Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop

POV editing by FuelWagon???
In response to this:


 * 8) edits NLP from a strongly positive point of view citing sources from a NLP website, , , ,  and  which he characterizes as "NPOV", see Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming/Evidence.

These diffs don't show POV pushing, they show me reporting the points of view from the sources who espoused them. The first diff 00:04, 2 November 2005 defines NLP using the words from two websites, purenlp.com and nlpu.com. The second diff (two minutes later)00:06, 2 November 2005 shows me attributing those definitions to the source (NLP Seminars Group). The third diff (one minute later) 00:07, 2 November 2005 shows me attributing another part of the definion to another source (Robert Dilts). The fourth diff (another two minutes later) 00:09, 2 November 2005, shows me adding further clarification, attributing definitions to Dilts. In fact, these first four diffs are back-to-back edits to the article by me, and when you look at all four diffs at once, the diff-marks look like this. This results in an introduction that starts out with the first paragraph saying:


 * Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is defined by the NLP Seminars Group International as the study of the structure of subjective experience and what can be calculated from that. Robert Dilts, a supporter of NLP, states that NLP provides tools and skills for the development of states of individual excellence, but it also establishes a system of empowering beliefs and presuppositions about what human beings are, what communication is and what the process of change is all about. Dilts states that at another level, NLP is about self-discovery, exploring identity and mission, that it also provides a framework for understanding and relating to the 'spiritual' part of human experience that reaches beyond us as individuals to our family, community and global systems. Dilts concludes that NLP is not only about competence and excellence, it is about wisdom and vision.

How anyone can read that paragraph and say it violates NPOV policy is beyond me. It defines NLP by reporting the views of NLP advocates, attributing their words to them, and providing URL's to verify their words are reported accurately. In a disputed topic, the general format of most articles is to report the advocate view first and then report the views of the topic's critics. That's all I did here. Diff five 02:06, 2 November 2005 and six04:33, 2 November 2005 are nothing but reverting back to this version.

Fred Bauder states "FuelWagon edits NLP from a strongly positive point of view citing sources from a NLP website" But that's only half the introduction. The intruduction in every version ends by reporting critcial views of NLP from Heap, Sharpley, Lillenfield, Eisner, and others, who espouse the view that NLP is pseudoscientific. Without my edits, the introduction was purely crtical points of view. With my edits, the introduction reported pro-NLP points of view and critical NLP points of view, which actually results in a neutral introduction. Perhaps Fred feels it neccessary to continue his campaign to bury me in spite of the evidence. FuelWagon 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look at the first four diffs at once, diff five 02:06, 2 November 2005 and diff six 04:33, 2 November 2005, you will see that all three diffs show a paragraph in the introduction dedicated to criticisms of NLP. FuelWagon 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)