in thinking and behaviour" doesn't do that, it doesn't distinguish NLP and at the same time it generalises about it in the wrong way. How -- for example -- would you reconcile that description with an NLP "model" of how to Salsa dance? The Sturt description is a working definition -- for the purpose of the paper -- that is biased towards mental healthcare (because that is the purview of the review). We can't use that kind of description in an encyclopedia article. Modeling is central to NLP -- according to both Bandler and Grinder -- and the lead at least includes a reference to modeling. Central also to NLP is the proposed relationship between neurology, language and automatistic behvaiour. So at least these two elements need to be there and they, currently are. But I will try and improve it whilst at the least preserving the current content. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You should perhaps notice that I kept the "modeling" bit which, although obscure, at least points to something distinctive. The "neurology, language and automatistic behaviour" bit for which it took me quite a while to find a single reference last time this was discussed is obvious and thus redundant for an article summary.
 * If NLP is more modeling than communication, then I'd prefer a sentence explaining a bit more about what modeling constitutes to a redundant one. Actually, if this is the primary function of NLP, there should be a whole section or at least paragraph on what modeling is. Perhaps like the one here: Methods_of_neuro-linguistic_programming
 * I've only just noticed this other article and am starting to get an idea of what NLP is. Shouldn't Neuro-linguistic_programming have a section called Methods of neuro-linguistic programming where the latter article is both linked to and summarised, as is normally done on Wikipedia? WykiP (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken in arguing that the NLP-proposed relationship between neurology, language and behaviour patterning is redundant; perhaps the article is a little unclear here but it is an essential point. It is a foundational assumption of NLP and it is partly definitive of it.  There is more than one reference for that point.  An encyclopedic article isn't supposed to be instructive.  Also the only detailed description of NLP modeling (and this too is lacking) appears in Grinder's (relatively recent) books so it becomes unclear how much of it is NLP pre-split and how much is New Code NLP; Bandler has published nothing on modeling and his seminars mostly don't even mention it.  The quality of the definition is going to be constrained by the subject itself.  That is unavoidable  Nowhere is there a clear, authoritative, universally agreed upon and unambiguous description of NLP.  Most NLP proponents teach NLP as if it is just an ecclectic collection of techniques and some of those believe that is all it really is.  Similarly when you start looking for a theoretical core to enrich the description you find something so rudimentary it barely exists in the primary texts and then you find at least three distinct theoretical foundations in latter texts (and these aren't completely worked out either): Grinder's, Hall's and Dilt's (Bandler has not really done any new work on NLP since the split).  We won't be able to make a silk purse out of the proverbial sow's ear.  My view is that the article should have a "lowest common denominator" definition of NLP that all major proponents would presumably agree upon but it shouldn't manufacture an illusion of cohesion, unity and cogency when no such thing exists. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is my first draft (less citations and formatting) of a replacement for the opening of the lead:


 * Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a method of learning—termed modeling—and a proposed (specific) relationship between neurology ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and the subjective representation of experience ("programming") that was created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, USA in the 1970s. These elements produce—but are not restricted to—an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy.  NLP is typically identified with a set of foundational techniques that were the product of Bandler and Grinder's initial modeling of putative exemplary psychotherapists.  In general terms, Bandler and Grinder claim that effective behavioural change (including learning)—in self and others—is achieved through attention to, replication of, and manipulation of the subjective representation of experience (i.e. the "programming").  Specifically in relation to modeling, Bandler and Grinder claim that the skills of exceptional people can be modeled then those skills can be acquired by anyone by reproducing their subjective experience during the exemplary behaviour.


 * This is -- as best as I can determine at this point -- what Bandler and Grinder are saying in jargon free no-nonsense language, what they believe they discovered. I have citations for all parts of this from primary and secondary sources.  Feedback welcome. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Better. Although wordy, your draft is significantly more meaningful.


 * I said the description and a proposed (specific) relationship between neurology ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and the subjective representation of experience ("programming") is redundant in a lead, not that the concept itself is redundant.


 * I have taken your draft and simplified it a lot:


 * ''Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is both a learning method and the series of applications it produced in fields such as communication, personal development and psychotherapy. It was created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, USA in the 1970s.  NLP is often identified by a set of core techniques that came from Bandler and Grinder's initial attempt to replicate what "exemplary" psychotherapists did..


 * This method, termed modeling, includes mapping out the exemplar's subjective representation of experience. Through modeling, Bandler and Grinder claim that the skills of exceptional people can be replicated in others.


 * I have removed the redundant description and the obscure word "putative". I've also changed any assertions or implications that might not be true.


 * What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WykiP (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a poor piece of technical writing because it fails to distinguish a critical piece of NLP jargon. The term strategy is a piece of very important NLP jargon and strategy elicitation is central to modeling.  In this description of modeling it looks like the term is being used in its conventional sense but it isn't.  In NLP jargon a strategy is a sequence of subjective representation in terms of the representational systems (i.e. VAKOG). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You make an interesting point but your source disagrees with you. These representations are described as aspects, not strategy itself.  Is creating/replicating strategies an element of modeling in NLP?
 * Good writing creates meaning without burdening the reader with tedium, broken sentences, scary words etc. Where possible, we want to create encyclopaedic meaning for someone like me, and accurate meaning for people exposed to NLP like yourself -- using the same words. WykiP (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are some very useful criteria above:
 * "best if the description comes directly from Bandler and Grinder." AP
 * "A description is better if it better describes, i.e. if it is more specific and creates identity, if it distinguishes a thing amongst other things." AP
 * "My view is that the article should have a "lowest common denominator" definition of NLP that all major proponents would presumably agree upon" AP
 * "meaningful description" Snowded
 * I suggest the problem is the incorrect goal word: description. This discussion (and current lead sentence) is about "description" when the first sentence should be a "definition". I think a good article starts with a definition, expands to description and criticism. The above numbered list and the criteria are for a definition (though "description" is used throughout this talk discussion). The current description is so generic, it could describe any "communication" like Active Listening or Nonviolent Communication. This is subtle, but it's important to not go down the rabbit hole of further wordy descriptions that don't help the reader differentiate the topic from other similar topics.
 * Doing some research, I think the following is the best definition, though, as noted above, proponents of NLP can't seem to agree on much. This may be a result of a commercial product where competition requires not agreeing with competitors confusing our efforts as editors.
 * "NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience ..."
 * Ironically, this definition is in the first two citations [1] & [2] already on the first sentence. Dilts, Bandler, Grinder, DeLozier (1980) agree for the title & definition. Tosey (2006) also. I realized this by Googling "What is NLP" and finding Bandler in 2008 (not citable) and as recently as Nov. 2010 on BBC(not citable, can't find transcript). Other editors more familiar with the many citations on this article may be able to find this definition to add citations. I think this definition best meets the above criteria. It is smallest core denominator, is by B&G (and two others), it's a unique identity (unless there is another thing that studies this specifically), and more meaningful than a "communication" description. I also think "study of" is helpful to the reader because that implies scientific rigor could be used, and thus the criticism from the scientific community. Eturk001 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "the study of"? I think that's a highly disputable claim - it implies that NLP is a particular and accepted scientific field, when it's not just a pseudoscience but an exemplary pseudoscience (citations aplenty in article). Do you mean you think it's citable that it claims to be a study of it? - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * An exemplary pseudoscience ++ hands David a banana ++ Roxy the dog (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Literally! "Scientific criticism" section, cites at end of para 4! - David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @WykiP, "Is creating/replicating strategies an element of modeling in NLP?" Yes. The Dilts reference is in agreement with me. I think your revision of my draft is good (on first impressions) but I need to think it through. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Eturk, I am aware of the sometimes offered definition of "NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience" but I think this is inadequate because it is too general in terms of what NLP actually is, is a misappropriation of the definition of phenomenology which predates NLP by at least 50-years and is unrelated to NLP (phenomenology is a branch of continental European philosophy and it has nothing to do with the things that NLP is concerned with) and the use of the -- as David Gerard suggests -- implies an exclusivity and authority which doesn't exist. Neuroscientists with MRIs study subjective experience (in an objective manner).  In any event do you really think: "NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience" gives you any idea of what NLP actually is?  I don't.  I think it is a cryptic and obscurantist definition just like "neuro-linguistic programming" itself. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If that sometimes-offered definition is citable as a claim, it may be worth noting as a claim. But not as a statement - David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not giving our opinion in the article, hopefully. Just reporting what citations say. The argument that this definition should not be used because another discipline created a name for it previously (thanks for phenomenology catch) or that it's "cryptic and obscurantist" would mean we should not write out "neuro-linguistic programming" for that too is poorly named, inaccurate, confusing with neurolinguistics, etc. Instead, that is addressed with citations. If we want, we can expand on it and also compare it to phenomenology. We are just reporting, not editorializing, I hope. If a reader doesn't understand what "subjective experience" means, they can click the link on the word and "read on" to find out more. As editor, I don't care if the topic is "the study of ghosts", or "aliens", etc., which I personally think are all ridiculous, my job as editor is to report what the word/term means by those who coined it, then move on to explain it better. Avoiding "study of" because it seems to lend scientific credibility to something is like saying saying we should now edit the "Philosophy" article and purge it of "study of" because I can see no science or falsifiability in philosophy. Same with parapsychology and a host of other studies. Let's see if this definition meets the earlier listed criteria. Is there another citable definition from the developers that better meets the criteria?


 * What does "citable as a claim" mean. Please give example, guideline, or policy. Again, shall we go edit every fringe topic now and add "claim" language to it if it used the words "study of", like parapsychology?

Eturk001 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am starting to find your WP:LAWYERING and your idiosyncratic (and indolent) construal of WP:VERIFY annoying. We aren't limited to sources that you can verify from the comfort of your armchair.  The pages on the www that Google has indexed don't comprise the universe of NLP.  "Citable as a claim" means if it meets the threshold of WP:UNDUE and your Google searches are not an accurate measure of that.  The primary texts written by B&G are the authoritative determinant of that.  B&G have described NLP as "the study of the structure of subjective experience" but they have also described it in other -- more lucid -- ways.  There is no Wikipedia policy that demands a complete suspension of judgement and common-sense.  We can mention that definition but not in lieu of better descriptions, but rather as a supplement as David Gerard suggested. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As editors we have license to make choices where they exist and to choose that which makes for a more accurate and informative article. NLP has been defined in various ways by its creators and there is nothing wrong with choosing the better definitions.  Your suggestion to compare NLP with phenomenology -- the branch of philosophy -- would be editorialising.  Why do you presume that my draft definition isn't sourced from Bandler and Grinder?  Those criteria that you like didn't post themselves, I formulated them, articulated them and posted them after an hour or so of deliberation.  Given that I am familiar with the NLP primary texts isn't it more likely than not that I would be a good arbiter of their correct application? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@WykiP, I thought it through and I think that your description is inadeqaute because it doesn't communicate the claimed special association between N, L and P. A reader will also want to know WTF is NLP and what does that name mean so omitting that detail is also a mistake. Also, I wouldn't introduce an operational description like "mapping out" in a definition. Also you have broken the relationship between the "learning method" and modeling and by doing so you have actually increased the number of concepts in the reader's mind: NLP = (i) "learning method" + (ii) applications + (iii) modeling. This is not only misleading but it is objectively worse. A naive reader will not know that "learning method" = "modeling". So, no I don't like this definition after closer scrutiny. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@WykiP, you wrote "I've also changed any assertions or implications that might not be true." I find this sort of behaviour disruptive and offensive. I made it clear that I omitted citations from the draft so why then do that? Given my contributions to this article thus far you should take it as given that I am able to substantiate everything that I propose to insert into the article. Don't describe what I have written as "assertions" before I have even provided citations. This suggests a bias on your part. All elements of my definition are well-sourced from primary texts. Also, if removal of detail has produced error and ambiguity -- which your rewrite has -- then either my draft was not "wordy" (which suggests redundancy) or it is "wordy" but you have removed non-redundant parts. As far as I can determine my draft contains no redundancy. In defence of my draft I contend that it is: rigorous, accurate, well-sourced, complete, largely devoid of jargon and in the one instance of it provides an inline definition and uniquely identifies NLP. Again, I am deliberately leaving out citations for the sake of brevity so please no claims of "assertions". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have revised my first draft by abstracting away some of the detail; the reduction in length comes at the cost of a proportionate loss of specificity but I have endeavoured to retain accuracy. I think I have found the balance between generality and specificity. I can substantiate all parts of this definition solely by referenceing the works of Bandler and Grinder. I am proposing to replace this:


 * 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. Its creators claim a connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioural patterns learned through experience ("programming") and that these can be changed to achieve specific goals in life.[1][2] Bandler and Grinder claim that the skills of exceptional people can be "modeled" using NLP methodology then those skills can be acquired by anyone.[3][4][5][6][7]

with this:


 * Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a method of learning—termed modeling—and a posited relationship between neurology ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and the subjective representation of experience ("programming") that was created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, USA in the 1970s. NLP leads to—but is not confined to—an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy. NLP is typically identified with a set of foundational techniques that were the product of the founders' modeling of putative exemplary psychotherapists.  In general terms, Bandler and Grinder claim that effective behavioural change is achieved through utilization of the subjective representation of experience (i.e. the "programming"). Specifically in relation to modeling, Bandler and Grinder claim that the skills of exceptional people can be modeled then those skills can be acquired by anyone by reproducing their subjective experience.  NLP is sometimes defined as the study of the structure of subjective experience.

In support of my revision I offer the following:
 * Substantiation with reference only to the texts of the co-creators;
 * Preliminary explanation of the role of modeling in NLP;
 * Distinction between NLP modeling and NLP applications;
 * Complete definition by referencing both modeling and applications;
 * Implied existence of applications beyond the prototypical;
 * Preliminary description of unique identifiers of NLP, viz. claimed relationship b/w N, L and P; primacy of subjective representation and its exploitation; and
 * Provides context for phrase "the study of the structure of subjective experience" making it more meaningful;
 * Just enough specificity to create distinction and identity;
 * "Putative exemplary" because "exemplary" is not used by B&G in SoM I (quoting exemplary implied B&G used that word to describe their exemplars), they use "genius" but that sounds hyperbolic and it isn't clear precisely what they mean.

Thoughtful feedback welcome. That precludes WP:GAME and accusations that I am "asserting" before I have even added citations. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You wrote "it doesn't communicate the claimed special association between N, L and P. A reader will also want to know WTF is NLP and what does that name mean so omitting that detail is also a mistake."
 * It's obvious from the name that they are associated. It's a waste of lead space to put in something that is obvious.  It will also bore the reader.
 * The name neuro-linguistic programming does not mean neuro + blahdy blah. The description provides the meaning.


 * "Also, I wouldn't introduce an operational description like "mapping out" in a definition."


 * Neither would I. It's part of the description.  See Eturk's post for explanation.


 * "Also you have broken the relationship between the "learning method" and modeling and by doing so you have actually increased the number of concepts in the reader's mind: NLP = (i) "learning method" + (ii) applications + (iii) modeling. This is not only misleading but it is objectively worse. A naive reader will not know that "learning method" = "modeling"."


 * That's fine. The learning method isn't just modeling from what I can tell eg there's training using NLP, there's learning states etc


 * Also, no Wikilawyering intended but readers might eg infer from your statement "Bandler and Grinder claim that the skills of exceptional people can be modeled then those skills can be acquired by anyone by reproducing their subjective experience during the exemplary behaviour" that this is all there is to modeling.


 * Your revised draft is an improvement on your original draft though. WykiP (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Neurology and language are trivially related, you can't speak without a brain. The point is that NLP posits a particular relationship between those three elements.  "[M]apping out" lacks clear meaning and it editorialises.  Eturk's distinction between a definition and a description is spurious.  The definition of any noun is a description of the thing that it denotes.  The definition of a [| cat] is "a carnivorous mammal (Felis catus) long domesticated as a pet and for catching rats and mice".  That is a description.  How could you define cat without describing a cat.  What would such a definition even look like?  There is no way to define a noun without describing the thing it denotes.  If you disagree then provide me an example.  Modeling is more important to NLP than the method it is taught, the primary texts reflct that understanding. You guys are time wasters: Wikilawyering, stumbling over simple conceptual matters, ignoring logical operators, no familiarity with subject matter... Tedious stuff.  As Feral Oink wrote, a big waste of computer system resources and human resources.  AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @AnotherPseudonym, it seems there is a behavior of using pejoratives (near ad hominem) and not WP:AGF (tossing out GAME, LAWYERING, etc.) any time you don't get agreement. This is actually distracting behavior in that you use ad hominem to distract from direct questions or collaboration. I offered "study of.." as a consistent definition, meeting the criteria laid out. No need for the churning, as it's now in the latest draft. In the case of definition vs description, of course they can be used as synonyms, but they are different words because they have different usage. That's a scholarly appreciation for language. The dictionary contains "definitions" and not "descriptions". One would define (finite) a car in a unique way from other vehicles but might describe (a more general account) a car as red, shiny, convertible, etc. This is irrelevant and not worth further discussion. What is concerning is where you take it and the usage of pejoratives, bordering on general insult, and tossing out policy to keep an editor from commenting. Please, let's return to collaboration. One wonders, who owns this article?


 * On the lead, your criteria for "lowest common denominator definition of NLP" is useful. Is modeling the lowest common denominator or one usage? PRS & Eye Accessing are the bulk of the research done, so a definition must cover those simplest elements. Could modeling be removed from NLP and still be NLP. There are a series of techniques, which can also be removed, as well as applications (i.e. DSM) and there is still something that is called NLP. What is the definition that works to support PRS & Eye Accessing? Again, we may not like "study of..." but what is encyclopedic? "Study of..." explains why PRS was imagined to represent a person's subjective experience but it didn't test out. Eye accessing also supposedly indicates what a person is thinking but was hard to reproduce. What is a better, and used by B&G, definition that covers PRS, etc.? Eturk001 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about and I am being honest (WP:SPADE). Why -- for example -- do you keep mentioning the  DSM?  This is the third time you have done so.  What is its relevance to the article?  It seems as if you think that because you keep mentioning it we will assume you are well-informed about "technical stuff".  The opposite is true; that you keep mentioning it in the absence of any context suggests you don't know what you are talking about.  If you think it is possible to defeine a noun without describing it then define the following words for me without describing them: (i) spoon; (ii) dog; (iii) jar. You wrote, "That's a scholarly appreciation for language."  No it is buffoonery.  Yes a dictionary contains definitions but in relation to nouns a definition is the same as a description -- that is linguistics.  So then give me your definition of "car" that isn't a description i.e. that has no descriptive content.  PRS and EAC are not NLP proper they are just models.  Describing NLP models and techniques does not amount to a "definition" of NLP, it is just a description of models and techniques.  I am working on a revised lead but I'm now questioning whether I should bother posting it.  I'm not really interested in your ignorant commentary and obsession with the DSM.  My opinion is that you would do best by Wikipedia if you confined yourself to fixing typographic errors.  AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again @Eturk001. I really think you are retarding the improvement of the article.  You are confused about NLP and you can't/won't read the primary texts.  I'm guessing that if you actually tried to read the primary texts your confusion would increase rather than decrease.  Above you are asking me a series of very confused questions.  What do you think would be a better use of my time?  Answering your confused questions or working on the article?  The two are mutually exclusive. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I used "DSM" (mental disorders) as a shorthand for much of the research being about dysfunction covered by DSM, psychologists, interventions. If NLP is defined as a methodology for modeling, personal development, etc., shouldn't the reader know what a criticism is specifically related to, rather than being generalized? This is a rhetorical question. Of course, the reader is assisted with specificity. NLP doesn't have the control studies to show effectiveness for DSM maladies (and other specific failed tests, PRS, etc.). If NLP has not been shown to be effective for a mental disorder (addiction, obesity/eating disorders, etc.), we ought to say that. Your insults, however eloquent, are still insults. I will WP:AGF and imagine this is just a style issue: to quickly jump to ad hominem when you disagree or believe you are the authority. Your opinions are just that, opinions. Let us stick to editing. If you have a specific confusion about a content question I asked, please do specify that and avoid jumping so quickly to generalities. Overgeneralizing ought to be avoided on Talk and on articles. "We are all Wikipedians." WP:NPA Eturk001 (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Section Psychotherapuetic
I have added an excerpt from André Muller Weitzenhoffer's extensive critique of NLP re Ericksonian hypnosis. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Added Briers critique from his book Psychobabble: Exploding the myths of the self-help generation. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

NLP – Neuro Linguistic Programming or No Longer Plausible?
AnotherPseudonym suppressed the following:
 * See NLP – Neuro Linguistic Programming or No Longer Plausible?

claiming
 * bogus URL which leads to NLP trainers website and commentary rather than to article cited

The URL is fully functional, the article is readable, i can not find another copy on the web, so I suggest to revert the edit - Damien Raczy (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a NLP trainers web site and at best its an extract from the article, it can't be shown to be it Snowded  TALK 07:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * the link is not suitable for a reference, and should not be re-instated. Roxy the dog (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand. The only other occurence of the article is not clean. The original site seems to be down. Would it be possible to create another link elsewere with a copy of the full paper ? I've never done that and I don't know if it is possible (legally). - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, because of WP:SPS. Have you Googled the text? WykiP (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here we go -- the wikilawyer is here. WP:SPS doesn't override the laws of copyright and all of the English-speaking countries are signatories to the Berne Convention. Reproducing anything beyond fragments of a text is a breach of the fair use provisions as specified in Article 10.  Also it is against Wikipedia policy to link to material that breaches copyright (see WP:ELNEVER) because it can subject Wikipedia to claims of secondary liability. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the unwanted deletion - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be a breach of copyright. AFAIK the copyright holder is TJ and you have to pay for their content.  Furthermore even if you pay for the article you do no have republication rights.  Reproducing the article on the web constitutes publication and hence is a breach of copyright.  The only alternative is if the author has a personal website.  Even though the publisher has copyright they usually grant the author the right to publish their own work on their personal website.  Also, mind your language. "Suppressed" is insinuation.  You can't use that as a source in lieu of the actual article.  We don't have to have an online source for every citation.  It is preferable but not mandatory.  It is better to not have a URL to a citation than to have a URL where the article has been transcrbed, possibly edited, annotated or drives traffic to a commercial site. Also, that NLP trainer -- Sue Knight -- is actually in breach of copyright.  The extent of her reproduction exceeds the fair use provisions of the Berne Convention. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @WykiP - Yes, I googled the text. I found quite nothing. I also asked Garry Platt the permission have a copy of his paper, and to use it as a public source. - Damien Raczy (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Section Associations, certification, and practitioner standards
I have removed the self-published, self-promotional pseudo-reference to this commercial site. Anyone can publish a page on a commercial website, so that citation is of the lowest conceivable quality, even lower than self-publishing a printed book in that it is even easier. The derived content added nothing beyond what the second paragraph provided and it was implicitly promotional. What is the significance of Peter Schütz's opinion? Within a month I too can get a piece of paper that says I am a "Master Trainer in NLP". Can I then can presumably post an essay on a website and then reference it in Wikipedia? Auf Wiedersehen Mr Schütz. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in thinking that some Bot has put it back? Roxy the dog (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No it is still gone (hopefully for good). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a closer look and there is another statement that uses that citation but I have found a better citation which I will replace it with. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I couldn't figure out what had happened. Roxy the dog (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Section Commercialization and evaluation
This portion of the last paragraph and reference [45] has problems:

''By the 2000s, some disciplines involving hypnosis and/or influence referenced NLP. However, without any official licensing practices and any ethical or professional limits on who could practice NLP; even proponents of NLP acknowledged that the desire to influence people for purely selfish reasons added to NLP's negative reputation.[45] In addition to concerns about the motivations of both students and practitioners, ethical concerns have been raised about the supposed benefits promised by NLP practitioners.[20]''

The message of the above text is poorly written and poorly sourced. It is a vague mish-mash about unethical influencing. Reference [45] is for [ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0470639539 this] which is about Social engineering (security). I don't think this is a good reference for the history of NLP or issues of professional ethics. I am unable to improve this text because I am uncertain what it is that is intended to be communicated. What are the "some disciplines"? I know that by the 2000s NLP had spawned Speed Seduction and Maximum Persuasion but I wouldn't describe these as "disciplines". I don't know what the last sentence is alluding to either, stuff like this? I don't really feel I have been communicated anything of substance after I read that text. My inclination is to delete it.

That CD is impressive though:

''You will typically see the difference after 2 to 3 days of listening. Repeated daily listening will intensify the results and is highly recommended. Typically you can expect to increase your penis length between 1" and 3" with this recording and substantially increase your penis girth.''

Amazing stuff. It doesn't say how much extra girth you can get. Girth is important. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur - it seems to want to have a point, but is not clearly written and the references don't support the text. I've deleted it pending a rewrite that makes sense and has support from good references - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Please, go to WP:discussion. Read it, understand it, and stop name calling, ad hominen, responding to tone etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raczy (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I went to WP:discussion but it was abstruse, it wasn't less than 100 words, the authors were clearly trying to make me feel stupid, it overgeneralised in parts and if that was an academic paper that would be fraud, it was POV-pushing, it was even pejorative in some parts, it had that talks about dumb stuff like refutation and counterargument -- whatever they are -- as if this is some sort of debating society. What's "refutation", "counterargument", "refuting the central point" got to do with anything? That's just nonsense logic jargon. That's gobbledeegook. It's not like I'm gonna write a mathematical proof or something. It's like you are trying to tell me I'm ignorant or something. I'm not. Watch, I'll mention the DSM soon: DSM. See, I know about the DSM. As if I don't know about arguments and stuff like that. Watch I'll create an argument. My argument:

What is the difference between this and this?

Let's see you try and refute that. You can't.

Once this person that had no logic skillz said that this is an argument:

P1. All men are mortal.

P2 Socrates is a man.

C. Socrates is mortal.

That was his so-called "argument". What a joke! That just gobbledegook, nonsense. It's ridiculous. What does it even mean. I've got more arguments. How about this one:

Which is better, this or this?

The clearest argument I've ever presented is this one:

Is this and this the same?

That argument killed. It was effective AND it was less than 100 words which PROVES that most effective arguments are less than 100 words. Most effective arguments are less than 100 words. That's just how it is. No argument for that. Just is. Don't know why. Just is. Don't know how. Just is. Some dumb people think they need heaps of books to learn stuff. That's crap. All you need is a dictionary. You can learn everything about any topic with just the dictionary. Once I needed to become an expert on implication and inference. You see all these dumbasses doing courses in logic and statistics and readin' all these books like nerds. What for! I just looked those two words up in my dictionary. Bang! Instant expertise. Ask me anything about implication and inference and I'll tell ya. I even know which one you're doin' if ya readin' or writin'.

I'm going to go and help write the NLP article on the Russian Wikipedia. My Russian is really awful but why should I care? I'm going to try and read Russian journal articles with my bad Russian and I will have absolute confidence that I have understood what I have just read. Then when editors become irate with me because I post something silly because I have not understood what I have read I will lecture them on policy and guidelines. It should work out really well. I don't anticipate any problems.

AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @AnotherPseudonym. I suggest you revert your edit. - Damien Raczy (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which edit and why? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Section Empirical validity
I have incorporated the critique of (notionally) constructivist NLP proponents (eg. Lisa Wake, Mathison and Tosey) from Rowan (2008). This critique is relevant to this section as the constructivist apologetic is an extension of the phenomenological apologetic expressed by Mathison and Tosey that was already quoted and answered by Rodrique-Davies (sp?). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead -- A Minor Matter
Grant Devilly is no longer a clinician, he was when he wrote the cited paper but he is now an Associate Prof.. I will remove the description and just follow academic convention i.e. surname (year). His title may change so I think this is the most prudent thing to do. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Description of NLP for lead
I'm offering the following as replacement for the existing definition/description of NLP in the lead. I think this is unique in that it is a bullshit-free description of what NLP actually is according to its creators:

No, NLP is not "covert hypnosis methodology" or something described by some arrangement of the words: pragmatic, model, epistemology, higher-order. All of the defintions I have found in secondary and tertiary sources either are so broad they don't define, confuse the models with the method itself or are just obfuscatory jargon i.e. bullshit. As you can see the above is very heavily referenced in terms of texts by the creators (pattern references excepted for the sake of concision) and the references are page specific. Points (i)-(iii) are the kernel of NLP and even modeling is a corollary of these. Modeling is really nothing more than a "recipe" for gathering desired sequences of subjective representations. If you understand points (i)-(iii) you will have an understanding of what NLP consists in that is superior to most "Master Practitioners". Unbelieveably simple idea? Yes. If you understand points (i)-(iii) then go your bathroom and detach one sheet of toilet paper and write upon it: This is to certify that ________________ is a Master Practitioner of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Fill in the blank with your name. Congratulations on your certification. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Accurate but almost incomprehensible. This may be a symptom of the subject itself - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought strategy elicitation was only one aspect of modeling? Apart from that, still far too wordy but better than the existing version. Also my earlier critique re: neuro et al and reduction of NLP to modeling still apply. Would it not be better to cite "study of the structure of subjective experience" as Bandler's (and Grinder's?) definition.  WykiP (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought strategy elicitation was only one aspect of modeling? It is but it is a large part of it. "Wordy" AFAIK means containing redundancy.  My description contains no redundancy and you aren't well-placed to determine redundancy.  But I take your and David Gerard's criticism into account.  The "study of the structure of subjective experience" is not really helpful so why replace one inadequate definition with another? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I mean it doesn't read/scan well. Too many brackets and particularly dashed subclauses.
 * I accept that I'm not well-placed to determine some redundancy. However, that just means that if it's obvious to me that "and a posited relationship between neurology ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and the organisation of the subjective representation of experience ("programming")" is somewhat redundant, then it's somewhat redundant.  That would make it much more readable too.
 * I much prefer "the study of subjective experience" to that and it covers part of that redundant clause. I agree with whoever said that we cannot use WP's voice to call it THE study, but rather we should cite it as Bandler and Grinder's definition.  Isn't their definition what you wanted originally?
 * "Reputedly exemplary" remains problematic, being a potential slur on the 'modeled' psychotherapists. Or were they not exemplary?
 * If strategy elicitation is a large part of modeling rather than "nothing more than" then I'm reasonably happy with the rest.
 * Lastly, are we not using British English for this article? WykiP (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a useful first pass AnotherPseudonym for such a challenging topic to describe. Having the primary text be top-of-the-head lecture recordings doesn't help. Some points as I consider enhanced wording: Though the first two text (Structure I & II 1975/76) talk about "modeling", NLP isn't yet mentioned, but "structure" is used in titles and throughout the books. The focus seems to be on studying the behavior/structure of Satir, et al, in session. The question is "what" was being modeled and what was the "methodology"? Children may model their parents, but this is not what the authors allude to. Frogs (1979) has the co-developers stating, highlighted in the introduction (pg.ii) & near the conclusion (pg.191) "It's the structure of experience. Period." They are stating what "it" is, at least in their terminology. Andreas, in the forward says, "NLP is an explicit and powerful[sic] model of human experience and communication" (though not the author's statement). Modeling seems to be an application of NLP, not what it is primarily, from the original text. In 1980, Bandler & Grinder are joined by Dilts and DeLozier with a more formal definition (NLP Vol. I), and a formal text rather than lecture. I don't see direct reference to the topic being a method of general learning.


 * Now, I realize their usage of "subjective experience" as the definition by the authors gets us into the murky waters of qualia and could have a cognitive scientist or neuroscientist scoff, "B.S., qualia is nonsense", but our place isn't to do WP:OR, like comparing it to phenomenology (as was rightly pointed out). That is for WP:RELY to do. We're editing an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal or magazine. What's important is to include their definition of this possibly misguided term, rather than change it for them or look for something else. The experience seems to be perceptions, language, etc. If there is a theory, it may be that changing these changes behavior, though our citations challenge that. Modeling was watching what might be done to change the structure or later, what were poor structures.


 * "Exemplar" is not used in the four text cited here. That may be WP:OR. They do use "wizards" (Frog pg. 8) but i don't think they meant Gandalf. Exemplar gets us into "reputedly", judging if they were, etc. which can lead to unintentional editorial. Better to simply report the three therapists from the early text with hyperlinks to encourage the reader to "read on" into other areas.


 * I agree, it's not covert hypnosis, whatever that may be. I've also hear of street hypnosis. These wouldn't uniquely identify the topic but may be an application area. Eturk001 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Eturk001, I think your literalism in reading both Wikipedia policy/guidelines and books is naive, misguided and has no basis in Wikipedia policy/guidelines. You should read The rules are principles this.  At the same time that you counsel against editorialising you read into my draft definition things that are not contained in it.  For example, where in my synoptic description of NLP does it state that NLP is a method of "general learning".  The acquisition of data and information -- regardless of method -- is termed learning.  The word "exemplar" is used by Grinder in Whispering in the Wind and it is used by Bandler in interviews and seminars.  It is also used in secondary texts.  The use of "reputedly" is justified because it is not a self-evident truth that B&Gs exemplars were "wizards".  "Reputedly" doesn't say that thay are or are not "wizards" it states that these people had a reputation for being "wizards".  I will not be pursuing this definition further because at least two editors deemed it opaque and your suggestions wouldn't help this.  I actually think your suggestions would make for a more incomprehensible description.  I always thought that the subject matter is intrinsically opaque and now it seems my suspicion is being vindicated.  Also, for your information, my definition isn't based on just SOM I&II. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was simply an attempt to be more specific, like specifying the three people "modeled" rather than the vague "reputed exemplars". Just a suggestion. They are in "Early Development". Are we assuming the current 1st lead paragraph for description is perfect and can never be improved? I really would like to know from several editors so I understand the spirit of Wikipedia better.


 * Here is the definition/description from APA Dictionary of Psychology. They are very WP:RELY, for this article, and I'm sure spent a considerable time on perfecting it. They refer to "structures of thought", which is a specifically the "structure" reference I see missing from the lead which is a core to the topic. I found in Frogs (1979), the early reference to the term NLP, both in the preface pg.ii and at the close (pg.190), "It's the structure of experience. Period." I realize NLP is a mess of Original Research, and structure of experience has been used elsewhere, I'm just reporting it. I did find a slight link to phenomenology in the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, under humanistic psychology, but listing NLP as an example is probably not strong enough for us to use. A citation for phenomenology could help the reader understand the woo-woo qualia nature of NLP at the start. Eturk001 (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion over lack of consensus
This is bad Wikiquette, as explained in WP:DRNC. WykiP (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought it entirely appropriate and not bad wikiquette at all - please cease your uncivil accusations against other editors, I've asked you to desist from this before - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a whole essay there that disagrees with you. Where have I made uncivil accusations against other editors?  Yes you have asked me to desist but I didn't understand it then either.  It seems as if you are trying to sound like an admin but are you? WykiP (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you will find WP:BRD is more commonly used. When something is contentious you get consensus before making a change and if you don;t believe me check out the number of editors banned over that  Snowded  TALK 01:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD doesn't contradict WP:DRNC. Indeed, they are complimentary.
 * Note in particular:
 * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
 * BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
 * BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas. No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion; however, large edits and any edits that are potentially controversial are often the targets of reverts, so — in the spirit of collaborative editing — prior discussion is often wise.
 * I think WP:ROWN should be policy. I'd be amazed if many new editors put up with the BS I've had to and that's why Wikipedia is dying. WykiP (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah so you think things would be better if anyone who is bold and makes a change is allowed to keep it there even with other editors opposed? Really?  Snowded  TALK 04:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Only if the change is an improvement, which this clearly is. The POV in the lead which you reverted to is a disgrace.
 * Secondly, if someone makes a good faith edit, they should be encouraged, not discouraged. We should aim to keep as much of their edit as is reasonably possible.  WykiP (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Of my two suggestions: which one is better and why?: this or this. Any specific objections? --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First is less of an apologia than the second but its only a matter of degree.  There comes a time on any Wikipedia page where its obvious there is no consensus to change.   I think we are there  Snowded  TALK 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * -1 - I think this one is better because it is more accurate and does not go beyond the evidence. It is also easier to read. Interested to see if others can come up with better versions. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the assumptive close some new NLP technique I haven't heard about? Why would someone who is happy with the current text come up with better versions of your changes? Snowded  TALK 01:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Second one is more concise and thus preferred, but either are much better than what we have at the moment. Have restored your edit in line with WP:DRNC. Consensus isn't necessary, especially when non-consenting editors refuse to provide reasoned objections. WykiP (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not the arbitrator of what is or is not consensus and reasons have been given a plenty over the years on this one. Fail to comply with WP:BRD and you get a 3rr warning.  Both of you should read WP:3RR], which is a RULE not an essay.  If you check out the seven exceptions none of them cover your recent edits, let alone [[WP:DRNC which does not comprise an rule  Snowded  TALK 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@Reconsolidation and WykiP. Snowded is correct here. Clearly there is no consensus and this isn't a novel matter, it has a long history, so you can't just make unilateral changes. It is -- and has been -- a contended matter so you are obliged to try and achieve consensus via discussion and iff you achieve that consensus you make the edit. Specifically at Reconsolidation, leave the NLP casuistry alone. Specifically at WykiP, I don't think Wikipedia is "dying" because people like you have been driven away. You are essentially a deleter. If WP is dying it is because it fails to attract (or retain) creators, i.e. people that contribute high-quality content. Anyone can delete stuff and you've amply demonstrated that. The hard part is finding sources and creating high-quality, well-sourced content and in the context of deleters like you that task sometimes becomes hard to justify (perhaps that is your intention). The difficulty for articles like this is the practically endless supply of NLP true believers -- who derive an income from NLP -- that conceptualise partisan edits to this article as another aspect of business promotion versus those of us that have no dog in the fight who must use their leisure time (and non-tax refundable financial expense) to research and create content. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We might be able to get some more editors through my university. One of the undergraduate courses awards students 5% bonus credit if they contribute to an article in psychological science. They have created some high-quality article for wikipedia in previous years. It is one of the top research-based psychology universities in the world. --Reconsolidation (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They can also create a mess by writing undergraduate essays as I and other editors can attest.  Be very very careful of meat puppetry here you will get a very long block if you recruit off wiki especially on this project where there is a history of such activity  Snowded  TALK 10:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was organised by the course convener and advanced psychology students choose their own topic working in groups. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "you are obliged to try and achieve consensus via discussion"
 * Cite policy please.
 * "If WP is dying it is because it fails to attract (or retain) creators, i.e. people that contribute high-quality content."
 * Not really. 99% of the content is done. WykiP (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RR it really is very very clear on the need to achieve consensus.  You can't simply say "I have been bold so I am right" and I suspect you know that.   Snowded  TALK 12:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, try reading it yourself. It says nothing about the need to achieve consensus. And I already quoted you policy saying that consensus isn't needed. WykiP (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In 2006, only about 6 percent of "quality" new editors had their contributions rejected—a.k.a. "reverted" in Wikipedia lingo. In 2010, the number of contributions by new editors were being reverted at a rate of 1-in-4 by senior editors and the site's own automated response systems.
 * Halfaker said that as a result, only about 11 percent of new editors have been staying on past their first two months, driving down the total number of contributors to the site. He said part of that has to do with the "nasty" initial experience many new editors have. WykiP (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WykiP, if your contention is that you are somehow entitled to make edits to this page without gathering consensus because you believe that those who disagree are not providing adequate reasoning, you're going to find yourself without a leg to stand on. Consensus is the way things work here, and moreover, the burden is on you, as the new editor in this situation, to investigate the old discussions on the topics at hand and to see what the consensus was, and why.  If you're finding your experience "nasty", in this case, you have only yourself to blame. siafu (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Citation for any of this, please. WykiP (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus. siafu (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What a lovely citation, and summary - "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Roxy the dog (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Note also:
 * "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised" ... "Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached."  My emphasis.
 * Lastly, note the link to WP:DRNC on that page. WykiP (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:WL. Also, "everybody but you" is about as wide as it gets. siafu (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

talk:WykiP|talk]]) 22:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Think this is important too: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted"Rough_consensus. --Reconsolidation (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think this counts. I see no substantive argument for keeping the current wording. I prefer your second draft but will accept your first if it means consensus. WykiP (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@WykiP, from WP:CONS:
 * When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view...
 * ...In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace.

You launch into these still-born bouts of wikilawyering at the expense of your credibility. This @Reconsolidation also, yes consensus is not determined by ballot but the essential feature of consensus-building is bringing other people around to your viewpoint. If you have failed to persusade anyone then clearly you have failed to form any form of consensus -- however liberally conceived. Neither of you (WykiP and Reconsolidation) have brought convincing arguments for the change and both have failed at addressing the arguments brought against your arguments. Neither of you (WykiP and Reconsolidation) appear to be constitutionally capable of engaging in the sort of dialogue that would yield a consensus, i.e. neither of you seem capable of persuading by making direct appeals to argument. WykiP doesn't appear to understand the dialectical process of: argument → counter-argument → rebuttal → argument → ... With WykiP it is just: argument → argument → argument →... i.e. the re-iteration of the same argument with no engagement with any counter-argument. This amounts to an absence of any real dialogue. With Reconsolidation it is ham-fisted attempts at NLP casuistry and a wafer-thin veneer of impartiality (an impartiality that is declared rather than demonstrated is not worth much) with a similar aversion to honest dialgue. Both of you (WykiP and Reconsolidation) have failed to persuade anyone (besides each other) of the merits of your proposed change. The counter-arguments to your proposed changes remain unanswered and your claim that consensus is not needed has not been established and at the same time contradicts the spirit and letter of WP:CONS. Also, the attempt to ignore WP:CONS rather than attempt to achieve consensus is redolent of bad faith. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I love how when you accuse me of something, when you tell me how I'm doing it all wrong and when WP policy proves that I am in the right and you are wrong, you call it Wikilawyering. Out of about 8 times now, you haven't been able to substantiate a single one. WykiP (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Twisting policy based on individual words an sentences while ignoring the purpose of said policies is pretty much the essence of wikilawyering. You seem to be doing almost everything you possibly can to avoid actually trying to build consensus through actually convincing your fellow editors of the validity of your position. siafu (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ho hum. You are just reading into WP:CONS whatever you want and you do the same for your memories.  So despite an entire page dedicated to consensus your  wikilawyering expertise leads you to conclude that it is irrelevant.  You are just  wikilawyering.  Wikipedia policies and guideliness aren't statutes (WP:POLICY) and they aren't intended to be read as such.  There is no specific policy or guideline that precludes me using [ http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Clever-Men-Little-Miss/dp/0843176717 this] as a source for  this (and this is the sort of buffoonery your  wikilawyering leads to) but good-faith and common-sense preclude me doing so and attempting to do so would be a case of WP:GAME.  So what then is your interpretation of this?  Irrelevant? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, WP:WL isn't policy. Indeed, WP:DRNC validates my reversion and would validate re-reverting should I choose to do so.
 * Secondly, you failed to justify your interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. It not saying what you want it to say is not my fault.  Indeed, trying to impose your faulty interpretation on me is the very definition of Wikilawyering.
 * Lastly, I'm happy to build consensus based on reasoned & reasonable argument and tried to return to that debate with my last comment. WykiP (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you love quoting guidelines, here's one that feels quite appropriate: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Seriously.  Stop.  You are not swaying anyone with simple lawyering.  I understand you may be new to wikipedia, but this would be a good opportunity to learn from those who have been here for a long time.  You are not going to get anywhere with me, or, frankly, on wikipedia, with this approach.  If there is a change you believe would be in the best interests of the quality of this article, propose it, and convince us that it is for the better.  Otherwise, this will simply continue.  This isn't a threat, it's the simple reality-- wikipedia operates based on consensus.  One of the primary purposes of this tenet is that no one person can simply decide that they are correct and that their interlocutors arguments are simple "invalid" without obtaining the support of the community.  You are simply asserting that we are wrong, and that therefore consensus policy somehow does not apply.  Good luck with that. siafu (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be surprised if you ever find anyone wanting to learn from you after you ganged up on them in a way that you cannot justify. Maybe you didn't intend to do that but your implication was that I was breaking WP policy when I wasn't.
 * Assuming you are truly impartial, you might want to have a closer look at what is happening here.
 * WP:CONS deals loosely with editors who refused to engage with reasoned arguments for the purposes of consensus. WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS provides further guidelines.
 * Several editors have stated that a sentence in the lead criticising NLP overgeneralises the sources and thus POV.  Reconsolidation has proposed a couple of alternative variations.  The former was criticised in good faith by AnotherPseudonym but was second choice by Snowded (no reasonable arguments provided).  The third is preferred by myself.
 * I was absolutely following Wikipedia guidelines in starting this section. In hindsight, it seems that some editors have jumped on it in an attempt to distract from the attempt at building consensus for rewording. Reconsolidated and I have tried to restart that discussion several times but all we get in return is accusations of being bad editors.
 * Mine is not a SPA and I still don't know very much about NLP. But I do know when people are failing Wikipedia (particularly new editors) and I'm only prepared to spend a couple of hours on Wikipedia a week.  If I have to spend that defending against bogus accusations on this talk page, so be it. I think it's time to stop describing myself as a new editor though, as I seem to have the special knack of being able to read what WP policy actually says. WykiP (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop exaggerating. It is your contention that a sentence in the lead overgeneralises from a source -- singular.  It is a separate contention that you make that this overgeneralisation is POV.  Those are two separate claims and each needs to be argued for.  The current state of affairs is that your and Reconsolidated's arguments have been answered and neither of you are yet to provide rebuttals.  Rather than provide rebuttal you have instead decided that consensus is irrelevant and that you have a better understanding of policy and guidelines than anyone else.  So either provide rebuttal or test your understanding of policy and guidelines.  Either way the ball is in your court, so to sepak. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if Reconsolidated agrees. Eturk and Raczy seem to be have driven off.  Another complaint was made about the lead here.
 * All of which is besides the point. Any impartial person can see that the claim is overgeneralised.  You've pretty much admitted it yourself and only excused it on the lines of brevity.  Link to start of discussion here.  Any criticism or praise which is overgeneralised such that it implies stronger criticism or praise is, by logic alone, POV.
 * If I've missed reasoned arguments for keeping the POV claim, please quote unique words I can search. I can't see any. WykiP (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WykiP is not new to WIkipedia, the ID has been around all this year and is largely a SPA.  It may the only way for him/her to learn is to start an edit war based on WP:DRNC, break WP:3RR get blocked, repeat the experiment get blocked for longer and finally join the list of editors who are permanently blocked from editing as they can't work with people who disagree with them.   There is of course the double irony of an NLP advocate being unable to persuade people that NLP claims have scientific validity.   Snowded  TALK 06:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @WykiP, WP:DRNC isn't policy either, it is an essay so it can't "validate" anything. What I find amusing (and sad at the same time) is that you seem to think that the NLP article is the only contentious article on Wikipedia and that using your astute  wikilawyering abiilities you have discovered a new method (a cartoonish loophole) that will allow anyone to post anything they want on Wikipedia (calamity!). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is an essay linked from a policy page, the former being the only such page addressing the issue. If there is a "You Can Revert Anything for Lack of Consensus Alone" essay, please cite.
 * Maybe I'm having bad luck, but the first page I did any serious editing on, I encountered similar intransigence. The one edit I made where I was (unknowingly) in the wrong, I checked the policy, admitted the mistake and improved the article based on that feedback.  There seem to be articles where bad editors camp out on and ones where people just want to work together and improve Wikipedia. WykiP (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its looks like bad judgement rather than bad luck. I'd be interested in the the diff to which article you are talking about.  As far as I can see from your editor history you spent about a month doing minor edits on a few articles to "establish yourself" and since then you have been a SPA around this article.  You are now trespassing on WP:AGF with the above comment by the way.   Snowded  TALK 11:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, here's the latter diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Crosby_(banker)&diff=prev&oldid=547723535
 * Here's the discussion Talk:James_Crosby_(banker)
 * As for your assessment of my editing history, you're out by a factor of 4. My first edit was on 7 January, my first interaction ~85 edits later with this page was 2 May.  I've already explained why this article is taking up nearly all my WP time.
 * Now how about some reasoned objections to the proposed changes? WykiP (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you editing more broadly on wikipedia. This article is very difficult. Also, when editing here it is much better to build consensus by engaging the community more broadly through requests for comment, third opinions and administrator noticeboards. There are some great tactics in Ury and Fisher's book Getting to Yes on negotiation. Read WP:BRD again - it has some great tips. --Reconsolidation (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, I had seen that but it didn't seem to justify the claim you made (and still doesn't) so I thought I would check. Otherwise my comments on your edit history seem pretty accurate and follow a pattern for new editors on this page.     Otherwise I refer you to multiple previous discussions on the proposed change - it has been done to death, its tendentious editing to keep bringing the same issue up without any new arguments.   Snowded  TALK 13:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * So in what way is my claim unjustified?
 * Also you once again failed to provide any reasoned objections or any reasonable way to find them previously stated. By doing so, I think we have to assume that, for the scope of this discussion, that you have no reasoned objections. Otherwise, such methods can be used to stall any improvement to the article forever. WykiP (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think improvement might not mean what you think it means - Roxy the dog (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed change is not an improvement - David Gerard (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm there are in fact 2 proposed changes ie 2 alternatives. Could you or someone else perhaps give reasonable objections against either?  Else, as above, I don't think we have a choice except to discount your objection. WykiP (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @WykiP, I have been trying to make sense of your repeated communication failures and I think one of the root causes is your inability to distinguish between an assertion (a proposition lacking argument and/or evidence) versus an argument. I'll use your reply to me above as an illustrative example.  You wrote:
 * Any criticism or praise which is overgeneralised such that it implies stronger criticism or praise is, by logic alone, POV.
 * This statement -- call it S -- is problematic for various reasons and I ask you to follow me through each before jumping to reply. Firstly, S is essentially an assertion because the critical premise is unjustified.  Merely, writing "by logic alone" doesn't turn it into a sound argument.  S decomposes into the following deductive argument with enthymeme made explicit:
 * P1. POV is undesirable.
 * P2. Overgeneralisation is POV.
 * C1. Overgeneralisation is undesirable.
 * The problem is that the second premise (P2) has not been argued for, it is without justification. Secondly, the second premise -- P2 -- is false.  An overgeneralisation may be POV or it may not, there is no relationship of logical necessity between a proposition Q being an overgeneralisation and it being a "POV".  Let Q denote All swans are white.  Q needn't be a partisan position.  Perhaps someone told me Q and I accepted it without question? Perhaps it is a bad induction based on my having seen only white swans?  Similarly, with regard to the Norcross papers it is possible to overgeneralise a conclusion (assuming that such a thing has occurred) without expressing POV.  Perhaps the overgeneralisation was unintended?  Perhaps it was made purely for the sake of brevity?  Regardless, it is an error of logic to conflate overgeneralisation with POV-pushing.  If you disagree then you need to provide argumentation for P2.
 * Thirdly, asserting that an assertion isn't an assertion doesn't make it not an assertion. You can't merely assert P2, you need to present an argument for it.  Your position resolves into two propositions:
 * (i) The lead overgeneralises the conclusion of one of the Norcross papers; and
 * (ii) The overgeneralisation constitutes an instance of a breach of WP:NPOV.
 * You need to argue for (i) and (ii). Thus far you have failed to even attempt to argue for (ii), you have only asserted it.  Once you have argued for (i) and (ii) you need to address all of the objections raised by your interlocutors.  You are yet to do this either.  You can't just ignore objections, you have to answer them.  But in any event you still have to justify (ii).  The ball still sits in your court.  You have failed to even present a cogent case for your position. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to argue for (i) and (ii). Thus far you have failed to even attempt to argue for (ii), you have only asserted it.  Once you have argued for (i) and (ii) you need to address all of the objections raised by your interlocutors.  You are yet to do this either.  You can't just ignore objections, you have to answer them.  But in any event you still have to justify (ii).  The ball still sits in your court.  You have failed to even present a cogent case for your position. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I stopped reading at "enthymeme". The language of Wikipedia is English, not Gobbledegook. WykiP (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Enthymeme isn't "gobbledegook", it is a basic concept in formal logic. If everything that you don't know is "gobbledegook" then pretty much everything that you can learn at university is "gobbledegook".  I suggest you read what I posted Einstein. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you read what I wrote. What matters is that others will read what I wrote and when they do so they it will become abundantly clear to them that all of the editors that oppose your edit are entirely justified and that others have tried to show you the errors of your ways but you just ignore them. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Enthymeme! "S", "P1", "P2"!... Wow! Impressive!... I am not sure that wikipedia win something valuable when other editors surrender because your demonstration is so abstruse that they think it would be unuseful to go ahead. Personnaly, when I read your "demonstration", I feel stupid! Is it what you want? - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is any stupidity here then it is either an inability to use a dictionary or a lack of will to do so. If you feel stupid because you don't understand something on first reading then the problem I think is yours  Snowded  TALK 09:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Damien! Well English isn't your first language so you are much easier to impress. The point is to be explicit and unambiguous and to force an address of the outstanding issues. WykiP is being evasive and the plain truth is that (s)he has not presented a case which requires answering.  The central claim, viz. that an overgeneralisation has occurred and that this alleged overgeneralisation represents an instance of "POV-pushing" has not been progressed beyond naked assertion.  Furthermore, myself, Roxy the Dog, Snowded, Lam Kin Keung, David Gerard presented objections to the proposed edit and these objections have not been answered.  So the scale is currently tipped heavily in favour of the status quo.  Despite this sitation WykiP pretends that (s)he has presented a rock-solid case, that consensus is irrelevant etc.  So basic propositional logic is "abstruse" or "Gobbledegook" but NLP bullshit like "submodality", "transderivational search", "meta-program" is lucidity?  Formal logic cuts through bullshit, it makes things clear and explicit.  NLP jargon is an obfusactory technique, something to make bullshit sound like sophisticated science.  I make no apologies for using logic. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure using abstruse logic and unnecessarily rare words is useful. And I am sorry to tell you you English is clear enough even for a non native speaker. The fact is that your demonstration is worthless. - Damien Raczy (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are on a an encyclopedia site complaining about "rare words"?! Further, the "rare word" has its own article on this very encyclopedia.  Why are you on an encylopedia website if you don't subscribe to the concept of using an encyclopedia?  To promote NLP?  What in your view is the raison d'etre of an encyclopedia?  To look up things you already know about?  Your position is nonsensical and full of irony.  Most ironic is Wykip's use of the word "Gobbledegook" in the context of NLP BUT not about NLP.  Worthless? We have different measures of worth.  I think NLP is worthless. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What you think about NLP should not interfere as only valid sources are acceptable. Tying to prove your own point of view would be counterproductive. And, please, stop personnal attacks, mind reading and so, it is not useful. - Damien Raczy (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Take your own advice. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You might be showing WP:POV with that last sentence. I think WP:JARGON and WP:WALLS apply to your wall of gobbledygook.

Is your sole point in it that I've failed to do a formal mathematical proof that 'overgeneralising criticism such that the criticism seems stronger than the source material is necessarily POV'? If so, I would agree and state that I merely assumed you were smart enough to work it out for yourself. WykiP (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't give up the wikilawyering can you? WP:JARGON applies to articles and what I wrote isn't WP:WALLS nor is it "gobbledygook". Bear in mind that it is you that invoked "by logic alone".  You don't know what a formal mathematical proof is and you should leave subjects you don't know anything about alone.  You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.  Since you are being evasive, I will repeat myself.  You wrote:
 * Any criticism or praise which is overgeneralised such that it implies stronger criticism or praise is, by logic alone, POV.
 * The above statement decomposes into the following deductive argument:
 * P1. POV is undesirable.
 * P2. Overgeneralisation is POV.
 * C1. Overgeneralisation is undesirable.
 * Firstly, the second premise (P2) has not been argued for, it is without justification.
 * Secondly, the second premise (P2) is false. An overgeneralisation may be POV or it may not, there is no relationship of logical necessity between a proposition being an overgeneralisation and it being a "POV".
 * Thirdly, asserting that an assertion isn't an assertion doesn't make it not an assertion.
 * Until you provide an argument for P2 you have failed to make even an ostensible case for your position. I'll try and make this simple for you.  Your position resolves into two propositions:
 * (i) The lead overgeneralises the conclusion of Norcross et al (2010) paper; and
 * (ii) (i) constitutes an instance of a breach of WP:NPOV.
 * You have failed to present an argument for both (i) and (ii). That the lead contains a generalisation of Norcross et al (2010) isn't an issue per se.  Generalisation is necessary for the purpose of summary and brevity.  Your contention (i.e. (i)) is that the lead overgeneralises the conclusion of the Norcross et al (2010) paper.  The claim of overgeneralisation presumably implies a flawed generalisation such that the original meaning is obscured or misrepresented.  This claim (the substance of (i)) needs to be demonstrated and it hasn't.  Both you and Reconsolidated have just assumed that the generalisation of Norcross et al (2010) in the lead constitues an overgeneralisation.  Then on top of this mere assumption you load the assertion that the alleged overgeneralisation constitutes an instance of a breach of WP:NPOV (i.e. (ii)).  You haven't argued for this either, you've only just asserted it (this is P2 in the above syllogism).  So you have no argument for either (i) or (ii) and this seems partly to be due to you not having any understanding of what an argument is.  More generally, you should at the least study  this and stop trying to sound informed by mentioning formal mathematical proofs.  This is yet another example of your inability to reason clearly.  Formal mathematical proof is a type of deductive argument but not all deductive arguments are mathematical proofs.  Your (il)logic is akin to the argument that an elephant and a table are the same because they both have four legs.  Also mathematical proofs concern mathematical statements and since we aren't discussing maths they can't be relevant.  You are trying to be "smart" and it isn't working for you. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have failed to present an argument for both (i) and (ii). That the lead contains a generalisation of Norcross et al (2010) isn't an issue per se.  Generalisation is necessary for the purpose of summary and brevity.  Your contention (i.e. (i)) is that the lead overgeneralises the conclusion of the Norcross et al (2010) paper.  The claim of overgeneralisation presumably implies a flawed generalisation such that the original meaning is obscured or misrepresented.  This claim (the substance of (i)) needs to be demonstrated and it hasn't.  Both you and Reconsolidated have just assumed that the generalisation of Norcross et al (2010) in the lead constitues an overgeneralisation.  Then on top of this mere assumption you load the assertion that the alleged overgeneralisation constitutes an instance of a breach of WP:NPOV (i.e. (ii)).  You haven't argued for this either, you've only just asserted it (this is P2 in the above syllogism).  So you have no argument for either (i) or (ii) and this seems partly to be due to you not having any understanding of what an argument is.  More generally, you should at the least study  this and stop trying to sound informed by mentioning formal mathematical proofs.  This is yet another example of your inability to reason clearly.  Formal mathematical proof is a type of deductive argument but not all deductive arguments are mathematical proofs.  Your (il)logic is akin to the argument that an elephant and a table are the same because they both have four legs.  Also mathematical proofs concern mathematical statements and since we aren't discussing maths they can't be relevant.  You are trying to be "smart" and it isn't working for you. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Personnal attacks are not useful to prove anything. The fact is that in Norcross & al, the statement is not as general as you try to assert because Norcross is studying many levels from general to more specific. Norcross' conclusion is specific and balanced. So the article is overgeneralisating Norcross' statements because it states in a general way instead of Norcross' specific conclusion. And no pseudo proof can rewrite the paper. - Damien Raczy (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, that is just an assertion and you can't hope to persuade anyone of anything by just asserting something. The lead reads:
 * Norcross et al. (2006) [21] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26]
 * Now Look at each of the parts:
 * Norcross et al. (2006) [21] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. TRUE
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] TRUE
 * and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26] TRUE
 * So where is the overgeneralisation? An example of an overgeneralisation is:
 * and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited" for all applications.[26]
 * You need to demonstrate the alleged overgeneralisation if you hope to even start to gain a consensus. Also where is your apology for all the bullshit you wrote about Sturt et al (2012)?  You said that you would say "bravo" if someone showed you papers that test specific NLP techniques using RCT.  I showed you two such papers.  So where is the "bravo"? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, stop personnal attacks
 * NLP is listed in the top ten most discredited interventions only for drug and alcohol dependence:
 * "Neuro-linguistic Programming for drug and alcohol dependence", J Addict Med • Volume 4, Number 3, September 2010, Discredited Addiction Treatments, p 177
 * So, writing as you do that "Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] TRUE" is overgeneralisating
 * So you failed to prove your claim. Next time, read the papers, and quote specificaly. - Damien Raczy (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @Damien Raczy: No, that is not an example of overgeneralising and it is not a quote either. The overgeneralisation which you claim is occuring only in your head rather than in the article. This is what is written in the lead:
 * "Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25]"
 * This is what you see:
 * "Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] for all applications"
 * Firstly, the statement
 * "Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25]"
 * is true and consequently can't be an overgeneralisation. The following:
 * "Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] for all applications"
 * is an overgeneralisation and is consequently false. The lead doesn't contain this nor anything like this.
 * Secondly, what you are implying is that we have to walk on egg shells when talking about NLP and if there is even the potential for you to misinterpret the lead we have to add in detail and qualification (even in a synpotic lead which is supposed to be terse) to save you from your overgeneralisation. Your position rests essentially on an act of imagination and an implicit plea for special consideration.  When you read:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25]
 * you are appending the phrase "for all applications" and then proceeding to argue as if the phrase "for all applications" actually appeared in the lead. According to Bandler and Grinder and their Meta-Model you are committing an instance of generalisation (see page 80 of Structure of Magic I).  More colourfully, Bandler would say you are "hallucinating" the phrase "for all applications".  The solution to your problem is to simply to stop appending "for all applications" and to just read the words as written.  Give it a try now:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25]
 * Thirdly, at best your (imaginary) phrase selection is entirely arbitrary in that "for some applications" is the legitimate alternative and if you imagined this phrase instead you would have no problem. At worst your your (imaginary) phrase selection inverts conventional English semantics of  quantification.  In all of the cases I can think of when explicit quantification (all, some, none) is omitted existential quantification (as opposed to universal quantification) is assumed.  If for example, I say "coffee contains caffeine", the implicit meaning is "some coffee contains caffeine" and the statement is consequently true.  It would be seen as perverse for someone to treat my statement as meaning "all coffee contains caffeine".  What you (and your ilk) are doing is equivalent to taking the statement "coffee contains caffeine" reading it as "all coffee contains caffeine" and then complaining that the statement "coffee contains caffeine" is an "overgeneralisation".  The vital point would be that no one said "all coffee contains caffeine" other than you.
 * Fourthly it could be argued that the fully specified form of the statement is preferable because it is clearer, more lucid and less ambiguous (which is distinct from arguing that the unspecified form is an overgeneralisation). Given that more lucidity and less ambiguity are prefereable I would agree with this but a lead is supposed to be synoptic and terse and for that reason alone I wouldn't introduce the detail.  Furthermore, all of the salient detail of Norcross paper's is included in the body of the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When you write garbage like this, I know I'm right to call you on it.
 * There's not even the slightest indication in the text of the lead that Norcross et al. (2010) and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) are only talking about NLP treatment of addictions. The natural inference is that the sentence is commenting on NLP "for all applications". This is extreme overgeneralisation and clearly POV. WykiP (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * By appealing to "natural inference" you are conceding that the act of overgeneralisation is occuring in your head rather than in the article. The "extreme overgeneralisation" and "clearly POV" that you speak of is indeed entirely in your head.  There are no words in the lead that are "extreme overgeneralisation" and "clearly POV" that you can point to are there?  As I wrote above, you are arbitrarily appending the phrase "for all applications" in your imagination and then basing an argument on what you have fabricated in your head.  Also, the universal case is not a "natural inference" it is actually an anomalous inference that contradicts the conventional semantics of English.  Why don't you just append "for some appliactions" in your imagination?  You wrote "There's not even the slightest indication in the text of the lead that Norcross et al. (2010) and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) are only talking about NLP treatment of addictions." And by the same token "[t]here's not even the slightest indication in the text of the lead" that it is referring to all applications.  Calling what I wrote "garbage" doesn't constitute a rebuttal.  If you want to be taken seriously you should at least try and address my arguments.  By invoking "natural inference" you have effectively conceded my central point, you have yielded to "garbage".  The purpose of the talk page is to discuss what is in the article not what is in your head.  As I have explained in the "garbage" above and to Eturk001 below, at best you can present an argument that the sentence in the lead is ambiguous, that is the most that the words in the sentence itself justify.  But you aren't arguing about the words in the sentence you are in actuality arguing about words in your imagination that you have added. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Noting that you claimed ignorance of a term that was actually wikilinked is not a personal attack. You cannot build up claims of personal attacks just by asserting they have happened, when what has occurred is that your behaviour has been described - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, David Gerard when you says it was not a personnal attack. I need to be more specific when claiming personnal attack and avoid being excessive. So, I retract personnal attack and restate what I wrote. - Damien Raczy (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, AnotherPseudonym, i'd appreciate you fully retract the word "bullshit". - Damien Raczy (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, what you wrote about the Sturt paper was (and remains) bullshit.  If you retract what your wrote about the Sturt paper,  concede you were in error and apologise to me I will retract the word "bullshit".  AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For me, this is a major issue. - Damien Raczy (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, wikilinked technical term - David Gerard (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @David Gerard. Got it - Damien Raczy (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well this talk page has certainly become spaghetti. How many threads do we need to create one accurate sentence for a reader? The last sentence of the lead is not accurate:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26]
 * by leaving out addiction. It's pretty simple English. If we say "screw drivers don't work" when a citation says "screw drivers don't work FOR hammering nails" we are being lazy trying to save ink, at best, and at worst, our POV/opinion of the topic is limiting our ability to be accurate. Norcross (2010) says, pg175, "...but in the end, we decided to concentrate on those used for alcohol and drug addiction." To disregard the editors clear limitation by leaving out their specific limit, declared in text, is WP:OR. Glasner (2010) only mentions NLP is a list in "Table 3", which is just gathered from "Fala et al (2008)" which is the same article as Norcross et al (2010) (Just chosing a different name from the list). Glasner's redundancy does not add anything to the lead. If we're concerned about how much ink we use, listing "top ten", as if this is a Letterman sketch, and spelling out the name of a redundant reference would make room "... for addiction" and be accurate. It just isn't making sense we want all the extra ink and fight for specificity like "top ten" vs. "top 20", as if that matters to the reader, but ignore the specificity that it's an opinion poll about addiction treatment. The "top ten most" grammar is WP:editorializing. Also, listing Norcross & Glassner separately, with different descriptors, obscures the fact they are about the same opinion poll. Suggestion:
 * A Delphi method poll on treatments of drug and alcohol dependency reported NLP as certainly discredited[25][26].
 * A concern is that reporting accurately, just being journalistic, in this contentious article, seems to be very difficult. Let's stick to using WP policy and guidelines about how to write accurate text and get away from the name calling and accusations. The suggested sentence is much shorter, encourages the reader to read-on about Delphi and substance dependence, and quickly helps them know the topic & addiction remediation don't mix. I welcome critique on the accuracy of this suggested sentence based on Wikipedia standards, not opinion. Eturk001 (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a bunch of muddle-headed nonsense. At best you can present a case that the sentence is ambiguous regarding the scope of the discrediting.  Notions of "accuracy" and "overgeneralisation" derive entirely from your imagination and not from the prose in the article.  The sentence
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26]
 * is true hence it is accurate and hence it does not overgeneralise. Your example regarding screwdrivers is artifice that bears no resemblance to the case in point.  If I say "swans are white" there is no good reason in the semantics of English to interpret that as "All swans are white".  If you interpret "swans are white" as "All swans are white" you have revealed something about your own cognitive bias rather than something about the phrase "swans are white".  Without regard to semantic convention "Some swans are white" is an equally legitimate interpretation.  If we respect semantic convention then "Some swans are white" is the most likely intended meaning.  If you interpret:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26]
 * in the universal sense, i.e. as pertaining to all applications, then that is your problem, it is not a defect that is instrinsic to the prose. What is preventing you from interpreting the sentence in the  existential i.e. restrictive sense? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * AnotherPseudonym, your example of swans is a Red Herring which distracts from a sentence that clearly implies generality to the reader. "Swans" doesn't mean "some swans" or "two swans". Swans is a very subtle example but suppression of context is a completely different problem. You are comparing the implication of a predeterminer "all" (implying Hasty Generalization) with the absence or intentional suppression of a preposition (i.e. "for") which would specify context for the reader, which may be a | Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence for the reader. If we are arguing that prepositions are irrelevant to English, that is another discussion.


 * This sentence seems loaded for some kind of message. Spelling out two researches names when a citation would suffice. Using a redundant author, Glasner, which just shows a table from Norcross (where they just interpreted the mean number as text). Suppressing that it's an opinion poll not direct research on the methods. (Note too: that it was an opinion poll where 71% percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the subject). There's a HUGE difference between spelling out two supposedly different studies as "discreting" something vs. the exact paper's content: A Delphi opinion poll of 23 psychologists rated NLP as possibly to certainly discredited for drug and alcohol dependency treatment. Again, I WP:AGF and think an editor just got lazy and left out the context of the study or didn't read the paper's abstract. You can't see it from your POV (we all have a POV). Can we get other editors to help us rationally review the "accuracy" of the sentence and whether it is leaving our information relevant to a reader? This sentence wouldn't make it into a reputable newspaper and it shouldn't stand in a scholarly encyclopedia. Eturk001 (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Eturk001, no the swans example is spot-on for relevance. You are full of bluster as usual.  The function of a preposition such as for where it is used to specify context (as you put it) is semantically equivalent to the use of a predeterminer to specify inclusion into a class.  In both set theory and predicate logic those two English constructions resolve into the same type of formal statements.  In set-theoretic terms both the statement in the lead and my swans example express the relationship between two sets: NLP techniques and discredited treatments; swans and white birds.  I have created a diagram to try and explain this to you.  You are asserting that the Norcross summary in the lead states or implies this.  It doesn't!  Don't presume to tell me what I can and can't see.  I've thought the matter through and I have made use of some set theory and predicate logic to try and ensure that my thinking (along with that of the others) is clear.  You see this in the lead because of your own cognitive bias not because of anything in the lead itself.  The summary of Norcross (2010) is innocuous and is open to being read as this.  The citability of the Norcross papers has already been discussed.  Also I am not the only editor defending the status quo so you already have "other editors" opinions.  Given the garbage you have inserted into other Wikipedia articles which has been reverted do you think you are a good arbiter of content quality?  I don't. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * AnotherPseudonym, you continue to name call and insult. "Bluster" is to "talk in a loud, aggressive, or indignant way with little effect." Asking you to help me understand WP:RELY is not loud talk or agressive, except in your imagination. You continually attempt to paint some kind of picture of me. This behavior is distracting and almost WP:WikiBullying. I WP:AGF and just imagine it's the way you like to argue. Let's remember the spirit and principal of The_rules_are_principles#Consensus: "A cordial atmosphere is essential to consensus-building... Baiting and rude comments may not reach the "threshold" of personal attacks, but they are just as harmful and disruptive." You helped me understand that a few missing words could be misrepresenting the author. I thank you for that and return the favor.


 * Let's stick to content. I am only concerned here about the last sentence of the lead.
 * Norcross et al. (2006) [21] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26]
 * Your diagrams are helpful to see the error: your first diagram suggests that a subset of NLP "techniques" are among some discredited techniques. The current sentence doesn't talk about "techniques" or a subset of them. Which techniques are we talking about? Let's use common sense and avoid the rhetoric. An average reader WILL see no context, no preposition, and thus your second diagram.
 * If a reader magically know the realm/context of a strudy and we are not to waste ink adding context, you are arguing that we can go to the CBT article and add the following:
 * Jones et al (2004) states that "CBT is a promising but under evaluated intervention."
 * We have the citation. It does say that exact sentence. It's not overgeneralizing. The reader is just lazy or dumb if they don't go read the abstract was studying only CBT for schizophrenia.
 * Norcross (2010) says in the abstract: "The results require careful interpretation, but do offer a cogent first step in identifying a professional consensus of discredited treatments for addictions." Leaving out "addiction" misrepresents the abstract and study. It also does not carefully interpret. It is strange there is so much resistance to two words, "for addiction", from the abstract. Eturk001 (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (added signature above). Here's a diagram that better represents my view of Norcross (2010). Eturk001 (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Section Early development
Added Weitzenhoffer's criticisms regarding B&Gs linguistic analysis of Erickson. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This criticism would be much stronger if what we are criticizing is first defined. Writing for the opponent, "also known as writing for the enemy, is the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can, even if you strongly disagree with it, and also giving it proper weight in the article relative to its significance." --Reconsolidation (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The preceding paragraph of section Early development defines what "we" are criticising. Nothing further need be added.  I think you are just fishing for ways to be obstructive and annoying.  Either make a concrete proposal or kindly go away. You haven't brought anything of substantive value to the article and you operate an  SPA.  I've followed your history on the talk page and you are willing to jump on any pro-NLP push regardless of its intrinsic merits.  Examples of this include the complaint regarding the synopsis of the Norcross papers in the lead which boils down to a naive or deliberate conflation of the concepts of ambiguity and overgeneralisation; the perverse reading of WP:CLAIM and your "defense" of NLP hemisphericity pseudo-neuroscience.  It appears that no idea is too idiotic to get behind; if it has any potential to smuggle pro-NLP  bullshit into the article it is worth a try.  If someone has prepped the donkey of stupidity for the ride into the forrest of ignorance and obscurantism you are ever-willing to share the saddle.  In this instance it looks like you are grooming the donkey. Please explain -- in specific terms -- how the following is deficient:


 * Bandler and Grinder say that they modeled Virginia Satir, to produce what they termed the Meta-Model (via their process of modeling), a model for gathering information and challenging a client's language and underlying thinking.[32][27] [33] By challenging linguistic distortions, specifying generalizations, and recovering deleted information in the client's statements, the transformational grammar concepts of surface structure were said to yield a more complete representation of the underlying deep structure and to have therapeutic benefit.[34][35] Also derived from Satir were anchoring, future pacing and representational systems.[36] In contrast, the Milton-Model—a model of the purportedly hypnotic language of Milton Erickson—was described by Bandler and Grinder as "artfully vague" and metaphoric.[37] The Milton-Model is used in combination with the Meta-Model as a softener, to induce "trance" and to deliver indirect therapeutic suggestion.[38]


 * After you have detailed the deficiency/ies provide a specific proposal for its improvement. If you fail to perform these tasks I don't think your complaint merits any further attention and it lends support to the premise that you are here just to WP:GAME.  Also, your attempts at NLP casuistry are infantile, offensive and indicative of bad-faith.  Rather than present a cogent argument and defend it -- like an adult addressing other adults -- you appear to prefer to try and use your NLP "uber skills" to pass off some piece of Sophistic nonsense.  It doesn't work but -- like Edwin J. Goodwin  -- you are undeterred.  Onward to the forrest plods the donkey. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * IMHO "I think you are just fishing for ways to be obstructive and annoying." is unuseful as it is mind reading and a personnal affront.
 * I suggest, if you want to be useful, provide something balanced. For example, read the end of the chapter you cite, which is a balanced, and give proper excerpts. - Damien Raczy (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your accusation of misrepresenting a source and your implication that I didn't read the entire chapter is "mind reading and a personal affront". I read chapter 8 twice and but for the last paragraph offered as a parting comment Weitzenhoffer condemns NLP and Bandler and Grinder.  Even though he has a separate Discussion and Critique section he has no section dedicated to positives (because he can't really find any).  Also his description (outside of Discussion and Critique) is peppered with inline criticisms.  This is how the 16 page article ends:


 * I would not want the reader to leave this discussion with the idea that NLP, and particularly its view of Ericksonian hypnotism, should be altogether disregarded, or that linguistics has nothing to contribute. There may be some golden nuggets to be found among the dross. (p.309)


 * So in other words his preceding review is so damning that the reader is likely to be left with the impression that NLP is entirely garbage. He describes NLP as dross and says there may be some good things to be found.  Weitzenhoffer then goes on to say:


 * Some of the anchoring techniques and reframing procedures that are described are quite interesting and worth further examination. There is certainly something to be said for a possible special role in hypnotic work of the conjunction "or" and "and," as well as of presuppositions, implication, analogical marking, and other linguistic processes listed by Bandler and Grinder.  The point is to extract what is useful and to disregard the rest. (p.309)


 * And that is where the chapter ends. I see damning with faint praise: "quite interesting", "something to be said".  Where can you go once you have described something as dross (i.e. worthless)?  Weitzenhoffer also describes Bandler and Grinder's books as "infantile" (p.304), "poorly written" (p.295), NLP as a "therapeutic fad" (p.304) and NLP as "incongruous" re "programming people" versus the claim of psychotherapeutic permissiveness (p.304).  Weitzenhoffer's critique of NLP isn't "balanced" because NLP isn't "balanced".  Weitzenhoffer employs the metaphor of gold nuggets possibly hidden amongst a pile of shit.  He doesn't say there are certainly gold nuggets amongst the dross, rather he says:


 * There may be some golden nuggets to be found among the dross. (p.309) (emphasis added)


 * That is to say NLP may be all shit and no gold nuggets. (Bear in mind that Weitzenhoffer wrote this in 1989).  I estimate that of the 16 pages of chapter 8 of volume II it breaks-down as follows: 60% description, 39% criticism 1% lukewarm praise.  So I contend that I have accurately depicted Weitzenhoffer's evaluation of NLP and again your reading comprehension has failed you.  You have no appreciation of the nuances of English language but you neverthless repeatedly choose to pontificate on reading comprehension. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Another view: "However, the direct and indirect techniques utilized by Erickson are consistent with our understanding of the asymmetry of higher brain functions. Much of the data is supportive of the models presented by Bandler and Grinder (1975) and Watzlawick (1978)" Carter et al (1982) Hemispheric Asymmetry as a Model for Hypnotic Phenomena: A Review and Analysis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. Volume 24, Issue 3. --Reconsolidation (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here you go again. You insist on trying to obfusacte the truth. Hemispheric asymmetry as conceived and understood in the 1970s and 1980s has been largely (if not entirely) discredited and deprecated.  You have a 1982 paper on a neuroscience topic that was published in a clinical hypnosis journal and this demonstrates what exactly?  So by your (il)logic I can cite Aristotle's Physics to "prove" that falling bodies move at a speed proportional to their weight. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rainville et al (1999) "Cerebral Meachanisms of Hypnotic Induction and Suggestion" Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11:1 pp.110-125:


 * "Right-hemispheric function has been emphasized (e.g. Carter, Elkins, & Kraft, 1982; Gabel, 1988) because of its presumed association with imaginative, holistic, or appositional thinking (Benton, 1972; Bogen, 1969), all believed to be characteristic of hypnosis...However, numerous studies using the same or similar paradigms have produced contradictory results and have challenged the right-hemisphere dominance view (e.g. Crawford, Crawford, & Koperski, 1983; Jasiukaitis, nouriani, & Spiegel, 1996; levine, Kurtz, & Lauter, 1984; Otto-Salaj, Nadon, Hyot, Register, & Kihlstrom, 1992; Spanos, pawlack, Mah, & D'Eon, 1980). Moreover, studies of electroencephalographic (EEG) correlates of hypnosis have produced mixed results, suggesting complex dynamic interactions between the two hemispheres (see the review by Crawford and Gruzelier, 1992).  These equivocal results have questioned the validity fo investigating hypnosis in terms of a unique process or cognitive mode lateralized to one hemisphere.  New concepts of hypnosis suggest the involvement of multiple cognitive processes...Recently, Jasiukaitis, Nouriani, Hugdahl, and Speigel (1997) have emphasized that hemispheric activation during hypnosis may depend on the nature of the task involved in the hypnotic experience (also see Morgan, MacDonald, &, Hilgard, 1974).  The present report uses positron emission tomography (PET) to separately examine changes in brain activity associated with both the hypnotic state and the response to hypnotic suggestions." (p.110-1)


 * "Complex patterns of rCBF [regional Cerebral Bloow Flow] changes in response to hypnosis and suggestions were found to involve both right and left hemisphere. Bilateral occipital increase in rCBF during hypnosis might relate to deep relaxation or decreased arousal and reflect a decrease in cross-modality...Following hypnotic suggestions, massive rCBF increase in frontal cortices mainly but not exclusively on the left side, could reflect the verbal mediation of the hypnotic suggestions, working memory processes, working memory processes, and top-down mechanisms involved in the reinterpretation of the sensory experience." (p.119)

Carter et al (1982) was refuted many years ago by numerous researchers (see above for examples) but you don't really care. You appear to have no interest in informing and educating but are instead preoccupied with propagandising, with bullshitting. You trawled the archives to find Carter et al (1982) and you stopped there -- as if research on lateralisation ended when Carter et al (1982) was published. If you were genuinely interested in educating and informing you would have continued searching for papers that referenced Carter et al (1982) but you didn't. You found something that was ostensibly supportive of NLP and you tried to hoodwink us with it. I am starting to tire of your antics. Bandler and Grinder's conception of hemisphericity are unadulterated garabage without a scintilla of evidence. That aspect of Weitzenhoffer's critique is entirely vindicated and Bandler and Grinder are wrong yet again. Shock horror! Who would have thought that two guys sitting on barstools, talking crap off the top of their heads that have no understanding or interest in experimentation and evidence could get it so wrong? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Also @Reconsolidation -- and I have raised this matter with you before and you failed to provide an answer -- in the process of "modeling" Milton Erickson what observation could have possibly led to the conclusion that "conscious mind" = left hemisphere and "unconscious mind" = right hemisphere? As Weitzenhoffer rightfully tells us, Erickson never referred to hemisphericity and employed only the abstractions "conscious mind" and "unconscious mind" (and Erickson's conceptualisation is consistent with exclusive concern with subjectivity). Moreover, why are Bandler and Grinder who declare that they are interested ONLY in subjective experience making references to the neurological substrates of subjective experience? How are references to hemisphericity and lateralisation consistent with the declared project of NLP? Why hasn't Grinder abandoned his cartoonish understanding of neuroscience in light of all of the evidence that exists? Why does he keep repeating thoroughly discredited ideas about lateralisation of brain function? If NLP isn't pseudoscience then why is it -- in total contradiction to its declared purview -- predicated on outdated neuromyths? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We all know that most functions require both hemispheres. We know for certain that nobody is "left brained" or "right brained", unless your Corpus callosum has been severed! --Reconsolidation (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * More evasion. More irrelevant garbage. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Erickson & Rossi clearly referred to hemispheres, for example in "experiencing hypnosis" (not sure the title is absolutly exact). - Damien Raczy (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Give me something to look up, don't send me on a wild-goose chase. I trust Weitzenhoffer on Erickson, he was his friend, peer and sometimes collaborator.  If Weitzenhoffer says Erickson didn't say "conscious mind" = left hemisphere and "unconscious mind" = right hemisphere then I am fairly confident of its truth.  Rossi is another matter and irrelevant to my point and Weitzenhoffer's.  In any event there is now objective evidence from PET and MRI that "conscious mind" = left hemisphere and "unconscious mind" = right hemisphere is false and there is no such lateralisation.  It is just another lateralisation myth, an extension of this debunked idea. That Grinder keeps repeating it just shows that he is a wannabe neuroscientist and accomplished pseudoscientist.  He read some long since falsified papers on neuroscience in the 1970s and 1980s and he keeps alluding to them.  Bandler and Grinder have been intellectually suspended in aspic since the 1970s.AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My ref is correct. - Damien Raczy (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Damien, your reading comprehension and poor attention to detail have failed you again. The book EXPERIENCING HYPNOSIS: THERAPEUTIC APPROACHES TO ALTERED STATES consists of transcripts from lectures and clinical sessions that have been annotated individually by Erickson (E:) and Rossi (R:) to produce the book.  If you look closely you will see that the word "hemisphere" occurs either in those parts of the transcipts where Rossi is speaking or in Rossi's annotations.  If you look at, for example, section "Depotentiating Conscious Sets: Tasks with No Conscious Referents" (page 60 in my pagination) you will see that Erickson speaks only in terms of "conscious" but it is Rossi that starts speaking of hemispheres.  Erickson died before this book was completed and published.  Those portions of the book that lack an attribution were written by Rossi and if you read closely you will see that the style is consistent with Rossi's attributed annotations (R:).  Note also that the introduction is solely authored by Rossi and Rossi owns the sole copyright (Erickson's estate does not share in the copyright). There is not even one instance of the word "hemisphere" that appears in those sections specifically attributed to Erickson.  This vindicates Weitzenhoffer. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, not straight enough, sorry. In some other refs, it is more obvious. For example : " E: A good author can outline a story or plot line but then finds that his characters run away with him. The characters seem to have a will of their own, and the story turns out differently than the author had planned. There again you may have the right hemisphere intruding upon the plans of the left. In the introspective accounts of such authors they will say, I never intended so-and-so to be married, but he did. Then I thought he should have two children, but more turned up." from "Hypnotherapy - An Exploratory Casebook". It is a detail. But the details make the difference between not at all and mailly not, bewteen mostly true and overgeneralisation. And there are other refs wher Erickson acknowledge with the roles with hemisphere (the fact is that, in this case, I think it is "hemisphere" is a pseudoscientific concept, but it is not the problem) - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference but Erickson is quoted only once in the entire book using the word "hemisphere" and that appears to be because Rossi keeps on conceptualising matters in terms of hemispheres and Erickson is engaging with what Rossi is saying. There are many instances of "hemisphere" in the book and all except one is from Rossi.  I still think Weitzenhoffer is correct.  But since you agree this reference to hemispheres is naive pseudoscience then there is no real problem. AnotherPseudonym (talk)    —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No one accused you, no one implied you didn't read the whole text. And I am quite sure you read it (at least quickly). I just suggested a better reading, more balanced. - Damien Raczy (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You made an accusation and you implied I didn't read the whole chapter. What "balance"?!  Weitzenhoffer refers to NLP as "dross" and he says it may have something useful.  Do you know what "dross" means?  It means junk, rubbish, garbage, something of no value, refuse, excrement, shit, crap.  Weitzenhoffer's characterisation of NLP is essentially that it is a pile of shit which may have something useful in it.  That is what dross which may have some gold nuggets means -- that is what that English expression means. That is what  Weitzenhoffer says.  I don't say that -- he says that.  Are you suggesting we distort Weitzenhoffer to produce fake "balance" to make you happy?  That is not what we are here to do.  If you don't like what Weitzenhoffer wrote then that is your problem.  Not mine, not Wikipedia's and not Weitzenhoffer's.  Weitzenhoffer didn't write a "balanced" review and we aren't going to pretend that he did.  Not everything can be reviewed with "balance", some things are intrinsically entirely or largely bad/flawed/defective/negative/vicious/ugly/foolish...  Can you write a "balanced" evaluation of Young Earth creationism?  What is correct or good about Young Earth creationism that you can write about to "balance" everything that is incorrect and bad about it?  Can you write a "balanced" analysis of the Geocentric model?  How do you balance falsity, nonsense and error? You are asking that Weitzenhoffer's appraisal of NLP be obscured and offuscated with imaginary positives and that is not going to happen so you should put that idea out of your head.  You won't get anywhere with this so I suggest you abandon it.  This is a good time to review your track record in launching into futile efforts based on poor reading comprehension and hypersensitivity to criticism of NLP.  This is page 309 in its entirety.  I quoted it earlier but since you are ignoring my reference to it I will quote it again.  You said "For example, read the end of the chapter you cite, which is a balanced".  So tell me where the "balance" is that you see here:
 * I would not want the reader to leave this discussion with the idea that NLP, and particularly its view of Ericksonian hypnotism, should be altogether disregarded, or that linguistics has nothing to contribute. There may be some golden nuggets to be found among the dross.  Some of the anchoring techniques and reframing procedures that are described are quite interesting and worth further examination.  There is certainly something to be said for a possible special role in hypnotic work of the conjunction "or" and "and," as well as of presuppositions, implication, analogical marking, and other linguistic processes listed by Bandler and Grinder.  The point is to extract what is useful and to disregard the rest. (p.309) (emphasis added)


 * I put it to you that you don't understand page 309. Read it again. Pay special attention to the parts I have bolded.  What Weitzenhoffer is saying here is that it looks like NLP is all garbage but it may have some useful things.  He doesn't know what the valuable things in NLP are or even if they exist.  He isn't sure about the things he specifically mentions, they are "quite interesting and worth further examination" or they may have a "possible special role in hypnotic work".  This is qualified, tentative, conservative and uncommitted language.  This was written in 1989.  There is no more evidence now that NLP is valid and efficacious than there was in 1989 and there is actually some evidence now that it is neither valid nor efficacious that didn't exist in 1989 (and that is reviewed in Sturt et al (2012) and Witkowski (2010)).  Thus far it looks like NLP has no "gold nuggets" and that it is all "dross" and should be "altogether disregarded".  So I repeat that I contend that I have accurately represented Weitzenhoffer. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym wrote: "Give me something to look up, don't send me on a wild-goose chase."

You mean like the continual refusals to engage in reasoned debate, instead referring obliquely to non-existentent NPOV previous discussions? Needless to say, I agree with this more recent position.

BTW, waiting for your WP:CONCEDE regarding overgeneralisation of Norcross polls. WykiP (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing 'reasoned debate' with 'comes to the same conclusions NLP apologists'. There is a disagreement, there has been extensive discussion its becoming lame  Snowded  TALK 05:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is disruptive editing. This section is intended for the discussion of section early development.  I respoded to your nonsense above but since you ignored it I will reproduce it:
 * By appealing to "natural inference" you are conceding that the act of overgeneralisation is occuring in your head rather than in the article. The "extreme overgeneralisation" and "clearly POV" that you speak of is indeed entirely in your head.  There are no words in the lead that are "extreme overgeneralisation" and "clearly POV" that you can point to are there?  As I wrote above, you are arbitrarily appending the phrase "for all applications" in your imagination and then basing an argument on what you have fabricated in your head.  Also, the universal case is not a "natural inference" it is actually an anomalous inference that contradicts the conventional semantics of English.  Why don't you just append "for some appliactions" in your imagination?  You wrote "There's not even the slightest indication in the text of the lead that Norcross et al. (2010) and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) are only talking about NLP treatment of addictions." And by the same token "[t]here's not even the slightest indication in the text of the lead" that it is referring to all applications.  Calling what I wrote "garbage" doesn't constitute a rebuttal.  If you want to be taken seriously you should at least try and address my arguments.  By invoking "natural inference" you have effectively conceded my central point, you have yielded to "garbage".  The purpose of the talk page is to discuss what is in the article not what is in your head.  As I have explained in the "garbage" above and to Eturk001 below, at best you can present an argument that the sentence in the lead is ambiguous, that is the most that the words in the sentence itself justify.  But you aren't arguing about the words in the sentence you are in actuality arguing about words in your imagination that you have added. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have failed to demononstrate any "overgeneralisation" and it is you that is avoiding "reasoned debate". You have posted a position, viz. that there is an overgeneralisation in the lead, I have posted a rebuttal.  It is now up to you to answer my rebuttal.  Answering a rebuttal doesn't mean just repeating your initial position, it means answering the specific points of my rebuttal.  Start a new section and answer my rebuttal. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * scepticim and pseudo-scepticism are different. So are disagreeing and disqualifying. - Damien Raczy (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "pseudo-scepticism" doesn't really mean anything. What criteria are there for distinguishing between "scpeticism" and "pseudo-scpeticism"? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AnotherPseudonym, you write that pseudo scepticism doesn't really mean any thing. It is your personal opinion, not a fact. You might be interested by the WP article pseudoscepticism :-) and also by the famous Truzzi's paper. - Damien Raczy (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I wrote. The concept of pseudoscience -- for example -- is central to the philosophy of science and it has been thoroughly debated and has wide acceptance as a subtstantive topic (Popper, Lakatos and many others wrote extensively about it).  Pseudoscepticism -- on the other hand -- is really nothing more than creative name-calling.  Truzzi publishes a paper in his own journal (Zetetic Scholar) -- so what?  The concept has no wide acceptance and has neither been well-developed nor well-analysed. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I was repeatedly told by yourself that convincing arguments existed in the archives but you continually refuse to link to them or cut & paste or restate.  Several archives have been linked to with no relevance to the debate whatsoever.  AnotherPseudonym posted an argument that was surely embarrassing to him/her in hindsight.  Stalling counts as disruptive editing. Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Workshop WykiP (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not embarassed by anything that I have posted. Just because you are ignorant on a topic doesn't make references to that topic embarassing.  Ignorance is embarassing and you have demonstrated ignorance in spades.  You are yet to demonstrate any overgeneralisation and equally so you are yet to demonstrate that overgeneralisation necessarily constitutes "POV-pushing".  There is no stalling either.  Answer my rebuttal to your claim that there is overgeneralisation. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You were repeatedly told by me that this had been done to death before and that you were well aware of it having been a part of the discussion. Otherwise is it some NLP technique to keep repeating things you believe to be true ad nausium in the hope that it will hypnotise people into allowing your white washing proposals to go through?  Sorry you are (again) in one of your periodic time wasting phases.   Snowded  TALK 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no idea how shocked I am that you failed to provide reasoned argument again. I think you've been given enough of a chance (about three too many in fact) and must be ignored until you're willing to discuss this like a proper editor. WykiP (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that is my day ruined. How will I sleep?  I've shocked an NLP Apologist who conveniently forgets previous discussions on a 4/5 month disruptive cycle. Worst still my imagination is not up to understanding the depth of said shock and I am to be ignored in consequence.  Woe is me, thrice woe  Snowded  TALK 22:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem and bad faith noted. Still waiting for reasoned argument. WykiP (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why don't you look up terms before using them so that you at least don't appear ignorant. Ad hominem is a contraction of  argumentum ad hominem.  Argumentum ad hominem entails a response to an argument.  Where exactly is your argument? Not your assertion, your argument.  Hello argument where are you?  Hello are you there argument?  Argu-ment.  Hello?  No answer.  The only things  here are some assertions that are foaming mouth that have been here for weeks.  You have no argument.  Also, nothing that Snowded wrote can be reasonably conceived as a personal attack.  He responded to your irrelevant hyocritical nonsense: You have no idea how shocked I am that you failed to provide reasoned argument again; and your self-satisfied pretense:I think you've been given enough of a chance (about three too many in fact) and must be ignored until you're willing to discuss this like a proper editor.  You don't know the difference between an argument and assertion and so are incapable of recognising "reasoned argument".  Yes we are in thrall to the quantum of your shock, that's what engrosses us when we are away from Wikipedia.  Thanks for letting us know.  We also hang on your conception of a "proper editor"; you are a brilliant wikilawyer that through exegesis arrived at the conclusion that consensus is irrelevant to editorship. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My response was only 11 words long and yet you still managed to misread it. I didn't accuse Snowded of a personal attack, although calling me an NLP apologist might be considered so by admin.  It was, however, bad faith -- a clear breach of WP:AGF.
 * My argument is that Snowded has produced no reasoned argument against Reconsolidation's suggested fix of the generalisation. Your argument was laughable, not reasoned.  David Gerard has yet to define what overgeneralised means in this instance and as such is still lacking reasoned argument.
 * Consensus is detarmined by those willing to make reasoned argument for/against an edit. Everyone else is assumed to be stalling. WykiP (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem literally means "to the man". If you accuse someone of "Ad hominem" as you did above -- you are accusing them of a personal attack (as a component of a counter-argument).  Again, why don't you look-up terms and expressions  before using them?  Also, calling an argument "laughable" doesn't constitute a rebuttal.  If my argument is "laughable" then it should be easy for you to rebut it.  You can't arbitrarily ignore arguments that you don't like and then accuse your interlocutors of "stalling".  If you are committed to the process of reasoned argument then you are obligated to provide a rebuttal to all arguments that are presented in objection to your proposed change.  In rational discourse an argument is demonstrated to be "laughable" not merely asserted as you have done.  That you are summarily dismissing arguments indicates that you have no real commitment to reasoned argument.  Why does David Gerard need to "define what overgeneralised means in this instance"?  You are the one making the claim of overgeneralisation so it is up to you to define it if you think that is necessary.  Snowded isn't obligated to provide you an argument if one has been provided by others.  Snowded has referred you to previous discussions; strictly speaking that is all that is required.  I have provided argumentation against Reconsolidation's proposal.  If you think it is inadequate you need to demonstrate its inadequacy by presenting a rebuttal.  Merely asserting its inadequacy is unacceptable.  Also, isn't it your position that consensus is not needed?
 * Nope, try reading it yourself. It says nothing about the need to achieve consensus. And I already quoted you policy saying that consensus isn't needed. WykiP (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have changed your opinion on this then why don't you concede your error and apologise to the other editors for wasting their time. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The only person that is being evasive is you. Go on then answer my rebuttal. You have made two claims:(i) The lead overgeneralises the conclusion of one of the Norcross papers; and (ii) The overgeneralisation constitutes an instance of a breach of WP:NPOV and I have provided a detailed rebuttal of both your claims.  Now it is your turn to answer my rebuttal.  What is the significance of how shocked you are?  Who cares?  Take a  valium. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a Talk section for "Early Development". Please keep discussion to that content and confine discussion of the lead last sentence to the appropriate section. Eturk001 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It would have been useful and demonstrative of good-faith if you interjected at the point at which WykiP introduced irrelevant matters:
 * AnotherPseudonym wrote: "Give me something to look up, don't send me on a wild-goose chase." You mean like the continual refusals to engage in reasoned debate, instead referring obliquely to non-existentent NPOV previous discussions? Needless to say, I agree with this more recent position. BTW, waiting for your WP:CONCEDE regarding overgeneralisation of Norcross polls. WykiP (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But you didn't say anything then and you make a useless comment now after I created a section immediately below to host the irrelevant discussion. You conserve your bluster only for those that don't agree with you. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * AnotherPseudonym, are you upset that I am not following and engaging in every single battle on this contentious page? There really is too much banter and not enough on-point discussion of content improvement. I'm surprised other editors are so quiet. The sections get way off point and I see why few editors want to chime in. Since you ask, I agree that WykiP ought to take it down a notch and focus more on specific content via citation. Consensus, not contention. And really, you must stop harping on my distinction between definition and description. I already WP:CONCEDEd that it was too subtle for this hot environment but things seem to get exaggerated on this page by various editors. Eturk001 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: claim of overgeneralisation in lead reagrding Norcross et al (2010)
Sections of the talk page are being abused by raising matters that are irrelevant to those sections. I have answered the criticism in those other sections but I will re-iterate them here.

It has been claimed that a sentence in the lead "overgeneralises" the conclusion contained in Norcross et al (2010). Specifically it is claimed that the sentence


 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] (S1)

(a) S1 overgeneralises the conclusion of the Norcross et al (2010) paper; and

(b) (a) constitutes an instance of a breach of WP:NPOV.

Claim (a) has yet to be demonstrated, it has only been asserted. Claim (b) has not been demonstrated either in the specific nor the general case. To the extent that claim (a) has not been demonstrated then claim (b) is irrelevant. However, not even the general case, namely that an overgeneralisation necessarily constitues a breach of WP:NPOV has been demonstrated either. There are no words in S1 that express an overgeneralisation, hence there can be no overgeneralisation in S1. Criticism of S1 -- by WykiP, Damien Raczy and Eturk001 -- is not based on S1 itself but rather a fictive rendition of S1, S2:


 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] for all applications (S2)

Since S2 does not actually appear in the article the criticism is not relevant. WykiP wrote:
 * When you write garbage like this, I know I'm right to call you on it.
 * There's not even the slightest indication in the text of the lead that Norcross et al. (2010) and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) are only talking about NLP treatment of addictions. The natural inference is that the sentence is commenting on NLP "for all applications". This is extreme overgeneralisation and clearly POV. WykiP (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this is that "[t]here's not even the slightest indication in the text of the lead that Norcross et al. (2010) and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010)" are talking about all applications of NLP either. Furthermore, the appeal to "natural inference" concedes the point that S1 itself does not contain an overgeneralisation. Surely an equally "natural inference" is that S1 means S3:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] for some applications (S3)

For the sake of argument, if S1 is indeed ambiguous then S2 and S3 are equally legitimate interpretations of S1. On what grounds can S2 be privileged as the only interpretation? So if there is any ambiguity then on a preliminary basis it can be resoved into S2 or S3 and conclusively resolved by reading the article. None of the editors raising this criticism have provided an argument for why they are treating S1 as S2 and not S3. Merely asserting "natural inference" is not sufficient. I too can simply assert that S3 is the "natural inference" (and I would have conventional English semantics on my side); or I can simply assert that no inference is "natural" and a careful reader doesn't form hasty generalisations. If you want to present a case that S1 is ambiguous then that is a different matter. I would suggest that the most that can be justified with reference to the actual wording of S1 is that it is ambiguous. Ambiguity is not equivalent to "overgeneralisation" and having presented a case that S1 is indeed ambiguous it would then be incumbent on the interlocutor to demonstrate that the resolution of that ambiguity necessarily leads to an overgeneralisation.

This is where the "rational debate" stands at the moment: claim (a) has been rebutted and an answer to the rebuttal is yet to be provided. An answer to the rebuttal does not consist in merely repeating claim (a), it must take account of the criticisms I have provided here and answer each one. When the rebuttal has been answered then the next cycle of the debate commences. @WykiP you are stalling by refusing to engage with the points of the rebuttal. I have provided this rebuttal at least three times and you refuse to answer the criticism I have made. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Norcross & al 2010 stated NLP is discredited for "Treatments in the Addictions" (Neuro-linguistic Programming for drug and alcohol dependence). - Damien Raczy (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We all know that and agree about that. That isn't in contention.  It doesn't advance your argument to post something we all agree about.  You need to demonstrate how what is written in the lead (i.e. S1) contradicts what you posted and you need to do so by referring to S1 specifically rather than to S2 or some other invention.  Until you and your NLP superfriends actually do this you haven't actually presented a cogent argument.  Three adults should be able to pool their intellects to formulate a  non-question begging argument.  So can any or all of you (a) present an argument that is not question begging; and (b) provide a rebuttal to what I have written above? I repeat that an assertion is not an argument and repeating the original assertion does not constitute a rebuttal. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead does not reflect honestly Norcross & al specific claim as what is written in the lead is not Norcross & al specific statement but a more general one. So it is an overgeneralization. Capice? - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It reflects it quite honestly. Again, you are repeatedly asserting rather than substantiating, and these are not the same thing - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do you want substantiating ? We all know what Norcross & al write, and we know what is written in the article. Facts are facts. - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We want substantiation because what you are asserting does not qualify as self-evident and Wikipedia contentions are resolved through rational discourse. You can't participate in rational discourse without argumentation.  Asserting something repeatedly -- no matter how many times -- will not turn it into an argument and will not turn you into a participant of rational discourse.  Calling my rebuttal "garbage" or "gobbledegook" (which I have presented at least four times now) doesn't constitute counter-argument.  If what I post is "garbage" then it should be easy for you and your cohorts to refute my arguments.  But none of you have even attempted a refutation.  Pretending that you have answered the rebuttal isn't going to fool anyone so I don't know why you bother trying this.  I repeat -- yet again -- you need to demonstrate how what is written in the lead (i.e. S1) contradicts what you posted and you need to do so by referring to S1 specifically rather than to S2 or some other invention.  Show us -- in specific terms, with reference to S1 i.e. what is actually in the lead -- how S1 is not "honest".  Where in S1 is the overgenerality you are appealing to?  Indeed "[f]acts are facts" and the lead reads:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] (S1)
 * So being strictly factual tell us exactly where is the "overgeneralisation" in S1? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * David Gerard, are you seriously claiming that


 * "Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited"


 * and
 * "Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions for addictions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy for addictions as "certainly discredited"


 * mean the same thing?
 * Also you didn't answer my previous question to you. Are you an admin? WykiP (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's entirely overspecifying for the intro. And yes, why? - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? Because you've called me out twice for policies that I didn't break, yet the dozens of times policies are breached by people whose positions on this article you agree with.. don't get even the slightest (public) reprimand.  Can you explain this disparity that some might perceive as bias?
 * Thank you for at least admitting it's a generalisation.  WykiP (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No admin is obliged to take any arbitrary action an editor may call them to, and particularly not something like that which isn't an administrative duty anyway. That is, me being an admin or not (and why you had to ask me is entirely unclear, it's not only on Special:ListUsers/sysop but on my user page) is utterly, utterly irrelevant to this discussion - David Gerard (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't notice it on your user page and wasn't aware of the sysop one. Yes it's irrelevant to this discussion, but not irrelevant to your calling me out on this page.
 * Agree on getting back to the discussion at hand. Feel free to answer the question: What makes it overspecifying in this instance? WykiP (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The statements:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited"
 * and
 * Norrcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions for addictions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy for addictions as "certainly discredited"
 * are not mutually exclusive nor contradictory, i.e. both can be affirmed without contradiction, and that is the central point. No one argued that the two statments are the "same thing", that is just a strawman argument that you invented so you can hack at because you are unable to to refute the real arguments I have put to you.  The fully qualified version of the statement is overly specific for the lead.  The article is about NLP in general not NLP re substance abuse nor even NLP re psychotherapy so the lead needs to be as general as possible whilst still being meaningful and without contradicting or otherwise misrepresenting the sources on which it is based.  The lead is supposed to be a synopsis and a synposis is created by eliding detail.  A synopsis isn't supposed to communicate the "complete story", that is the purpose of the article.  The lead truthfully answers the general question "Is NLP considered certainly creditied by experts with respect to any psychotherapeutic application?".  The subject of NLP isn't owed any secial dispensation by Wikipedia such that every detail has to be fully specified on every occassion lest someone possibly form an inaccurate opinion from just reading the lead.  The usual editorial canons of composing articles apply here and they have been applied.  You have no argument.  All you have is a naked assertion that the lead contains an overgeneralisation and you just keep repeating it.  Every time I have rebutted your assertion you have failed to answer the rebuttal.  You have been given more attention than you deserve.  It is highly unlikely that you will be able to function as an effective editor on any article if you are unable to even formulate an argument.  There are many Wikipedia editors whose profession revolves around analysing, formulating and refuting arguments and you will likely encounter them on any contended article so your puerile and pig-ignorant shenanigans will not get you far.  I am unable to find one solitary cogent argument from you on the talk page of this article.  Zilch.  Just assertions, repeated ad nauseum followed inevitably by a ham-fisted claim that you won the argument.  If it has been your aim to be a buffoon then you have excelled and have done so with distinction.  If being buffoon laureate of the NLP talk page has not been your objective then you need to educate yourself about argumentation, evidence and clear thinking.  For a start you can read books such [ http://www.amazon.com/Argumentation-Debate-Austin-J-Freeley/dp/0495095907 this] and [ http://www.amazon.com/A-Rulebook-Arguments-Anthony-Weston/dp/0872209547 this]. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Does Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) cite Norcross' study on addictions? --Reconsolidation (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The two statements:

Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited"

and

Norrcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions for addictions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy for addictions as "certainly discredited"

are related.

The first statement is an over-generalization of the second, by first showing no indication by even an ellipsis that both sets of authors discredit NLP for a specific, non-general, use and then implying that that is universally discredited. We could write to them and ask if they consider the first (and the second, for that matter) to be a fair representation of their conclusions. htom (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no point in repeating a complaint over-and-over whilst failing to address the answer to your complaint that has already been made. I have already answered your complaint in the rebuttal directly above and earlier.  Answer my rebuttal. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, you've talked around it a great deal, but offered no explanation or justification for the generalizations made. There's nothing to rebut. The first is a generalization of the second, for both references. You think that this WP:SYN is acceptable, and you'll probably get away with it until the consensus changes. That doesn't change the fact that the first is an unsupported generalization of the second. htom (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've addressed the matter directly numerous times so I won't repeat myself. You can't just ignore what has been put to you on the pretext that "There's nothing to rebut".  That is being evasive.  If what you are contending is true then it should be easy for you to actually demonstrate that I have made no argument rather than to just assert that.  No, I don't think that WP:SYN is acceptable and there is no original research in the lead.  In relation to WP:SYN what you provided is a  question begging argument, i.e. you merely assumed that which you need to demonstrate.  Beside begging the question you are just making a series of assertions without offering any substantiation.  So does the lead contain a generalisation or an overgeneralisation?  (The two are very different.)It appears that you are unable to even clearly state a position let alone argue for it.  You initially used the word "implying" ("use and then implying that that is universally discredited.").  Think about what your use of the word "implying" itself implies.  I have said this before but I will say just this again.  By using the word "implying" you are telling us that the objectionable reading of the statement in the lead is in your head rather than in the lead.  The lead itself contains no "unsupported generalization" or "unsupported overgeneralization" (or whatever else you see).  You are creating a version of the lead in your head -- by imposing your cognitive bias (that appears to be borne from a hypersensitivity to criticism of NLP) -- and complaining as if the version of the statement that you have invented -- that exists only between your ears -- is written in the article.  Without resort to the imaginary statement that is in your head show us -- in specific terms -- where exactly this "unsupported generalization" is in the text:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26]
 * Tell us how you arrived at your reading of this statement and how you made the specific decisions that lead to your interpretation. That would comprise an argument.  You are yet to provide anything like this.  Furthermore if you disagree with my analysis of your assertion then provide a rebuttal of that. That is how rational discourse proceeds.  You can't ignore an argument that is put to you and then complain that "There's nothing to rebut".  Clearly there is but you are just ignoring it.  I just re-iterated (for the nth) time two counter-arguments to your assertion.  I repeat the conclusions:
 * (1) the statement that contains "unsupported generalization" is fictive, it doesn't actually exist in the article; and
 * (2) your claim of a breach of WP:SYN begs the question.
 * Rebut (1) and (2). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I should ask you to look up the difference between "imply" and "infer", I suppose. I don't do word salad, wikilawyering, or formal debate; most effective arguments can be made in less than a hundred words. That there is generalization comes from the form and text of the two sentences, the second containing words that limit the claims made, the first deletes those words and limits, leaving no sign that has been done. In an academic paper this would be fraud. htom (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In this context imply and infer are synonymous. From the OED:
 * imply verb (implies, implying, implied) indicate by suggestion rather than explicit reference. (of a fact or occurrence) suggest as a logical consequence.
 * infer verb (infers, inferring, inferred) deduce from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
 * The point is -- and you admit this above -- is that you are subjecting the statement to a process of inference and then complaining about the result you have obtained. The problem isn't with the text in the lead it is your process of inference.  This:
 * That there is generalization comes from the form and text of the two sentences, the second containing words that limit the claims made, the first deletes those words and limits, leaving no sign that has been done. In an academic paper this would be fraud.
 * is NOT an argument, it is just two assertions. You haven't actually demonstrated that there is any generalisation that contradicts the authors -- you have just asserted that.  You've told us that words have been removed, that the removal of words has not been indicated -- so what?  That is how synopses are created. You've then asserted that this constitutes a generalisation that would be deemed "fraud", which I presume you mean is inconsistent with or contradictory of the authors meaning. You haven't told us how the words:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[25] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[26]
 * comprise a generalisation that is inconsistent with or in contradiction with the authors intended meaning. That is what you need to do to have an argument.  I'm repeating myself here but since you are being evasive I am forced to do so.  The two statements you initially presented:
 * Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited"
 * and
 * Norrcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions for addictions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy for addictions as "certainly discredited"
 * are neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive. For your argument (assuming you create one) to be cogent you would have to demonstrate that those two statements are mutually exclusive, i.e. that the first precludes the second.  You haven't done anything like this and neither has anyone else.  You only have assertions which I have refuted.  I don't care that you "don't do word salad, wikilawyering, or formal debate" and I don't think anyone else does either.  As an adult editing pages on Wikipedia you are expected to understand the difference between an argument and an assertion and to be able to provide cogent arguments for your proposed edits and answer any rebuttals to your arguments and counter-arguments.  If you are unable or unwilling to engage in this process then you have no business being an editor.  You don't have an exemption from this process (which forms the basis of establishing consensus) nor can you obtain any such exemption.  You are being pressed to provide justification for your assertions and you appear unable to do so and so are resorting to asinine innuendo presumably out of a sense of frustration.  Boo-hoo.  You are special are you? You don't need to warrant your actions and proposals on Wikipedia? We should just unquestionably accept your assertions? You wrote, "most effective arguments can be made in less than a hundred words".  According to who?  You?  You of course being an authority on "effective arguments" and I should of course defer to your obvious authority.  An "effective argument" must address all of the contentions of an interlocutor.  For this reason alone the length of an "effective argument" will be roughly proportionate to the argument (or assertion) it is in response to.  Do you have an "effective argument" against Marxian economics, Rand's  Objectivism, Nozick's  Anarchy, State and Utopia, Rawls' A Theory of Justice or Natural selection that is less than 100 words?  If so then please share. So counsels and judge could have each wrapped up Roe v. Wade in less that 100 words each? You have this ignorant idea because you don't know what an argument is.  You wouldn't recognise one if you saw one.  That is why you post assertions and then complain of intransigence on the part of opposing editors.  Grow up and educate yourself. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "For your argument (assuming you create one) to be cogent you would have to demonstrate that those two statements are mutually exclusive, i.e. that the first precludes the second."
 * Flat out wrong again and showing that your logic skills are quite weak in spite of the WP:WALLS of logic jargon.
 * There is no need to "demonstrate that those two statements are mutually exclusive", nor any fathomable explanation for your bizarre assertion. There are no reasoned arguments as to why the existing statement is not POV, whereas 3 users have clearly explained why it is (excluding all those who've apparently made the same point in the past).  There are no reasoned objections to the replacements suggested by Reconsolidation.  There were no reasonable arguments to revert either replacement or revert my reversion.
 * Lastly, the statement with additions was mine, not htom's. It is not a suggested text, merely an example to show how ridiculous your argument is. WykiP (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha! So your response is just a flat assertion and you then proceed to berate my understanding of logic and argument. Why do you expect your assertion to be persuasive?  Really.  Why do you think that you just asserting something will have any persuasive force? Your inability to understand my argument is evidence of your inadequacy not my own.  If those two statements are not mutually exclusive then the conclusion in Norcross et al.(2010) isn't being contradicted in the lead, its truth has not been excluded -- neither implicitly nor explicitly.  It is as simple as that.  If the truth of the fully specified form of the synopsis has not been excluded then there is no "overgeneralisation" nor is there any "POV" in the text of the lead.  Consensus isn't based on a ballot, it is based on a process of rational discourse.  It is irrelevant that three people that can't distinguish an assertion from an argument contend -- without any argument -- that a statement is an "overgeneralisation" or "POV-pushing".  Merely asserting that you don't need to demonstrate the mutual exclusivity of those two statement isn't an argument that you don't need to demonstrate the mutual exclusivity of those two statements.  You do in fact need to demonstrate their mutual exclusivity because the actual text in the lead is not itself problematic and your complaint is based on a mangled imaginary form of the statement that is the product of your flawed inferential process.  If the fully specified form of the statement can be inferred from the statement in the lead -- and it can because of the the two statements are not mutually exclusive -- then you have no case.  End of story.  The only way to rescue your position is to demonstrate the mutual exclusivity of those two statements and you haven't done that.  You aren't going to get anywhere without an argument so why bother with this childish behaviour.  So the best you can muster is essentially, "No it isn't".  Congratulations.  Lastly, what statement with additions? If it isn't an argument then don't bother posting it because it isn't going to advance your position. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "If those two statements are not mutually exclusive then the conclusion in Norcross et al.(2010) isn't being contradicted in the lead, its truth has not been excluded"
 * Absolute nonsense but, once again, feel free to justify this bizarre assertion without WP:WALLS of meaningless logic jargon. WykiP (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, I've just recently read all the arguments on this thread and seriously these discussions have to stop. It isn't being anywhere productive. @WykiP your attempt in claiming that this entire article is POV-pushing isn't going anywhere. You keep on avoiding to make a valid and sound counter-argument against @AnotherPseudonym's claims, and even going as far as to nitpick his words to your liking and say that his arguments are bizarre and ridiculous. I find your behaviour extremely offensive and provocative, as if YOUR claim MUST be correct and everyone else's counter argument is "bizarre and ridiculous". I am amazed and surprised that @AnotherPseudonym still has the goodwill in explaining his arguments to you, yet you just turn a blind eye to it and then say everything he says is just WP:WALLS. You shall have your one last chance in trying to come up with a formal argument for your case - the case that an overgeneralisation of a source violates NPOV. Otherwise, this should all just go to WP:ANI. Ki Chjang (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think calling an request for comment would be the appropriate next step; ANI is for reporting problems/violations of policy that require administrator involvement. siafu (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Ki Chjang, thank you for your intervention. In further defense of myself and the other earnest editors I would like to point out that WykiP has wasted the time and energy of several editors by contending amongst other things that consensus is not needed.  Siafu intervened in this instance and that appeared to squash that tactic(?) from WykiP but there have been similar earlier behaviours by WykiP such as an idiosyncratic reading of WP:CLAIM, the contention that a judge's ratio decidendi quoted verbatim is "pejorative", "POV-pushing" and "not based on reliable sources", that the NLP article shouldn't have a criticism section etc.  Myself and other editors have spent much time and storage space explaining policy and guidelines to WykiP (and his/her supportive cohorts Eturk001, Reconsolidation, Dameien Raczy, htom) but we never get a concession of error let alone an apology.  WykiP and the others instead back-off on the issue for a little while and then raise it again.  This pattern has been repeated several times.  I don't know whether this behaviour is motivated by abject ignorance of rational discourse and ineptitude (and that is why in good faith I have devoted much time to trying to explain the counter-position using various pedagogical devices: analogy, explicit syllogism, Venn diagram, reconceptualisation (in the now apparently vain hope of addressing an educational deficit)) or it is a deliberate tactic that is intended to steal time that could be devoted to improving the article.  Either way I too think this behaviour is unacceptable.  I think it is noteworthy that neither WykiP, Eturk001, Reconsolidation, Damien Raczy or htom have contributed anything substantive to the article and all of their proposals and actions have comprised deletions of well-sourced material or intentions to do so or unwarranted additions that debase the text and appear to be purposed to perform a form of PR damage control on behalf of the NLP industry.  Reconsolidation and Damien Raczy both operate SPAs devoted to this article. Damien Raczy is an NLP practioner with an undeclared conflict-of-interest.  Reconsolidation has some unspecified involvment in the NLP industry.  WykiP and Eturk001 dabble in other articles but spend most of their time here in the talk page raising these spurious objections.  As far as I can determine from his other miniscule edits on other articles (that have been reverted) Eturk001 is some sort of Multi-level Marketing/Amway salesman type that is zealous about NLP.  There hasn't been any cool-headed rationality amongst these editors to work with and so all appeals at ratiocination have failed. I am happy to re-present my arguments in a moderated/supervised forum against any or all of WykiP, Eturk001, Reconsolidation, Dameien Raczy or htom. Some form of moderation is required because all of these editors are either unwilling or unable to recognise an argument and present a counter-argument.  In the presence of some form of moderation the vacuity of their positions will become abundantly clear to all and a case can then be made for their behaviour to be disciplined. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Its probably time to stop 'feeding' them. The debate is going no where and its over as it has been over before.  Twice we have come close to raising the meat puppetry and practitioner involvement issues at ANI and things have then gone silent for a period.  I've got the history of that documented as well as some of the links to the NLP advocacy sites that deal with the wikipedia entry if they are needed.  The general pattern is a new SPA editor who hits one of the normal 'lets delete this' hot topics and then the usual suspects which as htom and WykiP jump in. Reconsolidation has had material deleted from his page to disguise the fact that he is a NLP practitioner/trainer although again I have a copy of the original.  For the moment I suggest that there is clearly no consensus to change and there is no requirement on editors to continue to respond to the same weakly argued points.  Just respond with 'change not agreed see previous comments' or similar unless new material is introduced  Snowded  TALK 06:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "You shall have your one last chance in trying to come up with a formal argument for your case - the case that an overgeneralisation of a source violates NPOV. Otherwise, this should all just go to WP:ANI."
 * Are you asking for a formal mathematical proof? If so, why?
 * Secondly, I never said that "overgeneralisation of a source violates NPOV" I said that overgeneralisation of a source which exaggerates its criticism (or praise) of a subject violates NPOV, especially if its in the lead.
 * I have made the case several times. The clearest argument I made was probably here.  Two counterarguments have been forthcoming:
 * One by David Gerard: that the current text isn't an overgeneralistion.  I asked him what his criteria for that are.  No further explanation has been forthcoming by anyone.
 * AnotherPseudonym's counterargument has just been plain baffling, and I asked him to justify it in the comment you responded to.


 * It's worth pointing out that there are now 5 editors who have asserted that the current text in question is an overgeneralition (not including the various people I'm told who've raised it in the past) and only 3 who've asserted it isn't, without providing any reasoned and reasonable argument justifying that.


 * Furthermore, I never claimed "that this entire article is POV-pushing".
 * In terms of contributions, I found the Sturt et al 2013 paper, which is probably the strongest source for this article. Since we're not even being allowed to fix this most basic & obvious POV and that I've been repeatedly told I'm not allowed to edit the article, I'm wondering what other contributions you think I should have made?
 * It seems obvious to me that any good WP editor who works on any article which is strongly contested will have 90+% of their edits on that Talk page.
 * Lastly, AnotherPseudonym is dragging up accusations, undoubtedly false, from months ago. It doesn't help to create a WP:CIVIL atmosphere but I'm happy to defend my behaviour -- maybe on my Talk page? WykiP (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WykiP as far as I can tell, this is NOT an argument. It is simply a question asking to clarify a claim. No wonder @AnotherPseudonym has such a hard time talking with you. I don't think you have bad intentions, but you have clearly demonstrated that you are incompetent. This is a case of WP:CIR. If you want to contest this claim, we can open a new page at WP:RfC. Ki Chjang (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ki Chjang, WykiP will not believe you, (s)he is convinced of his/her intelligence and knowledge and the idiocy of everyone else. There is also some social proof occurring in relation to the NLP superfriends (Reconsolidation, htom, Eturk001, Damien Raczy).  They too are incompetent and are unable to either formulate a cogent argument nor recognise one and respond to it in an intelligent manner.  They champion a militant form of ignorance and in this context WykiP will conceptualise your criticism as as partisan opinion.  It is apparent to anyone that can understand  this that this is not an argument.  An argument is -- by definition -- comprised of premises and a conclusion.  There is no sense in which a question can be construed as an argument.  A question is simply NOT an argument but WykiP will have none of this and will brook no criticism or correction.  The other incompetents -- by virtue of their incompetence -- appear to agree with WykiP.  Certainly none of them have attempted to correct Wykip.  WykiP says this is the best argument (s)he has produced -- the NLP superfriends give their silent approval.  Earlier I wrote of a magical NLP wonderland where the concepts of evidence, substantiation and warrant don't exist and have no meaning.  It appears that in this magical NLP wonderland this is an argument.  This is a  Kafkaesque situation.  We are amidst absurdity.  There is an element of buffoonery to the behaviour of WykiP, Reconsolidation, htom, Eturk001, Damien Raczy -- the incongruity between self-concept and actual competency has been amusing at times -- but it does wear thin after a while and the inability to appeal to fundamental concepts of reason necessarily impedes any attempt to establish consensus.  In the spirit of collegiality I provide argumentation but as you have seen these people literally do not know what an argument is, they don't know when they should be persuaded.  They are meta-ignorant, they are ignorant about their ignorance and this meta-ignorance contributes to an unjustified sense of competency and even of arrogance.  You can see the dismissive responses of the incompetents to my arguments.  You will also find that WykiP on numerous occassions insists that I WP:CONCEDE.  So I have a person that puts up literally no argument, asserts something, ignores my refutation of the assertion and then claims victory?!  What is to be done? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WykiP you are just being evasive as per usual. Who said anything about a "formal mathematical proof" beside you? No one.  YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT!  You don't appear to even understand what an argument is.  You are ignorant and uneducated.  An argument consists of a series of statments termed premises that justify a final statement that is termed a conclusion.  All you have offered thus far are conclusions.  A conclusion without premises is just an assertion.  I have provided numerous arguments and I have even explicitly laid out the premises and the conclusions for to try and baby-step you through my arguments.  For my effortsI got insults in return.  It seems that you value your ignorance and don't want to lose it.  Not only have you no arguments but YOU HAVE NOT REBUTTED EVEN ONE OF MY ARGUMENTS!.  If you are unable to formulate an argument and are unable to understand an argument then you have no business here.  Other editors can't be burdened with the task of educating you.  Take a break from Wikipedia and read the books I suggested and do all the prescribed exercises then come back. This IS NOT AN ARGUMENT, it is just an irrelevant rhetorical question.  I called it a strawman but I now realise that was being overly generous.  It is literally just a rhetorical question.  It is not a argument so it can't be the "clearest argument" you made.  It has neither premises nor a conclusion so there is NO WAY that can be construed as an argument let alone a lucid argument.  Also you never asked me for clarification you just ignorantly described my real arguments as "gobbledegook", "ridiculous", "laughable", "nonsense".  It is irrelevant that five people agree with you.  If I find five idiots that don't believe that man has landed on the moon (and I can find much more than five) does that count as evidence that man hasn't landed on the moon?  See this sort of idiocy is symptomatic of your global ignorance about argumentation and evidence.  You just have no idea.  You literally can't recognise an argument when one is put in front of you.  But rather than admit your ignorance and attempt to rectify it you instead engage in name-calling like the stupid kid of the class that mocks the intelligent kids.  Are you an adult?  Seriouly, are you an adult?  I'm finding it hard to believe that an adult can have so little insight into their own ignorance and behaviour coupled with such an exaggerated sense of competency.  Regardless, you have offered us nothing new, just more of the same. You have just repeated your UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS.  No one that has even the most rudimentary understanding of even informal logic is going to say "well done WykiP that's a great argument".  YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT!  I've been trying to tell you that for weeks now but you just won't listen, you know it all. Ki Chjang has told you that and others will also tell you that.  Forget your NLP superfriends they don't know what an argument is either.  5 x 0 = 0  100 x 0 = 0 AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WykiP, above you wrote:
 * "Secondly, I never said that "overgeneralisation of a source violates NPOV"
 * That is untrue, you wrote:
 * "The current statement overgeneralises the sources and is thus POV. WykiP (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)"
 * "I agree with your wording and highlighted the original POV over-generalisation just over a month ago. WykiP (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)"
 * Above you wrote:
 * I never claimed "that this entire article is POV-pushing".
 * You make multiple accusation of POV promotion against other editors and you imply that the article is POV and again you do so in the absence of a cogent argument -- these are just vacuous allegations:
 * "But the lead is clearly POV... WykiP (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)"
 * "You seem to want to make this Bandler guy look bad. That is called POV-pushing... WykiP (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)"
 * "Reproducing someone's words verbatim is not enough to satisfy NPOV... WykiP (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)"
 * "my attempts to move the article towards NPOV are entirely justified... WykiP (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)"
 * "And it remains unanswered. So it's been POV all that time? Wow... WykiP (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)"
 * "If pushing for accuracy and NPOV (never mind this is in the lead) is querulous, Wikipedia surely needs querulous editors. WykiP (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)"
 * Then when you proposed edits are scrutinised you have the gall to write:
 * "The accusation of POV breaches WP:AGF. Still not seeing any reasoned objections and let's face it, there aren't any. WykiP (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)"
 * You throw around accusations of POV promotion like confetti at a wedding and then assume the pretence of piety when anyone quesions your baseless claims. The vital point that needs to be borne in mind when reading the above accusations and claims is that they ARE ENTIRELY UNSUBSTANTIATED.  They are not accompanied by anything resembling a justification.  In addition to being incompetent you are also dishonest and hypocritical.  That is a particularly toxic combination of attributes. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You should pay attention to your friends on this page. You must think I was born yesterday. WykiP (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously claiming that this and this mean the same thing? Can you refute that argument?  I doubt it. It's far less than 100 words so it is solid.  I'm putting together what I have learnt -- a synthesis -- about argumentation from the talk page from those that clearly know more about logic, argumentation and evidence than I do.  I was totally clueless.  I've taken the two ideas: (i) an argument is a question; and (ii) most effective arguments are less than 100 words and melded them to produce some sort of laser death ray of logic that vaporises anything it strikes.  I am also imbibing the powerful axioms that I have extracted; the primary axiom being that if I don't understand something it is to be dismissed as nonsensical garbage.  I initially thought that if I didn't understand something it may be at least a possibility to consider that I was ignorant and I should check that I have the necessary background knowledge to make sense of it before dismissing it.  I've discarded that false idea.  Now I know that all such questions are to be resolved self-referentially: if I don't understand it, it must be crap; if I don't know about it, it must be crap.  That means that I know all that is worth knowing and I understand everything that is worth understanding.  That makes me feel good about myself.  Thanks! AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @htom PS:- What is your argument -- that is less than 100 words -- for your assertion that "most effective arguments can be made in less than a hundred words"? You failed to justify that claim also.  You appear to inhabit some sort of magical wonderland where the concepts of evidence, substantiation and warrant don't exist and have no meaning, where Richard Bandler shits marshmallow snowballs and John Grinder pisses fruit punch and where the response to whatever you say -- however facile, imbecilic or arbitrary -- is "Wow! You're smart.".  Great endorsement for NLP.  Keep posting. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I shall. Implying is done by writers, inferring is done by readers. (14 words, not counting those in this parenthetical.) htom (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect and it is irrelevant to your claim. How does your (flawed) categorisation of inference and implication advance your claim that "most effective arguments can be made in less than a hundred words"?  A reader or listener can draw an implication based on what (s)he read or heard.  For example, if Bob hears on the radio that there has been an accident on the highway that he uses to go to work he will draw the implication that he will be late to work.  Bob has obtained a conclusion based on the his premises, his conclusion is a  logical implication of his premises (his reliance on the highway, the impedance of traffic flow from the collision, the time it takes to clear the road).  If unfortunate Bob reads a letter of termination of his employment then he will draw the implication that if he doesn't find another job he will not be able to make his next mortgage payment.  Every research paper or report that employs  inferential statistics contains an inference made by the writer(s) of that report.  A scientific report will typically infer a result to the population based on a tested sample of that population. The processes of implication and inference in essence describe the same process, namely the production of a conclusion from premises.  The only substantive difference is that the the word implication is generally employed in the context of  deductive logic and inference is generally employed in the context of  inductive logic.  The idea that implication is somehow only associated with the act of writing and inference only by the act of reading is frankly speaking very ignorant.  Reading and writing have nothing directly to do with either implication or inference.  Implication and inference are cognitive processes and the creation of texts or their reading is incidental or superfluous to both processes. Why don't you read a book or do a course on logic and clear thinking? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, be concise and factual. What I read is abstruse demonstrations and unfairness. Some seem to try to discredit other editors which un unacceptable. - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't confuse "I don't (don't want to) understand this' with it "is abstruse". That is 101 undergraduate stuff and we are entitled to expect that other editors can work at that level  Snowded  TALK 09:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Snowded. Yes that is correct.  What I described is taught in first year of undergraduate courses in introductory statistics, introductory formal logic, introductory philosophy and partly in introductory discrete mathematics.  It is basic stuff and it is factual.  "Implying is done by writers, inferring is done by readers" is ignorant and idiotic talk topped with self-delusion about one's knowledge.  It is ignorance paraded in a Mardi Gras of proud ignorance.  Are you the parade leader asking me to join your parade?  The assertion "most effective arguments can be made in less than a hundred words" is equally ignorant. Where then is the argument that demonstrates this claim "for most arguments"?  This is the sort of garbage we have come to expect from you and your NLP superfriends: unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion dressed up in drag and pushed out in front of an audience to pretend it is an argument.  If you don't like what I write then don't read it.  I have no regard for what you or your NLP superfreinds consider "abstruse".  Really I just don't care.  Don't try and burden me with your ignorance and/or lack of intelligence.  Anyone that has completed even only the first semester of the first year of an undergraduate degree in the social or biological sciences or philosophy can understand what I have written.  If you lack even that level of knowledge then you have no business editing articles or trying to contradict me.  What is particularly odious about you, htom and Wykip is the militancy of your ignorance.  The subtext of your complaining posts is "I'm ignorant.  I don 't like to feel ignorant.  Can you at least pretend to be like me so that I don't feel and look ignorant?".  Denigrating someone that knows more than you do because they know more than you do is juvenile -- it is quintessentially juvenile and all three of you have demonstrated that regressive behaviour.  André Muller Weitzenhoffer himself described NLP as puerile and as having a seductive appeal to the puerile mind.  Need I say more? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Say all you want. Sometimes I read it, sometimes I skim it, mostly to see if you're saying something about me. Usually I don't respond, as responding to such false allegations is usually waste of my time. If, as is announced every quarter or so, we end up at WP:ARB they'll be there to be quoted. You seem to think that Wikipedia is a debating society, where arguments are advanced in support or denial of positions, with some winner and loser being declared. While that form of debate can be useful, that's not the Wikipedia model; Wikipedia proceeds by consensus, not victory. I don't think I've ever said that NLP (or the article about it) shouldn't be criticized. I have, IIRC, said that we should describe what it was, has become, and the claims made for it, before we begin the criticism. It is obvious that that idea is not acceptable to the long-winded here, and so I'm not attempting to implement it. htom (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works from reliable third party sources and that acts as a constraint on consensus. The criticism is in the lede, but the lede also describes.  For something so clearly discredited in any scientific literature than is more than generous to those still within its orbit.  Its a pseudo-science pure and simple by the third party sources so that is how it is described  Snowded  TALK 19:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As Snowded rightly pointed out consensus is bounded by evidence in the form of citable sources and those boundaries are demonstrated via argumentation and the presentation of said sources. That is the Wikipedia model. Wikipedia isn't in a parallel universe, its content is (supposed to be) reflective of subject expert consensus.  Doing a two week seminar where you are guaranteed a (worthless) certificate doesn't make someone an expert on neuroscience, educational psychology, psychotherapy, human resources management, cognitive psychology, social psychology or any other substantive area that NLP practitioners encroach upon.  An "NLP expert" isn't an expert in any of these fields and it can be argued that there is no such as an "NLP expert".  How do you establish expertise in a poorly defined field with no evidence base?  NLP has no standing amongst subject experts and it is widely deemed to be pseudoscientific rubbish by said experts and the article (including the lead) should reflect that.  What you want is for the article to be divorced from reality where the people that are actual experts are subordinated to the NLP charlatans.  There is no evidence for the efficacy of NLP nor is there evidence for the validity of its key concepts.  That is brute fact that you are resisting.  Also, if you try and talk ignorant nonsense (eg. "most effective arguments can be made in less than a hundred words", "Implying is done by writers, inferring is done by readers.") I have just as much right to respond to your ignorant garbage as you have a right to post it in the first place. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's counted as stalling.
 * Still waiting for this (over)generalisation to be justified by reasonable argument by its defenders. WykiP (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are waiting for other people to agree with you which doesn't look likely. You have been presented with reasonably arguments they just don't fit your particular take on the subject.  Thats life on Wikipedia and we are at the same place we have been many times before  Snowded  TALK 15:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 5 people have agreed: myself, htom, Damien Raczy, Reconsolidated and eturk.
 * 3 have objected but failed to provide reasonable arguments and if this continues, they will have to be ignored and it will be unanimous consensus to change. WykiP (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @Wykip, since you have been deemed incompetent as per WP:CIR you are irrelevant. You have no argument to justify your claim, no cogent argument to justify the claim has been proposed by anyone else, the arguments in favour of the status quo sit unchallenged, you don't know what a reasonable argument is and you don't appear to understand what the word "unanimous" means.  If even one person disagrees with you then you don't have unanimity -- by definition. Face palm.  Everyone survived the train crash except the people that died.  Awesome!.  I think it is you that will have to be ignored. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Snowded still hasn't provided the citation showing that Bandler and Grinder claimed that NLP was scientific. (requested in Archive 24) htom (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not that old one again! Check out the archives.  Try and get the meat puppetry sites to come up with some new ideas guys the record is getting stuck.   Love the argument WykiP, you ignore people who disagree with you and then claim unanimity.  Is this some new meaning of the word 'unanimity' only known to initiates?  Snowded  TALK 22:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @htom, refer quetion 2 herehere. Note that this is Bandler's site and the FAQ is marked These are answers from Richard Bandler.  I quote:
 * The models that constitute NLP™ are all formal models based on mathematical, logical principles such as predicate calculus and the mathematical equations underlying holography.
 * Holography is a technique from optics which is a branch of physics. So Bandler is saying that NLP is based on this. That looks like a claim to scientificity to me.  Here in Bandler's promotional video NLP is described as "the art and science of excellence".  Here Bandler makes the following statements:
 * ~2:50 Bandler claims that the NLP phobia cure "flattens out the neurons in the brain"
 * ~4:50 Bandler claims NLP works with the "endemic(?) nervous system" ~4:50
 * ~7:10 Bandler claims that he "base[s] everything on MRIs,  PET scans, everything that neurologists have told me about how the neurochemistry of the brain works"
 * ~8:20 Bandler claims that he developed the NLP phobia cure using MRI: "I had to use much bigger devices to do this.  Initially what I did was I took a whole lot of people with very serious phobias and made MRIs of them and looked at what was in common and then ran the same people through patterns where they first thought about it differently..."
 * ~8:50 Bandler suggests he is doing "real science": "...to me real science would mean you could take real people who are terrified of elevators and if you can take twenty of them and twenty minutes later they can ride up and down without fear, to me that's measurement..." 8:54
 * Earlier I provided numerous quotes from Grinder also on various aspects of neuroscience in relation NLP. Both Bandler and Grinder either imply or state explicitly that NLP is "scientific".  That notwithstanding, your demand of Snowded is pointless.  Even if Bandler and Grinder did in fact state that NLP is not science and they were always consistent and unequivocal on this matter -- and they aren't so this is entirely moot -- that would not immunise them from scientific criticism.  Every time they made an empirical claim (eg. Grinder's claim that tossing keys from one hand to another "activates both sides of the brain", Bandler's claim that the NLP phobia cure works by "flatten[ing] out the neurons in the brain") they have ventured into scientific territory by making empirical neuroscientific claims.  Similarly, if Bandler claims that NLP techniques were devised through the use of MRIs and PET scans he is in effect stating that NLP has a neuroscientfic bases.  When Bandler states that NLP is based on physics equations he is in effect proposing that NLP is based in science.  Bandler and Grinder have attracted heavy criticism from scientists and been labelled psuedoscientists because they make pseudoscientific claims like the those I have documented.  They posit neuroscientific bases for NLP and they claim NLP techniques have been derived using neuroscientific measurement.  Bandler and Grinder claim one thing and do another.  They initially claimed to be strictly phenomenological and  fictionalist (as per the seminar that Andreas transcribed to produce Frogs into Princes) but in practice they gave only lip service to these theories and repeatedly contradicted themselves by making empirical claims about the neurological substrates of the subjective experience they were notionally exclusively concerned with.  In the BBC interview of Bandler I referenced above Bandler repeatedly makes references to neuroscientific concepts: he talks of neurons, cortical pathways, neurochemistry etc.  None of these ideas can be arrived at phenomenologically, the study of subjective experience will not ever yield the idea that V/K dissociation flattens out neurons (whatever that means), it won't even yield the concept of a neuron.  Bandler could have said something along the lines of "NLPs orientation is purely phenomenological, we are concerned only with the structure of subjective experience as it is elucidated through introspection, verbal and non-verbal communication.  I have no idea how the phobia cure works, NLP has no method of discovering underlying neurological mechanism and being phenomenological in orientation we have no interest in the neural substrates of subjectivity."  Neither Grinder nor Bandler have consistently abided by that ethos.  Bandler and Grinder do state and imply that NLP is scientific but even if they didn't do so their actual behaviour is more important than their professed beliefs and the critical scientific opinion is a result of their actual behaviour. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * More from Bandler: ~1:24 "Since the book Using Your Brain For A Change was released NLP has turned upside-down.  And it hasn't stopped.  Focussing on the entemic[?] nervous system and how neurological change is produced by altering your consciousness..." AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's (first 10 minutes) Grinder from 1985 delivering an NLP seminar. Again Grinder ventures outside of the self-prescribed remit of NLP and opines on psychopathology -- a scientific subject.  Of course he gets it all wrong.  He repeats the myth that schizophrenia means having more than one personality.  He confuses schizophrenia with  Multiple Personality Disorder and predicates his entire argument about "schizophrenia" on this popular fallacy.  Schizophrenia has absolutely nothing to do with "split" or multiple personalities.  The splitting that the Greek root refers to is a "splitting of mental functions".  If NLP has no pretence to being scientific why is Grinder trying to pontificate on a medical/scientific matter (and cocking it all up)?  He doesn't even understand what schizophrenia is yet he is lecturing on it.  He is contributing to the stigmatisation of those with schizophrenia.  Grinder's idolators will likely respond "because he doesn't believe it is a medical/scientific matter!".  Indeed he may not but since he doesn't even know what schizophrenia is that means very little.  He thinks he's talking about schizophrenia and schizophrenia is a medical/scientific matter.   Grinder demonstrates how little he knows about schizophrenia by associating it with split/multiple personalities.  Any claim that (what he thinks is) schizophrenia isn't a psychopathology is undermined by his ignorance of what schizophrenia actually is.  How authoritative can he be on the aetiology of (what he thinks is) schizophrenia when he doesn't even know what it is?  Remember this is an NLP seminar and Grinder is proposing an aetiology for (what he thinks is) schizophrenia.  Biomedical scientists have it all wrong about (what Grinder thinks is) schizophrenia but he knows all about it and is divulging it in an NLP seminar. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * From Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience (of which Bandler and Grinder are both authors) it is clearly evident that the authors believe they are engaged in some sort of scientific endeavour. They conceive the term technology as it is defined in the dictionary:


 * Technology, the systematic application of scientific principles to obtain useful outcomes (p.26)


 * They contend:
 * Just as the computer and information processing industries have advanced tremendously in the past twenty five years due to the new technology provided by the semiconductor (the processing capacity of what once used to require a machine that filled a large room is now available from a chip no bigger than the head of a pin), so too we intend that the behavioral professions and sciences will advance in the coming decades as the result of the new technology provided by neurolinguistic programming. (p.24, emphasis added)


 * NLP is described as a technology, i.e. the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. The claim is explicit.  But there is more to come. Bandler and Grinder et al argue:


 * The attitude implicit in the scientific model is that any portion of our experience can be understood and eventually controlled if we are willing to study the processes which underlie that experience. Technology, the systematic application of scientific principles to obtain useful outcomes, evolves as we discover how our behavior affects a particular set of structural elements in the context of each new scientific discovery. Useful applications may be many steps removed or only indirectly related to the immediate frame of reference of a new discovery, but practical uses or outcomes often become evident if the search is undertaken. As a result of this process, more and more dimensions of experience from the class of environmental variables have been shifted to the class of decision variables. Not long ago in our historical past, waterfalls — though considered awe–inspiring and beautiful— were thought to be a hindrance to the spread and development of industry and commerce because they prevented rivers from being utilized for transportation and communication. Today we have learned to use them as sources of hydroelectric power which, in turn, has paved the way to greatly increased choices with respect to transportation and communication. Again, we once viewed the appearance of mold on bread as a sign that the bread was useless. We learned, however, to use the mold itself by deriving penicillin from it — one of the most brilliant and useful medical discoveries in history. The principle of inoculation in preventive medicine involves the transformation of bacteria and viruses associated with the onset of particular diseases into weakened forms whose introduction into the human body stimulates our immunological systems to protect us from those same diseases...Each of the examples in the previous paragraph, taken in its historical context, involved the shift of a portion of our experience from the class of environmental variables into the class of decision variables by reframing or restructuring the way a problematic phenomenon fit into our models. It is the continuation of this process, the shifting of environmental variables into decision variables by sorting and punctuating the way the variables fit into context, that is the goal of neurolinguistic programming. (emphasis added)


 * That is to say, the development of NLP represents a participation in the same process by which scientific knowledge is acquired and from which technology eventually results. The point here is that science and NLP do not represent two separate domains.  NLP is characterised as just another instance of the transformation of "environment variables" into "decision variables".  Further, if there is any doubt page 31 is entitled Extending the Modern Scientific Model.  Thus, the authors aren't engaged in an activity that is incommensurable or incompatible with science.  No, what they are engaged in is entirely consistent with scientific development, it is a type of scientific development. The subsequent section confirms that understanding:


 * NLP extends the limits of the modern scientific model by placing the locus of behavioral control in the individual. Einstein's relativity theory indicates that time, mass and spatial dimensions change relative to the observer's frame of reference at speeds approaching the speed of light. Although Einstein's theory represents an extension of the limits of preceding scientific models by its inclusion of the observer's perspective, behavioral control in his theory is a function of the relation between the velocity of the system and that of the speed of light, both of which are assumed to be external to the observer. NLP takes one further step and proposes to examine the correlations between what we experience as the external environment and our internal representations of that experience. To accomplish this, NLP draws from many recent advances in the neurosciences, psychophysiology, linguistics, cybernetics, communication theory and the information sciences. (p.31, empahsis added)


 * Here the authors draw a parallel between "the behavioral professions and sciences"/NLP and Newtonian physics/special relativity. They see themselves as doing for the behavioural sciences what Einstein did for physics.  Einstein was contributing to science and so too NLP, hence the analogy; a fortiori Bandler and Grinder are going "one further step" than Einstein in extending the "modern scientific model".  Lest there be any doubt about their intended meaning they explicitly state that NLP is predicated on multiple fields of science.  Science can only be "extended" with more science if it is to retain its identity as science.  Were it that NLP was something other than science or at least not scientific in nature the process of grafting NLP upon science would produce an unintegrated composite, something partly science and partly whatever NLP is.  But no, science is being extended by NLP (note that it is not NLP that is being extended by science but the converse) and as a result we are getting a better, more capable science. Special relativity isn't just an unintegrated appendage of physics, it is integrated into physics by virtue of its scientificity (and validity).  Similarly NLP can only extend science to the extent that it is scientific.  The authors try to establish that NLP is bona fide scientific by claiming that it is predicated on "neurosciences, psychophysiology, linguistics, cybernetics, communication theory and the information sciences" and in this manner it is capable of pushing outward the frontier of behavioural science in the same manner as special relativity vis-a-vis physics.  Clearly Bandler and Grinder claim that NLP is in some sense "scientific".  I say "some sense" because neither of them appear to have even a basic (first year university) understanding of the history and philosophy of science.  That notwithstanding they clearly have for NLP pretensions to scientificity. None of this is consistent with the sentiments they expressed in the seminar that became Frogs into Princes (1979).  Gone are the initial implicit appeals to ideas from phenomenology and fictionalism, now  "NLP draws from many recent advances in the neurosciences, psychophysiology, linguistics, cybernetics, communication theory and the information sciences" and it represents an evolutionary extension of the "scientific model".  What is published in a book that is not derived from a seminar transcript, i.e. Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience (1980) is more significant than what is uttered in the course of a seminar.  In a seminar what is said may be off-the-cuff whereas what is published in a book proper is more deliberate, more considered, more intentional, more planned and subject to vetting.  Also there is only one year between the publication of Frogs and NLP Volume I so the difference can't be attributed to a gradual change of opinion over many years. A switch from one polar opinion to the opposite pole within a year without any explanation would be very strange but if such radical change did occur NLP Volume I comes after Frogs so it supercedes the content of Frogs.  So there is no convenient escape hatch for NLP apologists.  Bandler and Grinder DO claim that NLP is "scientific". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here, yet again we have Grinder in an interview making an empirical neuroscientific claim that is inevitably wrong. Grinder states:
 * We failed to include an account of how the unconscious mind should be directly involved and the result in the world even here in Italy and other places in the world is a left...unbalanced left-brain intellectual approach...Because people are accustomed from the educational system to be left-brain, analytical...
 * Grinder is a trying to present a particular idea (viz. that New Code NLP gives a better treatment of the unconscious mind than Classic Code) of NLP as having a foundation in neuroscience and he does so by repeating the brain lateralisation myth. Grinder is making a clear and unequivocal scientific claim.  He is not being figurative or metaphorical, he is being literal and positing an unsubstantied idea about how the human brain actually works.  He could have just said "intellectual, analytical approach" and dispensed with the hemispheric reference and that's what he would have done if he wasn't pretending to have neuroscientific insight.  His referencing of hemisphericity is supposed to create the impression that NLP is based in neuroscience but ironically it shows that NLP isn't based in neuroscience.  If there were no claim that NLP is scientific, Grinder wouldn't feel compelled to draw on his shallow and muddy pool of neuroscientific knowledge.  AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sadly, it will be several weeks before I can digest this, as I have to go and deal with family matters. htom (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your response is irrelvant because you and the others never concede your mistakes.  I didn't post all that just for you I posted it for the archival record for when the canard that Bandler and Grinder never claimed NLP is "scientific" inevitably comes up again.  On page 7 of Frogs into Princes Bandler and Grinder say:
 * What we essentially do is to pay very little attention to what people say they do and a great deal of attention to what they do.
 * Indeed, and that is what those scientists and clinicians that have described Bandler and Grinder as pseudoscientists have done. On that same page of Frogs into Princes they go on to say:
 * We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians or theoreticians. We have no idea about the "real" nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true." The function of modeling is to arrive at descriptions which are useful. So, if we happen to mention something that you know from a scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realize that a different level of experience is being offered you here. We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful. (p.7)
 * That is what they say they do. But if we adopt their own approach and ignore what they say they do and instead look at what they actually do what do we find -- not in other texts, interviews and seminars -- in the very same seminar:
 * One thing that children do is to become hyperactive. One hemisphere is registering the visual input and the tonal input, and the other hemisphere is registering the words and their digital meaning, and they don't fit. They don't fit maximally where the two hemispheres overlap maximally in kinesthetic representation. If you ever watch a hyperactive kid, the trigger for hyperactivity will be incongruity, and it will begin here at the midline of the torso, and then diffuse out to all kinds of other behavior. (p.49)
 * That is an emprical neuroscientific fact claim as far as I can determine. It isn't  metaphorical, it isn't in any way  figurative, it isn't  phenomenology (some of the concepts can't be derived phenomenologically, i.e. through instrospective examination of subjective experience).  Can it be construed in  fictionalist terms (which makes an appearance in The Structure of Magic, Vol. 1: A Book About Language and Therapy in the form of copious quoting from  Vaihinger's  The Philosophy of 'As If': A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind)?  Perhaps, but that would be a very long stretch.  For a start that statement employs terms from the lexicon of neuroscience without any caveat that a different meaning is intended.  In the absence of a caveat it would be more honest and consistent with fictionalism to invent the needed concept and give it a unique name so that there would be no confusion.  An example of this would be Machlup's Homunculus oeconomicus.  There can be no doubt that when the fictionalist economist describes the behaviour of Homunculus oeconomicus (s)he is not making fact claims about Homo sapiens.  There is no such precuationary behaviour from Bandler and Grinder.  Secondly, the statement contains too much arbitrary detail to be construed in fictionalist terms.  Why make any reference to hemisphericity?  The idea contained in the statement can be reconceptualised as informational conflict and that would be more consistent with fictionalism.  Thirdly, in literary theory authorial intent is determined by considering as much of the author's/authors' corpus as is possible.  We have other books, interviews and seminars by Bandler and Grinder which we can use to ascertain their authorial intent.  The totality of Bandler and Grinder's textual output does not support the theses that (a) the neuroscientific description in Frogs into Princes is intended to be read as anything other than literal; and (b) Bandler and Grinder never claimed that NLP is "scientific".  If we follow Bandler and Grinder's own heuristic:
 * What we essentially do is to pay very little attention to what people say they do and a great deal of attention to what they do. (p.7)
 * and ignore their claim that
 * We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians or theoreticians. We have no idea about the "real" nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true." The function of modeling is to arrive at descriptions which are useful. So, if we happen to mention something that you know from a scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realize that a different level of experience is being offered you here. We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful. (p.7)
 * and instead observe closely what they actually do in their other books, interviews and seminars we arrive at a consistent narrative that is free of any contradiction. Ignoring what Bandler and Grinder say they do and instead considering only what they really do leads unequivocally to the idea that Bandler and Grinder most certainly claim that NLP is scientific.  I assume that those scientists (some of which have a good grasp of philosophy) that have described NLP as pseudoscientific and which you and other apologists have taken offence to have examined NLP more broadly than by just reading Frogs into Princes.  It seems to me that Bandler and Grinder have no serious philosophical commitment to fictionalism and appeal to it to deflect criticism that NLP lacks an evidence base.  Bandler and Grinder make neuroscientific fact claims which they are happy to have accepted as literally true but when those fact claims are closely scrutinised and scientific results are brought to bear on those claims they and their apologists resort to "We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful".  But that is entirely disingenuous, misrepresentative and abusive of fictionalism, philosophocally naive and untenable.  The NLP apologists' (still-born) project is to exclude all scientific criticism on the basis that Bandler and Grinder never claimed that NLP is "scientific" but that itself is an untenable position. To reiterate:
 * Bandler and Grinder do in fact claim that NLP is "scientific";
 * Even if Bandler and Grinder did consistently claim that NLP isn't supposed to be "scientific" (which they don't) but despite that claim they made empirical neuroscientific fact claims that would be sufficient license to evaluate NLP in scientific terms; and
 * In addition to explicitly stating and implying that NLP is "scientific", Bandler and Grinder do make many empirical neuroscientific fact claims.
 * Thus Snowded's statement in Archive 24 is entirely justified. I have given you multiple citations and I can supply even more (and will do so if I have the time and inclination).  At this point you should be experiencing cognitive dissonance.  Hopefully you will resolve that dissonance in an intelligent and constructive manner. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)