Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 11

message: Hi Voiceofall.  Sure we need to be constructive.
Through discussion, we have some more facts to add.  Firstly, the Devilly paper will help clarify things.  I will see what we can add there.  Sounds like Flavius has his finger on the pulse there.  Great stuff!
It is clear that Comaze and co are still bent on removing scientific facts.  Therefore, although those facts were well supported throughout mediation, they will require further clarification in the article.  Then the fanatics may "get it" (I'm an optimist).  
It is clear that certain refs are way down on the hierarchy of researchers out there.  Namely, Mathison, Tosey and Malloy, amongst others, which are way down on the list.  There are many other far more relevant researchers who could be added.  Of course, they tend to stick to science, and will be largely very critical of NLP.  Tough!  Comaze and co insist on trying to tear the most eminent scientists from the article, so that attitude can be better applied to Mathison, Tosey and Malloy.  
I'm sure the article will advance nicely this way. HeadleyDown 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, Headley.  I might add Comaze has yet to finish his ref format change also.  Certainly the Devilly paper is extremely notable.  The Comaze problem is not much of a problem for me.  I think he's hillarious and I don't spend much time on the miscreant nowadays.  But I notice he is still into wasting everybody's time.  I think the solution there is simply to disallow any of his warped interests.  Namely, remove the said Malloy etc refs.  Cheers DaveRight 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes these are good recommendations.  But I know Comaze only too well.  I'm afraid he's  not interested at all in correcting his crimes.  We are going to have to revert all his disgusting nonsense ourselves, and of course don't be too concerned about whether Comaze has something valid or not.  Just delete anything that looks like whitewash or unqualified promotion.  AliceDeGrey 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: jVirus.  You are pulling my leg.  Take a look at Comaze's history, then take a look at the most unrealistically fanatical Hubbardarian zealot on the Scientology article.  SNAP! Camridge 08:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I call up on all of the irrisponsible of the world, No whining!  jVirus 10:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup I checked into it. Comaze and Camridge both violate WP:3RR. Furthermore, Camridge, you have violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF probably at least a dozen times today alone. Swatjester 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true.  What will happen will happen I suppose.  jVirus 10:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, please, I've lost faith in the admins on this wiki actually blocking anyone with 3RR rule, and even if they do for more than 3 or 4 hours. I've got 2 3RR reports, an RfC, and an RfMediation up, and neither 3RR has gotten an admin response (both on the same person), the RfC isn't getting crap done by any admins even though there's consensus, the RfM was never responded to, and one of my AfD's is constantly being vandalized even thoguh there is clear consensus to delete, and the admins won't go ahead and do anything. Yet, you essentially have to be an editor for 6 months to a year to be an admin or you'll get shot down. Horsepucky I say. Swatjester 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My whole point in coming here WAS to act as a mediator. See below.
Swatjester!  The reason the admins don't block Camridge is due to their being reasonable.  Comaze has caused a huge amount of unnecessary work for editors on this article, has acted in bad faith by repeatedly nagging for the same changes to be made when they were resolved through mediation, excess evidence, and consensus, and continues to display the cultlike nature of NLP. Dejakitty is just another of his meatpuppets and has also advocated for removal of eminently supported scientific facts that come to the conclusion that NLP is ineffective and cultlike. I notice you also seem to be siding with Comaze.  More fool you!  If you wish to support Comaze some more, you will be causing more antagonism for editors who consistently provide accurate facts in good faith, and you will be called names far worse than fool.  HeadleyDown 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of recent findings to bring the article forward

message: *Comaze : I dont know how all this arbitration or whatever is going on really works or is processing or the process or whatever, but it just might be a good idea if you did not make changes other than grammar without consulting the whole.  Ask, talk, convince, and hopefully others will do the same.  If they do it without the consent of the whole then they will be the one that everyone will get annoyed with.  You are a great editor and I would hate to see you banned or whatever they do to people that are attracting similar flack.  jVirus 08:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: jVirus.  You are pulling my leg.  Take a look at Comaze's history, then take a look at the most unrealistically fanatical Hubbardarian zealot on the Scientology article.  SNAP! Camridge 08:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I call up on all of the irrisponsible of the world, No whining!  jVirus 10:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup I checked into it. Comaze and Camridge both violate WP:3RR. Furthermore, Camridge, you have violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF probably at least a dozen times today alone. Swatjester 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true.  What will happen will happen I suppose.  jVirus 10:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, please, I've lost faith in the admins on this wiki actually blocking anyone with 3RR rule, and even if they do for more than 3 or 4 hours. I've got 2 3RR reports, an RfC, and an RfMediation up, and neither 3RR has gotten an admin response (both on the same person), the RfC isn't getting crap done by any admins even though there's consensus, the RfM was never responded to, and one of my AfD's is constantly being vandalized even thoguh there is clear consensus to delete, and the admins won't go ahead and do anything. Yet, you essentially have to be an editor for 6 months to a year to be an admin or you'll get shot down. Horsepucky I say. Swatjester 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My whole point in coming here WAS to act as a mediator. See below.
Swatjester!  The reason the admins don't block Camridge is due to their being reasonable.  Comaze has caused a huge amount of unnecessary work for editors on this article, has acted in bad faith by repeatedly nagging for the same changes to be made when they were resolved through mediation, excess evidence, and consensus, and continues to display the cultlike nature of NLP. Dejakitty is just another of his meatpuppets and has also advocated for removal of eminently supported scientific facts that come to the conclusion that NLP is ineffective and cultlike. I notice you also seem to be siding with Comaze.  More fool you!  If you wish to support Comaze some more, you will be causing more antagonism for editors who consistently provide accurate facts in good faith, and you will be called names far worse than fool.  HeadleyDown 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change

message: Let me be blunt here: I'm here to help mediate this topic. I don't give two rats asses about NLP, hell I'd never heard about it until now. I'm here to help mediate your dispute. If we can act civilly, we'll get through this and move on, everybody should be happy, and you continue editing.  If both sides choose to continue to personally attack me, or each other, I'm warning you right now, I'll take every action available to me: RfC against each of you, Arbcom, WP:AIV, +protection request, 3RR reports, etc. I don't side with anybody. So far I've seen 3 violators with only minor checking: Comaze, Camridge, and HeadleyDown. I'm more than happy to dig through history here and find every little nugget that ever violated a policy, but that wouldn't be WP:AGF. Show me WHY I should be assuming good faith, and work your problems out here. Swatjester 14:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swatjester, there was no announcement of your being an official mediator here. How am I to know you are not just an ignorant dickhead NLP zealot who is bent on deleting knowledge from wikipedia! Show your credentials or be ignored. HeadleyDown 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Show my credentials? There are no credentials. This is wikipedia, the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit. Anyone is allowed to come in and mediate any dispute. If you choose to accept it, then it's a sign that you're working to improve the article. If you choose to refuse the mediation, it's a further sign that you have no interest in improving the article, only pushing your viewpoint. How do you know I'm not an NLP zealot? look at my contribs on this article: all I've done is grammatical clean up. Am I involved in any other NLP articles? No. See me user page, I tend to only edit for content military and law enforcement pages. I came here after seeing it on the 3rr page. You need to Assume Good Faith, a fundamental policy of wikipedia. Swatjester 17:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could care less about the content of the article. I cuold care less about pseudo science, or facts or anything else. I'm only interested in mediating the dispute. And I'm sticking around. Swatjester 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: declaration of purpose: mediation

message: (state the dispute here as you see it. Remember, no personal attacks. This section is not for evidence, nor should it need to be more than 4 sentences long. Just state what you think the dispute is over.)
The dispute is the same as always, but the action of the dispute is being used to highlight Comaze's months of fact censorship, slur campaigning on talk pages, and general antagonism.  Comaze is not acting in good faith, and any chance he gets he tries to delete (whitewash) sections written by me or others on this discussion page.  He also tries to accuse others of personally attacking him. He has been warned by mediators not to post warning or sockpuppet stickers or threats to block on other editors talk pages, yet he continues.   Some comments do contain personal attack, but considering the circumstances they are totally understandable, the comments have consistently been directed towards Comze's persistent and daily antiNPOV misdeeds.  He has used every surreptitious method possible, including creating extra promotional articles, and altering images irrecoverably. His actions and statements have encouraged many other NLP fans to behave with similar antiNPOV activities.  Comaze has caused a huge amount of extra work for editors and mediators here, and he advocated for a ref format change, but expected others to do it for him.  We are all waiting for him to finish the job.  He decided to antagonize people, make deletions of fact, and continue with his slur campaigning on personal talk pages instead.  HeadleyDown 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users endorsing this view, please sign below with ~~~~
*JPLogan 02:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:HeadleyDown|HeadleyDown]]'s statement of the dispute 

message: Further to Headley's view, the secondary impediment to improving the quality of the article is the regularly rotated gaggle of scientifically illiterate, brainwashed, ignorant cretin wankers (that believe they are super-persuasive) that don't have any familiariry with the cited literature nor an appreciation of its significance that insist on injecting their marginally illiterate, shitful, inspid "pearls" into the article.  These are typically one-liners such as, "Bandler says he doesn't do theory", "NLP is a model" etc.  The current cast of dead weights includes DejaKitty, Metabubble, 7even, Akulkis and some other tosser that edits anonymously.  Although Comaze's behaviour is objectionable I would not include him in this League of (Nihlistic) Morons".  I have stated months ago that the disputes regarding this article are non-justiciable, i.e. they cannot be adjudicated upon, and I am being proven correct.  I have attempted to elicit reasons from Comaze -- publicly and privately -- in an attempt to yield a justiciable issue.  I have found none.  Comaze's position is essentially faith-based, he has no substantive resaons for his positions.  Comaze's ultimate recourse is simply, "I have found it to be useful" and he appears to believe that this has equal evidentiary value as several dozen (peer-reviewed) research papers and literature reviews.  Comaze's position contains an implicit rejection of all of the critical NLP research (and a hypocritical acceptance of favorable research reports).  Furthermore, his rejection is justified with (NLP) platitudes and cliches (eg. "NLP has a different epistemology to science", "NLP has it's own criteria of evidence and argumentation") or in a circular question-begging manner ("the research is bad because it is critical of NLP").  There is no way forward with Comaze or with the League of (Nihilistic) Morons. flavius 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users endorsing this view, please sign below with ~~~~
*HeadleyDown 17:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]]'s statement of the dispute 

message: The following sentence appears to make no sense to me:  "Some authors [107][108] use internal Verbal/Auditory/Kinesthetic strategies in order to categorize people within a thinking strategies or learning styles framework for instance, that there exist visual, kinesthetic or auditory types of manager."  --Xyzzyplugh 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah it is jacked.  jVirus 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, just do something about it Headley  jVirus 05:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor comment 

message: Hi new zealots and mediators.  If you want to edit/mediate here I suggest you spend about 3 weeks reading the archives first.  Basically it goes: NLP idiots don't like the bare facts, so they delete them, and neutrally minded editors restore them.  Fanatics demand extra refs, those refs are found, and supplied through library searches, and the fanatics delete regardless.  Reversion wars ensue.  Mediation takes place at the insistence of NLP fanatics, NLP fanatics do not like mediator's sense of balance, and they beg for a new mediator or for arbitration.  NLP fanatics (especially Comaze) become desperate, and try any subterfuge, officious pretence, surreptitious edit, accusation, vexatious litigation, threat in order to try to ban neutrally minded editors, to include whitewash, to censor well supported facts etc.  Sometimes it quitens down.  So much fact and extra evidence was provided (due to the nagging of NLP fanatics) that the file size was over limits.  The article became brevified, and some of that evidence cut.  
Now, we seem to have a new mediator, and I guess the process of NLP fanatics demanding extra evidence will rise again (I noticed Comaze's mediation template).  So much work has been done here to satisfy mediators and NLP fanatics. Looks like its going round again. No wonder Headley and other neutrally minded editors are so pissed.  To put it bluntly: READ THE DAMN ARCHIVES!  COMAZE AND OTHER NLP FANATICS CONSISTENTLY (DAILY) ACT AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY.  JPLogan 03:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, history repeating.  Well, I think your suggestions need acting upon.  I kept a lot of those facts, and will restore them in good time.  In the meantime, lets remind the mediator what a bunch of weasly cultsucking bullshit merchants the NLP fanatics have been.  Mediator!  READ THE ARCHIVES!  DaveRight 04:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep calling names and antagonizing, using vulgarities and pointing fingers.  You have learned from history that the squeeky wheel gets the grease so if you squeek loud enough you will finally get what you need!  jVirus 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jvirus.  Keep making demands, and you will get flack.  Either take the time to go to the libraries, look up the facts and make your own adjustments according to fact and NPOV policy, or go away.  YOU are causing trouble.  I suggest that from now on editors should simply ignore your pointless whinging. Consider yourself flushed down the toilet of poisonous babble.  HeadleyDown 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Demands?  Please help me understand what my demands are.  heh.  And I try not to "whinge"  jVirus 10:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The history of this article

message: The page has been protected per mediator request. Place all comments, responses, etc here not on my talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cease your general complaints about the behaviors of other editors on this page, and confine your comments in this section to the page protection. Off-topic personal attacks directed at no specific editor are not productive. Off topic personal attacks against specific editors will result in warnings and blockings. Stop the cycle and limit yourself to article-specific productive posts - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we open up the page to editing without returning to an edit war? Is there some way to propose edits and  have them approved by the mediators or administrator prior to implementation? Maybe this could be done in a structured way that allows other people time to comment? Also, how can we get experience wikipedians involved in this process? --Comaze 14:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been done before - mediation in tiny chunks, followed by the edit being placed on the (still protected) page by an Admin. I suggest you work with the current mediator to achieve consensus. The way to avoid edit warring is always the same - talk until consensus is reached before making edits. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Please excuse that I use the right to participate in the free encyclopedia, as I saw this might not be welcomed here. As a Wikipedian from a non-English speaking country, one of the things I can say is that the form of discussion here resembles many of the discussions in my country and throughout the world. It is always the same story: people try to divide each other into two groups—allies and enemies. The main rule of the discussion is to state in every message that enemies are bloody fanatics, devil worshippers and completely messed up stupid dickheads. About "ourselves" in such discussions it is good to say "oh we've been trying everything, but these fanatics didn't want to listen." Curious thing that usually both sides are working in the same model of dialogue—the model we may call "Put as much trash on your opponent as you can." The most interesting thing, as I see it, happens when an outsider (who's alien to the discussion and is able to look at it without many a bias) comes: for him or her, those who yell about the fanaticism of the other side seem fanatics themselves. The same thing has happened so many times in the history, that it became not interesting to discuss.
Another interesting thing's that when sometimes one side declines to choose the model of "I am the only smartest here" behavior, and works in a civil manner, keeping to the neutrality tone, the other side would claim his  actions are fanatical anyway, no matter what real reasons the former had. They just will to interpret his actions this way because according to their tunnel of reality they are doing the best in their interests (that's why in the first comment of mine I asked, Cui bono?). In most cases they believe they are pursuing the truth. You see that's how Lysenkoism happens: when one side keeps only to rational arguments and other side keeps to emotional arguments, for a common third-side person, who's not experienced and not prepared to keep emotions off when it's necessary, the emotional arguments might feel more right, perhaps because emotions compared to reason are philogenetically far more ancient and influence more structures in the organism system. A more experienced person would be able to divide the arguments driven by emotions and the reasonable arguments.
The point I want to make is: please keep your emotions to minimum in your comments. This would happen if you try to avoid 
* proclamations that your opponent is a fanatic (he may seem fanatic to you and your supporters, of course, but only from your and your supporters' viewpoint)
* mind reading, telepathy (i. e. don't interpret the reasons of other's actions because it is the Net, and most things you are able to watch is only RESULTS of actions; e. g. don't say such things as "This guy became desperate", "He wants to avoid evidence" etc)
* assumptions on what and who a person is, which cover a personal attack (such as "I honestly don't think you'd recognise a scientific journal if one was being stuffed into your flapping mouthing" or "I suspect that you are a sock-puppet of that half-wit John Smith")
* &c 
I understand it's probably impossible here, where everybody—no matter what the level of his or her maturity and self-development is—can insert his own word, but I consider it necessary for making a good article or at least a goodwill discussion. In real life, too, if you feel you are right, and you have many friends who feel the same, the little socium you can be considered a part of will massively support your viewpoint, and this will construct a visibility of your own righteousness and unrighteousness of others—that's how it works in real religious cults and with real religious fanatics.
Excuse me for such a long comment, but it could've been much longer. I am not trying to say that one side's right and other is not. However I would like to believe that every one of you does not just push one's own point of view  (supporting it with dozens of refs—"we have something for everybody"—or not), but wants to find a compromise because there can be no way to prove that absolute truth is hidden only in your opinion or an opinion of the scientists who support you. I think people have the right to get acquainted with the theory of NLP; and there are many great minds, scientists, and psychologists who use NLP in their practice, and you can't just call all of them freakin fanatics and scientologists only because NLP works well for them. Also I think people have the right to know that other great minds, scientists, and psychologists are opposed to NLP because of research and experimental data (I myself would like to read and consider that kind of information). Thus both sides should be represented in the article, because I think that in the modern world no one should call any one as the Absolute Authority. 
Thank you, 7even 13:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a load of self-important, lumpen blather! "[T]unnel of reality" -- Robert Anton Wilson is a genius isn't he?  Do you have a newsletter that we can subscribe to so that we can become as wise and all-knowing as you.  I'll burn all of my copies of the Cultic Studies Journal and all of the books I have by acknowledged cult experts like Singer and Lifton.  You clearly have all the answers and you're most confident (even though you asserted earlier that there is no absolure truth). You write,"I think people have the right to get acquainted with the theory of NLP; and there are many great minds, scientists, and psychologists who use NLP in their practice, and you can't just call all of them freakin fanatics and scientologists only because NLP works well for them."  Who then is interfering with people's right to learn about NLP?  The article provides an exposition of NLP drawn from authoritative NLP sources.  Can you name some of the "many great minds" and scientists that use NLP?  Who cares if "NLP works well for them"?! Treppaning once worked well for the surgeon and patient, blood-letting worked well for George Washington, powdered mummy worked well for its users.  Unfortunately human knowledge isn't advanced by treating subjective reports as descriptive of the universe.  You understand neither science (its hisory, philosophy, method or results) nor the status of NLP.  "Works for me" but can't be demonstrated under controlled conditions to work isn't special, mysterious or outside the scope of science, it's simply placebo, non-specific factors, misattribution and/or post hoc fallacy.  Your're profoundly ignorant of basic scientific method and protocol and my implication also of the concept of evidence.  There is a consensus of opinion that is becoming consolidated that NLP doesn't work and there is no eveidence that it does work.  Further, the progress of linguistics, psychology, neurology, and psychiatry since NLP was formulated has corroded its theoretical basis.  NLP has been discredited directly -- through the balance of NLP-specific research data that doesn't support NLPs hypotheses -- and indirectly through the accretion of knowledge in fields that it purports to be based upon.  That some people find that NLP "works for them" has been explained many times, most recently by Devilly (2005).  This isn't about "feeling right".  Remarks like this demonstrate that you don't understand the debate.  No-one here -- other than the League -- is going to buy into your (crude) epistemological relativism.  If you genuinely believe what you write here then go to the Earth article and edit it to give equal coverage to the "flat earth" and "hollow earth" theories.  Surely, people have the right to become acquainted with theories other than the dominant one that the earth is spherical and has a molten rock core.  Also go to the Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom article and edit it to include David Icke's theory that the Queen of the UK is a reptilean shapeshifter and descends from a reptilian blood-line.  Why privilge the notion that she's human, we don't know for certain that she is human and people have the right to become acquainted with all theories about the Queen.  We should also give equal weight to L. Ron Hubbard's cosmology -- complete with Crocodiles on Unicycles -- as we do that provided by the likes of Einstein, Hubble, Newton and Hawking.  Why not?  flavius 18:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * I like to read your comments, no jokes. I agree with great many of your theses, with many I disagree; and I appreciate your irony and sarcasm (I like your sense of humor). However I've said what I wanted; and, of course, you are free to interpret my words any way you want. Please pay attention to my message about emotional comments and personal attacks. [P. S. I do not support either flat earth or creationism theory ;-)] 7even 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not contributing here. I am here as informal mediator adjunct, to monitor, warn, and explain WP:CIVIL, WP:CON, WP:NPA, and any other policy being violated, and to block users if necessary. I did not consider your post a violation of NPA. I did consider it unhelpful commentary on behavior patterns of an unnamed body of editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you guys are such a tickle !  I thought we were being emotional over in the Dianetics articles ! lol. Terryeo 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, where have we come to: a guy that believes in Xenu is amused at our expense.  Terry, It's all those body thetans (Damn you Xenu! Damn you! (I'm shaking my fist)).  Given that you're a Scientologist and I was taught not to mock the mentally retarded I'll try and leave you alone.  I suppose you could hang around to make Comaze look good.  The paradox of Dianetics is that all those people that think their parents attempted to abort them with a coat hanger and are attempting to rid themselves of the associated engrams should have been aborted.  I propose that there should be no restrictions regarding the termination of Scientologists.  In the case of Scientologists their abortion should be permitted ex utero.  Have you apologised to Lisa McPherson's family  on behalf of your "church"?  Has that runt Miscavige apologised to the US public for "Operation Snow White" (and for being a runt). Have you donated to LMT International ? flavius 05:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo.  I understand that Hubbard would probably be mighty annoyed at NLP taking the more subversive aspects of Dianetics and turning them into a new age extraveganza.  Lucky for NLP developers that he's not around to sue them.  Camridge 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanaticism and the form of discussion here 

message: I have retracted my idea of having draft page, given that VoA or other admin will volunteer to do the actual editing while the page is protected.--Dejakitty 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should go away.  To save yourself the frustration you should exorcise from your mind the hope that the article will be turned into some Kafkaesque puff-piece for the promotion of NLP. flavius 18:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should confine your posts to constructive ones which do no violate WP:CIVIL, flavius. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flavius you know your comment was attacking Dejakitty.  You want the article a certain way, she has her own opinions.  It is one thing to attack the information, asking for concensus, but attacking a person themselves is often out of desperation and last resort feelings of helplessness.  Don't do it, you have a lot of options to get the article to reflect your position/view.  jVirus 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've deleted the above "draft" page because it was created by User:Flavius vanillus to mock other editors and contributed nothing to this debate.  Please refrain from making contributions that do nothing to improve the article.  I'd also recommend against making any sort of "draft" page at all, even one in good faith.  Instead, discuss changes here on the talk page. —Cleared as filed. 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, my suggestion is to discuss all changes here on the talk page and then, with the help of a mediator, add those changes to the real article.  Writing a draft page together won't provide any "concrete proof" of anything, in my opinion, and will just move the edit war someplace else.  As far as I know, there's nothing in Wikipedia rules to prevent a draft page, but I don't think it will help solve any problems. —Cleared as filed. 21:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We can edit the NLP (draft) Page

message: Socks/meatpuppets are a problem here, when it comes to consensus, as it distorts the true consensus. That has been making things difficult. Many editors have edited only NLP articles, and have very similar user pages. We may need more outside opinions.
As I have done recently, personal attacks will be removed. Vague commentary will be removed as well. Edits should be made through admins only, since all else has failed. Vague accuations of POV or simplistic characterizing of everything as a "fact" will not be tolerated either. Accesive associations and other clear NPOV violations should not even be proposed.
Whether NLP is "total fraud" or not, its models, propositions, and criticism must be represented per NPOV. There is enough criticism in this article that we cleary do not need associations with pseudosciences such as Scientology in every paragraph, just because some unheard of practioner also uses them. Intelligent Design is a good article example of a topic that is far more widely rejected by scientists (albeit perhaps as it is more popular and gets more attention), but it does not have things like "ID is quakery nonsense just to endorse christianity (A 19YY)(B 19YY)(C 19YY)(D 19YY)(E 19YY)(F 19YY)(G 19YY)(H 19YY)", as clearly, wording like that has an agenda. The article gets across the point that it is rejected by the mainstream scientific community without having "ID sucks" quotes flooded into the article all over the place. NLP is even less centralized than ID. Due to its high variance, and usage in some reasonable circles (police force, ect...), parts of it likely have some value, and not all of them where studied. Not to mention that it has evolved. Having such a varying disorganized, mainly totally unsupported, models floating all around alots for much confusion about its effectiveness. Overal, one might reasonably say that it is not effective per 1970s/1980s studies, but that does not rule out every aspect. Some people use more classical conditioning like techniques for clients, while ignoring other NLP ideas or "positive/negative energy" Scientology ideas. Others use it in cults in certain European circles.
To concude, we must avoid the use of blanket statements where they can not be used. We must avoid spreading criticism all over every section. We must avoid the excessive use of "NLP sucks" quotes. If a reference is out of context, it should be corrected (and I don't believe that many are). Solid refs that have been unchallenged for months should not be suddenly challenged though. Rebuttals to critics by very minor practioners should not be included, as we don't put in our British Literature profesor's criticism of a novel just because he has a PhD. Notice that Intelligent design avoids such minor critics, as it should, as anyone can dig up some guy that supports them, and through it in as criticism. And remember to avoid origional research, such as "he saw EST lectures, therefore NLP=EST and Scientology". Remember that we have plenty of solid criticism, so personal (WP:OR) critical commentary, beyond being innapproprate per WP:NPOV, is not even needed. That goes for origional research criticism of critism too.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus and some Guidelines

message: Consensus is not important here, mostly due to the presence of editors who's religion overcomes judgment or recognition of science.  Ditching one's religion is necessary to edit in this case.  The cold steel of science will be the order of the year on this article.  HeadleyDown 17:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scalpels at the ready

message: Metta Bubble : I really like your suggestion to remove the Term "New Age" from the Intro.  I think it might be more clear if we set up a structure for the article.  If we chose to make the Intro closer to very basic simple purpose and things as described by the original co-founders, I think the intro itself will be quite hammered down solid?  Perhaps we could then have a body describing some of the things in the intro, followed by a conclusion. And whatever. This being the basic form of our article.  What do you think?  This also means Flavius that in the intro, however long the intro may be, toward the end of the intro we would have a nice criticism paragraph about the same size as one of the intro paragraphs, or whatever is rationally needed.  Those criticisms could then be expounded in the body in a order, similar to the other expoundings from the intro.  Is this favorable or what might be your concerns if any? This means actually that in the intro critisim part you could if it is agreeable to everyone say something like "NLP is criticised as being of the New Age, Pseudoscientific, having little or no effect as to it's claims"  or whatever is needed.  Then we could expound on the intro criticism area in similar order in the body.  The body being a reflection of the Intro if it might be.  What do you think ppl?  jVirus 11:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article shouldn't be an advertisement for NLP -- either in its parts or as a whole.  You can't arbitarily ignore all of the science regarding NLP.  NLP isn't some new and as yet untested type of psychology and it shouldn't be presented as if it is.  NLP has been tested many times in its many aspects during these 30 years.  To pre-empt the predictable responses, all scientific knowledge is tentative, it is always open to revision. However, that scientific theory or law which has a consensus amongst scientists (after the application of all the usual protocols and standards) is the best description and/or explanation that we have of a natural phenomenon -- for all practical purposes it is the Truth (or more precisely our best approximation of it).  The history and results of science demonstrate -- just as Korzybski contended -- that the scientific method is the very best method for discovering things about the universe and scientific knowledge is the most accurate knowledge (we have) regarding the universe.  Thus, if there is a consensus amongst scientists regarding the invalidity and ineffectiveness of NLP and there is a scientific explanation for its apparent efficacy then that is our knowledge regarding the matter.  NLP has not advanced some devastating critique of scientific method such that 400 years of inductive proof of the efficacy and efficiency of scientific method is negated.  NLP has been tested according to the same standards and protocols that we test drugs, surgical procedures, conventional psychotherapies, construction materials, paints, adhesives, pesticides etc. and it has failed, miserably.  The tests have been repeated sufficient number of times such that we can be confident of them.  There is nothing peculiar about NLP such that it can't be tested using the scientific method: either NLP works better than placebo in treating anxiety/depression/phobia or it doesn't; either NLP language patterns make one more persuasive than no technique or they don't; either your eyes move upwards when you make pictures in your head or they don't.  The point is that what science says about NLP is the highest quality information we have about NLP.  This isn't a matter of aesthetics or of faith thus science and the scientific method are entirely relevant.  The article should state in the article intro what the scientific position is.  Until a better method of learning about the universe than science comes along this is how it will have to be.  jVirus, 7even, Metta bubble, Comaze, and DejaKitty you all need to learn something of the methods and history of science and of the concept of evidence.  This will go a long way towards reducing the conflicts regarding this article. flavius 11:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flavius I am sorry.  My intention has not been to "advertise Neuro-Linguistic Programming".  Thanks for pointing that out.  If you ever see me making an advertisement please point out the exact string of words for me.  This I do not want to be accused of.  Aparently you also feel I communicated my desire "ignore all of the science reguarding NLP".  Once again I am very sorry I have communicated this to you.  If I ever do give you the impression that I want to ignore all science reguarding anything, I really need you to point that string out, describing to me.  Not my intention again.  Sorry if I gave you either impression.  I misscommunicated.  jVirus 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JVirus.  Read the archives.  Your request is actually antagonistic.  This has been dealt with in depth.  I will repeat some of it for the sake of those who cannot be bothered to do a bit of reading.  New age is stated in the scientific literature as a category for NLP.  New age is one category that NLP promoters use to promote their "product".  NLP is advertised within and among the new age sections of magazines, catalogues, and bookshops.  New age is technically correct, and placing the term new age in the opening line of the article will give the reader a very useful set of concepts to understand NLP as professional researchers understand NLP.  The new age term is useful and should get more of a mention in the article for the sake of clarity and brevity. The same goes for the useful clarifying comparisons Dianetics, Scientology (because those are closely similar and have been around longer), and terms such as ritual, and occult. DaveRight 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you placed your comment in order as responding to the comment directly above it, ie. "Flavius I am sorry." I am assuming you mean that my request for Flavius to point out my exact string of words when he sees me advertising, or other, is antagonistic?  Or are you not really replying to my statement just above yours?  jVirus 08:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jvirus.  You are saying you really like Mettabubble's idea to remove representitive fact from the opening.  New Age will need to be better explained in the article as a whole, and will need a mention in the opening.  That will most likely involve the use of other terms such as occult, postmodernism, and antirealism.  I know you don't want those mentioned at all in the article, but you are just going to have to put up with reality.Camridge 04:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New Age" Intro Removal 

message: I'm withdrawing the part of my earlier proposal where we have separate Pro and Con sub-sections, because it's not supported by some of the principal editors on this article, and I'm having seconds thoughts about that myself.
What remains of my proposal is what the Intro should contain. Here are my thoughts, and then I'm preserving only those comments that have to do with the Intro part. (If deleted anything you want to keep, I apologize -- please add it back, in a separate section if it dosn't have to do with the Intro per se.)
Guidelines for the Intro:
* It should be relatively short and completely neutral with regard to Pro or Con characterizations.
* It should avoid vague words that don't really say what NLP is but make it sound sexy.
* It should avoid criticisms such as "New Age," "pseudoscience", etc. These claims can be made later (where they will be more effective anyway once elaborated upon. For example, explain what pseudoscience is, and explain in detail why NLP is pseudoscience, if you believe it is. This kind of detail cannot be done in the intro, but without it, "pseudoscience" is just a missile word.).
* Avoid descriptions of NLP as "techniques practiced by successful psychotherapists". "Successful" is vague and subjective, and this doesn't tell what NLP is anyway. It just states the writer's opinion of some who have practiced it.
We might start off with something like this, which I believe is neutral:
:NLP, which stands for "Neuro-Linguistic Programming", is a self-improvement training program which purports to teach people how to speak directly to ("program") the unconscious mind, both of themselves and others, using particular "linquistic patterns". It was founded in 1973 by Richard Bandler and John Grinder.
Leave your comments below.
-- BrianH123 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "directly" I meant in a way that bypasses conscious recognition, not an authoritative approach. I'm open to alternative language to clear up that ambiguity. Regarding "modeling methodology", I think we need to avoid NLP-specific terminology in the introduction, since we don't have room to explain it (unless you want to offer a terse, clear-to-the-layman explanation we can include parenthetically). Feel free to propose specific language for the intro in your response. Thanks for your comments. --BrianH123 15:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do need to nut out the most accurate language to use here. Most of the technical language in NLP is borrowed from other fields such as linguistics, epistemology, cybernetics, finite state automata and turing machine. Modeling in my opinion is an accurate technical description. We need to balance this so that a naive person can understand it. Some skeptics might say that the technical language borrowed from other disciplines is used out of context. To start you could replace speak with communicate to include the non-verbal patterns. I'd prefer directly to be removed or framed in a way that includes indirect suggestion. The actual definition in NLP of unconscious mind is unique and would probably need to be defined later in the article. --Comaze 06:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the intro should contain 

message: The only stabilization required is on the discussion page, because that is where the problems are.  Repeat (daily) badgering questions, and requests for censorship and pseudoscience to gain priority over science have destabilized the discussion and caused a lot of conflict and extra work.    With a mentor for Comaze and others with a similar agenda, the discussion will likely improve.  HeadleyDown 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Headley. The only reason for mediation is to keep the miscreants in order on the discussion page and on personal talk pages.  Mediators have already made statements that they don't care about the difference between science and pseudoscience, so they should be kept out of it. DaveRight 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stabilize the discussion page

message: Good, looks like we're making good progress here. I'm going to step back for a little bit and watch as you guys decide on the information. I'll still be here watching. Swatjester
Yeah I am excited.  jVirus 08:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress

message: Headly, please stop trying to dominate this talk page. Your last several edits have been demanding and confrontational, and ignoring users with differing opinions does nothing to help the further development of this page. Please try to edit constructively and join this mediation, for the good of the article. Swatjester 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swatjester, this isn't a matter of aesthetics, we're not arguing about the "greatest band in the world".  NLP makes specific claims about learning, memory, cognition, mental illness and neurology.  These aren't unclaimed subject domains that are up for grabs.  Scientific method is the best method that we have for learning about the universe and its inhabitants and scientific knowledge is the most accurate knowledge we have about the universe and its inhabitants (with regards to non-religious and non-ethical concerns).  Until science is displaced by NLP as the means for investigating reality then the scientific view should prevail.  This is non-negotiable.  NLP is not peer of science and whereas science has a well-established method of inquiry, NLPs is entirely conjectural and because of the invalidity of the techniques it has generated most likely flawed.  We're not going to be served a plate of shit and told its a delicious chicken dinner.  flavius 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: He's alreay been blocked once for personal attacks on this article. That's hardly cooperation and constructive approach.Swatjester 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Swatjester, what is this?  You against me?  Who should mediate now?  HeadleyDown 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. I'm just trying to facilitate the article. Swatjester 16:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem here is that two different sides believe two different things. You believe from your POV that NLP is bullshit. The other side believes that it's an actual science. NPOV would show that you need to submit both sides' POV's. You, DaveRight, Headly, and Flavius apparently seem to be only wanting to show your POV of the article. It may be correct, I don't know, and it doesn't matter. The article needs to show ALL SIGNIFICANT POINTS OF VIEW. Thus far I've identified two: Your side's (it's not science) and the other side's (it is science). Therefore both need to be included. What we are supposed to be doing here is trying to find a way to balance it out so that each side is satisfied with the result. Swatjester 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Swatjester.  The terms some of the the eminent scientists use regarding NLP are eg - pseudoscience, psychobabble, psychopablum, banal, trite, infantile, highly dubious, extremely questionable, devious, and the kind of language that the scientists use are eg  -  "NLP proponents such as Robert Dilts are now seriously modeling the strategies of Jesus Christ and Sherlock Holmes and selling books about it; God help us! (Singer 1999)".  Notice the term BULLSHIT is not used in the article.  However, for explanatory purposes, although the term BULLSHIT may be quite inappropriate for encyclopedias, it will one of the words in the mental model of experts, and therefore should be conveyed somehow to the reader.  HeadleyDown 16:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Swatjester, you appear to be well-meaning so I'll strive to be patient with you.  You write, "The problem here is that two different sides believe two different things".  That isn't the problem.  Some people believe the most unexpected of things: the second Gulf War never occurred, 911 was the work of the US government, 911 was the work of Israeli Intelligence, there have been no lunar landings, the earth is flat, the UK Royal Family are reptilean shapeshifters, we have been inflitrated by space aliens etc.  If you search you will find at least one person that contests some widely held view.  Simply because a person can adopt a psoition on a matter doesn't magically legitimise that position.  The critical notion that is missing from your understanding of the dispute is evidence.  In the absence of evidence a belief -- on non-religious and non-aesthetic matters -- is conjecture and speculation.  It is possible to generate an infinite number of conjectures and speculations because we have imaginations.  We determine fact and truth by reference to evidence.  In this conext what we believe is entirely irrelevant.  What matters is what we can prove.  Given that we have imaginations and we are fallible we can believe anything.  However, we can't prove anything.  Proof requires evidence and/or argumentation.  Regardless of what NLP proponents or critics believe -- it's irrelevant anyway -- there is no evidence that NLP works and it is inconsistent with established theory.   You write, "You believe from your POV that NLP is bullshit. The other side believes that it's an actual science."   Beliefs regarding NLP are -- in this instance -- irrelevant.  What matters is what can be demonstrated to be true, i.e. what can be proved.  You are making a "category mistake".  You are reasoning about matters that are resolvable with reference to evidence as if they were religious or aesthetic concerns.  There is no evidence based method for determining the "One True Faith" nor is there a an evidence-based method for determing "The Best" ice cream flavour.  Whether NLP works or not or whether it is theoretically sound is not a faith issue nor is it a subjective preference.  It is an empirical matter.  NLP has been rigourously tested and its theoretical basis has been reviewed and the conclusions are not supportive.  At this point the only available means of resisting the scientific evidence and evaluation are metaphysical and epistemological.  A number of options are available in this regard but I'll describe only the polar extremes.  The NLPer can appeal to a form of radical epistemological relativism, i.e. there is no such thing as objective knowledge and optionally the universe does not exist -- that is one side of the polar extreme.  The other polar extreme is that the scientific method is flawed or somehow inapplicable and the body of scietific knowledge that contradicts NLP is incorrect.  However, these forms of metaphysical and epistemological scpeticism canot simply be asserted they must be argued for and that justification must include an explanation of the apparent explanatory and predictive power of science.  In the absence of philosophical treatise that successfully invalidates the scientific evidence against NLP the matter is settled with reference to scientific method and scientific knowledge. flavius 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which scientists? Please cite the full MLA style documentation? Furthermore, the ArbCom decided that in the article, things like "pseudoscience, psychobabble" etc. need to be attributed as a quote to the scientists that said them, not to the editor of the article. Then, to show the other significant viewpoint, the other side will need to find scientists that say it's a valid science, attribute a full MLA style citation, and then in the article, attribute their viewpoint to the scientists that said that, not to the editor. (note, when I say MLA style, it could be any other accepted citation format such as APA, AMA, MLA, Chicago style, etc.) Swatjester 16:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article contains the references you seek the only thing lacking from some of them is page numbers.  There are no scientists that say that NLP is a science.  In any event that is not how science works.  If you search the scientific abstracts you'll find at least one paper that contradicts what is generally regarded as proven (eg. that smoking doesn't cause respiratory disease).  Scientific evidence is assessed with reference to the methodology of the research, its reproducibility and whether it was published in a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal.  Only if there are a substantial number of methodologically sound research papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals that reject the null hypotheis does the scientific community collectively reject the null hypothesis and thus promote a hypothesis to knowledge.  flavius 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swatjester says, "Your side's (it's not science) and the other side's (it is science)." -- I do not think that anyone is claiming that NLP is a science. However, Gregory Bateson does say in the introduction to Structure of Magic Volume 1, "[Grinder & Bandler] have succeeded in making linguistics into a base for theory and simultaneously into a tool for therapy."(p.x 1975a). Grinder & Bostic (2001) do make the claim that NLP based primarily on Gregory Bateson's epistemology (1972, 1979) and Chomsky's Transformational Grammar. When we refer to "NLP" we need to identify who specifically or what aspects of NLP we are referring to. --Comaze 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you very well know, Comaze, NLP proponents have been criticised for claiming that NLP is science, and criticised for misleading the public that NLP is science.  And as you know already, theory is a core building block of science, and even Bateson is dressing NLP up as science.  The theories of NLP have been measured and found to be false.  They continue to be promoted as being true, and therefore NLP is a pseudoscience.  WE do not refer to NLP, the NLP proponents, and the scientists who research NLP refer to NLP.  I request for Comaze to be blocked for badgering and wasting my and everybody's time yet again.  HeadleyDown 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not badgering, and not blockable by any standard. Please assume good faith from Comaze. We're doing well in the mediation so far. Swatjester 16:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swatjester, let me tell you something about Comaze.  He'll repeat badger for the same old stuff whenever he gets a chance. He has presented the same material many many times already.  And he has recieved satisfactory answers many many times already. I already understand that you will neither recognize that, nor do anything about it.  As has been suggested below.... non promotional editors WILL severely punish Comaze for making such repeat remarks simply by presenting the facts more clearly within the article ALL within the limits of NPOV policy.  It's not my fault that he feels such intense trauma at the presentation of plain facts.  So he will feel even more agony at those facts being clarified in the article.  NPOV policy is traumatic to Comaze when applied to NLP.  Lets just accept that and get on with accepting each other's lot in life.  HeadleyDown 17:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headly

message: *I am not so sure what the article needs any longer.  I need some precise input from other users to make a more clear determination  jVirus 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: jVirus

message: #Find out what everyone else wants.
#Of that list, find out what everyone else considers to be thier top priority for the article to be finished.
#Probably get specific with each user about their top priority.  
jVirus 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Priority basics as of 7 February 2006

message: New plan
#Deferring to the new mentors to find out what their collective plan is.  jVirus  04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006.02.08 Deferring to the new mentors

message: :Please, enough already of this "lets hold hands and form a giant chain" bullshit!  What this article needs is a commitment and re-orientation towards scientific and factual evidence.  Even if this article were left like a baby to the vultures of NLP commercial interests and pseudoscience what do you think would happen?  The NLP proponents would bicker amongst themselves about whose "kung-fu" is the best -- go visit alt.psychology.nlp if you doubt me.  Pseudoscientists arguments are never resolved because they have no basis for settling disputes -- you can't determine whether the "Swish pattern" works by trading anecdotes.  When pseudoscientists disagree they form their own "denomination" -- what else can they do -- that's why we have so many competing types of "Power Therapies", witchcraft, graphology, palmistry, "body psychotherapy" etc.  If you've dispensed with rigorous experimentaion as a means of moving closer to the truth then you're left with mental masturbation.  You can see the consequences of this mental masturbation if you visit any New Age bookstore.  Rational discourse is the only (civilised) means of settling disputes regarding matters that are neither aesthetic or religious.  Rational discourse concerning empirical matters requires evidence.  Scientific evidence is high-quality evidence -- it is the highest quality evidence and the accomplishments of Western civilisation testify to this.  Anecdote and testimony are not suitable evidence for empirical matters.  If the NLP proponents could re-orient themselves towards the notion of evidence that would eliminate much of the conflict.  Comaze and DejaKitty want to pass off unsubstantiated claims and falsified claims as fact.  Comaze seems to think that claiming that "NLP has a different epistemology" somehow absolves him of the responsibility for substantiation.  The inclusion of unsubstantiated claims based on anecdotal evidence is unacceptable.  This is non-negotiable.  Anecdotal evidence is often unacceptable in day-to-day life a fortiori it is unacceptable for an encyclopedic article. flavius 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, precisely what I wanted to know.  Now we have a record of it.  Course you could have said, you felt that it needed more scientificly backed data.  Your paragraph is good.  (feel free to edit your desires for the article if you need to)  jVirus 08:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flavius

message: *The article needs some editing so it presents its evidence in a less redundant and more well organized way.
*Specific quotes from references should be used more, and paraphrase-followed-by-stream-of-footnotes used less.
*Terms such as "pseudoscience" and "New Age" should be put in the mouth of a source, not left unattributed. The reasons why the source believes NLP to be pseudoscience, etc., should be stated.
*The intro should be as neutral and dispassionate as possible, if only because the reader needs to know what NLP is before you hit him over the head with opinions about it.
*In the article, the bulk of the text and the emphasis should be what is sourced in scientific studies. See the NPOV policy for more on representing "majority" and "minority" opinions. For the purpose of an encyclopedia article on an empirical subject, scientific consensus is the majority view, not anecdotes. Claims that NLP "has an alternative epistemology," which excuses it from the standards of evidence to which we hold every other field of inquiry, is begging the question.
-- BrianH123 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I reduce my list, let's see what common ground we can find. I'd hate to throw away an item and then wonder if it might have been the only one that someone else could agree on. :-) Also, I don't care which is acted upon first. --BrianH123 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is cool.  I think a lot of my thoughts will be on what both flavius and Headleydown want.  jVirus 09:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BrianH123

message: *This article needs all of the editors to step back a second and realize that editing this article is not a life or death thing. This is only the internet, after all.
*This article needs complete and accurate citations. Whatever the format, AMA/APA/MLA etc, it needs to be cited 100% all the way down to the page number, for verification purposes.
*This article needs to have attribution of terms to users, as per Brian above.
*This article needs to be as dispassionate and neutral as possible, as per brian above.
*This article should be structured with a format like this: Section 1: introduction. Section 2: History. Section 3:Current Teachings, or Current Practices, or whatever it should be called. Basically how NLP is practiced today Section 4: Famous NLP-ers.  Section 5: Controversies and criticisms. Section 5: External links, see alsos, etc. Section 6: Citations.
Swatjester 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that I agree with putting all the scientific criticisms at the end. I think if X is presented as a "current teaching", then scientific evidence critical of X should be nearby. Also, I don't want my use of the word "neutral" to be taken as not wanting (well-documented) criticism of NLP. I do want that, just not in the introduction before the reader even knows what NLP is. Also, info about famous NLPers is, in my view, almost valueless. If it's included, it certainly shouldn't be at the expense of pushing criticisms of NLP further down the page. —BrianH123 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, easily solved by moving the "criticisms" section to immediately follow the "current practices" section. My new proposed order would be Intro, History, Current practice, Criticism and controversy, Famous NLPers, External links and see alsos, Citations. I also have to disagree with you that famous NLPers is valueless. In my wikipedia experiences, most good articles about a science, religion, school, etc. have a section for "famous practicioners/alumni". It's interesting for a student doing research to look up a subject and then be able to see wikilinks for who are the experts in the field, and also who are the critical detractors or skeptics. Note also, maybe Famous NLP'ers is a bad title, because I'd also want to include "Famous NLP Critics and Detractors" in that subsection. Swatjester 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not trying to be snide here (just a perspective jolt).  How about a section for "experts in the practice of charlatanry". You can make what you like of that.  I understand you said something about not being bothered about the content, and being more interested in resolving the dispute. HeadleyDown 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in the content. I feel we can solve this dispute through structure. Your statement is sort of ambiguous, but if you were trying to insult me with it, it didn't work. If not, nevermind. Swatjester 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, sorry.  I mean: I am getting lots of things from people that they want to see changed or adhered to or to improve etc..  You have yourself a list of things you want to see done with the articleIf you would be so kind as to make a list of of your top 3 things you want done, priorities for the article.  Then we can see what everyone feels is their top priority for the article.  IE. - John Doe feels that we 1st. need to correct all the grammar.  2.  we need to get rid of slander 3. we need to make refrences more specific.  I am just thinking by knowing what yours and others #1 thing they want to change is, we might be able to progress a bit further in negotiations.  kinda make sense?  jVirus 03:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary, nor is it my place to do so. If others want to do it, that's fine, but I'd recuse myself from that.
Firstly, I agree that dispassionate discussion is important and that pressure should be taken off the mediators concerning requests to block NLP fan(atics)/promoters.  But mediators would do well to understand that neutrally oriented editors here have already stated that detailed citations will be provided.  It would help if mediators started to RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT the cooperation of nonNLPpromotional editors.  Camridge 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, one way we can take the pressure off the mediators is to not expect them to formulate a vision of the future article.  That way they can get on with the more pressing issues.......agreeing with ways to reduce (or cope with) the inevitable harrassment of nonNLP promotional editors.  HeadleyDown 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that detailed citations will be provided Camridge. This mediation, at this point, has calmed down quite a bit since when I first got here, and I think both sides are doing well towards making some good progress. So long as the citations, do in fact stay sufficiently detailed, everybody's happy. As for Headly, let me make my position on this article clear. The only non-mediation advice I will be giving as towards editing the article itself, will be grammatical and structure based: i.e. I take no stance on pro-nlp or anti-nlp, I just will make suggestions as to fixing typos, grammatical errors, and the like. Furthermore, except in the case of very minor typos, I will not make these edits myself until mediation has ended, to maintain impartiality. Does this satisfy everyone? Swatjester 16:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SWATJester

message: Is your position the same as Flavius,that what this article needs is more Scientific Backed Evidence?  If you had to pick your top priority.  jVirus 08:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DaveRight

message: *My priority is the clearer explanation of facts in the article.  These can later be made more brief in good times, or expanded more clearly whenever miscreant editors have "misunderstood" to the point of requesting the removal or whitewashing of such facts.  
*I make no demands on the mediators, because they are having a hard time already.  I urge the nonPromotional editors to take the pressure off the mediators, and simply provide evidence and clarity in order to deal with NLPpromoter's demands to censor factual scientific information.
:Thanks. Swatjester 16:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I understand you here. From what I can tell, you're saying that it would be useful to make a section here (on this talk page or in the article), and on the entries for NLP promoters, stating they have a vested interest in the promotion of NLP? Or did I read that wrong? What sort of message do you propose to add? Swatjester 16:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Camridge|Camridge]] 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Sorry guys, I've made a priority change.  I now believe the most important thing is to keep a refridgerator on discussion.  Especially when NLP fans make unreasonable repeat demands.  I make no demands on mediators or mentors to keep NLP promoters with vested interests, or NLP fans in order.  Let them make whatever demands they like without the threat of blocking, and they will be dealt with coolly, and if necessary, scientific explanations should be increased in the article. When NLP fans/promoters delete facts in the article, or delete inappropriately on the discussion page, those deletes will be coolly reverted, and any reminders of agenda promotion should be dispassionate.  HeadleyDown 12:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Headley, yes that is my position.  The article includes ample scientific evidence, the problem isn't one of quantity.  Some form of explanation and elaboration with reference to the research and science is needed though I'm uncertain as to precisely what form that should take.  Would it be useful to turn some of the keywords pertaining to scientific method and research design (eg. "placebo", "controlled", "randomised", "clinical trial" etc.) into "Wiki links"?  This would enrich the article and help non-scientists better appreciate the cited studies without inflating the article size.  I suspect that scientific illiteracy amongst the NLP advocates (and the general public) is a large part of the problem.  Producing clear explanations that an intelligent lay audience can understand that don't involve OR is a fine line to walk.  I'll give this some more thought. flavius 16:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've often envisaged a wikiproject or set of articles that helps the readers to sift the dross and collect the gold on matters of science and pseudoscience in some small way. The web can be so troublesome for some learners (including wikipedia).  I believe diagrams, clear illustrations, or concept maps may be a useful addition.  If there's time, and if constant edit wars etc are prevented, then that may yet happen.  HeadleyDown 16:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text:   You can block if you like Jvirus.  I do advocate the correct prosecution of the said editors for their antiNPOV activities, and I wish to maintain a permanent section clarifying their dubious history on their talkpages.  DaveRight 09:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HeadleyDown

message: *1) Contract - We need a contract of rules of acceptable behaviour (e.g. wikipedia guidelines), for all the editors to sign and abide to.
*2) Enforcement of Contract - Admins should work closely to enforce (e.g. removal of inappropriate postings) ground rules consistently in a transparent manner based on the agreed contract. Transgressions should be dealt with promptly and maintain a high "Signal to Noise Ratio" in the talk page.
*3) Banning of Ideological Apartheit - Promotion or reenforcement of separation of editors into camps based on pressumed ideological differences should be banned. 
*4) Ignore All Inappropriate Behaviour - no arguing, no answer back, no whining, no joining in. Avoid getting into the game of "who has the last words" debate or "who is going to write the longest paragraph".
*5) Working Together - Everyone should respond warmly and positively to constructive postings even though you may not agree entirely what the other person say. If you disagree with what the other person is saying, acknowledge the value of their contribution before stating your own point of view. Give reasons why you disagree rather than discounting what the other person has to say. Always communicate your opennes to search for ways to accomodate each others rather than just sticking to your own point of view.
*--Dejakitty 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi Dejakitty.  We already have a set of rules to work by.  Its called NPOV.  I am not signing anything else.  Not if there's NLP getout clauses in it anyhow.  I kind of like the two conflicting suggestions to both enforce and to ignore inappropriate behaviour.  That will most absolutely certainly work our exceptionally well, as sure as Bandler is a prof of rocket science.  Responding warmly is another interesting one.  When I point out your efforts to censor accurate statements, I will huff warmly on my monitor and sign it with kiss kiss.  Does accomodating each other involve bending over?  DaveRight 08:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dejakitty

message: :Says who?  Some views are without substance, sense or logic.  Why should I "acknowledge the value of their contribution" when it has no instrinsic value.  If you don't value facts thenn your disposition is fine otherwise it is intellectual poison. flavius 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about visiting a library and researching before pontificating about a topic?  Would that be a useful ground rule? flavius 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So you don't want argument and you don't want dialogue? flavius 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you tried reading, reading, reading of those paper things that you find in libraries? flavius 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flavius

message: Hello all, how's it going?
#We should be attempting to portray common NLP teachings, plus any significant differences. For example - BAGEL is taught by a couple of trainers but it's just an acronym to help remember the underlying teachings. Stick to what is taught in common (in this case the underlying teaching, not the acronym).
#There is a confusion between NLP as an umbrella term, and the many patterns commonly taught (or researched). This must be made clear. An example is Druckman and Swets who did an EXCELLENT review of studies into Preferred Rep Systems/PRS but in their summaries referred to this as NLP (Note they are clear in their details). This is commonly very commonly referred to as proof against NLP, when in reality it makes no comment beyond PRS.
#The role of science is not to tell us what NLP claims, but rather to test what NLP claims. What NLP is and what NLP claims must be sourced from NLP trainers and writers. Naturally, the scientific principle of objectivity is the key here. Peer-reviewed research comes 2nd, published scientific research 3rd, well regarded institutions 4th (or perhaps tying 3rd?), Scientists personal opinions 5th, popular opinion and pseudoscience last (or not at all). 
#We need to clearly identify both supportive and unsupportive scientific research, and respected institutions which use NLP. Flavius and I previously identified 7 outcome-based studies that were positive, in accepted peer-reviewed journals.
#There is a bias in many phrases which reflects negatively on NLP but are the writer's opinion, and (no doubt) some phrases do the same positively. Subtle 'guidance' should be removed.
#I like the idea of identifying clearly in the opening of this discussion are the skeptics and anyone with vested interest (including myself of course - I'm a counsellor and I use some NLP patterns in counselling). I doubt we would come to an agreement in how to say that but it's worth a try, perhaps the mediators will help.
#Mediators will have to be involved to some extent to control the page, with both sides giving good reason for any disputed changes - it's unfortunate, but the history here says there's no other way.
I look forward to it.
Comments? GregA 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that VoiceOfAll asked the editors whether PRS is still taught in NLP since the research has debunked it.  Of course, the notion is still widely used in all of the NLP books, and the concepts are present in EVERY NLP book in existence.  Not a single NLP promoter admitted to PRS or any similar concept being currently taught, even though a great deal of time was given to them to admit the fact.  Camridge 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: GregA.
*BAGEL is the least of your problems. You're re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.
*There isn't a confusion between NLP modelling and NLP patterns and your argument concerning the independence of one from the other is falacious.  If the patterns are garbage that is an inductive proof that the procedure used to generate the patterns is garbage.  Certainly it isn't a deductive proof but science doesn't deal with deductive proof.  Your line of argument is the same as that of die-hard Marxian Communists wherein they distinguished between Communism (Ideal) and Communism (Implementations).  They reasoned the worldwise failure of Communism does not prove that Communism is a flawed political and economic doctrine because in all the cases where it was implemented it wasn't implemented correctly.  This is essentially your line of argument.  If every single extant NLP pattern were tested and found to be ineffective you'd retort that this doesn't prove anything about NLP modelling.  Your're wrong and so are the Marxist intellectuals.  From a purely pragmatic perspective NLP modelling has no raison de'tre, i.e. given that it produces ineffective techniques on what grounds can its retention be justified?  Regarding PRS and eye-accessing cues the behaviour of the NLP industry in relation to its thorough invalidation demonstrates that the NLP "luminaries" have no interest in advancing knowledge and that NLP is pseudoscience to the core.  All NLP books that I own, all training that I have attended and all the seminar notes I have accumulated over the years (Bandler, La Valle, Cleveland, James, McKenna/Breen, Sikes, Hall/Bodenhammer) all teach PRS and eye accessing cues.
*The claims about NLP in the article are sourced from NLP sources.
*The seven studies you refer to whilst supportive and published in peer-reviewed and Medline indexed journals are to be disregarded because they are methodologically flawed (none had controls) and they are numerically few.  If you trawl through Medline you'll find a few papers that reject pretty much every major result of medical science.  These minority results are treated as statistical noise filtered out -- that is how science works.  Wikipedia has a pedagogical role.  We don't want to mislead the layman about how science operates.  Including minority reports -- that were afterall considered in literature reviews (most recently Devilly (2005) reviewed all NLP related papers appearing on Medline and PsycLit) -- and presenting them as if they had more significance than they actually do is misleading specifically about NLP and generally about scientific method.
*The notion that anyone that rejects NLP is a sceptic or has a vested interest is asinine.  Any scientifically literate person that is not cognitively dissonant would reject NLP.  The scientific view is that NLP is bunkum.
*Your position and that of Comaze is entirely untenable -- you have the massive edifice of science against you and you have no credible answers to the criticisms.  flavius 12:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GregA

message: In regards to this edit , actually I think that page ix is correct. Normally in an introduction, the foreword is listed in lowercase roman numerals, such as ix, which would actually be page 9. This makes sense also because stylistically when citing a page, one cites the numerical number (in this case 6) not the written number (six). If the user really meant six there, he'd have put "6" instead, so I believe it really did mean to be "ix". Can we get clarification? Swatjester 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, I agree.  We have to make due allowance for the naive reader that may know nothing about NLP, psychiatry or psychology (eg. a school student doing a project) that  they could be forgiven for imbibing that piece of misinformation.   Disseminating misinformation is antithetical to purpose of encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia specifically.  Bateson's remark is unadulterated bullshit.  It is plainly wrong and reveals how little he know about the subjects he  pontificated upon.  IIRC he states that psychiatry has traditionally avoided theory.  This is utter shite.  Freud is generally credited as being the father of modern psychiatry and Freudian psychodynamic theory is thoroughly theoretical -- it isn't merely a set of techniques and "laws".  The work of his successors was perhaps more theoretical (eg. Jacques Lacan).  Now that Freud is pretty much dead in psychology and psychiatry the pursuit of theory (ie. explanation) is no less strong.  Cognitive-Behavioural oriented reserach psychiatrists and psychologists and biologically oriented research psychiatrists remain concerned with not only the discovery of laws and models but also with their explanations (ie. theory). Either expurgate Bateson's bullshit or qualify it with a statement regarding the actual orientation of scientific enterprise. flavius 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't what matters. The only thing we were discussing is whether it was "six" or "ix". Swatjester 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No Swatjester.  What matters is we gain something constructive out of this situation.  Stand corrected! HeadleyDown 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: protected edit

message: In regards to this edit , actually I think that page ix is correct. Normally in an introduction, the foreword is listed in lowercase roman numerals, such as ix, which would actually be page 9. This makes sense also because stylistically when citing a page, one cites the numerical number (in this case 6) not the written number (six). If the user really meant six there, he'd have put "6" instead, so I believe it really did mean to be "ix". Can we get clarification? Swatjester 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, I agree.  We have to make due allowance for the naive reader that may know nothing about NLP, psychiatry or psychology (eg. a school student doing a project) that  they could be forgiven for imbibing that piece of misinformation.   Disseminating misinformation is antithetical to purpose of encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia specifically.  Bateson's remark is unadulterated bullshit.  It is plainly wrong and reveals how little he know about the subjects he  pontificated upon.  IIRC he states that psychiatry has traditionally avoided theory.  This is utter shite.  Freud is generally credited as being the father of modern psychiatry and Freudian psychodynamic theory is thoroughly theoretical -- it isn't merely a set of techniques and "laws".  The work of his successors was perhaps more theoretical (eg. Jacques Lacan).  Now that Freud is pretty much dead in psychology and psychiatry the pursuit of theory (ie. explanation) is no less strong.  Cognitive-Behavioural oriented reserach psychiatrists and psychologists and biologically oriented research psychiatrists remain concerned with not only the discovery of laws and models but also with their explanations (ie. theory). Either expurgate Bateson's bullshit or qualify it with a statement regarding the actual orientation of scientific enterprise. flavius 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't what matters. The only thing we were discussing is whether it was "six" or "ix". Swatjester 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No Swatjester.  What matters is we gain something constructive out of this situation.  Stand corrected! HeadleyDown 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section - Clear explanation of banal NLP statements

message: ArbCom Ruling complete. You can read it here but let me summarize it for you.
Rules:
1) Users who edit in a point of view or obsessive way may be banned partially or completely
2) It is not sufficient to simply refer to "Jones (1984)" as the source of information. There are a number of acceptable formats but a sufficient reference includes sufficient information to enable others to easily find the text relied on.
3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article.
Situation:
1) A number of users have been engaging in aggressive point of view editing of Neuro-linguistic programming and related articles as well as personal attacks, examples may include but are not limited to: Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, AliceDeGrey, and Flavius vanillus.
2) Most of the cited sources in the article do not meet minimum standards for reliable sources, lacking information regarding page number and identification of edition.
3) The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact.
Punishment:
1) Any administrator, upon good cause shown, may ban any user, from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans
2) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to provide an adequate description of the source of information included in the article, in the case of publications to page and edition
3) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to ascribe point of view statements to those making them.
4) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are required to discuss any content reversions on Neuro-linguistic programming on its talk page.
Mentorship:
5) The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.
Blocking:
1) If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
Now, with that out of the way, lets get back to editing constructively. Swatjester 15:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt if mentors will even try to restrain NLP fan(atics) from attempting the unreasonable.  We are going to do it ourselves no matter what.  Camridge 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, no personal attacks. The Arbitration Commitee unanimously found that the citations were inadequate. Swatjester 03:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swatjester, editors have already stated that such details will be provided.  Do you have something  constructive to add?  Camridge 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Headley. I find words like fanatic uncivil. I feel I am a neutrally inclined editor so I'd like to ask you to please respect we all have different views on what is neutral. Peace. Metta Bubble 23:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to a dictionary, and look up the term fanatic.  Compare the definition with your activities on this discussion/article.  The term fanatic is correct in your case.  HeadleyDown 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Headley. If there is something specific I could do to appear less fanatical in your eyes please let me know what it is. I can't really help you if you just vent at me with words I have already told you I find offensive. I have no idea which of my edits you are refering to. Was it when I added the "NPOV" tags to the article? Or was it when I added wikilinks to pre-existing sub-articles? Peace. Metta Bubble 12:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Mettabubble.  Change your history (stop repeatedly asking for the removal of well researched facts).  HeadleyDown 12:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Metabubble.  It's not a matter of merely appearing less fanatical, that would be deception.  The issue is actually being less fanatical.  You are a fanatic, prig and an ignorant zealot that uses the pretence of Buddhist sensitivities as a "fig leaf" to cover your shameful behaviour.  Signing your putrid positions "Peace" doesn't somehow promote that cause or demonstrate your good will or earnestness.  You wanted to argue with me about the history of New Age and Human Potential after merely reading the (incorrect) Wikipedia article on the topic.  I provided you four references (three USA, one UK) that demonstrate that the "New Age" originated in the late 1960s and its earliest recorded usage was the early 1970s.  I also provided a reference that describes the Human Potential movement.  What then is your response?  Do you concede that you are wrong?  Do you concede that you were being lazy, presumptuous and nasty by merely reading the Wikipedia article, not verifying any of its content and then accusing me and Headley about fabricating content in order to effect an imaginary "guilt by association"?  I've actually read the primary NLP literature and I've attended NLP trainings, I've read much (but not all I'm slowly working throught it) of the research into NLP, I've read about the history of the New Age and Human Potential trends and I've read Dianetics.  What have you done towards being properly placed to contribute to the article and making accusations of bias?  You haven't been correct about any factual matter that you've taken issue with.  BAGEL for example is mainstream NLP, it is taught only in Systemic NLP (Dilts' particular flavour of NLP) but the content of the mnemonic is present in all Prac/Master Prac training.  Dilts and De Loziers NLP Encyclopedia is considered canonical in NLP circles (both Dilts and DeLozier are highly regarded by NLPers).  Regarding the NCAHF I dealt with that issue in detail and my response was the last word on the matter.  No-one reubutted by position and Brian has re-iterated what I wrote.  Merely asserting "I disagree" doesn't cut it.  If you do disagree you are obliged to provide counter-argument and counter-evidence.  The neutral editors contributions are all characterised by copious evidence and cogent argument.  Unsupported assertions, gibberish (eg. "NLP has its own epistemology"), and ad hominem -- which doesn't mean insulting -- (eg. would the Sceptics/Communists/Jews/Reactionaries please identify themselves?) are coming exclusively from you, Comaze and DejaKitty.  If you are genuinely interested in not being a fanatic, ignorant zealot -- as opposed to not merely appearing as one -- then perform due dilligence and educate yourself before editing the article, proposing the removal of evidence, or making accusations of bias.  flavius 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I say do it, maybe give it an extra day if you or Dejakitty is really concerned.  Im in.  jVirus 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if there are no objections, go ahead and archive. --Comaze 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Archive. --BrianH123 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an observation - have you noticed that the NLPpromotional editors really like removing stuff from the discussion page?  Either strategically rearanging, archiving, or removing to other's talk pages so the evidence is out of the way.  Just a pointer:)  Camridge 09:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed some funny stuff. (And I think the whole Wiki model is flawed when it comes to discussions.) Regarding the archiving that Swatjester proposes, if you object, please say so. --BrianH123 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom Ruling Complete

message: Further to the suggestions to placing criticisms throughout the article.  It would not be sensible to restrict all criticisms to the criticisms section.  However, clear scientific explanation can be given throughout the article.  To deal with the deliberately confusing NLP concepts, a clear scientifically or research based clarification should be presented.  This will be a great help to the less knowledgeable readers.  If ends up sounding critical, that is only due to the deliberately misleading nature of lot of NLP concepts (the obvious contrast you gain when you juxtapose nonsense and common sense).  The criticism section seems necessary because a good deal of the literature is referred to as "critical view or review" and those criticisms could do with more explanation also.  Camridge 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that was the general idea (though assigning numbers to sentences is jumping the gun a little).  For sure though, we can only ignore the NLP promoters claiming scientific explanation is too critical.  Thats especially important for keeping the peace after it is expanded due to their unreasonable objections.  HeadleyDown 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, reason I'd say assign a limit to criticisms outside the criticism section, is to limit the length. You know as well as everyone else here, this is going to be a BIG article, even with subpages. ⇒  SWATJester 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms and scientific explanations

message: Another pointer!  I would like to point out the "beliefs" of some of the editors here.  I am sure VOA would agree that some of the claims that NLPers make even on this article are quite wild - eg, it really works, it is powerful, you can give people orgasms just by speaking using NLP, you can get laid using NLP, NLP is far advanced of psychology and science etc.  Here is just a hint of that in the dialogue between Comaze and Jvirus - .  I am not implying that they are deluded.  But you will notice how "belief" sustaining their language and dialogue is.  Camridge 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, my beliefs?  Camridge, What are my beliefs?  This will be good.  jVirus
On a light note, this discussion here is not always so chilly.  I invite the mediators to stick around.  The claims and absurdity regarding NLP claims are often hillarious, and the flailing attempts by the more desperate editors, to pull the other one, are generally ball-bouncingly funny.  Probably one reason why editors remain.  HeadleyDown 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP fanaticism

message: Just a suggestion to take the pressure off everyone.  It may be a good idea to keep the page locked for a few days longer.  This can enable a search of the archives to come up with a set of standard replies (or links) to deal with nagging unreasonable requests for the wholesale dismissal of science etc.  A lot has been written already, and a great deal has been done to properly answer the questions of the NLPpromotional editors.  The constructive part of this suggestion will involve the search for concise replies that will solve the problem of "oh its in the archives somewhere" objection.  This will take time, and if the mediators push for more thorough use of the archives, then amicable pagelocks could be used while nonpromotional NLP editors take their time searching for re-usable evidence and logic without having to deal with the inevitable sneaky edits of the NLP promoters.  HeadleyDown 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, requesting pagelocks for a few days occasionally will be a good idea.  It will obviously be a very good way to stop surreptitious censorship while editors search for appropriate replies in the archives.  There's a lot of really sharp stuff in the deep pit-trap of the archives, and any antiNPOV editor or censor such as Comaze will end up thoroughly skewered on its steely points of fact when we have an opportunity to drop them in it.  Camridge 05:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heh.  I am not interreseted in having it unlocked at all until we come to a concensus.  jVirus  05:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to make the most of the archives

message: There's a lot to read today, so I will be brief.  I am not dictating, but here is how the article will be, nomatter what ANYBODY says.  
*The article will continue to be presented by neutrally minded editors within the bounds of NPOV policy.  We have some excellent researchers here and their ability to find facts and present them within NPOV policy has been admirable.
*The request by arbitrators for all the "bits and pieces" to be added to citations will move forward slowly.  NLP promoters have thus far acted in bad faith on the whole, and that is unlikely to change.  It will therefore, fall upon the more neutrally inclined editors to provide such details.  
*NLP promoters will continue their attempts to harass, slur, cause conflict, and generally do their best to remove the facts they find objectionable.  Mediators and arbitrators have thus far done little to remedy this, and it will be up to the more neutrally minded editors to somehow cope with this problem.  That is a problem, but neutrally minded editors seem to be well equipped to cope.
::Nothing done thusfar? We've protected the page to keep further edits like this from happening. Swatjester 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go to the optitions if I am wrong, but I believe JP wrote "little to remedy this".  Its interesting that no NLPfan(atics) have removed your "vandalism" from JP's list, Swatjester. Camridge 05:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review what vandalism is and isn't. This is not vandalism.  Further, the mediators and arbitrators have done much to remedy this, including putting the more extremist editors on notice, yourself included. That qualifies as more than "little". ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on Swatjester, keep up.  I know exactly what vandalism is.  Its the "editors who have spent months behaving like scientologists" who should refrain from misusing the term.  Camridge 10:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed Dave, if you have a problem with the users, by all means bring it up at RfC. It's one of the few things that DOES work well in dispute resolution on wikipedia. Swatjester 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Cheers indeed Dave.  I have already started with Comaze's.  Please feel free to fill out the template I have provided on his talkpage.  Camridge 09:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as long as you do not harass and personally attack him on the page. Swatjester 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, JP, Dave, and all.  If there are any long lists of accusations to make, please leave me out though.  I just can't abide it. I do see the need for realism and practicality though.  And I have come round to the view that the only people here qualifed to keep things in order are the nonpromoters.  Cool discussion will therefore should be thoroughly encouraged on a regular basis.  Notices and stickers should be posted to prevent the use of "irritated" language.  HeadleyDown 12:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REALISM

message: I propose the following as consensus guidelines for editing the article. The source of each of these is in {braces} after the statement. If people agree with these, perhaps they could be posted to the top of the talk page.
# All references must include sufficient information to enable others to easily find the text relied on, such as page number and edition. {ArbCom}
# Do not edit the article in a POV- or obsessive-way, or you may be banned, partially or completely. {ArbCom}
# The Wikipedia "Neutral Point of View" contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article. {ArbCom}
# If there is scientific consensus regarding NLP, then:
## "Represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view." {NPOV policy}
## "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." {NPOV policy}
# Regarding the article's introduction:
## It should be relatively short and completely neutral with regard to Pro or Con characterizations. 
## It should avoid vague words that don't really say what NLP is but make it sound sexy. 
## It should avoid terms such as "New Age," "pseudoscience", etc.
## It should avoid describing its practitioners as "successful", or using other subjective words to describe them.{consensus between Comaze, Flavius, jVirus, and BrianH123 on the talk page}
# After the introduction, if you do use a term such as "New Age" or "pseudoscience", ascribe it to a reference. Do not present it as a bald statement of fact. {ArbCom}
Please state whether you agree with the above. And if you want to propose additional guidelines, feel free to do that as well.
—BrianH123 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors, please indicate whether you support or oppose confining all criticism to a single section. --BrianH123 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Support This may include a subsection under each concept, method or application. Criticism should be connected to specific aspects and version/schools since some methods have been updated, while not all schools have accepted the updates. --Comaze 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the pro-NLP point of view will get both the first and the last word? --BrianH123 01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see your point and modified my post. What is the best way to include a reply without giving the pro side the first and last word? --Comaze 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to have Pro and Con arguments in separate sections, the only fair thing to do is have the same number of each. So if Pro goes first with its characterization of NLP, and Con has a Criticism section after that, then either we stop right there, or if you want Pro to have a reply to the criticism, then Con deserves a reply to the reply to the criticism. (Sort of like a presidential debate... :-) In the table of contents Swatjester originally proposed, he has a single criticism section and then nothing after it. Criticism has the last word. Is this OK with you? --BrianH123 02:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Pro and Con have separate sections, I'd prefer a neutral conclusion in the same way that the introduction is to be neutral. --Comaze 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My proposal is that just the introduction itself would avoid those terms, precisely for the reason you mention: they need elaboration upon, and there's not room to do that in the introduction. I am not in any way opposed to elaborating upon them in the article itself. What about the rest of the guidelines? Support or oppose? --BrianH123 03:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that would be an awful reason if it were the reason. Fortunately, it's not. Please read what I wrote in "What the Intro Should Contain" and note that it's endorsed by Flavius. I think I'm closer to you and DaveRight's position than you think, if you read my other remarks. And I'm not opposed to mentioning criticism of NLP in the intro. But let's at least introduce the stranger to the audience before you take a baseball bat to him, not push him out onto the stage already bloody and unrecognizable. A previous version of the article started out with "NLP is a pseudoscientific psychocult", or something similar. That's just over the top. --BrianH123 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries Brian.  Facts will only be a "haircut with a baseball bat" to those who cannot countenance facts.  Any NPOV inclined editor will naturally bat the eyebrows off NLP promoters through the presentation of facts, whether they realize their "crushing" swing at dogma or not.  Camridge 08:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus guidelines for editing the article 

message: By the way, as Comaze saw fit to try to censor the engram article for the past few months, he should now be extremely wary of misbehaving again there in future.  He will sorely regret it.  If he cannot help himself, then he will simply suffer more of the facts.  NPOV policy will be there to "correct" his misdeeds. I realize NLPpromoters will continue to write extra promotional pages to link to this one.  It will most likely remain the nonNLPpromotional editors job to remove such spam from the main article. HeadleyDown 02:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. comments from HeadleyDown 

message: Does any mediator here agree with this point?  
:With which point? ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Epistemological relativism, social constructivism and antirealism are dead.  Again, it can't simply be asserted that there are multiple realities and no objective knowledge. Such a position must be argued for and there is no sound argument for antirealism, epistemological relativism and social constructivism.  Most such arguments are self-refuting because they implicitly rely on the exclusion of the premises of the argument from the argument. For example, let P denote the statment "there is no such thing as objective knowledge".  For P to have any compelling value -- if I am to not disregard it as more subjective knowledge -- then it must be that not P.  This is leads to a contradiction.  See for example 
Bunge, M. "Realism and Antirealism in Social Science" Theory and Decision 35: 207-235, 1993. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Netherlands.
Bradley, D. R. "HOW TO LOSE YOUR GRIP ON REALITY? AN ATTACK ON ANTI-REALISM IN QUANTUM THEORY" 
The success and universality of science and technology as well the history of science and technology (all of the great civilsations including the Arabic and Oriental made scientific discoveries)suggest that (a) there is such a thing as objective knowledge; (b) we can gain objective knowledge; (c) there is a reality; and (d) we are capable of learning about that reality.  Science and technology would be impossible if any for of epistemological relativism or antirealism were valid philosophical doctrines.  Gravity is their whether you believe in it or not.  See the works of Mario Bunge for a detailed defence of scientific realism. flavius 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You write like someone who has studied philosophy academically. I wish more people would do so. --BrianH123 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian.  Yes many, many years ago I obtained a degree on the subject.  It takes a philosopher to spot an (amateur) philosopher so I'm guessing that you too have studied philosophy academically. Direct any further chat on my talk page. flavius 05:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so hot on philosophy beyond basic phil of science.  But I can smell bullshit pretty effectively.  Any positive tweaks to my BS detectors through philosophy or any other body of knowledge are much appreciated:)  Camridge 07:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: yeah but whose reality

message: The arbitration has recently ruled, in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming:
The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.
The selected mentors are Jdavidb, Katefan0, Ral315, and Woohookitty. They will get to know the situation and actively monitor this article. Any questions of enforcement or questionable conduct should be directed to them. Thank you. Dmcdevit·t 10:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentorship 

message: === Woohookitty ===
I thought it'd be easier to introduce myself here, since there are many users involved in this conflict. Just a little introduction. I've been on Wikipedia since December 2004, an admin since June 2005. I believe very strongly in NPOV. Despite my political leanings, I believe very strongly in writing for the enemy. As for my admin style, I try to give people every benefit of the doubt before blocking or banning. My main motto is...argue the issues, not the people. If you follow that, you will be ok. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!  So much for NPOV :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  12:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Woohookitty! Sweet...I usually find you at the RfPP layer :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I'm still over there alot, even with this going on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem and no rush, please take all the time you need.  Watch out for the NLP candies, they're poisonous.  HeadleyDown 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Jdavidb.  I see it often takes a couple of readings to get things straight.  That is often the case with the deliberately confusing subject of NLP also. Its quite easy to get the bullshit end of the stick. I promise not to ridicule you EVERY time you do that. Regards HeadleyDown 12:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentor intros 

message: I thought it'd be easier to introduce myself here, since there are many users involved in this conflict. Just a little introduction. I've been on Wikipedia since December 2004, an admin since June 2005. I believe very strongly in NPOV. Despite my political leanings, I believe very strongly in writing for the enemy. As for my admin style, I try to give people every benefit of the doubt before blocking or banning. My main motto is...argue the issues, not the people. If you follow that, you will be ok. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!  So much for NPOV :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  12:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Woohookitty! Sweet...I usually find you at the RfPP layer :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I'm still over there alot, even with this going on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woohookitty 

message: Hi, folks.  Just a quick hello and an intro.  I've been on Wikipedia since about 2004-02.  I'm a firm believer in NPOV and consensus as the guiding principles that make Wikipedia work; I believe without reservation that these principles will ultimately result in a high-quality encyclopedia.
Hopefully I'm pretty well-suited for this job.  I'm well-accustomed to what needs to be done in order to represent a non-mainstream point of view within Wikipedia's NPOV framework.  After all, I'm a fundamentalist Christian who believes the earth is most likely 6000 years old. ;)  (Not sure if that will encourage people or dishearten them, at first.)  But I know how to take the high ground in making Wikipedia a place where beliefs are fairly and accurately represented without allowing Wikipedia itself to take a stand.
I'm reading up on this article and the arbCom case, and I can see that I'll have to read this talk page's history and probably the history of the article, too.  Give me a couple of days to get acquainted with the issue, and then we'll all start moving.
I know all three of my fellow-mentors and happen to know from experience that each of them is a great Wikipedian.  I think everyone involved here who wants to see a high-quality, fair article on NLP is in for a real treat! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem and no rush, please take all the time you need.  Watch out for the NLP candies, they're poisonous.  HeadleyDown 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Jdavidb.  I see it often takes a couple of readings to get things straight.  That is often the case with the deliberately confusing subject of NLP also. Its quite easy to get the bullshit end of the stick. I promise not to ridicule you EVERY time you do that. Regards HeadleyDown 12:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jdavidb 

message: I suppose I should introduce myself as well.  I'm Ral315, and I've been editing Wikipedia since December 2004.  I also strongly believe in NPOV.  Like Jdavidb, I'll be looking through the archives, trying to get a feel for the dispute here.  I can also say that all of my fellow mentors are good editors, and will do a good job to try and settle this dispute and get this article to where it should be.  Ral315 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ral315 

message: Hi everybody.  I won't go into great detail about myself, because my userpage should explain lots about who I am.  But as it pertains to Neuro-linguistic programming, I promise that I'll do my level best to help everybody come up with an article that Wikipedia can be proud of.  At the risk of sounding repetitive, I have full faith in all my fellow mentors and look forward to getting started.  As an initial comment, I'd like to echo the sentiments already expressed about sticking on-topic.  As tempting as it may be, especially when you get angry or irritated, try not to comment on contributors (or even generically to lob tomatoes at "the other side.")  It does nothing to further the debate, and only ends up inflaming passions.  · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Katefan0|Katefan0]] 

message: Are representational systems, not the PRS theory, scientifically supported?  jVirus  14:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense what you said HeadleyDown.  I was more curious for a general answer to whether science considered Representational Systems as True (also not to do with the article specifically).  jVirus  20:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS